Soil organic carbon (SOC) change influences the life-cycle assessment (LCA) calculations for globally traded bio-based products. Broad agreement on the importance of SOC measurement stands in contrast with inconsistent measurement methods. This paper focuses on published SOC research on lands managed for maize (Zea mays L.) in the U.S. and sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) in Brazil. A literature review found that reported SOC measurement protocols reflect different sampling strategies, measurement techniques, and laboratory analysis methods. Variability in sampling techniques (pits versus core samples), depths, increments for analysis, and analytical procedures (wet oxidation versus dry combustion) can influence reported SOC values. To improve consistency and comparability in future SOC studies, the authors recommend that: (a) the methods applied for each step in SOC studies be documented; (b) a defined protocol for soil pits or coring be applied; (c) samples be analyzed at 10 cm intervals for the full rooting depth and at 20 cm intervals below rooting until reaching 100 cm; (d) stratified sampling schemes be applied where possible to reflect variability across study sites; (e) standard laboratory techniques be used to differentiate among labile and stable SOC fractions; and (f) more long-term, diachronic approaches be used to assess SOC change. We conclude with suggestions for future research to further improve the comparability of SOC measurements across sites and nations.
Background: This study evaluates the global economic effects of the current US RFS2, and the potential contribution from advanced biofuels. Results & discussion: Our simulation results suggest that these mandates lead to an increase of 0.21% in the global gross domestic product in 2022, including an increase of 0.8% in the USA and 0.02% in the rest of the world, relative to our baseline no-RFS scenario. The incremental contributions to gross domestic product from advanced biofuels in 2022 are estimated at 0.41 and 0.04% in the USA and the rest of the world, respectively. Conclusion: Although production costs of advanced biofuels are higher than for conventional biofuels in our model, their economic benefits result from reductions in oil use and their smaller impacts on food markets compared with conventional biofuels. Thus, the US advanced biofuels targets are expected to have positive net economic benefits.
Background: Asthma prevalence is 339 million globally. 'Severe asthma' (SA) comprises subjects with uncontrolled asthma despite proper management. Objectives: To compare asthma from diverse ethnicities and environments. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis of two adult cohorts, a Brazilian (ProAR) and a European (U-BIOPRED). U-BIOPRED comprised of 311 non-smoking with Severe Asthma (SAn), 110 smokers or ex-smokers with SA (SAs) and 88 mild to moderate asthmatics (MMA) while ProAR included 544 SA and 452 MMA. Although these projects were independent, there were similarities in objectives and methodology, with ProAR adopting operating procedures of U-BIOPRED. Results: Among SA subjects, age, weight, proportion of former smokers and FEV 1 pre-bronchodilator were similar. The proportion of SA with a positive skin prick tests (SPT) to aeroallergens, the scores of sino-nasal symptoms and quality of life were comparable. In addition, blood eosinophil counts (EOS) and the % of subjects with EOS > 300 cells/μl were not different. The Europeans with SA however, were more severe with a greater proportion of continuous oral corticosteroids (OCS), worse symptoms and more frequent exacerbations. FEV 1 /FVC pre-and post-bronchodilator were lower among the Europeans. The MMA cohorts were less comparable in control and treatment, but similar in the proportion of allergic rhinitis, gastroesophageal reflux disease and EOS >3%. Conclusions: ProAR and U-BIOPRED cohorts, with varying severity, ethnicity and environment have similarities, which provide the basis for global external validation of asthma phenotypes. This should stimulate collaboration between asthma consortia with the aim of understanding SA, which will lead to better management.
Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is one strategy to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. To assess the potential scale and cost of CO2 sequestration from BECCS in the US, this analysis models carbon sequestration net of supply chain emissions and costs of biomass production, delivery, power generation, and CO2 capture and sequestration in saline formations. The analysis includes two biomass supply scenarios (near-term and long-term), two biomass logistics scenarios (conventional and pelletized), and two generation technologies (pulverized combustion and integrated gasification combined cycle). Results show marginal cost per tonne CO2 (accounting for costs of electricity and CO2 emissions of reference power generation scenarios) as a function of CO2 sequestered (simulating capture of up to 90% of total CO2 sequestration potential) and associated spatial distribution of resources and generation locations for the array of scenario options. Under a near-term scenario using up to 206 million tonnes per year of biomass, up to 181 million tonnes CO2 can be sequestered annually at scenario-average costs ranging from $62 to $137 per tonne CO2; under a long-term scenario using up to 740 million tonnes per year of biomass, up to 737 million tonnes CO2 can be sequestered annually at scenario-average costs ranging from $42 to $92 per tonne CO2. These estimates of CO2 sequestration potential may be reduced if future competing demand reduces resource availability or may be increased if displaced emissions from conventional power sources are included. Results suggest there are large-scale opportunities to implement BECCS at moderate cost in the US, particularly in the Midwest, Plains States, and Texas.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.