ArticleACS omega2025
Microalgae Cultivated in Industrial Wastewater as Agricultural Bioinputs: Technical and Life Cycle Assessment to Support Sustainable Production.
Article in ACS omega, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated the technical and environmental feasibility of using wastewater-cultivated microalgae biomass as a nutrient source for tomato plants. A field experiment tested different foliar application doses of microalgae biomass (control, 0.5%, 2.5%, 5%, and 10%) on tomato plants. Postharvest analysis of eight plant and fruit parameters showed no significant differences among treatments. Environmental feasibility was assessed through life cycle assessment, comparing a baseline scenario (mineral fertilizer) with an alternative scenario in which microalgae biomass was used as both a nutrient and water source. The Ecoinvent database and ReCiPe 2016 methodology were applied at both midpoint and end point levels. The alternative scenario demonstrated reduced environmental impacts across all 18 midpoint categories, including substantial reductions in water consumption (107.43%) and ionizing radiation (53.54%). At the end point level, the baseline scenario had 23.05% higher impact in the human health category than the alternative.
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.