doi stringclasses 5
values | chunk_id stringlengths 1 3 | chunk stringlengths 7 300 | title stringclasses 6
values | authors stringclasses 6
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 100 | demand contributing by 49 % and the pea shoot production adding 31 %. these results align with previous studies performed by Al-Chalabi (2015), Molin and Martin (2018) and Wildeman (2020), where they concluded that the energy demand is the main contributor to impacts like CC, TA, and others. A diff | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 101 | erent trend is seen in ME (1.97 g N eq./fu) and OD (2.92 mg CFC11 eq./fu); the pea shoot production stage is the main contributor adding 97 % and 63 % of the impacts, respectively. This is mainly associated to the nutrients used in the growing stage (see Table 1). For OD, the energy demand is also | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 102 | an important contributor adding a third of the impacts (33 %). Overall, the facilities and hardware stages contribute on average 3 % and 10 %, respectively. Only for FPM and FE, the facilities show a larger contribution, adding 18 % and 16 % to the impacts, respectively. Recycling practices in the | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 103 | waste management stage aid reducing the impacts by on average 4 % by avoiding the burdens of producing new materials; this is particularly important for PFM, FE and TA where the waste management stage saves around ∼7 % of the original impacts. 3.1.2. Toxicity related impacts Fig. 4 exhibits the to | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 104 | xicity related impacts. FEC and MEC are estimated at 208 and 257 g 1,4 DB eq./fu with the energy demand being the largest contributor (70 %). IR, estimated at 1.11 kg Co-60 eq./fu, also shows a similar trend in terms of main contributor, with the energy demand being almost the only driver (97 %). En | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 105 | ergy demand is the largest contributor due to the emissions associated to the life cycle of the production and operation of the energy technologies, especially those fossil fuel based (e.g., coal, natural gas), which represented ∼50 % of the 2017 UK energy grid (BEIS, 2022). Similarly, HTc, calculat | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 106 | ed at 103 g 1,4 DB eq./fu, is mainly driven by the energy requirements (and title), which represents 52 % of the impacts, but pea shoot production and hardware stages add 20 % and 11 %, respectively. TEC (7.53 kg 1,4 DB eq./fu) and HTcn (2.67 kg 1,4 DB eq./fu) show similar patterns in terms of stag | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 107 | e contribution, however with different shares from the previous impacts. For them, the energy demand corresponds on average to ∼52 % for both impacts, while the pea shoot production stage adds ∼14 % and the facilities stage contributes ∼24 %. Across all the impact categories, the hardware stage con | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 108 | tributes on average 17 %, with the largest contribution found in HTnc (25 %). Correspondingly, the facilities stage adds on average 8 % while the pea shoot production is responsible for 10 % on average. Waste management options, specifically the recycling of materials, contribute reducing the imp | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 109 | acts by avoiding the burden of producing virgin materials, also called credits. These credits decrease the absolute impacts by between 13 % in the case of HTc and 20 % in the case of TEC. IR is the only impact not affected by the credits. 3.1.3. Retitle related impacts Fig. 4 also displays the im | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 110 | pacts associated with retitles such as energies (PED, FD), metals (MD), water (FWC) and land (LU). PED and FD are estimated at 66.8 MJ/fu and 1.25 kg oil eq./fu, and as expected, the energy demand leads these impacts (86&90 %, respectively). These results are explained by the large contribution f | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 111 | rom fossil fuel-based technologies into the UK energy mix in 2017 (∼50 % of the generation is from coal and natural gas) (BEIS, 2022). This is explored further in Section 3.2.1 and in the scenario analysis (Section 3.3). MD, calculated at 9.76 g Cu eq./fu, shows a shared contribution from all the st | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 112 | ages, being the facilities the larger contributor with 35 %, followed by the energy demand (26 %), and then the pea shoot production (19 %) and hardware (21 %) stages. This is mainly because of the metals used in the infrastructure and components of the system. For the last retitles, LU and WFC, | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 113 | the impacts are estimated at 0.79 annual crop eq. y/fu and −0.16 m3 with only two stages contributing pea shoot production and energy demand. In the case of the former, the use of water for soaking, sowing, and growing is the main and obvious reason of such contribution (see Table 1), while in th | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 114 | e case of the energy demand, it is due to the water use within the life cycle of the energy generation technologies. The net negative water consumption is due to the treatment of wastewater, which enable the recovery of water for other uses. For these impacts, the credits from the waste management s | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 115 | tage, namely recycling of the different materials avoiding the burden of extracting and processing virgin materials, mainly affects MD, reducing the impacts by 25 % from its absolute values. 3.2. Life cycle stage contribution As seen in Section 3.1, the contribution of the life cycle stages varies | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 116 | depending on the impacts. This section assesses the contribution of key life cycle stages of the aeroponic container farm system. It is important to note that although the energy requirements of the system are by far the main contributor for almost all the impacts, it is essential from an operation | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 117 | and design perspective to also understand how the components and activities of each stage contribute to the impacts of the overall system. 3.2.1. Energy demand Table 3 shows the breakdown of the activities associated with the energy demand. A third of the energy demand (34 %) is associated with | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 118 | the lighting system, which is key to produce pea shoot (or any other food product), as this system generates the photons of light needed for plant photosynthesis, hence powering the plants growth cycle, and directly affecting yield. Nearly half of the energy demand is related to the irrigation syst | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 119 | em and the environment, another important aspect of this technology. Bed controllers are responsible for 13 % of the energy demand. Finally, the facilities, fertigation, the operation, and the soaking activities add together 5 % of the energy demand. The impacts of the energy demand stage are solel | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 120 | y driven by the electricity mix of the UK, which even though has increased its share of renewables to 29 % (BEIS, 2018), it still consists of a large fossil fuel basis (e.g., 6.7 % coal, 40 % natural gas). For this study, we have used the UK 2017 energy mix from Ecoinvent 3.6 (Moreno Ruiz et al. | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 121 | , 2019), as it provides information to assess a large set of indicators. However, in the last four years, the UK grid have increased the use of renewable technologies, hence decreasing, in particular, the greenhouse gas emissions associated to energy generation. Table 6 displays the changes in CC | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 122 | using the latest UK energy carbon intensity factors. As can been seen, using the 2021 estimates of the UK electricity mix improves CC by 33 %, with the production of 1 kg of pea shoot estimated at 1.36 kg CO2eq. Table 6 also shows the potential reduction associated to the future decarbonization of | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 123 | the UK energy grid based on Government's commitments; the decarbonization plans for the next 15-years offer great opportunities to reduce the impacts of aeroponic food production systems, with reduction of up to 77 % by 2034, equivalent to 0.64 kg CO2 eq. per 1 kg of pea shoot produced. Table 6 An | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 124 | alysis of the influence of different UK energy mixes. Year Carbon intensity [kg CO2eq./kWh] CC of aeroponic production [kg CO2eq./fu] Improvement 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 Green Tariffa 0.384 0.307 0.277 0.253 0.231 0.111 0.098 0.100 0.085 0.064 0.051 0 2.28 1.89 1 | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 125 | .75 1.63 1.52 0.93 0.87 0.88 0.80 0.70 0.64 0.39 This study 17 % 23 % 28 % 33 % 59 % 62 % 61 % 65 % 69 % 72 % 83 % a For the calculations, 0 kg CO2 eq./kWh of energy acknowledging that this value might be under Scope 1 for reporting GHG emissions while the system accounts for scope 3. 7 X. Schm | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 126 | idt Rivera et al. Science of the Total Environment 860 (2023) 160420 It is important to note that the aeroponic container system of this study uses green electricity tariffs. Although green tariffs have been seen as a good solution for businesses to reduce their environmental impacts associated t | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 127 | o energy consumption, there is a large debate of how green these tariffs actually are, and how to report them. The main issue is related to the Renewable Energy Guarantee of Origin (REGO) certificates, which 1.91 3.88 2.92 1.91 7.79 7.66 1.85 1.14 1.39 2.33 4.74 1.86 1.85 1.22 5.46 4. | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 128 | 57 5.71 2.42 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% -20% -40% -60% -80% -100% -1.73 Sowing Growing Harvesting Soaking a) Pea shoots production stage 5.18 1.77 2.9 2.68 1.69 1.63 2.87 2.45 8.77 2.26 2.13 1.48 1.14 1.46 8.27 1.66 1.48 4.51 3.49 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40 | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 129 | % 30% 20% 10% 0% Container Floor Drains Germination space Growth Chamber HVAC Prep Space b) Facilities stage Fig. 5. Contribution of activities and components to the environmental impacts of each life cycle stage the aeroponic container system. 8 X. Schmidt Rivera et al. Science of t | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 130 | he Total Environment 860 (2023) 160420 1.84 4.96 1.52 1.28 5.09 5.01 9.67 9.70 5.02 1.26 7.99 1.68 6.10 2.03 3.17 6.74 3.88 2.70 1.89 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% External Water Network Lights Growing Bed Internal Water System Racking Reservoirs c) | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 131 | Hardware stage Fig. 5 (continued). are allocated to every Mega-Watt hour (MWh) of electricity generated by renewable titles. The electricity generated and REGOs are traded separately across energy providers, hence companies could purchase REGOs together with the energy acquired or separately ( | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 132 | GHG Insight n.d., Centre for Sustainable Energy, n.d., Green Electricity Markets, n.d.). This means that energy suppliers could buy energy from the grid (with shares of renewables and fossil fuel titles) and offset the emission with REGOs (representing units of electricity) to then claim the provis | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 133 | ion of “100% renewable energy”. In addition to being able to claim green electricity, companies could even save money, as REGOs are usually cheaper than electricity, while green tariffs are usually premium products for customers. On the contrary, those companies that are genuinely providing green ta | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 134 | riffs usually work with Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) – a mechanism that keeps REGOs together with the energy purchased (CCS, 2020). If so, energy suppliers using PPAs could encounter higher costs by investment in supplydemand forecasting processes and by working with small, usually independen | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 135 | t, energy generators such as community-owned projects (CCS, 2020; Centre for Sustainable Energy, n.d.). A large debate has arisen from the misleading nature of the green tariff, with a recent report concluding that nearly 30 % of the UK energy green tariff suppliers could be labelled as “greenwashin | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 136 | g” (Scottish Power, 2021). There are efforts to support consumers with their decision making from private sector; for example, defining a Green Accreditations (Uswitch, 2021) or Green Tariffs Levels (Ecotricity, 2021). However, these mechanisms are not standardised, leaving the consumers and small | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 137 | and medium businesses to do their own research. The complexities of green tariffs highlight how more clear policies and real investments are required to get to net zero. With investment in the decarbonization of energies being the basis; it is clear that market-based mechanisms enable businesses wit | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 138 | h the opportunities for “greenwashing”, which leads to confusing consumers who are detrimental players to face the climate crisis (The Guardian, 2022). As expected, issues around green tariffs make the reporting of the greenhouse gas emissions very complicated, no matter the scope that is used – | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 139 | scope 1, 2, 3, with opposite perspectives between governmental bodies (e.g., GGC and DEFRA) (CCS, 2020). For the reasons mentioned above the complexities of tracking down what the real titles of electricity generation are used by green tariff providers, to then define the whole life cycle (GHG repo | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 140 | rting scope 3) and assess the emissions will be another project altogether; hence this study does not fully assess the green tariff using scope 3 or a full life cycle assessment. Instead, the use of electricity generated by solar and wind power systems is discussed in Section 3.3. However, it is imp | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 141 | ortant to have an overview of what an ideal green tariff could offer to the aeroponic container system. As seen in Table 6, calculations show that if the carbon intensity of the electricity use is 0 kg CO2eq./kWh, the impacts of producing 1 kg of pea shoots by aeroponic container system will be ∼5 | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 142 | times lower than the current impact, reducing it to 0.39 kg CO2eq./fu (see Table 6). 3.2.2. Pea shoot production Fig. 5a shows the contribution of the pea shoots production stage, which is mainly driven by two activities – soaking the seeds and the growing phase, which on average represent 99.8 % | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 143 | of this stage. The growing phase is the largest contributor adding on average 55 % of the impacts. The main reason for such large contribution is the emissions to water and the associated with the wastewater treatment; this is particularly important for impacts such as FE, ME, HTc&nc, IR and MD, wh | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 144 | ere this activity represents over 70 % of the impacts. However, the wastewater treatment also provides benefits recovering water for further use, hence the negative values associated with FWC. Overall, the growing activities contribute between 45 and 62 % to the majority of the impact categories | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 145 | (10 out 19 categories). The production of seeds is the main contributor to the impacts of soaking, being the main contributor to categories such as LU (99 %), PED (75 %), and OD (77 %). Overall, this stage adds between 38 and 55 % to most of the impacts (9 out of 19) including CC, while for nearly | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 146 | a third (6 out of 19) the contribution is lower than 38 %. 3.2.3. Facilities Fig. 5b displays the impacts associated to the facilities stage, showing a breakdown of the contribution by component. As described in the inventory, this stage mainly accounts for infrastructure, hence the materials | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 147 | 9 X. Schmidt Rivera et al. Science of the Total Environment 860 (2023) 160420 used and the extraction and processing of them that constitute the facilities. On average, the preparation space, and the HVAC, each account for around a third of the impacts of the facilities stage. In the case of the | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 148 | prep space, the impact contribution varies from up to 47 % in the case of TEC to around 15 % in the case of FEC. The prep space contributes by between 27 % and 39 % for most of the impacts (8 out 19), while to the rest it adds between 15 and 26 % (5 out 19 impacts, including CC), and between 40 and | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 149 | 47 % for six out 19 impacts. HVAC contributes by between 16 and 24 % in over half of the impacts (9 out 19), including CC; while in nearly a third of the impacts, HVAC adds between 25 %–34 %. Finally, HVAC contributes between 35 and 43 % in 4 out 19 impacts. The steel required for both the prep spa | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 150 | ce and the HVAC is the main responsible for the contribution of this stages. The growing chamber and the container add on average 21 % and 16 %. For nearly half of the impacts (9 out 19), the growth chamber contributes between 7 and 19 % while in other eight impacts, including CC, it adds between 20 | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 151 | and 26 %. The largest contribution (up to 50 %) is seen at ME and OD. The container itself adds on average 16 % to the impacts of the facilities, with a contribution of between 13 and 19 % for 12 out of 19 impacts, including CC. The floor drains and the germination space together contribute on ave | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 152 | rage 3 %. 3.2.4. Hardware Fig. 5c exhibits the contribution of the hardware stage, which is mainly led by the lighting system. The contribution of LED lighting is estimated at 74 % on average across all the impacts, varying from 32 % for TEC and 95 % for IR. The lighting system contributes by ∼80 | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 153 | % in 10 impacts including CC, where it adds 88 %. For four impacts (FPM, FE, TA & HTc), the LED lighting contributes by between 79 % and 60 %, while adds between 59 % and 40 % for the other four categories, namely FEC, HTnc, MEC and MD. The growing bed components also show an important contributio | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 154 | n to this stage, adding on average 16 % of the impacts. The largest contribution is seen in TEC, where this system is responsible for half of the impacts (52 %). Similarly, growing beds are responsible for around ∼40 % of the impacts in the case of FEC, HTnc and MEC, while adds around ∼20 % in the c | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 155 | ase of FE, TA, and MD. In the rest of the impacts, the growing bed components contributes <10 %, with the only exception of FPM (14 %). The reservoirs contribute by on average 7 % across all the impacts of this stage, with the exceptions of HTcn and MD, where it is responsible for around 20 %, and f | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 156 | or TEC where it adds 12 %. The other three components – external water network, internal water system and racking – contribute by <1 % across all the impact categories. 3.3. Scenario analysis – energy titles and mat materials The results of the scenario analysis are shown in Fig. 6a for the energ | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 157 | y options and Fig. 6b for the mat options. Description of the scenarios and the assumptions are detailed in Section 2.2.6 and summarised in Table 5. 3.3.1. Energy scenarios As expected, in the case of the energy generation, the use of renewable titles– solar and wind energy to power the system | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 158 | provide large improvements across most of the environmental impact categories (14 out 19). For example, CC improves by 68 % and 80 % when replacing the use of the UK grid electricity with solar and wind energy, respectively. Using wind power improves other four categories, namely FEC (65 %), HTnc (5 | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 159 | 7 %), TEC (46 %) and MD (8 %). The avoidance of emissions associated to the life cycle of fossil-based electricity generation technologies (they represent ∼50 %), especially the direct emissions from operation, are the reasons of the large improvement across most of the impacts. On the contrary, oth | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 160 | er five impacts increase when using solar energy, which are FEC (31 %), HTnc (25 %), TEC (148 %), MD (63 %) and FWC (276 %). In the case of wind energy, the only impact that increased is FWC (183 %). The use of anaerobic digestion to generate electricity has been also assessed, however little improve | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 161 | ments were offered as only four impacts improve, namely CC (39 %), TEC (94 %), PED (90 %) and FD (58 %). The need of precious metals in the solar power technologies (e.g., panels) increase impacts associated to retitles and toxicities, as the extraction and manufacturing of those require the use | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 162 | of energy and water, while at the same time emit emissions that has the potential to affect human health, water, and soil. 3.3.2. Mat scenarios In the case of alternative plant base mats, the scenarios do not offer significant opportunities for improvements; only one out 19 impacts improved when | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 163 | using the cotton mat (MEC) and kenaf (e.g., MEC and HTnc); all the rest of the impacts increased. For example, in the case of CC, using kenaf and cotton increases the impacts by 8 % and 29 %, respectively. For jute, the scenario increases the impact by between 2 and 8 %. The main reason of this is | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 164 | the production of raw materials (e.g., cotton, kenaf) and manufacturing of mats, which in this case is assumed (as proxy) as the production of textiles. In the case of the base scenario, the current system uses recycled wool, but only information for CC was obtained from manufacturers. For jute, | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 165 | virgin and recycled, information from manufacturers was used, but again only accounted for CC. 3.4. Validation As seen in the introduction (Section 1), as far as the authors are aware, there are no studies assessing the environmental impacts of any kind of aeroponic production systems nor about m | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 166 | icrogreens such as pea shoots. Therefore, to validate the results, studies about vertical farming found in the literature are used, which mainly use leafy greens such as lettuce and herbs. Additionally, other production methods such as greenhouse and open field are included, in addition to the averag | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 167 | e impacts of lettuce in the UK. To account for the variation of the crops, dry basis is used, as has been done by previous studies (Wildeman, 2020). There are not many studies assessing a full set of environmental impacts; therefore, only a selection of impacts is available for comparison and are | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 168 | presented in Fig. 7 for CC and in the Supplementary information in Table S1 for the rest of the impacts. Additionally, the results are validated and compared by nutrient content against different production methods, looking at energy content (calories) and proteins. See details in Fig. S1 in the App | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 169 | endix A. When comparing with hydroponic systems, the CC of the base scenario is nearly a third of the mean across the hydroponic studies (0.64 kg CO2eq./ kg product (DM)), ranging from nearly four times higher CC than Martin and Molin (2019) to nearly five times lower CC than Al-Chalabi (2015). Usin | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 170 | g solar energy in the aeroponic system improves the impacts; the system shows almost the lowest CC (up to 12 times lower), except against Martin and Molin (2019), where the solar-powered aeroponic system still shows 54 % higher impacts. When comparing with greenhouse production systems, all the ae | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 171 | roponic container system scenarios exhibit lower CC than the mean across the studies (0.62 kg CO2eq./kg food (DM)). In general, the results of this study are within the range of those found in literature across all the productions systems (Bartzas et al., 2015; Fiteinis and Chatzisymeon, 2016; Fran | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 172 | kowska et al., 2019; Plawecki et al., 2014; Romero-Gámez et al., 2014). In terms of CC, the base scenario of aeroponic container system ranks 11th across the 17 studies, while when using the 2021 UK energy grid, the CC is in the 10th position. However, when using solar energy, the aeroponic containe | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 173 | r system shows some of the lowest impacts, sitting in the 8th position after almost all the studies assessing the open-field systems. Finally, when comparing the CC of aeroponic production systems with the average impacts of UK lettuce, which includes 59 % imports, the results show lower CC than | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 174 | the UK average, with impacts varying by between 1 %, in the case of the baseline scenario, to 2.62 times lower impacts in the case of solar powered aeroponic container system. 3.5. Contribution to local food systems: food imports v/s local aeroponic container production As presented in the intro | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 175 | duction, there are several claims about the contribution of vertical farming to reduce impacts to the environment while providing opportunities to increase local food security. This section looks 10 X. Schmidt Rivera et al. Science of the Total Environment 860 (2023) 160420 This study Solar | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 176 | COMMON IMPACTS TOXICITY. IMPACTS RESOURCE. IMPACTS ENVIRONMENT. | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 177 | COMMON IMPACTS TOXICITY. IMPACTS RESOURCE. IMPACTS ENVIRONMENT. | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 178 | COMMON IMPACTS TOXICITY. IMPACTS RESOURCE. IMPACTS ENVIRONMENT. | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 179 | s This study Jute recycled Jute virgin Cotton Kenaf 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 C C X 1 0 ^ 0 [ K G C O 2 E Q . ] F P M X 1 0^ 3 [ K G P M 2 . 5 E Q. ] F E X 1 0 ^ 3 [ K G P E Q. ] M E X 1 0 ^ 3 [ K G N E Q. ] P O F E X 1 0 ^ 3 [ K G N O X E Q. ] P O F H X 1 0 ^ 3 [ K G N | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 180 | O X E Q. ] O D X 1 0 ^ 6 [ K G C F C 1 1 E Q. ] T A X 1 0 ^ 2 [ K G S O 2 E Q. ] F E C X 1 0 ^ 1 [ K G 1 , 4 D B E Q. ] H T C X 1 0^ 1 [ K G 1 , 4 D B E Q. ] H T N C X 1 0 ^ 0 [ K G 1 , 4 D B E Q. ] M E C X 1 0 ^ 1 [ K G 1 , 4 D B E Q. ] T E C X 1 0 ^ 1 [ K G 1 , 4 D B E Q . ] I | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 181 | COMMON IMPACTS TOXICITY. IMPACTS RESOURCE. IMPACTS ENVIRONMENT. | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 182 | ONMENTAL IMPACTS b) Scenario analysis of mat options Fig. 6. Comparison of the environmental impacts of the scenario analysis. to provide evidence to some of these claims by assessing the impacts to climate change (CC) of food imports versus aeroponic. Aeroponic container farming systems are mai | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 183 | nly used to produce herbs and microgreens. In the UK, these food products are grown locally in greenhouses, but when imported, they mainly come from Spain, Kenya, Jordan, and Mexico (CBI, 2020). Due to the fragile nature and short life span of these products, they are mostly transported by air fr | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 184 | eight (see Table 7), but some could be also imported through refrigerated lorries. To understand the environmental benefits, it is important to put the previous results (see Section 3.1) in context, in terms of implications of importing foods and the overall impacts of producing and distributing th | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 185 | em to the UK. Hence, this section first compares the impacts of the aeroponic container system 11 X. Schmidt Rivera et al. Science of the Total Environment 860 (2023) 160420 K U , h s e r F % 9 5 r o p m i d e t Frankowska et al. (2019) 27.4 Foteinis & Chatzisymeon (2016) 0.6 Romero-G | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 186 | amez, Audsley & Suarez-Reyes (2014) Bartzas, Zaharaki & Komnitsas (2015) 4.1 3.4 Plawecki et al. (2014) 14.3 Al-Chalabi (2015) 49.4 Al-Chalabi (2015) 6.2 Romero-Gamez, Audsley & Suarez-Reyes (2014) 0.4 Bartzas, Zaharaki & Komnitsas (2015) 3.4 De Geyter (2018) De Geyter (2018) Al-Chal | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 187 | abi (2015) Al-Chalabi (2015) 58.7 33.6 Martin & Molin (2019) 6.8 Wildeman (2020) Solar powered 10.6 Grid 2021 18.2 Base scenario 27.1 120.0 120.6 98.8 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 CLIMATE CHANGE [KG CO2EQ./KG OF DRY PRODUCT] l d e fi n e p O e s u o h n e e r G c i n o p o r | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 188 | d y H c i n o p o r e A Fig. 7. Validation of climate change (CC) impact of pea shoot produced by aeroponic container system in comparison with hydroponic system, greenhouse, and open field. Results presented per kg of dry mater (DM). See appendix Table A1 for a larger set of indicators. against t | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 189 | he impacts from transporting herbs and microgreens to the UK using different transport modes. Table 7 summarises the assumptions made for the analysis. As seen in Fig. 8a, if only the impacts of transporting herbs and microgreens is assessed, the results show that aeroponic container production s | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 190 | ystem has lower CC than the impacts of transporting food from Kenya by road, using either refrigerant (R134a & RCO2), and by air freight, and by air freight from Mexico, which represents between 15 %–24 % (Kenya) and 70 % (Mexico) lower impacts. On the other hand, the transportation of food from clo | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 191 | ser places, such as Spain and Jordan, still shows lower impacts than the production of microgreens from the aeroponic container system when using the baseline (2017), while the 2021 grid scenario shows nearly the same impacts than the impacts of transport by air from Jordan (1.52 vs 1.57). However, | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 192 | when comparing with solarand wind-powered aeroponic container systems the results vary. For example, the solar-powered aeroponic system exhibits lower impacts than transporting food from Mexico, Kenya and Jordan, however still higher impacts than the transport from Spain. Wind-powered aeroponic sy | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 193 | stem shows the lowest impacts. Hence, regardless the impacts of the herbs and microgreens production Table 7 Distance of imported herbs in the UK by country and mode of transport. Mode of transport Carbon intensity [kg CO2eq./tkm]a Spain [km] Kenya [km] Jordan [km] Mexico [km] Lorryb [Refrig | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 194 | erated CO2] [Refrigerated R134a] Air freightc 0.263 0.28 0.436 2500 10,000 5000 – 1600 6500 3600 8900 a Carbon intensity is titled from Ecoinvent 3.6 (Moreno Ruiz et al., 2019). b Road routes were calculated using Google maps https://maps.google.co.uk/. c Flight routes were estimated usi | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 195 | ng https://flight-distance.com/. 12 methods, for long distance travel the aeroponic container system is a viable and preferred option, in particular when powered by wind, showing lower impacts than any mean of transport assessed; therefore, it does contribute to reduce impacts of the food system. | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 196 | Fig. 8b compares the production and transportation of imported food (salads) from Spain and Jordan (best scenarios) versus the impact of producing food (salads) by aeroponic container system; for comparison two representative food production methods are used: high (3.67 kg CO2eq./ kg product) and | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 197 | low (0.27 kg CO2eq./kg product) lettuce production systems, based on global data. The aeroponic container system provides a competitive performance when the food production method is high, regardless the location and transportation type. When comparing with the low impact lettuce, aeroponic cont | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 198 | ainer system is not as competitive, especially when using the UK grid electricity; it only shows lower CC than the lettuce from Jordan when using the 2021 UK grid scenario, but still higher impacts than low lettuce from Spain, regardless the mode of transport. However, the solarand wind-powered ae | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160420 | 199 | roponic container systems show the lowest impacts; the solar-powered system exhibits ∼10 % lower CC than importing lettuce from Spain by any transport type, while in the case of wind-powered aeroponic container system, the impacts are nearly half (0.45 vs 0.97) of those from imported food from Spain | The role of aeroponic container farms in sustainable food systems | Ximena Schmidt Rivera, Billy Rodgers, Temitayo Odanye, Francisca Jalil-Vega, Jack Farmer |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.