ReviewEnvironmental science and ecotechnology2025
Towards sustainable agroecosystems: A life cycle assessment review of soil-biodegradable and traditional plastic mulch films.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accelerated polyethylene biodegradation in soil through carbon nanomaterial-primed rhizospheres.Environmental science and ecotechnology · 2026Article
- Soil Physicochemical Parameters and Bibliographically Inferred Microbial Diversity as Drivers of Early-Stage Biodegradation ofPolymers · 2026Article
- Soil Properties and Microbial Community Assemblages in Response to Plastic Film Mulches with Divergent Degradation Characteristics.Microorganisms · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.