ReviewEnvironmental science & technology2025
Life Cycle Assessment in the Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification of Land-Based Carbon Dioxide Removal: Gaps and Opportunities.
Review in Environmental science & technology, 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.
- Synergistic effects of biochar and PGPR in enhancing the efficacy of biological control agents against Ganoderma boninense in oil palm (Elaeis guineensis L.): a critical review.Archives of microbiology · 2026Review
- Supply-demand strategies for near-term climate benefits from hydrogen in the United States.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Olivine and dissolved alkalinity trigger different bacterial community shifts in water and oyster gills: insights from a mesocosm experiment.Frontiers in microbiomes · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been widely used to evaluate the carbon negativity and environmental impacts of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) pathways. Various monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) protocols have been developed to assess the carbon credits of CDR projects within voluntary and compliant carbon markets. Many MRV protocols incorporate life cycle thinking, LCA methods, and data. This perspective examined recent LCA studies and MRV protocols published by main carbon registries, focusing on four critical land-based CDR methods: bioenergy combined with carbon capture and storage, biochar, enhanced rock weathering, and afforestation and reforestation. We compared the carbon accounting and environmental impact assessment methods employed in these LCA studies and MRV protocols to identify their methodological similarities and differences. Our analysis reveals that the LCA community can support MRV protocols by providing critical insights into baselines, additionality, uncertainty, multifunctionality, environmental safeguards, holistic emission factors, and overlooked carbon pools. We recommend that future LCA research prioritize timing, permanence, scaling, and dynamic modeling for CDR. Addressing co-benefit and land use change impact assessment will further benefit both LCA and MRV development. Collaboration between the LCA and CDR communities is essential for developing robust frameworks to support carbon markets and policymaking.
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.