Search

This article provides a comprehensive study of ecosystem rehabilitation methods widely used in the 21st century, focusing on Europe. The review covers the evolution and trends in scientific article publication, identification of European countries demonstrating high publication outputs, collaboration patterns, leading journals, and thematic areas. Additionally, it examines primary stressors in European aquatic ecosystems, and different methods and treatments commonly employed for remediation purposes. The analysis of selected articles revealed a significant increase in studies over time, driven by public awareness and financial incentives from national, European and global organizations. Italy, Portugal and Spain were the leading countries in degraded ecosystem rehabilitation studies, mainly focusing on remediating contaminated areas where metals were identified as the primary stressor (chemical pollution). Chemical remediation method emerged as the most used, closely followed by biological remediation method, which have gained prominence in recent years due to their ecological, economic, and social combined benefits. Furthermore, recent studies demonstrate a growing trend towards the combined use of more than one treatment/method to rehabilitate ecosystems, particularly with biological treatments. This combined approach has the potential for synergistic effects in achieving more effective rehabilitation and their sustainability in the long term, thus, a focus for future research., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Over the years, different solutions were developed and tested to reduce the emissions of ammonia and particulate matter from the livestock facilities. The environmental performances of these solutions were not always evaluated in detail. This study examines the environmental footprint of pig production at farm gate, with a focus on emissions from housing. Using Life Cycle Assessment, the environmental impact of pig production in a transition farm in Spain and in two finishing farms in Italy was evaluated considering three scenarios (one baseline and two of them involving an air treatment technology: wet scrubber or dry scrubber). The study goal was to quantify the environmental footprint of pig production in different scenarios, identify key environmental hotspots, and to assess impact reduction efficiency due to the two assessed technologies, analyze the environmental trade-offs that come with the use of these technologies, and identify potential for improvements. Both wet and dry scrubbers showed potential for reducing emissions in pig housing, affecting environmental impact categories related to air pollutants such as particulate matter, acidification and eutrophication. However, there were trade-offs between emissions reduction and categories related to energy and resource use. The infrastructure and consumables required to operate the scrubber added to the impacts compared to the baseline. The dry scrubber showed a more favorable balance between emission reduction and trade-offs. In this regard, results were similar for the Spanish and Italian farms, although there were slight variations. Scrubbers had a greater effect in the Italian farms due to their use along longer periods of the pig fattening (closed cycle farms) compared to the Spanish farm (transition farm). Scrubbers are environmentally promising, especially where acidification, eutrophication and particulate matter are local problems. However, they alone cannot fully address the complex environmental impacts of pig production, which require comprehensive interventions across the supply chain., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)