Life cycle assessment for the land application of food processing wash‐water and solid residuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A life cycle assessment (LCA) study was completed to understand the environmental impacts associated with the land application of wastes produced from rural food-processing operations for final disposal. The system boundaries for the two comprised scenarios included the storage of the produced non-agriculture source material (NASM), transportation to an applicable location, land application of the NASM, and the impacts of the final emissions to the soil and groundwater for a full year. The Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemicals and Other Environmental Impacts (TRACI) v2.1 was selected as the impact assessment method. Furthermore, SimaPro 8.0.4.26 was the LCA model version that was used with all the databases included. Overall, the LCA study showed that the most significant environmental impacts associated with the disposal process resulted from carcinogenic and eutrophication emissions. The component that contributed the most to carcinogenic impacts was found to be from the material required to create the concrete storage tank. Additionally, eutrophication was identified to be a potential significant impact, if proper setback requirements are not followed for the NASM material. Results of the study look to inform stakeholders about the benefits and risks encountered from NASM disposal. PRACTITIONER POINTS: Life cycle assessment was completed on a representative NASM disposal system using land application. Concrete tank used for storage of NASM had the most significant impact in carcinogenic emissions. Eutrophication impacts were the second most significant impact behind carcinogenic emissions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".