Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40034612›Full record

ReviewEnvironmental science and ecotechnology2025

Towards sustainable agroecosystems: A life cycle assessment review of soil-biodegradable and traditional plastic mulch films.

Oluwatunmise Israel Dada, Teshan Udayanga Habarakada Liyanage, Ting Chi, Liang Yu, Lisa Wasko DeVetter, Shulin Chen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Environmental science and ecotechnology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Oluwatunmise Israel DadaDepartment of Biological Systems Engineering, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, 99164-6120, USA.
Teshan Udayanga Habarakada LiyanageDepartment of Biological Systems Engineering, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, 99164-6120, USA.
Ting ChiDepartment of Apparel, Merchandising, Design and Textiles, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, 99164-6406, USA.
Liang YuDepartment of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, School of Engineering and Technology, Kentucky State University, Frankfort, KY, 40601, USA.
Lisa Wasko DeVetterDepartment of Horticulture, Washington State University, Northwestern Washington Research and Extension Center, Mount Vernon, WA, 98273, USA.
Shulin ChenDepartment of Biological Systems Engineering, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, 99164-6120, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The increasing use of traditional agricultural plastic mulch films (PMs) has raised significant environmental concerns, prompting the search for sustainable alternatives. Soil-biodegradable mulch films (BDMs) are often proposed as eco-friendly replacements; however, their widespread adoption remains contentious. This review employs a comparative life cycle assessment perspective to evaluate the environmental impact of PMs and BDMs across their production, use, and end-of-life stages, providing strategies to mitigate their impact on agroecosystems. BDMs generally exhibit lower energy use and greenhouse gas emissions than PMs but contribute to greater land-use demands. Reported eutrophication and acidification potentials are less consistent, varying based on feedstock types and the scope of assessment of BDM, as well as the end-of-life management of PM. The environmental burden of both mulch types is influenced by the life cycle stage, polymer composition, farming practices, additives, film thickness, and local climatic conditions. The manufacturing stage is a major contributor to energy use and greenhouse gas emissions for both PMs and BDMs, despite their shared benefits of increasing crop yields. However, post-use impacts are more pronounced for PMs, driven by end-of-life strategy and adsorbed waste content. While starch-based BDMs offer a more sustainable alternative to PMs, uncertainties regarding the residence time of BDM residues in soil (albeit shorter than PM residues) and their effects on soil health, coupled with higher production costs, impede widespread adoption. For BDM end-of-life, soil biodegradation is recommended. Energy and material recovery options are crucial for PM end-of-life, with mechanical recycling preferred, although it requires addressing eutrophication and human toxicity. This review discusses these complexities within specific contexts and provides actionable insights to guide the sustainable integration of mulch films into agricultural practices.

Indexed as

Climate changeEcotoxicityEnd-of-lifePolyethylene mulchRecycling

Identifiers

PMID40034612
PMCPMC11875804

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.