Valorising digestate as bio-based fertiliser next to biogas: Environmental life cycle costing of three farm-scale anaerobic co-digestion scenarios

Anaerobic digestion (AD) combines waste management with the production of renewable energy and recycled fertiliser products. Despite international targets to increase the recycling of nutrients for bio-based fertilisers (BBFs), there is a lack of studies assessing the environmental and economic impacts of the life cycle of digestate coming out of AD, and of associating the functional unit (FU) with the digestate, facilitating the comparability between mineral fertilisers. This study evaluated the environmental life cycle costs and climate impacts per FU of both biogas (MWh) and digestate (kg of soluble nitrogen) from feedstock procurement to the use on a farm (cradle-to-grave) which allowed comparison to purchased energy and mineral fertiliser. Three different farm-scale anaerobic digestion scenarios were studied utilizing slurry and different co-feedstocks. Results showed that biogas and digestate produced at farm had lower climate impacts and costs than the corresponding purchased products in all three scenarios. Valuing digestate as co-product decreased life cycle emissions of biogas by 24-29 %. Correspondingly, the carbon footprint of the digestate increased by 6-8% but was compensated by carbon sequestration potential when applied in soil. The NPV was positive for biogas and digestate product in all scenarios and highest for scenario utilising food industry side streams as co-feedstock. Monetising climate impacts increased the NPV of biogas and digestate because replaceable energy and mineral fertiliser had higher climate impacts. Product level analyses revealed different product-specific hot spots for biogas and digestate for targeted improvements in sustainability.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Bioresource Technology
Published
2025-09-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2025.133401
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Wastewater Treatment and Reuse
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.99
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Valorising digestate as bio-based fertiliser next to biogas: Environmental life cycle costing of three farm-scale anaerobic co-digestion scenarios

Merja Saarinen, Elina Tampio, Erika Winquist, Sari Luostarinen et al.
3 citations
Bioresource Technology
Wastewater Treatment and Reuse
2.99
article

Valorising digestate as bio-based fertiliser next to biogas: Environmental life cycle costing of three farm-scale anaerobic co-digestion scenarios

Merja Saarinen, Elina Tampio, Erika Winquist, Sari Luostarinen, Karetta Vikki
article en
3 citations

Abstract

Anaerobic digestion (AD) combines waste management with the production of renewable energy and recycled fertiliser products. Despite international targets to increase the recycling of nutrients for bio-based fertilisers (BBFs), there is a lack of studies assessing the environmental and economic impacts of the life cycle of digestate coming out of AD, and of associating the functional unit (FU) with the digestate, facilitating the comparability between mineral fertilisers. This study evaluated the environmental life cycle costs and climate impacts per FU of both biogas (MWh) and digestate (kg of soluble nitrogen) from feedstock procurement to the use on a farm (cradle-to-grave) which allowed comparison to purchased energy and mineral fertiliser. Three different farm-scale anaerobic digestion scenarios were studied utilizing slurry and different co-feedstocks. Results showed that biogas and digestate produced at farm had lower climate impacts and costs than the corresponding purchased products in all three scenarios. Valuing digestate as co-product decreased life cycle emissions of biogas by 24-29 %. Correspondingly, the carbon footprint of the digestate increased by 6-8% but was compensated by carbon sequestration potential when applied in soil. The NPV was positive for biogas and digestate product in all scenarios and highest for scenario utilising food industry side streams as co-feedstock. Monetising climate impacts increased the NPV of biogas and digestate because replaceable energy and mineral fertiliser had higher climate impacts. Product level analyses revealed different product-specific hot spots for biogas and digestate for targeted improvements in sustainability.

Bioresource TechnologyVol. 440
Natural Resources Institute Finland (FI)
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Wastewater Treatment and Reuse
2.99
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Valorising digestate as bio-based fertiliser next to biogas: Environmental life cycle costing of three farm-scale anaerobic co-digestion scenarios — Merja Saarinen, Elina Tampio, et al. · Bioresource Technology (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS