Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Life-cycle assessment and techno-economic analysis of biochar produced from forest residues using portable systems

  • WOOD AND OTHER RENEWABLE RESOURCES
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Producing biochar from forest residues can help resolve environmental issues by reducing forest fires and mitigating climate change. However, transportation and storage of biomass to a centralized facility are often cost-prohibitive and a major hurdle for the economic feasibility of producing biobased products, including biochar. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the environmental impacts and economic feasibility of manufacturing biochar from forest residues with small-scale portable production systems.

Methods

This study evaluated the environmental performance and economic feasibility of biochar produced through three portable systems (biochar solutions incorporated (BSI), Oregon Kiln (OK), and air curtain burner (ACB)) using forest residues in the United States (US). Cradle-to-grave life-cycle assessment (LCA) and techno-economic analysis (TEA) were used to quantify environmental impacts and minimal selling price (MSP) of biochar respectively considering different power sources, production sites, and feedstock qualities.

Results and discussions

The results illustrated that the global warming (GW) impact of biochar production through BSI, OK, and ACB was 0.25–1.0, 0.55, and 0.61-t CO2eq/t biochar applied to the field, respectively. Considering carbon-sequestration, 1-t of biochar produced with the portable system at a near-forest site and applied to the field reduced the GW impact by 0.89–2.6 t CO2eq. For biochar production, the environmental performance of the BSI system improved substantially (60–70%) when it was powered by a gasifier-based generator instead of a diesel generator. Similarly, near-forest(off-grid) biochar production operations performed better environmentally than the operations at in-town sites due to the reduction in the forest residues transportation emissions. Overall, the net GW impact of biochar produced from forest residues can reduce environmental impacts (i.e., 1–10 times lower CO2eq emissions) compared with slash-pile burning. The MSP per tonne of biochar produced through BSI, OK, and ACB was $3,000–$5,000, $1,600, and $580 respectively considering 100 working days per year. However, with improved BSI systems when allowed to operate throughout the year, the MSP can be reduced to below $1000/t of biochar. Furthermore, considering current government grants and subsidies (i.e.,$12,600/ha for making biochar production from forest residues), the MSP of biochar can be reduced substantially (30–387%) depending on the type of portable system used.

Conclusion

The portable small-scale production systems could be environmentally beneficial and economically feasible options to make biochar from forest residues at competitive prices given current government incentives in the US where excess forest biomass and forest residues left in the forest increase the risk of forest fires.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agegnehu G, Srivastava AK, Bird MI (2017) The role of biochar and biochar-compost in improving soil quality and crop performance: a review. Appl Soil Ecol 119:156–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2017.06.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alanya-Rosenbaum S, Bergman RD (2019) Life-cycle impact and exergy based resource use assessment of torrefied and non-torrefied briquette use for heat and electricity generation. J Clean Prod 233:918–931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alanya-Rosenbaum S, Bergman RD, Ganguly I, Pierobon F (2018) A comparative life-cycle assessment of briquetting logging residues and lumber manufacturing coproducts in Western United States applied engineering in agriculture 34:11-24 https://doi.org/10.13031/aea.12378

  • Alhashimi HA, Aktas CB (2017) Life cycle environmental and economic performance of biochar compared with activated carbon: a meta-analysis. Resour Conserv Recycl 118:13–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.11.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson NM, Bergman RD, Page-Dumroese DS (2016) A supply chain approach to biochar systems biochar: a regional supply chain approach in view of mitigating climate change:25-26

  • Azzi ES, Karltun E, Sundberg C (2019) Prospective life cycle assessment of large-scale biochar production and use for negative emissions in Stockholm. Environ Sci Technol 53:8466–8476. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b01615

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Badger P, Badger S, Puettmann M, Steele P, Cooper J (2010) Techno-economic analysis: preliminary assessment of pyrolysis oil production costs and material energy balance associated with a transportable fast pyrolysis system. BioResources:6

  • WTW (2018) Waste to wisdom: utilizing forest residues for the production of bioenergy and biobased products. Final Report. 78p.

  • Bergman R, Gu H, Alanya-Rosenbaum S, Liang S (2019) Comparative life-cycle assessment of biochar activated carbon and synthesis gas electricity with commercially available alternatives Gen Tech Rep FPL-GTR-270 Madison, WI: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory 32 p 270:1-32

  • Bergman R, Puettmann M, Taylor A, Skog KE (2014) The carbon impacts of wood products. For Prod J 64:220–231. https://doi.org/10.13073/FPJ-D-14-00047

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bergman RD, Zhang H, Englund K, Windell K, Gu H (2016) Estimating GHG emissions from the manufacturing of field-applied biochar pellets. In: Proceedings of the 59th International Convention of Society of Wood Science and Technology, pp 1-11

  • Berrill J-P, Han H-S (2017) Carbon, harvest yields, and residues from restoration in a mixed forest on California’s coast range forest science 63:128-135

  • Berry M, Sessions J (2018) The economics of biomass logistics and conversion facility mobility: an Oregon case study. Appl Eng Agric 34:57–72. https://doi.org/10.13031/aea.12383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BLS (2017) Occupational employment statistics. Bureau of labor statistics. https://data.bls.gov/oes/#/occGeo/One%20occupation%20for%20multiple%20geographical%20areas. Accessed 08/28/2017 2017

  • Brown AL, Brady PD A technoeconomic analysis of the potential for portable pyrolysis in Northern New Mexico forests. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2012 Summer Heat Transfer Conference, Rio Grande, Puerto Rico, July 8-12 2012. vol 44786. pp 161-171. https://doi.org/10.1115/HT2012-58113

  • Budai A et al. (2013) Biochar carbon stability test method: an assessment of methods to determine biochar carbon stability International Biochar Initiative:1-10

  • Carrasco JL, Gunukula S, Boateng AA, Mullen CA, DeSisto WJ, Wheeler MC (2017) Pyrolysis of forest residues: an approach to techno-economics for bio-fuel production. Fuel 193:477–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2016.12.063

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chen X, Zhang H, Xiao R (2018) Mobile autothermal pyrolysis system for local biomass conversion: process simulation and techno-economic analysis. Energy Fuel 32:4178–4188. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b03172

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Clare A, Shackley S, Joseph S, Hammond J, Pan G, Bloom A (2015) Competing uses for China’s straw: the economic and carbon abatement potential of biochar. GCB Bioenergy 7:1272–1282. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12220

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cook PS, Becker DR (2017) State funding for wildfire suppression in the Western US. University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornelissen G, Pandit NR, Taylor P, Pandit BH, Sparrevik M, Schmidt HP (2016) Emissions and char quality of flame-curtain “Kon Tiki” kilns for farmer-scale charcoal/biochar production. PLoS One 11:e0154617. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154617

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dutta B, Raghavan V (2014) A life cycle assessment of environmental and economic balance of biochar systems in Quebec. Int J Energy Environ Eng 5:106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fann N, Alman B, Broome RA, Morgan GG, Johnston FH, Pouliot G, Rappold AG (2018) The health impacts and economic value of wildland fire episodes in the U.S.: 2008–2012. Sci Total Environ 610-611:802–809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.024

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Field JL, Keske CMH, Birch GL, Defoort MW, Francesca Cotrufo M (2013) Distributed biochar and bioenergy coproduction: a regionally specific case study of environmental benefits and economic impacts. GCB Bioenergy 5:177–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gu H, Bergman R (2016) Life-cycle assessment of a distributed-scale thermochemical bioenergy conversion system. Wood Fiber Sci 48:129–141

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gu H, Bergman R (2017) Cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment of syngas electricity from woody biomass residues. Wood Fiber Sci 49:177–192

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gu H, Bergman R, Anderson N, Alanya-Rosenbaum S (2018) Life cycle assessment of activated carbon from woody biomass. Wood Fiber Sci 50:229–243

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gurwick NP, Moore LA, Kelly C, Elias P (2013) A systematic review of biochar research, with a focus on its stability in situ and its promise as a climate mitigation strategy. PLoS One 8:e75932

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond J, Shackley S, Sohi S, Brownsort P (2011) Prospective life cycle carbon abatement for pyrolysis biochar systems in the UK. Energy Policy 39:2646–2655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.02.033

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Homagain K, Shahi C, Luckai N, Sharma M (2015) Life cycle environmental impact assessment of biochar-based bioenergy production and utilization in Northwestern Ontario, Canada. J For Res 26:799–809. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-015-0132-y

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hudiburg TW, Law BE, Wirth C, Luyssaert S (2011) Regional carbon dioxide implications of forest bioenergy production. Nat Clim Chang 1:419–423. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1264

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Inoue Y, Mogi K, Yoshizawa S (2011) Properties of cinders from red pine, black locust and henon bamboo. Ina Carbonization Laboratory Co., Ltd

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2006a) Environmental management: life cycle assessment; principles and framework. international organization for standardization,

  • ISO (2006b) Environmental management: life cycle assessments: requirements and guidelines. International Standardization Organization,

  • Jones SB et al. (2013) Process design and economics for the conversion of lignocellulosic biomass to hydrocarbon fuels: fast pyrolysis and hydrotreating bio-oil pathway. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA (US),

  • Kuppens T, Van Dael M, Vanreppelen K, Carleer R, Yperman J, Schreurs S, Van Passel S (2014) Techno-Economic Assessment of pyrolysis char production and application–a review. Chem Eng Trans:37

  • Lee C, Erickson P, Lazarus M, Smith G (2010) Greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions of alternatives for woody biomass residues. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden

    Google Scholar 

  • Leng L et al (2019) Biochar stability assessment by incubation and modelling: methods, drawbacks and recommendations. Sci Total Environ 664:11–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.298

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Li D et al (2020) Biochar-related studies from 1999 to 2018: a bibliometrics-based review. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27:2898–2908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-06870-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li Y et al (2018) Effects of biochar application in forest ecosystems on soil properties and greenhouse gas emissions: a review. J Soils Sediments 18:546–563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-017-1906-y

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Liu X, Mao P, Li L, Ma J (2019) Impact of biochar application on yield-scaled greenhouse gas intensity: a meta-analysis. Sci Total Environ 656:969–976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.396

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • LTS (2019) DATASMART LCI Package. https://ltsexperts.com/services/software/datasmart-life-cycle-inventory/. Accessed 05/01/2019

  • Lu HR, El Hanandeh A (2019) Life cycle perspective of bio-oil and biochar production from hardwood biomass; what is the optimum mix and what to do with it? J Clean Prod 212:173–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.025

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mirkouei A, Haapala KR, Sessions J, Murthy GS (2017) A mixed biomass-based energy supply chain for enhancing economic and environmental sustainability benefits: a multi-criteria decision making framework. Appl Energy 206:1088–1101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.09.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mirkouei A, Mirzaie P, Haapala KR, Sessions J, Murthy GS (2016) Reducing the cost and environmental impact of integrated fixed and mobile bio-oil refinery supply chains. J Clean Prod 113:495–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muñoz E, Curaqueo G, Cea M, Vera L, Navia R (2017) Environmental hotspots in the life cycle of a biochar-soil system. J Clean Prod 158:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.163

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Noss RF, Franklin JF, Baker WL, Schoennagel T, Moyle PB (2006) Managing fire-prone forests in the western United States Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4:481-487 doi:https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295

  • Oneil EE, Comnick JM, Rogers LW, Puettmann ME (2017) Waste to wisdom: integrating feedstock supply, fire risk and life cycle assessment into a wood to energy framework. Final Report on Task 4.2, 4.7 and 4.8.

  • Page-Dumroese DS, Anderson NM, Windell KN, Englund K, Jump K (2016) Development and use of a commercial-scale biochar spreader vol 354. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO

  • Page-Dumroese DS, Busse MD, Archuleta JG, McAvoy D, Roussel E (2017) Methods to reduce forest residue volume after timber harvesting and produce black carbon. Scientifica 2017:8–8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/2745764

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Parkhurst KM, Saffron CM, Miller RO (2016) An energy analysis comparing biomass torrefaction in depots to wind with natural gas combustion for electricity generation. Appl Energy 179:171–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.05.121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pereira PEI, Suddick EC, Six J (2016) Carbon abatement and emissions associated with the gasification of walnut shells for bioenergy and biochar production. PLoS One 11:e0150837. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150837

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Peters JF, Iribarren D, Dufour J (2015) Biomass pyrolysis for biochar or energy applications? A Life Cycle Assessment. Environ Sci Technol 49:5195–5202. https://doi.org/10.1021/es5060786

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Polagye BL, Hodgson KT, Malte PC (2007) An economic analysis of bio-energy options using thinnings from overstocked forests. Biomass Bioenergy 31:105–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2006.02.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pourhashem G, Hung SY, Medlock KB, Masiello CA (2019) Policy support for biochar: review and recommendations 11:364-380 https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12582

  • PRe'Consultants (2019) SimaPro 8 life-cycle assessment software package. Version 8. Plotter 12. https://simapro.com/.

  • Puettmann M, Sahoo K, Wilson K, Oneil E (2020) Life cycle assessment of biochar produced from forest residues using portable systems. J Clean Prod:250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119564

  • Puettmann M, Wilson K, Oneil E (2017a) Waste to wisdom: integrating feedstock supply, fire risk and life cycle assessment into a wood to energy framework.

  • Puettmann M, Wilson K, Oneil E (2017b) Waste to wisdom: life cycle assessment of biochar from postharvest forest residues.

  • Puettmann M, Wilson K, Oneil E (2018) Waste to wisdom: life cycle assessment of biochar from post-harvest forest residues.

  • Puettmann ME, Wagner FG, Johnson L (2010) Life cycle inventory of softwood lumber from the inland northwest US. Wood Fiber Sci 42:52–66

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Qambrani NA, Rahman MM, Won S, Shim S, Ra C (2017) Biochar properties and eco-friendly applications for climate change mitigation, waste management, and wastewater treatment: a review renewable and sustainable energy reviews 79:255-273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.057

  • Ramachandran S, Yao Z, You S, Massier T, Stimming U, Wang C-H (2017) Life cycle assessment of a sewage sludge and woody biomass co-gasification system. Energy 137:369–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.04.139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts KG, Gloy BA, Joseph S, Scott NR, Lehmann J (2010) Life cycle assessment of biochar systems: estimating the energetic, economic, and climate change potential. Environ Sci Technol 44:827–833. https://doi.org/10.1021/es902266r

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ronsse F, van Hecke S, Dickinson D, Prins W (2013) Production and characterization of slow pyrolysis biochar: influence of feedstock type and pyrolysis conditions. GCB Bioenergy 5:104–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12018

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rosas JG, Gómez N, Cara J, Ubalde J, Sort X, Sánchez ME (2015) Assessment of sustainable biochar production for carbon abatement from vineyard residues. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 113:239–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2015.01.011

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sahoo K (2017) Sustainable design and simulation of multi-feedstock bioenergy supply chain. University of Georgia

  • Sahoo K, Bilek E, Bergman R, Kizha AR, Mani S (2018) Economic analysis of forest residues supply chain options to produce enhanced-quality feedstocks Biofuels. Bioproducts Biorefining (Biofpr) 12

  • Sahoo K, Bilek E, Bergman R, Mani S (2019) Techno-economic analysis of producing solid biofuels and biochar from forest residues using portable systems. Appl Energy 235:578–590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.10.076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sasatani D, Eastin IL (2018) Demand curve estimation of locally produced woody biomass products Applied Engineering in Agriculture 34:145-155 doi: 10.13031/aea.1239

  • SERC (2016) Biochar testing and results report waste to wisdom: task 3. Schatz Energy Research Center (SERC),

  • Severy M, Carter D, Chamberlin C, Jacobson A (2016) Biochar testing results report. Humboldt State University

  • Severy MA, David JC, Kyle DP, Anthony JE, Arne EJ (2018) Performance and emissions control of commercial-scale biochar production unit Applied Engineering in Agriculture 34:73-84 https://doi.org/10.13031/aea.12375

  • Shackley S, Hammond J, Gaunt J, Ibarrola R (2011) The feasibility and costs of biochar deployment in the UK. Carbon Management 2:335–356. https://doi.org/10.4155/cmt.11.22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh BP, Cowie AL, Smernik RJ (2012) Biochar carbon stability in a clayey soil as a function of feedstock and pyrolysis temperature. Environ Sci Technol 46:11770–11778. https://doi.org/10.1021/es302545b

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stein SM et al. (2013) Wildfire, wildlands, and people: understanding and preparing for wildfire in the wildland-urban interface-a forests on the edge report vol 299. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. , Fort Collins, CO.

  • US-EPA (2012) Tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts (TRACI)–TRACI version 2.1 user’s guide. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, US

  • USDA-NRCS (2019) Conservation enhancement activity, E384135Z. United States Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D.C., US

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang J, Xiong Z, Kuzyakov Y (2016) Biochar stability in soil: meta-analysis of decomposition and priming effects. GCB Bioenergy 8:512–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12266

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wang Z, Dunn JB, Han J, Wang MQ (2014) Effects of co-produced biochar on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of pyrolysis-derived renewable fuels. Biofuel Bioprod Biorefining 8:189–204. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1447

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson K (2017) Converting shelterbelt biomass to biochar. wilson biochar associates,

  • Wright MM, Brown RC, Boateng AA (2008) Distributed processing of biomass to bio-oil for subsequent production of Fischer-Tropsch liquids biofuels, bioproducts and biorefining 2:229-238. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.73

  • Wrobel-Tobiszewska A, Boersma M, Sargison J, Adams P, Jarick S (2015) An economic analysis of biochar production using residues from Eucalypt plantations. Biomass Bioenergy 81:177–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.06.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yazan DM, van Duren I, Mes M, Kersten S, Clancy J, Zijm H (2016) Design of sustainable second-generation biomass supply chains. Biomass Bioenergy 94:173–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.08.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the peer-reviews conducted by Drs. Sevda Alanya-Rosenbaum (USDA Forest Service) and Nalladurai Kaliyan (University of Georgia).

Funding

This material is based upon work supported by a grant from the US Department of Energy under the Biomass Research and Development Initiative program: Award Number DE-EE0006297.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Forest Products Laboratory, United States Forest Service, Madison, WI, 53726, USA

    Kamalakanta Sahoo, Richard Bergman & Edward Bilek

  2. Department of Biological Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, 53706, USA

    Kamalakanta Sahoo & Troy Runge

  3. Vinod Gupta School of Management, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India

    Amit Upadhyay

  4. WoodLife Environmental Consultants & Consortium for Research on Renewable Industrial Materials (CORRIM), Corvallis, 97330, OR, USA

    Maureen Puettmann

Authors
  1. Kamalakanta Sahoo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amit Upadhyay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Troy Runge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Richard Bergman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Maureen Puettmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Edward Bilek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kamalakanta Sahoo.

Additional information

Communicated by: Jörg Schweinle

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 3.18 mb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sahoo, K., Upadhyay, A., Runge, T. et al. Life-cycle assessment and techno-economic analysis of biochar produced from forest residues using portable systems. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26, 189–213 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01830-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01830-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation