Challenges and Issues of Life Cycle Assessment of Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Waste
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a widely used tool to measure the environmental sustainability of products or processes. Integrating LCA into the assessment of waste diversion strategies recognizes current waste diversion strategies are insufficient to effectively stem the global impacts of waste particularly with increased pressure to recover organic and inorganic materials to reduce landfill impacts and promote the circular economy. Historically, waste diversion efforts in municipalities and industries focused on higher-profile inorganic wastes, such as plastics and other recyclables. However, organic waste is increasingly identified as a key waste fraction that must be effectively managed and regulated. This research surveys published LCA studies from 2019 to 2023 focusing on the anaerobic digestion (AD) of organic waste. Notable conclusions include the lack of studies comparing AD with the latest treatment options such as co-gasification; the insufficient attention to the LCAs on biogas upgrading methods; and the monetization of LCA results using carbon credits. In addition, more than 50% of reviewed LCA studies concluded the results with a sensitivity analysis which was not a common practice before 2019 in LCA studies in anaerobic digestion. This signifies the increasing need to understand uncertainty in the circumstances governing applying AD to wastes. Finally, neglecting the combined effect of several parameters in sensitivity analysis might have reduced the accuracy of the sensitivity analyses in the reviewed LCAs. Overall, LCAs conducted on AD-related applications vary widely in terms of scope and consistency, implying that the outcomes may not be as applicable as intended. The identified challenges, issues, and other findings related to this research are expected to help standardize LCA procedures as applied to AD to promote greater comparability.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".