Journal of Environmental Management 218 (2018) 465e476

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Research article

Biochar, compost and biochar-compost blend as options to recover

nutrients and sequester carbon
Thomas L. Oldfield a, *, 1, Nata
sa Sikirica b, 1, Claudio Mondini c, Guadalupe Lo
 pez d,
Peter J. Kuikman b, Nicholas M. Holden a
a
UCD School of Biosystems and Food Engineering, University College Dublin, Ireland
b
Wageningen University & Research, Environmental Research (Alterra), The Netherlands
c
Consiglio per la ricerca in agricoltura e l'analisi dell'economia agraria (CREA), Gorizia, Italy
d
Fundacion para las Tecnologías Auxiliares de la Agricultura (TECNOVA), Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This work assessed the potential environmental impact of recycling organic materials in agriculture via
Received 30 August 2017 pyrolysis (biochar) and composting (compost), as well its combination (biochar-compost blend) versus
Received in revised form business-as-usual represented by mineral fertiliser. Life cycle assessment methodology was applied
21 February 2018
using data sourced from experiments (FP7 project Fertiplus) in three countries (Spain, Italy and Belgium),
Accepted 13 April 2018
Available online 27 April 2018
and considering three environmental impact categories, (i) global warming; (ii) acidification and (iii)
eutrophication. The novelty of this analysis is the inclusion of the biochar-compost blend with a focus on
multiple European countries, and the inclusion of the acidification and eutrophication impact categories.
Keywords:
Biochar
Biochar, compost and biochar-compost blend all resulted in lower environmental impacts than mineral
Compost fertiliser from a systems perspective. Regional differences were found between biochar, compost and
Life cycle assessment biochar-compost blend. The biochar-compost blend offered benefits related to available nutrients and
Nutrient recovery sequestered C. It also produced yields of similar magnitude to mineral fertiliser, which makes its
Biochar-compost blend acceptance by farmers more likely whilst reducing environmental impacts. However, careful consider-
Carbon sequestration ation of feedstock is required.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Technologies such as pyrolysis and composting can recycle nu-

A continuous supply of macronutrients, nitrogen (N), phos-
phorus (P) and potassium (K) is required to sustain crop yields
(Malingreau et al., 2012). Typically, crop nutrients are provided by
mineral (inorganic) fertiliser, but supplies of readily available P
fertiliser are estimated to be exhausted in 50e100 years (Cordell
et al., 2009). The inefficient use of N and P also results in negative
environmental impacts such as eutrophication (N and P)
(Commoner, 1970; Mackenthun, 1968) and acidification (N)
(Johnston et al., 1986). Identifying innovative ways to recycle
macronutrients within agricultural systems while minimising
environmental impacts is of great importance and is consistent
with ‘circular economy’ principles of 'closing the loop' by returning
organic residue/waste to agricultural soils (Mirabella et al., 2014).
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: thomas.oldfield@ucd.ie (T.L. Oldfield).
1
Joint first author.
trients from organic waste, residue and purpose grown catch crops
(Lehmann and Joseph, 2009; Oldfield et al., 2016). Pyrolysis pro-
duces biochar, which is carbon (C) rich and contains macronutri-
ents. Composting produces compost that contains organic matter, C
and available macronutrients (Epstein, 2011). Biochar and compost
offer significant potential for soil C sequestration. Biochar C con-
tains between 70 and 90% of stable C (Hammond et al., 2011;
Lehman and Joseph, 2009), while compost contains between 2
and 14% stable C (Boldrin et al., 2009). When biochar and/or
compost is applied to soils, part of C is removed from the short-
term C cycle (Sparrevik et al., 2013).
The blending of biochar with compost has been suggested to
enhance the composting performance by adding more stable C and
creating a value-added product (biochar-compost blend) that can
offset potential negative effects of the composting system ((such as
emissions of CH4 (Vandecasteele et al., 2016), and NH3 (Fischer and
Glaser, 2012)) and of the pyrolysis biochar system ((such as low
macronutrient content (Schulz et al., 2013), low cation exchange

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.04.061
0301-4797/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
466 T.L. Oldfield et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 218 (2018) 465e476
capacity (Prost et al., 2013)).
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a technique that quantifies the
potential environmental impact and resource consumption of a
product, system or service from cradle to grave (ISO, 2006a,b). LCA
can be used to assess biochar, compost and biochar-compost blend
by modelling the system inputs throughout the full life cycle but
few LCA studies consider nutrient recycling and soil C sequestra-
tion, per se (Laurent et al., 2014a). Historically, LCAs have focused on
waste management rather than new products derived from waste
(Oldfield and Holden, 2014).
Laurent et al. (2014a,b) reviewed 222 LCA studies of biowaste
management that included composting (74 studies) and pyrolysis
(14 studies), but none considered the blending of biochar and
compost. More recent studies have investigated greenhouse gas
emissions related to the application of compost, biochar, and
biochar-compost blend (Agegnehu et al., 2016; Bass et al., 2016).
These studies did not include other environmental impacts, such as
eutrophication and acidification. Of the reviewed studies by
Laurent et al. (2014a,b), ~5% defined a downstream functional unit
for the resultant product (compost, biochar, crop yield, energy
produced), with the majority of the reviewed studies opting for 1
tonne of waste as the functional unit. An LCA that did use a
downstream functional unit and looked at the impact of utilising
waste via a nutrient recovery technology for plant establishment
was Martínez-Blanco et al. (2009). In their study the system
boundary started with the collection of the waste and ended at the
production of 1 tonne of crop. As the aim of this research is
conceptually similar, the same approach as Martínez-Blanco et al.
(2009) was followed.
The aim of this research was to evaluate the environmental
impact of recovering nutrients and sequestering C in soil from ur-
ban or farm organic waste through pyrolysis or/and composting to
produce biochar, compost and biochar-compost blend. LCA meth-
odology was followed and five separate case studies with different
crops (grapes, olives, and leek) in three European countries (Italy,
Spain, and Belgium) were assessed. Diversity, reflected in crops,
countries/location, soil, climate, type of compost, were chosen on
purpose in order to cover broader differences, with the aim
capturing realistic and relevant information to inform a general
conclusion rather than focusing on a site-specific situation.
2. Materials and methods
The study used observed field and laboratory data from the
European Union funded project GA n. 289853 “Fertiplus” (www.
fertiplus.eu).
2.1. Field trials
The field trials were conducted in Italy, Spain and Belgium
((Supplementary Information (SI)), which provided input and yield
data for the LCA modelling. Experimental conditions for each
location reflected the local agricultural production conditions for
the crops selected (See SI Table 1 for description of differences).
Oak residue was used as a feedstock to produce biochar for all
trials, while two composts were produced: (1) using biowaste (Italy
and Belgium); and (2) using a mixture of olive mill waste, sheep
manure and olive tree prunings (ratio of 50:25:25) (Spain). Two
different biochar-compost blends were produced (ratio of 1:9
(biochar:compost)) based on mass whereby (1) biochar was added
to bio-waste before the commencement of the composting process
(Italy and Spain) (Vandecasteele et al., 2016) and (2) biochar mixed
with the mature compost after its production from sheep manure
and olive mill waste (Spain). See SI Table 2 for characterisation of
feedstocks and SI Tables 3e4 for characterisation of biochar,
compost and biochar-compost blend. We note here that it is fore-
seen that biochar, compost and biochar-compost blend would be
applied once every three years, whilst fertiliser would be applied
annually. This study focuses on year one of application, the impli-
cations of including year two and three is examined in the dis-
cussion section.
2.1.1. Spain trial
Jumilla is a semiarid area in Murcia (Spain). The soil (SI Table 5)
was sandy loam (27.0% silt, 16.2% clay, 56.8% sand) with a pH of 8.0.
In this location (38
230 N 1
220 W) one organic farm was used and
the amendments were applied to olives.
Compost, biochar and biochar-compost blend were applied at
20 t ha1 (dry mass basis) and no mineral fertiliser was used.
Observed emission data was used. Additional information on
Spanish trials can be found in S anchez-García et al. (2016).
2.1.2. Italy trails
Friuli-Venezia Giulia is in north-east Italy and has a Mediterra-
nean climate. In this location three sites were used, Buttrio (46
030
N 13
260 E), Spessa (46
000 N 13
200 E) and Lonzano (46
010 N
13
290 E) and the amendments were applied to three different
grape varieties (Buttrio-Sauvignon, Spessa-Ribolla gialla and
Lonzano-Pinot blanc). Soil (SI Table 6) was predominantly silty
(clay) loam (Buttrio: 45.5% silt, 30.6% clay, 14.8% sand; Spessa: 58.4%
silt, 9.3% clay, 32.3% sand; Lonzano: 50.9% silt, 20.3% clay, 28.8%
sand) with a pH of 8.03e8.15.
Amendments were applied at all three sites based on a carbon
content of 10.9 t C ha1 resulting in 21.7 t ha1 of biochar,
45.2 t ha1 of compost and 41.3 t ha1 of biochar-compost blend
(wet weight). In addition, a fertiliser trial (control) with N:P:K
32.5:7.1:40.5 kg ha1 was also utilised.
2.1.3. Belgium trial
Ghent is in north-west Belgium with a marine west coast
climate. The soil (SI Table 7) was sandy loam (34.7% silt, 5.4% clay,
59.9% sand) with a pH of 6.4. In this location (51
30 N, 3
430 E) one
farm was used and the amendments were applied to leek.
Amendments were applied based on a C content of 10.9 t C ha1
resulting in 24 t ha1 biochar, 47 t ha1 compost and 49 t ha1
biochar-compost blend (wet weight). Mineral fertiliser was applied
to all three trials, with N:P:K of 140:0:87 kg ha1, respectively. A
control trial with only mineral fertiliser with the same NPK input
was also used.
3. Life cycle assessment
The LCA followed the four stage LCA methodology (ISO, 2006a;
ISO, 2006b): (1) goal and scope definition; (2) inventory analysis;
(3) impact assessment; and, (4) interpretation. GaBi v.6 software
(ThinkStep, 2015) was used for modelling.
3.1. Goal and scope
The goal of the LCA is defined in line with the ILCD Handbook
guidelines (EC, 2010). The objective was to assess the potential
environmental impact of recovering nutrients and sequestering C
via the amendment of organic waste materials for utilisation in
agricultural soils. Pyrolysis and composting were used to produce
biochar and compost and a biochar-compost blend from a combi-
nation of both. These amendments were compared with a mineral
fertiliser, representing the business-as-usual scenario (only for Italy
and Belgium). The reason for undertaking this study was to support
strategic decision-making and the audience was assumed to be the
scientific community, waste processors, regulators and farmers.
 T.L. Oldfield et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 218 (2018) 465e476
The paper was commissioned by the Fertiplus project and is in line
with its intent, which was “to identify innovative processing
technologies and strategies to convert urban and farm organic
waste to valuable and safe products for agriculture and allow in-
dustries to develop projects and provide adequate information on
use and quality of the products” (www.fertiplus.eu). The limitations
of this study are deliberated over in the discussion section of this
paper.
3.1.1. System boundary and functional unit
The LCA study followed the approach of Martínez-Blanco et al.
(2009) whereby the upstream burden was excluded following the
cut-off rule (assuming that the materials are waste and have no
economic value). In this established approach each system is
assigned the burdens for which it is directly responsible (Ekvall and
Tillman, 1997). A downstream functional unit of 1 kg product (i.e.
grape for Italy; leek for Belgium; and olive for Spain) was used as
per the approach of Martínez-Blanco et al. (2009). Fig. 1 depicts the
system analysed and its boundary. The starting point of the analysis
was transportation of material to a processing facility. Construction
and dismantling of technologies and storage facilities, as well
pesticide applied (in Italy and Belgium) were omitted from the
study.
3.1.2. Assigning burdens
Biochar, compost and biochar-compost systems are multifunc-
tional including waste disposal (kg of waste), soil C sequestration
(kg C ha1 y1) and nutrient recovery (kg of N, P or K). For this study
the main focus was nutrient recovery and use for agricultural
production. The functional unit was kg of crop, as it is a commonly
used functional unit when assessing environmental impacts of
cropping systems, and also because nutrient recovery potential and
Fig. 1. System analysed and its boundary.
467
nutrient availability are considered to be correlated with yields. The
reference flow was one hectare per year. In order to allow generic
conclusions to be formed the reference flow was used as a sec-
ondary functional unit (hectare per year) to see whether the results
differ.
The midpoint methodology CML (Guinee et al., 2002) was used
without normalisation or weighting, and included the environ-
mental impacts (i) global warming (GWP, kg CO2-eq); (ii) acidifi-
cation (AP, kg SO2-e); and (iii) eutrophication (EP, kg PO3- 4 -eq).
These categories were chosen because of their relevance for the
environmental impact on a global/regional scale of agricultural
nutrient recovery and soil C sequestration from organic materials
(Bernstad and la Cour Jansen, 2011). Contribution and sensitivity
analyses were carried out for the interpretation (ISO 14040, 2006a).
The contribution analysis was broken into stages: feedstock
collection; processing; distribution and application; and benefits
including electricity generated (biochar and biochar-compost
blend), C sequestered, NPK application avoided and landfill avoi-
ded (compost and biochar-compost blend). A sensitivity analysis
was carried out for the Spessa (Italy) site only using a ± 10%
adjustment of key activity data and parameters (SI Table 8) for all
three amendments (biochar, compost and biochar-compost blend).
As the C Stability Factor (CSF) was thought to be important, but
uncertain, it was assessed using the full range of values found in
literature (see sub-section 3.2.7) for all three locations (five sites)
used for the study.
3.2. Life cycle inventory
3.2.1. Biochar production
The modelling of the pyrolysis process was based on data ob-
tained from “Proininso S.A.” from Malaga, Spain who produced
468 T.L. Oldfield et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 218 (2018) 465e476

biochar for Fertiplus experimental trials, referred to as “Proininso
650” biochar. Where site-specific data were not available, labora-
tory data from the Fertiplus project partners were used (Lydia Fryda
- personal communication), supplemented with data from the
literature (SI Table 9).
The oak residue was pre-processed (dried, shredded and palle-
tised), and processed by slow pyrolysis at 650
C for 22e24 h to
produce ~220 kg of biochar from 1000 kg of oak residue. Syngas
data were not available so were taken from laboratory experiments
using the same feedstock, with pyrolysis at 600
C for 60 min to
produced 4.8 MJ kg1 of energy from syngas. Bio-oil produced
(0.068 kg kg1 feedstock) was modelled as being sent to landfill, as
per Harsono et al. (2013). Data for landfill were taken from GaBi
database. Pyrolysis co-produces electricity from syngas, therefore
the biochar pyrolysis system was modelled to displace country
specific average grid electricity supply and was credited using data
taken from GaBi database (ThinkStep, 2015). The inclusion or
exclusion of biogenic carbon in LCA is still a contentious topic, in
this study CO2 emissions were omitted from the GWP balance as
they were considered biogenic and part of the short term carbon
cycle. Physiochemical properties of the resultant biochar are
detailed in SI Tables 3e4.
3.2.2. Compost production
Two types of compost were used in the experiments, from
biowaste in Italy and Belgium, and from olive mill waste, sheep
manure and olive tree prunings in Spain. Emission data for the
composting process (SI Table 17) were only available for the
compost produced from bio-waste, taken from a trial at the plant of
ISA Isontina Ambiente s.r.l. (Moraro, Gorizia, Italy) as part of Ferti-
plus project and these data were used for all modelling. Additional
data for composting were taken from the literature.
The bio-oxidative stage of composting was performed in lanes
(60 m long, 3.2 m wide, and 2.0 m high) with daily automated
mechanical turning and forced aeration, while the curing phase
was carried out in separate windrows with bi-weekly turning and
without aeration. Emission data were assigned to the blending
process for this study from Fertiplus project experiments
(Vandecasteele et al., 2016).
3.2.3. Biochar-compost blend production
Data for modelling biochar-compost blend (SI Table 11) were
taken from trials at the plant of ISA Isontina Ambiente s.r.l. (Moraro,
Gorizia, Italy) as part of Fertiplus project (for Italy and Belgium
only). The biochar was mixed with feedstock at a dry weight ratio of
9:1 (compost/biochar) before composting, which corresponded to a
25:75 proportion of C between biochar and bio-waste at the end of
the process. For the Spanish trials the blending occurred after
composting at the same dry weight ratio (9:1). It was assumed for
all locations that the composting and pyrolysis facilities were
located 40 km apart and the biochar was delivered to the com-
posting facility.
3.2.4. Mineral fertiliser production and availability
Data for mineral fertiliser (NPK) production were taken from
ROU (2003) and Skowron  ska and Filipek (2014) and are summar-
ised in SI Table 12. For mineral N it was assumed that 60% of applied
N, 15% of P and 55% of K were available for plant uptake (IPA, 2000).
3.2.5. Amendment nutrient availability
Plant nutrient availability was measured for 1 year as the data
on yields from all five case studies were for one year only. Appli-
cation data are summarised for all amendment/types and trials in
Table 1.
3.2.5.1. Compost. Fertiplus trials using the biowaste compost indi-
cated that 5% of total N was plant available in the first year after
application, which was similar to previous work (3.4e6.6%, Hartl
and Erhart (2005); 5e7%, Siebert et al. (1998); and 2.3e3.4%
Ebertsederer and Gutser (2003). Based on previous works, 8% of P
from compost was assumed to be plant available derived from the
minimum (4%, Kluge, 2003) and maximum (11.6%, Sinaj et al.
(2002)) values reported in the literature. 5% K availability from
compost was assumed according to Kluge (2003).
3.2.5.2. Biochar. Within the Fertiplus project, field and laboratory
experiments were carried out to investigate the plant availability of
NPK in biochar (“Proininso 650”). The results of all five trials found
that biochar did not increase the availability of N. These findings are
similar to the results found in the laboratory trials executed within

Table 1
Dry matter, N, P, K and C input (kg ha1) for applied fertiliser/amendment.a.

Fertiliser/amendment Input Spain Site Belgiumb

Italy
e Spessa Buttrio Lonzano e
Mineral Fertiliser N e 33 33 33 140
P e 7 7 7 e
K e 40 40 40 87
C e e e e e
Biochar Dry matter 20,000 15.097 15,097 15,097 15,097
N 168 76 76 76 216
P 38 36 36 36 36
K 144 240 240 240 327
C 13,460 10,900 10,900 10,900 10,900
Compost Dry matter 20,000 33,232 33,232 33,232 33,232
N 390 898 898 898 1038
P 290 163 163 163 163
K 380 80 80 80 167
C 6000 10,900 10,900 10,900 10,900
Blend Dry matter 20,000 32,762 32,762 32,762 32,762
N 368 852 852 852 992
P 265 154 154 154 154
K 356 75 75 75 163
C 6746 10,900 10,900 10,900 10,900
a
Mineral fertilizers were applied every year; biochar, compost and blend were applied once every 3 years.
b
In case of Belgium, in biochar, compost and biochar-compost blend trial, additionally fertilisers were added; in this table those are shown already as a sum.
 T.L. Oldfield et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 218 (2018) 465e476 469

Table 2 all scenarios it was assumed that a diesel driven, Euro 4, cargo truck
Output emissions for mineral fertilisers, biochar, compost, and biochar-compost was used with a 28e32 t gross weight and a payload of 22 t. The
blend (kg ha1).
distance modelled was 40 km (80% motorway, 10% rural and 10% on
Fertiliser/amendment Output Spain Site Belgium urban roads) for the collection of the organic material and another
Italy 40 km (20% motorway, 80% on rural roads) for its distribution to the
farm. It was assumed that all amendments were spread by a tractor
e Spessa Buttrio Lonzano e
and spreader travelling at 5 km per hour, with data taken from the
Mineral Fertiliser NO3e e 28.78 28.78 28.78 123.95 GaBi v.6 database.
N20a e 0.64 0.64 0.64 2.75
NH3 e 3.56 3.56 3.56 15.32
NOxb e 0.46 0.46 0.46 2.00
NOxc e 0.36 0.36 0.36 1.53 3.2.7. Crop production
P205 e 0.49 0.49 0.49 e The crop production stage of the study included the N and P
Biochar NO3e e e e e 123.95 emissions related to the application of organic amendments
N20a 0.02 0.07 0.07 0.07 2.68
(compost, biochar, and biochar-compost blend) (Spain, Italy and
NH3 e e e e 15.32
NOxb e e e e 2.00
Belgium), and mineral fertiliser (Italy and Belgium) for one year.
NOxc e e e e 1.53 Data for N and P emissions were measured, and calculated
P205 e e e e e where data were not available. In Spain, N2O emissions were
Compost NO3e 58.70 135.20 135.20 135.20 259.15 measured (Sa nchez-García et al., 2016) and used in this study. Data
N20a 0.17 0.43 0.43 0.43 3.18
for all other potential N and P loss pathways of organic amend-
NH3 2.13 4.91 4.91 4.91 20.23
NOxb 0.28 0.64 0.64 0.64 2.64 ments and mineral fertilisers in Italy and Belgium which are rele-
NOxc 0.21 0.49 0.49 0.49 2.02 vant for GWP, AP, and EP were taken from the literature. N and P
P205 9.97 5.60 5.60 5.60 5.60 potential losses were calculated as a share of total N and P that
Blend NO3e 52.83 128.28 128.28 128.28 252.24
would be transformed to compounds related to the impact cate-
N20a 0.47 0.41 0.41 0.41 3.16
NH3 1.92 4.66 4.66 4.66 19.98
gories, GWP (N2O), AP (NH3, NOx) and EP (NO3, NH3, NOx, PO4).
NOxb 0.25 0.61 0.61 0.61 2.61 Calculations were performed separately for synthetic and organic
NOxc 0.19 0.47 0.47 0.47 2.00 (biochar, compost, and biochar-compost blend) fertilisers, after
P205 8.97 5.29 5.29 5.29 5.29 which they were aggregated, and multiplied with relevant molar
a
Direct and indirect. mass share to N2O, NO3e, NH3, NOx and P2O5. Calculations are
b
As NO. presented in SI (SI Table 13) and the emissions are summarised in
c
As NO2.
Table 2. For biochar-compost blend, N and P related emissions were
calculated based on emissions of biochar and biochar-compost
blend, and the ratio of biochar to compost in the biochar-compost
the project. In regards to K, the three field trials in Italy found that
blend (1:9).
biochar did not significantly increase the extractable K (measured
at the end of year 1 in the three sites). Consequentially, for both K
and N, zero availability was taken into account for this study. For
3.2.8. Carbon sequestration
oak biochar, 2% P availability was assumed based on Fertiplus ex-
The biochar, compost and biochar-compost blend scenarios can
periments, which is approximately the centre of the range
be credited for sequestering C (Table 3) and this was accounted for
(0.1e4.0%) as reported by Parvage et al. (2013).
using the methodology described by Brand~ ao et al. (2013). Potential
bound C after 100 years for compost has been calculated to range
3.2.5.3. Biochar-compost blend. For biochar-compost blend, NPK from 2 to 14% of C applied (Boldrin et al., 2009), so for this study an
availability was calculated based on the ratio of biochar to compost average CSF of 8% was assumed. CSFs for biochar have been esti-
(1:9 based on mass). mated to range from 70 to 90% (Hammond et al., 2011; Lehman and
Joseph, 2009; Ibarrola et al., 2012; Woolf et al., 2010; Shackley and
3.2.6. Transport and energy Sohi, 2010), for this study an average value of 80% was assumed. For
LCI data for transport and energy (country specific, average grid biochar-compost blend the CSF was calculated based on the ratio of
mix) were taken from the GaBi v.6 database (thinkStep, 2015). For biochar to compost.

Table 3
C sequestered (kg CO2 ha1) and NPK avoided (kg ha1) for biochar, compost, and blend.

Amendment Element avoided/sequestered Spain Site Belgium

Italy

e Spessa Buttrio Lonzano e

Biochar N e e e e e
P 5.1 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8
K e e e e e
CO2 39,410 31,973 31,973 31,973 31,973
Compost N 32.5 74.9 74.9 74.9 74.9
P 154.7 86.9 86.9 86.9 86.9
K 10.5 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2
CO2 1760 3197 3197 3197 3197
Blend N 30.7 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0
P 141.2 82.2 82.2 82.2 82.2
K 9.8 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1
CO2 5532 10,391 10,391 10,391 10,391
470 T.L. Oldfield et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 218 (2018) 465e476
3.2.9. Avoided burden
The avoided burdens considered were mineral fertiliser pro-
duction and landfill. Avoided mineral fertiliser production was
credited to compost, biochar and blend scenarios, using data pre-
sented in Table 3. The avoidance of biowaste (for Italy and Belgium)
and olive mill waste/olive tree prunings (Spain) sent to landfill was
credited to the compost and biochar-compost blend systems.
4. Results
4.1. Life cycle impact assessment
The value of nutrients recovered was assessed in terms of crop
yield (the function of the agricultural system), rather than in terms
of the process technology (the function of the waste management
technology). The nutrient and C recovery capability for each system
was calculated (SI Fig. 1), which showed that biochar recovered
more C and some P (SI Table 14), whilst compost recovered more N,
P, K with some C (SI Table 15). When biochar was combined with
biowaste or mature compost in a 1:9 ratio to produce a blended
product this resulted in recovery of both nutrients and C. These data
were utilised in the LCA modelling where the application of the
amendments (Table 3) were credited with the avoidance of mineral
fertiliser and C sequestered into the soil, at the five locations.
Identical amounts of amendment were applied in Belgium and
Italy based on 10.9 t of applied C (Table 1). This resulted in the same
amount of C sequestration credit being given to the same amend-
ment type (i.e., biochar, compost and biochar-compost blend)
across the four locations as per the reference flow (Table 3). For
Spain amendment was applied based on a fixed quantity of 20 t of
amendment per hectare (Table 1). This resulted in different
amounts of C being applied for each amendment type.
For Italy and Belgium the amount of avoided mineral fertiliser
credited to the system (Table 3) were the same per hectare per year,
Fig. 2. Contribution analaysis for Global Warming Potential. Location: Spain (1), Spessa (2), Buttrio (3), Lonzano (4) and Belgium (5); System: Biochar (A), Compost (B) Biochar-
compost blend (C) and Fertiliser (D).
whilst for Spain this differed due to the approach taken. Compost
and biochar-compost blend contained a significant amount of
available nutrients, whereas biochar did not. In the case of Belgium,
mineral fertiliser was also applied in addition to amendment and
resulted in more nutrients being applied than the other field trials
(Table 1).
Biochar-compost blend resulted in the greatest yield (SI
Table 16) in three of the five locations, with mineral fertiliser having
the greatest yield in the other two. It was noted that in Buttrio,
biochar-compost blend resulted in a 50% increase compared to
mineral fertiliser, whilst in Lonzano the opposite was seen. In
Belgium, all four approaches saw yields within 350 kg ha1 of each
other, which represented approximately 4% of overall yields (SI
Table 16). The yield for each scenario versus GWP impact (SI Fig. 2)
showed no trend amongst amendments applied.
4.1.1. Contribution analysis
The contribution analysis was broken into stages (Figs. 2e4). For
biochar, the most significant stage contributing to GWP (Fig. 2) and
EP (Fig. 4) in Spain and Italy was processing, although this was
compensated by the electricity generated and the CO2-eq emissions
avoided for GWP. For AP (Fig. 3), the collection of the materials was
the major contributor in all three countries, but this was offset by
the electricity generated by the pyrolysis system. In Belgium pro-
cessing was also the most significant for GWP (Fig. 2), but field
application was more significant for EP (Fig. 4) due to co-
application with mineral fertiliser.
For compost, the most significant stage for GWP was processing
in all countries except Belgium, where field application was the
most significant stage. For AP the most significant stage was
collection in Italy, but application in Spain and Belgium. For EP the
most contributing process was field application due to mineral
fertiliser use. For compost and biochar-compost blend, all three
impacts were substantially counteracted (>50% of contribution
 T.L. Oldfield et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 218 (2018) 465e476 471

Fig. 3. Contribution analaysis for Acidification Potential. Location: Spain (1), Spessa (2), Buttrio (3), Lonzano (4) and Belgium (5); System: Biochar (A), Compost (B) Biochar compost
blend (C) and Fertiliser (D).

when avoided burden included) by the avoidance of biowaste to significant stage was application in Spain, processing in Italy and
landfill (Figs. 2e4). application in Belgium and for EP was application. The application
For biochar-compost blend (Figs. 2e4), in all countries, the most stage in Belgium was influenced by co-application of mineral fer-
significant stage for GWP was processing. For AP the most tiliser. For GWP and EP the diversion of biowaste from landfill gave

Fig. 4. Contribution analaysis for Eutrophication Potential. Location: Spain (1), Spessa (2), Buttrio (3), Lonzano (4) and Belgium (5); System: Biochar (A), Compost (B), Biochar-
compost blend (C) and Fertiliser (D).
472 T.L. Oldfield et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 218 (2018) 465e476
a significant reduction (>50% of contribution when avoided burden
included), whilst for AP both landfill avoidance and electricity
generated from pyrolysis gave substantial benefits (>70% of
contribution when avoided burden included).
In Italy and Belgium the most significant stage for mineral fer-
tiliser was field application.
4.1.1.1. Environmental impact without avoided burdens. In all loca-
tions, without avoided burden, biochar had the lowest impact for
GWP (Fig. 5a), AP (Fig. 5b), and EP (Fig. 5c) per functional unit (1 kg
of crop), except in Belgium where compost resulted in the lowest
impact for EP.
4.1.1.2. Environmental impact with avoided burdens. With avoided
burden credited, for GWP, biochar had the lowest impact in Spain,
Spessa and Buttrio, while compost had the lowest in Lonzano and
Belgium; for AP, biochar had the lowest impact for at all sites; while
for EP compost was lowest in Spain, Buttrio, Lonzano and Belgium,
except Spessa where biochar-compost blend resulted in the lowest
impact.
4.1.2. Sensitivity analysis
The results of the sensitivity analyses (Fig. 6) showed that
parameter sensitivity differed by treatment and impact category. For
biochar it was seen that for all three impact categories that credit to
electricity generated was the most sensitive parameter. For compost,
technology efficiency was very sensitive for all three impact cate-
gories, whilst C sequestered and CH4 emissions were only sensitive
for GWP. For biochar-compost blend, C abatement was only sensitive
for GWP, whilst electricity generated from the pyrolysis process was
sensitive for all three impact categories. In general, transport dis-
tances were not sensitive for any of the scenarios or impact categories.
The results for CSF uncertainty (SI Table 17) showed that for biochar
GWP ranged from ± 7e10%, while for compost from ± 4e5%, and
biochar-compost blend ± 4e6%.
Fig. 5. Total impact per functional unit (kg crop) for each location and treatment, with and without avoided burdens. System: Biochar (A), Compost (B) Biochar-compost blend (C)
and Fertiliser (D).
5. Discussion
5.1. Interpretation
For beneficial use of any amendment in an agricultural system, a
positive effect on yield is required when it is used as the functional
unit (Sparrevik et al., 2013). Yield was inconsistent by treatment
compared to mineral fertiliser (SI Table 8). Further research is
needed to fully understand the mechanics of applying amendments
produced from a heterogeneous feedstock. Compost and biochar
were shown to have significant agronomic benefits: for biochar the
recycling of a valuable amount of C (Fig. 2) and for compost the
recycling of a beneficial amount of nutrients and some C (Fig. 2),
which resulted in lower environmental impacts over their life-cycle
when compared to a mineral fertiliser alternative. Biochar-compost
blend was shown to recycle both a favourable amount of nutrients
and C, which is in line with previous research (Schulz et al., 2013),
and resulted in greater yields in three locations than mineral fer-
tiliser, with a lower environmental impact.
5.2. Systems-level analysis
No treatment resulted in the lowest environmental impact
across all sites and trade-offs between environmental impacts were
seen. When ranked and summed (Table 4) and considering avoided
burdens, biochar was best in two trials and compost was best in
three trials. Without avoided burdens credited the biochar system
was most favourable at all sites. All three amendments were shown
to be environmentally superior alternatives than the use of mineral
fertiliser.
5.3. Choice of functional unit
Between the assessed locations (Spain, Italy and Belgium) there
were a number of differences: crop type, amendment application
 T.L. Oldfield et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 218 (2018) 465e476 473

Fig. 6. Spessa sensitivity analysis for biochar, compost and biochar-compost blend (Blend) for different environmental impacts (Global Warming Potential (GWP), Acidification (AP),
Eutrophication Potential (EP).

rate, climate and soil type, which made direct comparison by
country difficult (ISO 14044, 2006). Therefore, the reference flow,
ha per year (SI Fig. 3) was used as a secondary functional unit to
allow for comparison. The use of the functional unit, ha per year
was seen to alter results, in terms or ranking, between organic
amendments. For example, for GWP and Lonzano, biochar resulted
in a lower impact than compost with avoided burdens. In general,
the overall results did not change (all amendments resulted in
lower impact than mineral fertilser), but does highlight the chal-
lenge with choice of functional unit and system boundary for such
studies.
The analysis of CSF sensitivity showed the significance of C
sequestration for achieving a C neutral system. Using a functional
unit of C sequestered or N recycled may have given another result.
The choice of functional unit requires further analysis and discus-
sion in an agricultural circular economy context, especially when
multiple valorisation pathways are possible. In Belgium, amend-
ments were applied in combination with mineral fertiliser. This
resulted in a 200 kg ha1 (~4%) decrease in yield compared to the
soil treated only with mineral fertiliser. Such an approach was not
seen to be environmentally beneficial, within the context of this
LCA study. Further research is required to understand how the use
of biochar with mineral fertiliser can reduce emissions, such as
N2O, or N leaching.
5.4. Data quality
For this type of modelling it is important of fully understanding
474 T.L. Oldfield et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 218 (2018) 465e476

Table 4
Environmental impact ranking and sum, with avoided burden (With AB) and without avoided burden (No AB) for biochar, compost, biochar-compost blend and mineral
fertiliser. Light and dark grey cells refer to minimum environmental impact with and without avoided burden, respectively.

Site Biochar Compost Blend Mineral fertiliser

With AB No AB With AB No AB With AB No AB With AB No AB
Spain GWP 1 1 2 3 3 2 e e
AP 1 1 3 3 2 2 e e
EP 3 1 1 3 2 2 e e
Spessa GWP 1 1 2 3 3 2 4 4
AP 1 1 3 3 2 2 4 4
EP 3 1 2 3 1 4 4 2
Buttrio GWP 1 1 2 3 3 2 3 4
AP 1 1 3 4 2 3 4 2
EP 3 1 1 4 2 3 4 2
Lonzano GWP 2 1 1 3 3 2 4 4
AP 1 1 3 3 2 2 4 4
EP 3 1 1 4 2 3 4 2
Belgium GWP 2 1 1 3 3 2 4 4
AP 1 1 2 4 3 2 4 3
EP 4 3 1 1 2 2 3 4
Sum 28 17 28 47 35 35 46a 39a
a
Not comparable as mineral fertiliser was only used in four case studies.

how C and nutrients (N, P, K) behave in soils over the long-term (Gal
et al., 2007). In this study, experimental data from Spain showed an
increase in N2O emissions (Sa nchez-García et al., 2016) with the
addition of biochar. Other studies have assumed N2O emission re-
ductions of 25% or even 50% when biochar is added (Cayuela et al.,
2014). If this was the case, it would not change the result of this
study as the biochar system resulted in the lowest impact, but does
reveal the importance of using empirical observation where
possible to test the sensitivity of the whole system.
There is limited knowledge on the N uptake of crops grown in
biochar-amended soil (Gul and Whalen, 2016), though the experi-
mental results (pot and field) from Fertiplus project showed no N
availability from biochar used. However, there may be several kinds
of biochar which react differently to soil types, experimental con-
ditions, and consequently results in much variability. In regards to
this study, an increase in availability of nutrients within the three
applications would not change the outcome of this LCA (Fig. 6 e
avoided fertiliser).
5.5. Assumptions and limitations
The main environmental benefit credited to the biochar and the
biochar-compost blend systems was the energy that is produced by
the pyrolysis process. This process was shown to be highly sensitive
(Fig. 6) and the benefit it gives was based on the assumption that it
would displace a significant amount of average grid energy
(differed between countries i.e. for GWP 0.06e0.14 kg CO2 per MJ).
However, the magnitude of this benefit is dependent on the pro-
portion of non-renewable energy in the grid mix and the marginal
energy that it would displace in each specific country. In order to
understand the consequences of introducing energy produced from
pyrolysis into the grid a consequential LCA approach could be
considered in future research (Ekvall et al., 2005). Compost and
biochar-compost blend were credited with the avoidance of
organic waste to landfill, a common assumption used in LCA
(Bernstad and la Cour Jansen, 2012). Such an assumption is country
specific and as circular bio-economy principles become more
widely accepted, along with EU waste to landfill reduction targets,
this assumption may have to be reconsidered as significant
amounts of waste will no longer be sent to landfill but utilised as a
resource for valorisation technologies. If this assumption was no
longer tenable, compost, biochar and biochar-compost blend could
have a greater calculated environmental impact than estimated in
this study. In order to identify those feedstocks that are ideal for
composing for nutrient recycling strategy, the upstream impact of
feedstock production will also need to be considered.
As noted in section 2.1 it is envisaged that mineral fertiliser
would be applied annually whilst biochar, compost and biochar-
compost blend would be applied every three years. On the other
hand the present study focuses on year one of application. Never-
theless, we assume that the availability of the elements, the N and P
emissions and the crop yield in the years 2 and 3 of soils treated
with amendments would be similar to those of year 1. This is
supported by the evidence that the residual effect on element
availability, emissions and crop production of amendments can last
for several years after their application (Biala, 2000; Eghball et al.,
2004). Therefore modelling the following years for that concern-
ing element availability and emissions and crop production would
not significantly change the results.
The implications of modelling the following years of the
experiment would also imply that the impact of producing and
transporting the three amendments would be divided between the
three application years, as well as the credits that were given
(carbon abated and landfill avoidance). Whilst this would change
the magnitude of the results it would not change the conclusions
drawn.
Some benefits that compost, biochar and biochar-compost
blend offer were not assessed in this study, such as compost be-
ing used to control soil erosion and regulate soil moisture balance,
and biochar potentially regulating soil moisture balance (Bruun
et al., 2014; Novak et al., 2012). To date, no appropriate assess-
ment methodologies for these ancillary benefits are available in
LCA (Martínez-Blanco et al., 2013), which should be a focus of LCA
development.
5.6. Technology synergies
The data used in this study were derived from Fertiplus exper-
iments (Vandecasteele et al., 2016) and it was indicated that adding
biochar during the composting process resulted in a reduction of
CO2 (53%), CH4 (95%) and N2O (14%) emissions. The compost pro-
cessing stage was a major contributor to all three impacts assessed
(Figs. 2e4) and blending with biochar addresses this hotspot.
Composting of biowaste is a common approach globally; therefore,
this innovative approach of blending it with biochar could have a
significant global impact.
Energy consumption during the composting process was iden-
tified as a major contributor to GWP, whilst pyrolysis was found to
 T.L. Oldfield et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 218 (2018) 465e476
have a net energy gain within the system boundaries applied in this
analysis. Theoretically, co-locating compost and pyrolysis facilities
would be beneficial as the pyrolysis co-product, energy, could be
used for processing compost, potentially creating an off-grid, self-
sufficient nutrient and C recycling system.
5.7. Future perspectives
When introducing biochar and blended biochar technologies,
social and economic aspects must be evaluated in addition to
environmental impacts (Sparrevik et al., 2013). This study was
limited to three environmental impacts, additional impacts should
be considered in future analysis. Pyrolysis technology is known to
be expensive, so co-location with composting should be analysed
from an economic perspective. This study suggests that all three
amendments are beneficial in agriculture. However, from a systems
level perspective, a biochar-compost blend seemed most effective
as it allows the utilisation of synergies between the composting
need for energy and the pyrolysis net energy gain, as well as
sequestering C, avoiding waste to landfill and recycling nutrients.
All of these factors are critical elements for sustainable agri-food
systems that have the ability to maintain yields similar those ach-
ieved using mineral fertiliser, whilst reducing environmental
impacts.
6. Conclusion
In terms of GWP, AP and EP, biochar, compost and biochar-
compost blend were all found to be environmentally beneficial
compared to using mineral fertiliser, within the system boundary
used in this LCA study. Biochar recycles C and P, whilst compost
recycles C, N, P and K and a blend of both resulted in the recycling of
C, N, P and K. Given the range of feedstock types, soil types, climate
and local conditions, combined with the site-specific results, it can
be concluded that a one-size-fits-all recommendation cannot be
developed for Europe, and that site and situation specific studies
will be continually required for valorisation and waste manage-
ment system development. Differences in yields was seen across
the trials, but in general, comparative yields to mineral fertiliser
were found for all three treatments. Producing a blended product
offers potential as an alternative in climate smart agriculture and
nutrient neutrality by combining benefits of both systems (compost
e nutrient recovery, and biochar e carbon recovery and seques-
tration). It was shown in two different approaches, i.e. amendment
without mineral fertiliser, and amendment with mineral fertiliser
that biochar, compost and biochar-compost blend resulted in a
cumulative lower environmental impact (GWP, EP and AP)
compared to mineral fertiliser alone. Hotspots within the com-
posting system could be reduced through co-location with pyrol-
ysis facilities. In order for this to be the foundation for commercial
development from a circular economy perspective, careful selection
of feedstock is crucial as the feedstock must be abundantly avail-
able, inexpensive, unavoidable, and have a low embedded impact.
Acknowledgments
This work is supported by the Fertiplus project (EC Grant
Agreement N
289853) and co-funded by the Directorate General
for Research & Innovation, within the 7th Framework Programme
of RTD, Theme 2 - Biotechnologies, Agriculture & Food. The views
and opinions expressed in this publication are purely those of the
writers and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an
official position of the European Commission.
We would like to thank the Fertiplus project members who
provided data from their experiments: Tommy D'Hose, ILVO
475
(experimental data); Marìa Garcia and Ine s Lo
pez, CSIC (experi-
mental data); Lydia Fryda, ECN (pyrolysis experimental data); and,
Antonio Quero, Proininso S.A. (data on biochar production). We
would also like to thank Simon Jeffery of Harper Adams University
for reviewing this manuscript and for the invaluable comments he
gave. We would also like to thank the Irish Research Council under
their Government of Ireland scheme for their funding.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.04.061.
References
Agegnehu, G., Bass, A.M., Nelson, P.N., Bird, M., 2016. Benefits of biochar, compost
and biocharecompost for soil quality, maize yield and greenhouse gas emis-
sions in a tropical agricultural soil. Sci. Total Environ. 543, 295e306. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.11.054.
Bass, A.M., Bird, M.I., Kay, G., Muirhead, B., 2016. Soil properties, greenhouse gas
emissions and crop yield under compost, biochar and co-composted biochar in
two tropical agronomic systems. Sci. Total Environ. 550, 459e470. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.01.
Bernstad, A., la Cour Jansen, J., 2011. A life cycle approach to the management of
household food waste e a Swedish full-scale case study. Waste Manag. 31,
1879e1896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.02.026.
Bernstad, A., la Cour Jansen, J., 2012. Review of comparative LCAs of food waste
management systems Current status and potential improvements. Waste
Manag. 32, 2439e2455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.07.023.
Biala, J., 2000. The use of recycled organics compost in viticulture - a review of the
international literature and experience. In: Willer, H., Meier, U. (Eds.), Pro-
ceedings 6th International Congress on Organic Viticulture, 25-26 August 2000.
€
Stiftung Okologie & Landbau, Basel, Switzerland, pp. 130e134. ISBN 3-934499-
28-7.
Boldrin, J.K., Andersen, J., Møller, E., Favoino, E., Christensen, T.H., 2009. Composting
and compost utilization: accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming
contributions. Waste Manag. Res. 27, 800e812. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0734242X09345275.
Branda ~o, B., Levasseur, A., Kirschbaum, M.U.F., Weidema, B.P., Cowie, A.L.,
Jørgensen, S.V., Hauschild, M.Z., Pennington, D.W., Chomkhamsri, K., 2013. Key
issues and options in accounting for carbon sequestration and temporary
storage in life cycle assessment and carbon footprinting. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.
18, 230e240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0451-6.
Bruun, E.W., Petersen, C.T., Hansen, E., Holm, J.K., Hauggaard-Nielsen, H., 2014.
Biochar amendment to coarse sandy subsoil improves root growth and in-
creases water retention. Soil Use Manage 30, 109e118. https://doi.org/10.1111/
sum.12102.
Cayuela, M.L., van Zwieten, L., Singh, B.P., Jeffery, S., Roig, A., S anchez-
Monedero, M.A., 2014. Biochar's role in mitigating soil nitrous oxide emissions:
a review and meta-analysis. Agri. Ecosyst. Environ. 191, 5e16. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.agee.2013.10.009.
Commoner, B., 1970. Threats to the Integrity of the Nitrogen Cycle: Nitrogen
Compounds in Soil, Water, Atmosphere and Precipitation. Chapter: Global Ef-
fects of Environmental Pollution. Book Title: Global Effects of Environmental
Pollution, pp. 70e95. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-3290-2_9.
Cordell, D., Drangert, J., White, S., 2009. The story of phosphorus: global food se-
curity and food for thought. Glob. Environ. Chang. 19, 292e305. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.gloenvc ha.2008.10.009.
Eghball, B., Ginting, D., Gilley, J.E., 2004. Residual effects of manure and compost
applications on corn production and soil properties. Agron. J. 96, 442e447.
European Commission (EC) e Joint Research Centre e Institute for Environment and
Sustainability, 2010. International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD)
Handbook General Guide for Life Cycle Assessment e Detailed Guidance. First
Edition March 2010. EUR 24708 EN. Publications office of the European Union,
Luxembourg, LU.
Ebertseder, T., Gutser, R., 2003. Nutrition potential of biowaste composts. In:
Appling compost Benefit and Needs. Seminar Proceedings, Brussels, 22-23
November 2001. Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and
Water Management, Austria, and European Communities, pp. 117e128.
Ekvall, T., Tillman, A., 1997. Open-loop recycling, criteria for allocation procedures.
Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2, 155e162.
Ekvall, T., Tillmann, A.M., Molander, S., 2005. Normative ethics and methodology for
life cycle assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 13, 1225e1234. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2005.05.010.
Epstein, E., 2011. Industrial Composting: Environmental Engineering and Facilities
Management. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Fischer, D., Glaser, B., 2012. Synergisms between compost and biochar for sus-
tainable soil amelioration. In: Kumar, S., Barthi, A. (Eds.), Management of
Organic Waste. InTech, Rijeka, pp. 167e199.
Gal, A., Vyn, T.J., Miche li, E., Kladivko, E.J., McFee, W.W., 2007. Soil carbon and
476 T.L. Oldfield et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 218 (2018) 465e476
nitrogen accumulation with long-term no-till versus mouldboard plowing over-
estimated with tilled-zone sampling depths. Soil Tillage Res. 96, 42e51. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2007.02.007.
Gul, S., Whalen, J.K., 2016. Biochemical cycling of nitrogen and phosphorus in
biochar-amended soils. Review Paper. Soil Biol. Biochem. 103, 1e15. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.08.001.
Hammond, J., Shackley, S., Sohi, S., Brownsort, P., 2011. Prospective life cycle carbon
abatement for pyrolysis biochar systems in the UK. Energy Policy 39,
2646e2655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.02.033.
Harsono, S.S., Grundman, P., Lau, L.H., Hansen, A., Salleh, M.A.M., Meyer-Aurich, A.,
2013. Energy balances, greenhouse gas emissions and economics of biochar
production from palm oil empty fruit bunches. Resour. Conserv. Recy 77,
108e115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.04.005.
Hartl, W., Erhart, E., 2005. Crop nitrogen recovery and soil nitrogen dynamics in a
10-year field experiment with biowaste compost. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 168,
781e788. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.200521702.
Ibarrola, R., Shackley, S., Hammond, J., 2012. Pyrolysis biochar systems for recov-
ering biodegradable materials: a life cycle carbon assessment. Waste Manag. 32,
859e868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.10.005.
IPA, 2000. Mineral Fertiliser Use and the Environment. International Fertiliser In-
dustry Association. United Nations Environment Programme.
ISO, 2006a. International Organization for Standardization, second ed. Environ-
mental management e Life cycle assessment e Principles and framework. ISO
14040:2006.
ISO, 2006b. International Organization for Standardization, first ed. Environmental
management e Life cycle assessment e Requirements and guidelines. ISO
14044:2006.
Johnston, A.E., Goulding, K.W.T., Poulton, P.R., 1986. Soil acidification during more
than 100 years under permanent grassland and woodland at Rothamsted. Soil
Use Manag. 2, 3e10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.1986.tb00669.x.
Kluge, R., 2003. Fertilisation effect of the P and K supply with composts. In: Appling
compost Benefit and Needs. Seminar Proceedings, Brussels, 22-23 November
2001. Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Man-
agement, Austria, and European Communities, pp. 139e140.
Laurent, A., Bakas, I., Clavreul, J., Bernstad, A., Niero, M., Gentil, E., Hauschild, M.,
Christensen, T., 2014a. Review of LCA studies of solid waste management sys-
tems e Part I: lessons learned and perspectives. Waste Manag. 34, 573e588.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.10.045.
Laurent, A., Bakas, I., Clavreul, J., Bernstad, A., Niero, M., Gentil, E., Hauschild, M.,
Christensen, T., 2014b. Review of LCA studies of solid waste management sys-
tems e Part II: methodological guidance for a better practice. Waste Manag. 34,
589e606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.12.004.
Lehmann, J., Joseph, S., 2009. Biochar for Environmental Management Science and
Technology. Eathscan Publishers, UK.
Mackenthun, K., 1968. The phosphorus problem. J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 60 (9),
1047e1054. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41265414. (Accessed 10 August 2015).
Malingreau, J., Eva, H., Maggio, A., 2012. NPK: Will There Be Enough Plant Nutrients
to Feed a World of 9 Billion in 2050? European Commission. https://doi.org/
10.2788/26603. On-line at (publications.jrc.ec).
Martínez-Blanco, J., Mun ~ oz, P., Anto
 n, A., Rieradevall, J., 2009. Life cycle assessment
of the use of compost from municipal organic waste for fertilization of tomato
crops. Resour. Conserv. Recy 53 (6), 340e351. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.resconrec.2009.02.003.
Martínez-Blanco, J., Lazcano, C., Christensen, H.T., Mun ~ oz, P., Rieradevall, J.,
Møller, J., Assumpcio , A., Boldrin, A., 2013. Compost benefits for agriculture
evaluated by life cycle assessment. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 33, 721e732.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0148-7.
Mirabella, N., Castellani, V., Sala, S., 2014. Current options for the valorization of
food manufacturing waste: a review. J. Clean. Prod. 65, 28e41. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.051.
Oldfield, T., Holden, N.M., 2014. An evaluation of upstream assumptions in food-
waste life cycle assessments. In: Paper Presented in the 9th International
Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-food Sector (LCA Food 2014),
8e10 October 2014, San Francisco, USA. ACLCA, Vashon, WA, USA.
Oldfield, T.L., White, E.P., Holden, N.M., 2016. An environmental analysis of options
for utilising wasted food and food residue. J. Environ. Manag. 183, 826e835.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.09.035.
Parvage, M.M., Ule n, B., Eriksson, J., Strock, J., Kirchmann, H., 2013. Phosphorus
availability in soils amended with wheat residue char. Biol. Fertil. Soils 49,
245e250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-012-0746-6.
Prost, K., Borchard, N., Siemens, J., Kautz, T., Sequaris, J.M., Mo € ller, A., Amelung, W.,
2013. Biochar affected by composting with farmyard manure. J. Environ. Qual. 4,
164e172. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2012.0064.
Recycled Organics Unit (ROU), 2003. Life Cycle Inventory and Life Cycle Assessment
for Windrow Composting Systems. Report Prepared for NSW Department of
Environment and Conservation (Sustainability Programs Division). Recycled
Organics Unit. The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
nchez-García, M., Sa
Sa nchez-Monedero, M.A., Roig, I., Lo  pez-Cano, A., Moreno, B.,
Benitez, E., Cayuela, M.L., 2016. Compost vs biochar amendment: a two-year
field study evaluating soil C build-up and N dynamics in an organically
managed olive crop. Plant Soil. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-016-2794-4.
Schulz, H., Dunst, G., Glaser, B., 2013. Positive effects of composted biochar on plant
growth and soil fertility. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 33, 814e827. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s13593-013-0150-0.
Shackley, S., Sohi, S.P., 2010. An Assessment of the Benefits and Issues Associated
with the Application of Biochar to Soil. Defra, London.
Siebert, S., Leifeld, J., Kogel-Knabner, I., 1998. Anwendung auf landwirtschaftlich
genutzte und rekultivierte Boden. Z. für Kult. Landentwickl. 39, 69e74.
Sinaj, S., Traore, O., Frossard, E., 2002. Effect of compost and soil properties on the
availability of compost phosphate for white clover (Trifolium repens L.). Nutr.
Cycl. Agroecosys 62, 89e102. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015128610158.
Skowron  ska, M., Filipek, T., 2014. Life cycle assessment of fertilizers: a review. Int.
Agrophys 28, 101e110. https://doi.org/10.2478/intag-2013-0032.
Sparrevik, M., Field, J.L., Martinsen, V., Breedveld, G.D., Cornelissen, G., 2013. Life
cycle assessment to evaluate the environmental impact of biochar imple-
mentation in conservation agriculture in Zambia. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47,
1206e1215. https://doi.org/10.1021/es302720k.
ThinkStep, 2015. GaBi Software. ThinkStep: Leinfelden-Echterdingen, Germany, 6.2.
Vandecasteele, B., Sinicco, T., D'Hose, T., Nest, T.V., Mondini, C., 2016. Biochar
amendment before or after composting affects compost quality and N losses,
but not P plant uptake. J. Environ. Manag. 168, 200e209. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.11.045.
Woolf, D., Amonette, J.E., Street-Perrott, F.A., Lehmann, J., Joseph, S., 2010. Sus-
tainable biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nat. Commun. 1, 56. https://
doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1053.