Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 1565–1573

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

GHG balances of bioenergy systems – Overview of key steps in the production

chain and methodological concerns
Francesco Cherubini*
Industrial Ecology Programme, Department of Energy and Process Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), 7491 Trondheim, Norway

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

Article history: This paper deals with a methodology for calculating the greenhouse gas (GHG) balances of bioenergy
Received 21 June 2009 systems producing electricity, heat and transportation biofuels from biomass residues or crops.
Accepted 20 November 2009 Proceeding from the standard Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) as defined by ISO 14040 norms, this work
Available online 29 December 2009
provides an overview of the application of the LCA methodology to bioenergy systems in order to
estimate GHG balances. In this paper, key steps in the bioenergy chain are identified and the bioenergy
Keywords:
systems are compared with fossil reference systems producing the same amount of final products/
GHG balance
services. The GHG emission balances of the two systems can thus be compared. Afterwards, the most
Bioenergy
Biomass important methodological assumptions (e.g. functional unit, allocation, reference system, system
Biofuels boundaries) and key aspects affecting the final outcomes are discussed. These key aspects are: changes in
organic carbon pools, land-use change effects (both direct and indirect), N2O and CH4 emissions from
agricultural soils and effects of crop residue removal for bioenergy use. This paper finally provides some
guidelines concerning the compilation of GHG balances of bioenergy systems, with recommendations
and indications on how to show final results, address the key methodological issues and give homog-
enous findings (in order to enhance the comparison across case studies).
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction balance calculation of biomass based energy (i.e. bioenergy) systems,

Our strong dependence on fossil fuels results on the intensive
use and consumption of petroleum derivatives which, combined
with diminishing petroleum resources, causes environmental and
political concerns. There is clear scientific evidence that emissions
of greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane
(CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), arising from fossil fuel combustion
and land-use change as a result of human activities, are perturbing
the Earth’s climate [1]. New renewable sources for energy and
transportation fuels are therefore object of research and develop-
ment activities. Biomass is a promising alternative to fossil fuels for
producing electricity and transportation biofuels, since it is
a renewable source of carbon and it is locally available in many
countries, with the advantage to promote and revitalize rural areas.
In addition, if managed with sustainable practices, it can be a valu-
able option for mitigating climate change and increasing national
energy security.
There is a broad agreement in the scientific community that Life-
Cycle Assessment (LCA) is one of the best methodologies for the GHG
* Tel.: þ4773598942.
E-mail address: francesco.cherubini@ntnu.no
by identifying energy and materials used as well as direct and indirect
GHG emissions [2,3]. Given the variety of processes leading to bio-
energy and the numerous assumptions on which bioenergy systems
are based, outcomes of GHG balances can differ even for apparently
similar systems. The main reasons for diverging results are:
- type of biomass sources,
- conversion technologies,
- input data,
- end-use technologies,
- allocation method,
- system boundaries,
- reference energy system and
- other assumptions (such as land-use change effects, soil N2O
emissions, data quality and age, etc.).
The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the most
important steps in bioenergy production chains and discuss the key
methodological aspects affecting final results. In order to increase
the uniformity of basic assumptions and comparability of case
studies, some guidelines and recommendations for GHG balances of
bioenergy systems are finally proposed.

0960-1481/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2009.11.035
1566 F. Cherubini / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 1565–1573

2. The LCA approach
An LCA is the investigation and evaluation of the environmental
impacts of a given product or service. This assessment methodology
is based on the identification of energy and materials used and
emissions released to the environment. LCA evaluates all stages of
a production chain from the perspective that they are interdepen-
dent, meaning that one operation leads to the next. LCA includes the
estimation of environmental impacts (e.g. GHG emissions) from all
stages in the product life cycle. One of the main reasons for which an
LCA is applied is to compare the full range of environmental and
social damages assignable to products and services, with the
possibility to make comparisons and choose the least burdensome
alternative (e.g. comparison of electricity production from biomass
residues and coal).
As reported in Fig. 1, the term life cycle refers to the major
activities in the course of the product’s life span, from raw materials
acquisition, processing, to recycle and waste management,
accounting for all the auxiliary energy and material inputs required
along the full chain in the inventory.
As defined in the ISO 14040 standards, a typical LCA study
consists of the following stages:
the form of elementary flows to and from the environment
from all the unit processes involved in the study (ISO 14041).
3. Life-Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA): assessment of the
potential impacts associated with the identified forms of
resource use and environmental emissions. This phase aims at
evaluating the contribution to impact categories such as global
warming, acidification, etc. The first step is termed character-
ization. Here, impact potentials are calculated based on the LCI
results. The next two steps are normalization and weighting,
but these are both voluntary according to the ISO standard.
Normalization provides a basis for comparing different types of
environmental impact categories (all impacts get the same
unit). Weighting implies assigning a weighting factor to each
impact category depending on the relative importance (ISO
14042).
4. Life-Cycle Interpretation: interpretation of the results from the
previous phases of the study in relation to the objectives of the
study. All conclusions are drafted during this phase. Sometimes
an independent critical review is necessary, especially when
comparisons are made that are used in the public domain (ISO
14043).

1. Goal and scope definition: define and describe the object of the
analysis, establish the context in which the assessment is
developed, discuss assumptions and data quality, identify
system boundaries and environmental effects. The object of
study is described in terms of a so-called functional unit (ISO
14041).
2. Life-cycle inventory (LCI): this phase involves data collection
and modelling, compilation of data both about energy and
material flows and emissions to the environment, throughout
the life cycle of the case study. Usually, life-cycle inventories
and modelling are carried out using dedicated software pack-
ages. The data must be related to the functional unit defined in
the goal and scope definition. Data can be presented in tables
and some interpretations can be made already at this stage. The
LCI table provides information about all inputs and outputs in
3. LCA and bioenergy: background and current situation
Bioenergy is renewable energy made available from materials
derived from biological sources, i.e. biomass. Biomass is any organic
material which has stored sunlight in the form of chemical energy.
A wide range of biomass sources can be used to produce bioenergy
in a variety of forms. For example, food, fibre, and wood process
residues from industrial sectors, energy and perennial crops and
agricultural residues from the agricultural sector and forest resi-
dues and short-rotation coppice from the forestry sector can be
utilized to generate electricity, heat, combined heat and power and
other bioenergy carriers. Bioenergy provides about 10% of the
world’s total primary energy supply and most of this is for use in
the residential sector (for heating and cooking). In 2005, bioenergy
represented 78% of all renewable energy produced [4].

Life-Cycle Chain

Raw material acquisition

Useful Products

Processing/Manufacturing
Main Product(s)

Input Flows Co-Products

Transportation/Distribution
Energy

Raw Materials Emissions

Use/Reuse/Maintenance

Atmosphere

Recycle Soil

Water

Waste Management

Fig. 1. Scheme of the main steps and flows involved in a generic life cycle assessment.
 F. Cherubini / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 1565–1573
3.1. Biomass for heat and power
A variety of biomass resources (wood, crop residues, municipal
solid waste, grasses and others) are utilized through combustion, to
generate bioenergy in the form of heat and power. Generally,
electricity from biomass is produced using a steam cycle process, in
which biomass is burned in a boiler to produce high pressure steam
which activates a turbine connected to an electric generator [4].
Biomass is usually fed into the system as chips, pellets or briquettes.
Biomass can also be burned with coal in a boiler of a conventional
power plant to yield steam and electricity. Co-firing biomass with
coal is currently the most cost-efficient way of incorporating
renewable technologies into conventional power production
because much of the existing power plant infrastructure can be
used without consistent modifications.
GHG balances of bioenergy systems producing electricity and
heat were investigated using an LCA approach and many case
studies are currently available in the scientific literature [5–7].
Almost all studies reveal that consistent GHG emission savings
are achieved when electricity and heat from biomass displace
electricity and heat produced from fossil sources (e.g. coal, oil,
natural gas). When compared with other renewable sources,
biomass-derived electricity generally has higher GHG emissions
than hydropower, wind power and geothermal power, while it is
comparable to photovoltaic electricity [5].
3.2. Biomass for transportation biofuels
Currently, transportation fuels based on biomass (i.e. biofuels)
are identified as 1st and 2nd generation biofuels. First generation
biofuels are produced from sugar, starch, vegetable oil or animal fats
using conventional technologies. The basic feedstocks are often
seeds and grains such as wheat, corn and rapeseed. The most
common first generation biofuels are bioethanol, biodiesel and
starch-derived biogas, but also straight vegetable oils, biomethanol
and bioethers may be included in this category. The main advan-
tages of first generation biofuels are due to the high sugar or oil
content of the raw materials and their easy conversion into biofuel.
Many biofuel production chains have been analysed by means of
Life-Cycle Assessment in order to point out the environmental
aspects affecting biofuels [8,9]. With the exception of a few studies,
most LCAs have found a significant net reduction in global warming
emissions and fossil energy consumption when the most common
transportation biofuels (bioethanol and biodiesel) are used to
replace conventional diesel and gasoline [10–12]. However, first
generation biofuels currently produced from sugars, starches and
vegetable oils give rise to several concerns: these productions
compete with food and feed for their feedstock and fertile land, their
potential availability is limited by soil fertility and per hectare yields
and the effective savings of CO2 emissions are limited by the high
energy input required for crop cultivation and biomass conversion
to fuel [13,14]. These limitations are expected to be partially
overcome by developing the so-called 2nd generation biofuels.
Second generation biofuels are produced from a variety of non-
food crops which are not in competition with the food and feed
industries. These include the utilization of lignocellulosic materials,
such as residues from agriculture, forestry and industry and dedi-
cated crops. Conflicts with food and feed crops for fertile land are
reduced, because these crops may also grow on poor and degraded
soils and semi-arid regions. Contrary to first generation biofuels,
where the utilized fraction (grains and seeds), represents only
a small portion of the above-ground biomass, second generation
biofuels can often rely on the whole plant for bioenergy production.
Second generation biofuels (e.g. Fisher Tropsch (FT)-diesel from
biomass and bioethanol from lignocellulosic feedstock, among
1567
others) promise advantages over 1st generation biofuels in terms of
land-use efficiency and environmental performance [15,16].
4. GHG oriented LCA of bioenergy systems
4.1. GHG balance
In a GHG balance, emissions of the three most important
greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O) must be accounted for over the
entire life cycle of the bioenergy system. These gases can be emitted
directly (i.e. biomass combustion and decrease of organic carbon
pools,) or indirectly (i.e. combustion of auxiliary energy inputs,
production of auxiliary materials, indirect land-use change) and are
responsible for the effect of increasing temperature in the lower
atmosphere. This effect is quantified by using global warming
potentials (GWPs) for substances having the same effect as CO2 in
reflection of heat radiation. GWPs for greenhouse gases are
expressed as CO2-equivalents, i.e. their effect is expressed relatively
to the effect of CO2. GWPs are developed by IPCC (Intergovern-
mental Panel on Climate Change) and are quantified for time
horizons of 20, 100 or 500 years. Equivalence factors for the three
most important gases are (100 years time horizon):
- 1 g CO2 ¼ 1 g CO2-eq.
- 1 g CH4 ¼ 23 g CO2-eq.
- 1 g N2O ¼ 296 g CO2-eq.
The global warming potential of the bioenergy and its fossil
reference system can then be estimated by calculating the total
GHG emissions along the production chains, multiplying the
GHG emissions by the respective equivalence factors and finally
summed up.
The results of a GHG balance should be related to the defined
functional unit (see following section) and are given as follows:
1. Total GHG emissions of the bioenergy chain, according to
the following units: per year (kg CO2-eq./a), per unit biomass
(kg CO2-eq./kg), per hectare of dedicated agricultural land
(if dedicated biomass crops are used as raw materials) (kg CO2-
eq./ha), per kW h of electricity produced (kg CO2-eq./kW he) or
km driven for transportation biofuels (kg CO2-eq./km).
2. Total GHG emissions of the reference system, to be expressed
per year, per unit of electricity or heat produced, and km driven
by a car fuelled with gasoline or diesel.
3. Estimate the GHG savings of the bioenergy system (given by
subtracting point 1 from point 2) and express the results per
year, per unit of electricity or heat and km driven. When
biomass comes from dedicated crops, the annual savings per
hectare are of capital importance and should be estimated (by
dividing the total annual savings by the agricultural hectares
required to grow the crop).
4.2. Functional unit
One of the main purposes of the functional unit is to provide
a reference to which the input and output process data are
normalized and the basis on which the final results are shown.
Concerning LCA of bioenergy systems, results should be
expressed in terms of the same functional unit, to ensure that the
comparison is based on delivery of the same service. When
assessing the GHG balance of energy systems the approach often
practiced is to use measures such as input–output ratios or absolute
emissions and primary energy requirements to be compared with
conventional fossil fuel systems. As noted by Larson [2], few studies
1568 F. Cherubini / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 1565–1573
carry the analysis further and express results on a per vehicle-km
basis, which is the best way to show the LCA findings of trans-
portation biofuel systems, in order to make them comparable with
conventional diesel and gasoline. However, relatively few studies
focus on the question of relative land-use efficiency for different
biofuel pathways, which should be the first parameter to take into
account when dedicated energy crops compete against food, feed
or fibre production under land-availability constraints, in order to
use scarce land resources as efficiently as possible [17].
Therefore, it is extremely important that GHG balances of bio-
energy from dedicated biomass crops should be also expressed on
a per hectare basis, since the available area for the production of
biomass raw materials is the biggest bottleneck for the production of
bioenergy. On the other hand, for biomass residue feedstocks, the
results should be expressed on a per unit output (kW h, km) basis, in
order to make the assessment independent from the kind of biomass
feedstock, or per unit input basis (kg, or J of feedstock) in order to be
independent from the conversion process (this is usually the most
relevant option when comparing the best use for a given residue).
At first, it is recommended to show the results before under-
taking any allocation step, e.g. reporting the final outcomes on
a year basis. Afterwards, GHG emissions should be allocated to the
different co-products using different allocation criteria (see
following section). At a later step, GHG savings per year can be
estimated, along with other parameters like GHG emissions and
savings per unit of biomass, final product (either kW h or km) and
dedicated agricultural land.
4.3. Allocation
Allocation in LCA is carried out to attribute shares of the total
environmental impact to the different products of a system. This
concept is extremely important for bioenergy systems where
multiple products are produced (e.g. electricity and heat from CHP
application, animal feed from bioethanol production). The issue of
the most suitable allocation procedure is still open. Scientific
publications show benefits and disadvantages of several allocation
methods in LCA [18–21].
The ISO standards suggest to avoid allocation by expanding system
boundaries, when possible. This method relies on the expansion
of the product system to include the additional functions related to
the co-products. This procedure (called substitution method or
system expansion) has the advantage to avoid allocation issues.
If substitution method cannot be applied, input and output data
might be allocated between co-products in proportion to thermo-
dynamic and physic parameters (such as energy or exergy content
of outputs) or to the economic value of products. Allocation
methods based on thermodynamic parameters and economic
values of the products share the environmental burdens among the
different outputs, without identifying a main product. Since the
choice of the allocation method has a large influence on final
results, this topic should be always investigated in a sensitivity
analysis, where different methods are compared.
4.4. Bioenergy systems vs. reference systems
In general, the GHG balances of bioenergy systems should be
compared with fossil reference systems [22]. In Fig. 2, the full fuel
chains of a bioenergy (left side) and a fossil (right side) system
producing electricity and heat are compared. The bioenergy chain
starts at the top of the diagram with carbon fixation from the
atmosphere via photosynthesis, or biomass carbon taken as
biomass waste from the agricultural or forest product sector. At the
end of the bioenergy chain a certain amount of useful energy
(electricity and heat) is supplied. All energy inputs and GHG
emissions occurring along the fuel chain, for planting and har-
vesting the crops, processing the feedstock into biofuel, trans-
porting and storing of feedstocks, distributing and final use of
biofuels must be accounted for using a life-cycle perspective. Non-
energy utilization of by-products must also be considered; by-
products can be used to displace other materials, having GHG and
energy implications (i.e. GHG credits). The fossil fuel energy system
is dealt with in a similar way, including all GHG emissions and
energy consumption associated with the following life-cycle stages:
production of the raw fossil fuel, refining, storage, distribution and
combustion. When production of feedstocks for bioenergy uses land
previously dedicated to other purposes or when the same feedstock
is used for another task (e.g. corn to bioethanol instead of animal
feed), the reference system should include an alternative land use or
an alternative biomass use, respectively. Similarly, when the bio-
energy pathway delivers some co-products able to replace existing
products (thus saving GHG emissions), the reference substituted
products should be defined in the fossil reference system and
emissions for their production accounted for in the GHG balance.
If presented in this manner, the differences between the two
systems producing the same product/service can be compared.
Final savings per year, per hectare of land, per unit of biomass
should be given in order to provide a complete picture of the
investigated bioenergy system.
In the estimation of the GHG savings of the bioenergy system,
the definition of the fossil reference system has a strong impor-
tance. According to the assumptions made, results can widely differ.
For instance, fossil-derived electricity can be assumed to be
produced from oil, natural gas, coal or other sources, all of which
having different GHG emission factors. In order to compare the
bioenergy system with the fossil best available technologies (but the
definition of the reference system might even depend on particular
needs of the study, as defined in the goal and scope phase), elec-
tricity in the fossil reference system should be produced from
natural gas: this option has a GHG emission factor of 120 g CO2-eq./
MJ. By contrast, if coal electricity is replaced, the GHG emission
factor is 237 g CO2-eq./MJ [23]. As a consequence, there is a big
difference in the resulting GHG emission savings of the bioenergy
system: savings will be much larger if coal electricity is displaced.
5. Key steps in the bioenergy chain
5.1. Source of biomass
Biomass for bioenergy purposes can be obtained in two ways:
from residues and from dedicated energy crops. The source of
biomass has a big impact on GHG balance outcomes.
Unlike dedicated bioenergy crops, biomass residues (i.e. mate-
rials of biological origin arising as by-products from agriculture,
forestry and industrial activities) are not produced specifically for
use as an energy resource. They are the result of economic activity
and production of goods in almost all sectors of the economy. As the
production of these residues occurs anyway, their utilization as
energy sources does not usually increase environmental pressures.
However, there are some exceptions:
- The removal of forestry or agricultural residues from land can
reduce carbon storage in carbon pools like soil, dead wood or
litter, and can deplete soil nutrients.
- The creation of a market for biomass residues or by-products,
giving an additional income stream, can make the production
of the main commodity (such as timber) economically more
attractive, leading to expansion of this land use, which may
have negative environmental impacts (for example, if native
forests are replaced). However, increased production of wood
 F. Cherubini / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 1565–1573
Fig. 2. Full life-cycle chains for comparison of bioenergy and fossil energy systems.
products may also have positive climatic impacts through
substitution of more emission intensive materials.
The diversion of biomass residues away from landfill to energy
recovery can also alleviate some of the environmental pressures
associated with landfill, such as methane emissions from anaerobic
decomposition of biomass in landfill.
Concerning dedicated biomass crops, they are grown first and
foremost for energy, though they may also produce non-energy by-
products. The ideal energy crop has efficient solar energy conver-
sion resulting in high yields (C4 plants are more efficient converters
in high light and high temperature conditions), needs low agro-
chemical inputs, has a low water requirement and has low moisture
levels at harvest. While it is difficult to find a crop that meets all
these criteria, perennial C4 grasses such as Miscanthus and
switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) are particularly promising [24].
Plants with perennial growth habits have the advantages of low
establishment costs (when averaged across the rotation) and more
resilient in drought. When combustion is the end use of biomass,
1569
yield is probably the major decider between alternative crops,
while for other end uses (e.g. transportation biofuels) quality and
suitability of the crop are highly significant. The relative economic
returns are likely to be the major driver in deciding the outcome of
competition for land use between bioenergy and production of
food, feed and fibre. The relative returns for bioenergy compared
with other land uses will be influenced by relative yields and
values, which are determined by market forces and market
distortions (e.g. subsidies). The yield and value of by-products (e.g.
fodder) will also be significant.
Another important aspect is the growing techniques at different
intensity levels depending on farming operations. In fact, the
increasing intensity of cultivation (i.e. the frequency of tillage,
quantity of fertilizer, use of irrigation) increases yields, but also
increases GHG emissions and can challenge the goal of a sustain-
able production. In any case, it is clear that, to be developed, energy
crops must fall within the parameters of sustainable agriculture.
Dedicated energy crops can have the added benefit of providing
certain ecosystem services (e.g. C sequestration, biodiversity
1570 F. Cherubini / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 1565–1573
enhancement, salinity mitigation, enhancement of soil and water
quality); the value of these services will depend on the particular
bioenergy system in question and the reference land use that it
displaces. For example, these benefits will be high for a mixed
species woodland planted into a cropping district suffering dry-
land salinity as a result of historical land clearing while, on the
other hand, if native tropical forests are displaced by bioenergy
crops, the value of ecosystem services may be reduced.
5.2. Cultivation and harvest (or collection)
In the case of crops cultivated specifically for biofuel production,
GHG emissions are released from energy and material inputs
required by agricultural activities. Fossil fuels and energy are
consumed in ploughing and sowing, fertilizer application, crop
management, and harvesting processes. The GHG emissions asso-
ciated with agricultural operations, fossil fuel use and manufacture
of auxiliary materials (i.e. fertilizers, machineries, herbicides) must
be also accounted for in the GHG balance of the system.
By contrast, when a crop residue is used for energy production,
the auxiliary energy and material inputs of the agricultural phase
can be assumed to be zero. In fact, all the emissions from crop
handling are attributed to the grains and not to the straw or stover.
However, emissions due to a prior use of the residues and to
machinery for their collection and delivery are taken into account.
For instance, if the prior use of the residue was landfilling, the
emissions avoided from stopping landfilling must be included in
the GHG balance. Similarly, a bioenergy system based on a collec-
tion of forest residues may cause a decline of carbon storage in
forest litter and soil pools with a negative effect in the GHG balance.
These concerns are grouped within the land-use change effects,
which will be discussed in a following section.
5.3. Fertilizer production and application
In the GHG balance of bioenergy systems based on dedicated
crops, a relevant role is usually played by emissions from fertilizer
manufacture. The emission factors used for fertilizer production can
vary largely in LCA studies which are even based on the same biofuel
pathways. For instance, fertilizer application rates range from 53 to
196 kg N/ha, and primary energy inputs to make nitrogenous
fertilizer vary from 42 to 70 MJ/kg N, depending on the fertilizer
production process [25]. As a consequence, the related GHG emis-
sions for fertilizer production change as well: the range is estimated
to be 3–9.6 kg CO2-eq./kg N, because of different processing
technologies, energy sources and utilization of co-products [26].
5.4. Pre-treatment and transport
After harvesting of the biomass crop, other sources of GHG
emissions are those associated with energy inputs to biomass pre-
treatment processes, like natural gas or electricity used to dry or
chop. In addition, dried biomass needs to be transported to the
conversion or end-use facilities. In order to estimate the GHG
emissions of this step, the transport distance and the type of truck
or vessel used must be defined. Usually, to reduce transportation
costs and enhance handling of the feedstock, biomass is processed
into chips, pellets or briquettes at the source, i.e. the field, the forest
or the industry (in case of process residues).
5.5. Conversion, distribution and combustion
Other GHG emissions in the bioenergy chains are released from
the energy inputs required to process the biomass source into
a suitable biofuel or energy product. For instance, when biodiesel
is produced, the oil must be crushed out of the crop, refined,
transesterified with an alcohol and then distributed to final users to
be combusted in vehicles. All these processes require energy, both
heat (supplied with natural gas or oil) and electricity (usually taken
from the grid), which results in GHG emissions which usually have
a significant influence in the final balance. By contrast, when
biomass is used for heat and electricity generation, energy inputs
for treatments are lower than those required for transportation
biofuel chains (after drying, biomass is usually converted to energy
dense forms like chips or pellets and then directly burnt to produce
heat and/or power).
When biomass is combusted the resulting CO2 emission is not
accounted for as a GHG because C has a biological origin and
combustion of biomass releases almost the same amount of CO2 as
was captured by the plant during its growth. However, combustion
reactions cause emissions of other GHGs like N2O and CH4, which
must be estimated and accounted for in the GHG balance (even if
their contribution is expected to be small).
In case of transportation biofuel production, the bioenergy
carrier needs to be distributed to the final users by means of suit-
able transport means (e.g. trucks, ships, rails). This step usually has
a small influence in the GHG balance if the fuel is used within
a range of 200–300 km, while it may become relevant if a trans-
oceanic boat transport takes place.
Combustion of transportation biofuels in vehicles or biomass in
turbines releases, besides the biological CO2, other GHGs like N2O
and CH4 (along with other chemical species to be included in other
impact categories) which must be accounted for in the GHG balance.
6. Key aspects to be considered in the GHG balances
In GHG balances of bioenergy systems, there are some key
methodological aspects that must be carefully addressed given
their potential strong influence on final results. These aspects
should be clearly presented and discussed in the goal and scope
definition section, and every assumption supported by appropriate
literature references or modelling studies. A sensitivity or uncer-
tainty analysis, where the influence of these key factors is carefully
investigated, is also recommended. In particular, the role of the
sensitivity analysis is estimating the effects of variations in key
parameters to the outcome of the study, in order to establish
a required degree of confidence in the results of the bioenergy
system relative to its overall goal. In particular, the objective of this
step is to review the results of the analyses, identify the parameters
which have the largest influence on the final results and check the
accuracy of those data. For instance, these key parameters can be
changed according to different data sources or assumptions, and
the outcomes compared.
The most important key methodological issues to be addressed
in GHG balances of bioenergy systems are discussed hereinafter.
6.1. Changes in organic carbon stocks
Generally, organic C is stored in three different pools: vegetation
(including roots), litter (including dead wood) and soil. When
changing land utilization, these storage pools can change until
a new equilibrium is reached. This is an important aspect because of
the large quantities of carbon in soil organic matter: these pools of
carbon are so large that even relatively small percentage increases
or decreases in their size can have relevance in the GHG balance.
Land-use changes are therefore deemed especially important, and
their effects can consistently reduce GHG savings of bioenergy
systems based on dedicated crops or agricultural and forest resi-
dues, depending on the nature of the changes and the period of
time assumed.
 F. Cherubini / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 1565–1573
The production of dedicated crops for bioenergy requires an
agricultural plot that was previously used, and would otherwise be
used, for a different purpose. This means that there is a direct land-
use change which can have an influence on the GHG balance, and,
on the other hand, the alternative land use (indirect) could have an
energy use or climate emission that should be subtracted from the
new situation [27]. Therefore, there is a distinction between direct
and indirect land-use change.
6.2. Direct land-use change
Direct land-use change occurs when new agricultural land is
taken into production and feedstock for biofuel purposes
displaces a prior land use (e.g. conversion of forest land to
sugarcane plantations), thereby generating possible changes to
the carbon stock of that land. Depending on the earlier use of the
land and the crop to be established, this can be a benefit or
a disadvantage: when a forest is converted to agricultural land for
biofuel production there would be a loss of carbon stocks; on the
other hand, when set-aside land is taken into production the
carbon stock may increase. For instance, a study conducted on
agricultural land converted from annual row crops to perennial
grasses demonstrated an increase in carbon sequestration: up to
1.1 t C/ha were sequestered during five years of monitoring [28].
Other studies have also shown that perennial grasses grown for
biomass feedstock production have the potential to substantially
increase soil C levels [29–33]. However, the changes of carbon in
soil and other pools are very site-specific and highly dependent
on former and current agronomic practices, climate, and soil
characteristics [2].
Even if GHG emissions from direct land-use change have just
been included in LCA studies of bioenergy systems recently, some
default values already exist. IPCC provides default values by which
it is possible to estimate the annual effect of direct land-use change
[34], and other factors can be found in literature references. Several
software tools able to model C stock changes are also available
[35–37]. Drawing general figures for the quantification of direct
land-use change in GHG balances is difficult, each case study should
be addressed autonomously and different parameters modelled in
a sensitivity analysis.
6.3. Indirect land-use change
Indirect land-use change (or leakage) occurs when land currently
used for feed or food crops is changed into bioenergy feedstock
production and the demand for the previous land use (i.e. feed, food)
remains, the displaced agricultural production will move to other
places where unfavourable land-use change may occur [38].
In order to meet a given demand of bioenergy a certain amount
of feedstock is needed and, in general, these feedstock quantities
can be obtained by [39]:
- biomass use substitution (i.e. destined to biofuel production
instead of food purposes),
- crop area expansion,
- shortening the rotation length, and
- yield increment in the same land.
Apart from the latter, all the other strategies may result in
indirect land-use effects. GHG emissions from indirect land-use
change are claimed to be even more important than emissions from
direct land-use change and, despite the high inaccuracy and
calculation difficulties, some authors elaborated a range of values to
show the magnitude of this effect [40–43]. However, if bioenergy
crops are cultivated on fallow, marginal or degraded land where
1571
previously no conventional crops were grown, and management
strategies such as those proposed in Cerri and Cerri [44] are
implemented, no indirect land-use change occurs and the GHG
balance can even turn favourably, as in the case of perennial grasses
discussed above.
6.4. N2O and CH4 emissions from agricultural soils
An important variable in LCA studies is the contribution to net
GHG emissions of N2O, which evolves from nitrogen fertilizer
application and organic matter decomposition in soil [45]. The
application of fertilizer to agricultural land has an effect on the
nutrient balance of the soil. Emissions from fields vary depending
on soil type, climate, crop, tillage method, and fertilizer and manure
application rates [2]. The uncertainties in actual emissions are
magnified by the high global warming potential of N2O, 298 times
greater than CO2. The impacts of N2O emissions are especially
significant for annual biofuel crops, since fertilization rates are
larger for these than for perennial energy crops. Crops grown in
high rainfall environments or under flood irrigation have the
highest N2O emissions, as denitrification, the major process leading
to N2O production, is favoured under moist soil conditions where
oxygen availability is low [46]. In order to include N2O soil emis-
sions in the GHG balance, default emission factors published by
IPCC, which estimates different types of emissions, can be used
[34]. These default values estimate that about 1.0–1.5% of N in
synthetic fertilizer is emitted as N in N2O. A recent study suggests
that these default values may underestimate N2O emissions 3–5
folds [47].
Concerning CH4 emissions, cultivation of agricultural and
energy crops can reduce the oxidation of methane in aerobic
soils, and thereby increase the concentration of methane in the
atmosphere [48,49]. The reduction in soil uptake (oxidation) of
methane is related both to the use of nitrogen fertilizer and
cultivation type; the reduction in methane uptake is equivalent to
an emission of methane from cultivated soils. A default value of
10 g CH4/kg N for the emission of CH4 from agricultural land is
reasonable for most circumstances and results in a relatively
small contribution to life-cycle GHG emissions of the bioenergy
chain [50].
6.5. Effects of crop residue removal
There is an ongoing debate on the actual possibilities of crop
residue removal from agricultural cropping systems for bioenergy
production [51,52]. The reference uses of agricultural residues are
mainly two: straw can be used as fodder for animals or ploughed
back to the field to maintain soil quality. In the first case, an
alternative source of animal feed should be assumed and included
in the analysis, while in the second case some issues need to be
addressed. In fact, current experimental evidences on the effect of
straw removal on processes like soil organic turnover, soil erosion
or crop yields are not consistent because of the strong influence of
local conditions (climate, soil type and crop management). There
are few references on these effects in the scientific literature, and
the patterns are not consistent across references. However,
removing crop residues for bioenergy production should ensure
environmental, economic and social benefits able to outweigh
the direct and ancillary benefits of stover retention (such as
soil quality).
Usually, differences across rotations are estimated to be gener-
ally more important than those related to straw management for
a given rotation: in a recent study, the removal of straw implied
limited consequences on field emissions [53]. The main GHG
implications which must be considered when crop residues are
1572 F. Cherubini / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 1565–1573
removed from a field where they were previously ploughed back
are the following:
- Grain productivity may decrease because of a lower net
mineralization of N in soils [53]. The implications on GHG
balances of bioenergy systems consist in an increase of
synthetic fertilizer application to balance the nutrient removed
with the straw and minimize the decrease on crop yields.
- N2O emissions are deemed to decrease slightly with increasing
straw removal. The reason is that straw return to soil increases
soil’s denitrification potentials and its capacity to produce N2O
[54]. This effect should be accounted for in the GHG balance.
- Straw removal contributes to increase global warming due to
the change of soil carbon stocks, in comparison with the case in
which straw is left in the ground. However, soil carbon loss can
be reduced through proper crop rotations.
- The manufacture of the additional fertilizers required to
maintain grain yields releases GHG emissions to be accounted
for in the GHG balance.
- The application of N fertilizers has also an influence on soil CH4
emissions, which must be estimated.
All these GHG effects induced by land-use change (GHGLUC) can
then be summarized as follows:
GHGLUC ¼ DSOC þ DN2 O þ FM þ DCH4
where DSOC is the change (either increase or decrease) in soil
organic carbon (SOC), DN2O is the variation in soil N2O emissions
due to residue collection, FM the GHG emissions from the manu-
facture of the additional fertilizers used to maintain crop yields, and
CH4 the variation in soil methane emissions from fertilizer use.
7. Conclusions: guidelines and recommendations
- GHG balances of bioenergy systems must be carried out with
a life-cycle perspective, i.e. accounting for all the direct and
indirect GHG emissions (CO2, CH4, N2O) occurring along the
production chain.
- GHG balances of bioenergy systems should be always
compared with reference systems (which needs to be clearly
defined) producing the same amount of product/services from
fossil sources. The resulting GHG emissions’ savings can
therefore be estimated.
- The study should select the most appropriate functional unit
for the assessment, according to the goal of the analysis.
- When a bioenergy system produces multiple products (e.g.
heat and power from CHP applications) allocation can be
avoided by means of system expansion (or substitution
method). Alternatively, other thermodynamic or physic prop-
erties of the co-products can be used as criterion for the
allocation.
- Any change (both decline and increase) in C stock of any pool
should be taken into consideration in calculating the GHG
balance of bioenergy systems, because this dynamics may have
a large influence on final results.
- As a general principle, each bioenergy system (especially those
based on dedicated energy crops) should minimize the
References
depletion of carbon stocks, in order to maximize GHG emission
savings.
- Dedicated energy crops like perennial grasses (e.g. switchgrass
and miscanthus) can enhance carbon sequestration in soils if
established in set-aside and annual row crop land, thus
increasing the GHG savings of the system.
- When agricultural residues are used as raw materials, best
management practices and above-ground residue harvest rates
need to be established for minimum amount of crop residue
that must be retained on the soil to maintain soil organic
carbon, minimizing erosion and protecting soil quality and
productivity. This very complex issue must be addressed
regionally if not on a field or even subfield basis. Rotation,
tillage and fertilization management, soil properties and
climate will all play major roles in determining the amount of
crop residue that can be removed in a sustainable system.
- LCA results of bioenergy systems from dedicated crops should
be expressed on a per hectare basis, since the available land for
production of biomass raw materials is one of the biggest
bottlenecks.
- LCA results of bioenergy systems based on biomass residues
should be expressed on a per unit output basis, if the evalua-
tion needs to be independent from the kind of biomass feed-
stock (e.g. when different raw materials are compared), or per
unit input basis, in order to be independent from final products
and conversion processes.
- LCA results of transportation biofuel production should be
expressed per km basis, in order to take into account engine
mechanical efficiencies, type of fuel and emissions from
combustion (which are relevant for fossil reference systems
based on conventional fossil fuels).
- Bioenergy systems based on industrial waste and residues are
expected to provide the largest GHG savings, since they avoid
the high impacts of dedicated crop production, save the
emissions from waste management and do not have land-use
change implications.
- Given constraints in land resources and competition with food,
feed and fibre production, high biomass yields are extremely
important in achieving high GHG emission savings, although
use of chemical fertilizers to enhance production can reduce
the savings.
- Fossil energy savings and GHG mitigation are increased if
agricultural co-products (stover, straw.) or process residues
(lignin, char.) are combusted to run the biomass conversion
plants.
- When agricultural residues are collected from fields and used
for bioenergy production, the effects of the removal on that
particular soil type cannot be neglected and the GHG impli-
cations (e.g. lower yields, change in N2O and CH4 emissions
from land and decline in soil carbon pools) should be
accounted for when compiling the overall balance of the
bioenergy system.
- High biomass conversion efficiency to energy products is
fundamental for maximising GHG emission savings.
- A lower degree of savings is achieved when power from
natural gas or cogeneration sources is displaced; high emission
savings rate is achieved when coal-generated power, especially
with low efficiency, is displaced.
- Bioenergy systems can contribute to GHG mitigation strategies
in transport and energy sectors only if significant emissions
from land-use change are avoided (or minimized) and appro-
priate production chains are set up.
[1] IPCC. Climate change 2007: mitigation. In: Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR,
Dave R, Meyer LA, editors. Contribution of working group 3 to the fourth
assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cam-
bridge, United Kingdom and New York, USA: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
[2] Larson E. A review of LCA studies on liquid biofuels for the transport sector. In:
Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel of the Global Environment Facility
 F. Cherubini / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 1565–1573
(STAP) workshop on liquid biofuels, 29 August to 1 September 2005. New
Delhi – India; 2005.
[3] Zah R, Boni H, Gauch M, Hischier R, Lehmann M, Wager P. Life cycle assessment
of energy products: environmental assessment of biofuels. Final report. Bern:
EMPA – Technology and Society Lab, Auftrag des Bundesamtes für Energie, des
Bundesamtes für Umwelt und des Bundesamtes für Landwirtschaft; 2007.
[4] GBEP, Global Bioenergy Partnership. A review of the current state of bioenergy
development in G8 þ 5 countries. Rome: GBEP Secretariat, Food and Agri-
culture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Website: ftp://ftp.fao.org/
docrep/fao/010/a1348e/a1348e00.pdf; 2007.
[5] Cherubini F, Bird N, Cowie A, Jungmeier G, Schlamadinger B, Woess-Gallasch S.
Energy and GHG-based LCA of biofuel and bioenergy systems: key issues, ranges
and recommendation. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2009;53:434–47.
[6] Goglio P, Owende PMO. A screening LCA of short rotation coppice willow (Salix
sp.) feedstock production system for small-scale electricity generation. Bio-
systems Engineering 2009;103:389–94.
[7] Heller MC, Keoleian GA, Volk TA. Life cycle assessment of a willow bioenergy
cropping system. Biomass and Bioenergy 2003;25:147–65.
[8] Gasol CM, Gabarrell X, Anton A, Rigola M, Carrasco J, Ciria P, et al. Life cycle
assessment of a Brassica carinata bioenergy cropping system in southern
Europe. Biomass and Bioenergy 2007;31(8):543–55.
[9] Quintero JA, Montoya MI, Sánchez OJ, Giraldo OH, Cardona CA. Fuel ethanol
production from sugarcane and corn: comparative analysis for a Colombian
case. Energy 2008;33(3):385–99.
[10] von Blottnitz H, Curran MA. A review of assessments conducted on bio-ethanol
as a transportation fuel from a net energy, greenhouse gas, and environmental
life cycle perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production 2007;15:607–19.
[11] Kim S, Dale BE. Life cycle assessment of various cropping systems utilized for
producing biofuels: bioethanol and biodiesel. Biomass and Bioenergy 2005;
29:426–39.
[12] Punter G, Rickeard D, Larivé JF, Edwards R, Mortimer N, Horne R, et al. Well-to-
wheel evaluation for production of ethanol from wheat. A report by the
LowCVP fuels working group, WTW sub-group, FWG-P-04-024; October 2004.
[13] Marris E. Sugar cane and ethanol: drink the best and drive the rest. Nature
2006;444:670–2.
[14] Lange JP. Lignocellulose conversion: an introduction to chemistry, process and
economics. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefinery 2007;1:39–48.
[15] Jungbluth N, Frischknecht R, Faist Emmenegger M, Steiner R, Tuchschmid M.
Life cycle assessment of BTL-fuel production: life cycle impact assessment and
interpretation. RENEW – renewable fuels for advanced powertrains, sixth
framework programme: sustainable energy systems, deliverable: D 5.2.10.
Uster: ESU-services, http://www.renew-fuel.com; 2007.
[16] van Vliet OPR, Faaij APC, Turkenburg WC. Fischer-Tropsch diesel production in
a well-to-wheel perspective: a carbon, energy flow and cost analysis. Energy
Conversion and Management 2009;50:855–76.
[17] Schlamadinger B, Edwards R, Byrne KA, Cowie A, Faaij A, Green C, et al.
Optimizing the GHG benefits of bioenergy systems. In: 14th European biomass
conference, 17–21 October 2005, Paris, France; 2005.
[18] Curran MA. Co-product and input allocation approaches for creating life cycle
inventory data: a literature review. International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment 2007;12(1):65–78 [special issue].
[19] Ekvall T, Finnveden G. Allocation in ISO 14041 – a critical review. Journal of
Cleaner Production 2001;9:197–208.
[20] Frischknecht R. Allocation in life cycle inventory analysis for joint production.
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2000;5(2):85–95.
[21] Wang M, Lee H, Molburg J. Allocation of energy use in petroleum refineries to
petroleum products. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2004;9(1):
34–44.
[22] Schlamadinger B, Apps MJ, Bohlin F, Gustavsson L, Jungmeier G, Marland G,
et al. Towards a standard methodology for greenhouse gas balances of
bioenergy systems in comparison with fossil energy systems. Biomass and
Bioenergy 1997;13:359–75.
[23] Gemis. Data set on bioenergy for heat, electricity and transportation biofuel
systems. Graz, Austria: Joanneum Research. Software tool website: www.
gemis.de; 2008.
[24] Venturi P, Venturi G. Analysis of energy comparison for crops in European
agricultural systems. Biomass and Bioenergy 2003;25(3):235–55.
[25] Quirin M, Gartner SO, Pehnt M, Reinhardt GA. CO2 mitigation through biofuels
in the transport sector: status and perspectives. Main report. Heidelberg,
Germany: Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IFEU); 2004.
57pp.
[26] Wood S, Cowie A. A review of greenhouse gas emission factors for fertiliser
production, IEA bioenergy task 38, www.ieabioenergy-task38.org/publications/
GHGEmission_Fertilizer %20Production_July2004.pdf; June 2004 [accessed
08.05.08].
[27] Hamelinck C, Koop K, Croezen H, Koper M, Kampman B, Bergsma G. Technical
specification: greenhouse gas calculator for biofuel. SenterNovem, Ecofys. Website:
http://www.senternovem.nl/mmfiles/Technicalspecificationv2.1b20080813_
tcm24-280269.pdf; 2008.
1573
[28] Gebhart DL, Johnson HB, Mayeux HS, Polley HW. The CRP increases soil
organic carbon. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 1994;49:488–92.
[29] Lal R, Kimble LM, Follet RF, Cole CV. The potential of U.S. cropland to sequester
carbon and mitigate the greenhouse effect. Chelsea, MI: Ann Arbor Press; 1998.
[30] Garten CT, Wullschleger SD. Soil carbon dynamics beneath switchgrass as
indicated by stable isotope analysis. Journal of Environmental Quality 2000;29:
645–53.
[31] Zan CS, Fyles JW, Girouard P, Samson RA. Carbon sequestration in perennial
bioenergy, annual corn and uncultivated systems in Southern Quebec. Agri-
culture, Ecosystems and Environment 2001;86:135–44.
[32] Conant RT, Paustian K, Elliot ET. Grassland management and conversion into
grassland: effects on soil carbon. Ecological Application 2001;11:343–55.
[33] Franck AB, Berdahl JD, Hanson JD, Liebig MA, Johnson HA. Biomass and carbon
partitioning in switchgrass. Crop Science 2004;44:1391–6.
[34] IPCC. Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. In: Agriculture,
forestry and other land use, vol. 4. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change;
2006.
[35] Gabrielle B, Kengni L. Analysis and field-evaluation of the CERES models’ soil
components: nitrogen transfer and transformation. Soil Science Society of
American Journal 1996;60:142–9.
[36] Easter M, Paustian K, Killian K, Williams S, Feng T, Al-Adamat R, et al. The
GEFSOC soil carbon modelling system: a tool for conducting regional-scale soil
carbon inventories and assessing the impacts of land use change on soil
carbon. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 2007;122(1):13–25.
[37] Skjemstad JO, Spouncer LR, Cowie B, Swift RS. Calibration of the Rothamsted
organic carbon turnover model (RothC ver. 26.3), using measurable soil
organic carbon pools. Australian Journal of Soil Research 2004;42:79–88.
[38] Fritsche UR. Bioenergy life cycle analysis: beyond biofuels. In: Background
paper for the EEA expert meeting in Copenhagen, June 10, 2008 (Draft
version). Öko Institute; 2008.
[39] Gnansonou E, Panichelli L, Dauriat A, Villegas JD. Accounting for indirect land
use changes in GHG balances of biofuels – review of current approaches.
Working paper REF. 437.101. Ecole Poytechnique Federale de Lausanne.
Website: http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/121496/files/Accounting_for_ILUC_
in_biofuels_production.pdf; March 2008 [last visited 23.06.08].
[40] Fargione J, Hill J, Tilman D, Polasky S, Hawthorne P. Land clearing and the
biofuel carbon debt. Science 2008;319:1235–8.
[41] Farrell AE, O’Hare M. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from indirect land use
change (LUC). In: Memorandum for the California Air Resources Board, Energy
& Resources Group, University of California, Berkeley; 2008. p. 4.
[42] Fritsche UR. The ‘‘iLUC Factor’’ as a means to hedge risks of GHG emissions
from indirect land-use change associated with bioenergy feedstock provision.
In: Working paper prepared for BMU. Darmstadt: Oeko-Institut; 2008.
[43] Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton RA, Dong F, Elobeid A, Fabiosa J, et al. Use
of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions
from land use change. Science 2008;319(5867):1238–40.
[44] Cerri CE, Cerri CC. Biofuel carbon footprint: basis for a greenhouse gas emission
reduction. In: Presentation at biofuels and society workshop; 14 Nov 2007.
[45] Stehfest E, Bouwman L. N2O and NO emission from agricultural fields and soils
under natural vegetation: summarizing available measurement data modelling of
global annual emissions. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 2006;74:207–28.
[46] Wrage N, van Groenigen JW, Oenema O, Baggs EM. A novel dual-isotope
labelling method for distinguishing between soil sources of N2O. Rapid
Communications in Mass Spectrometry 2005;19:3298–306.
[47] Crutzen PJ, Mosier AR, Smith KA, Winiwarter W. N2O release from agro-biofuel
production negates global warming reduction by replacing fossil fuels.
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions 2007;7:11191–205.
[48] Ojima DS, Valentine DW, Mosier AR, Parton WJ, Schimel DS. Effect of land use
change on methane oxidation in temperate forest and grassland soils. Che-
mosphere 1993;26(1–4):675–85.
[49] Thustos P, Willison TW, Baker JC, Murphy DV, Pavlikova D, Goulding KWT,
et al. Short-term effects of nitrogen on methane oxidation in soils. Biology and
Fertility of Soils 1998;28:64–70.
[50] Delucchi MA, Lipman T. A lifecycle emissions model (LEM): lifecycle emissions
from transportation fuels, motor vehicles, transportation modes, electricity
use, heating and cooking fuels, and materials. Appendix C: emissions related
to cultivation and fertilizer use. Davis, CA, USA: Institute of Transportation
Studies, University of California; 2003.
[51] Lal R. World crop residues production and implications of its use as a biofuel.
Environment International 2005;31:575–84.
[52] Wilhem WW, Johnson JMF, Hatfield JL, Voorhees WB, Linden DR. Crop and soil
productivity response to corn residue removal: a literature review. Agronomy
Journal 2004;96:1–17.
[53] Gabrielle B, Gagnaire N. Life-cycle assessment of straw use in bioethanol
production: a case study based on biophysical modelling. Biomass and Bio-
energy 2008;32:431–41.
[54] Cai Z, Laughlin RJ, Stevens RJ. Nitrous oxide and dinitrogen emissions from soil
under different water regimes and straw amendment. Chemosphere 2001;42:
113–21.