Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Life cycle analysis of semi-intensive and intensive sheep milk production

  • LCA FOR AGRICULTURE
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Dairy farming is accountable for increased greenhouse gas emissions. Life cycle analysis constitutes a valuable tool determining the primary factors that increase carbon footprint and other important environmental indicators, under the prism of developing methods to reduce the environmental impact of the farms. The purpose of this study was to measure and evaluate the carbon footprint of raw milk production of sheep farming in Western Macedonia, Greece, for the first time, along with the environmental performance of the farming systems.

Methods

To achieve this goal, data on inputs and outputs were collected from 10 semi-intensive and 3 intensive farming systems of the Regional Units of Florina and Kozani. Data were collected using specifically configured questionnaires, which included questions concerning the amounts of fossil fuels, water, feed, electricity used in a year, as well as farm demographics and outputs. Life cycle analysis was carried out using the SimaPro 9.4.0.2 software.

Results

According to the results, the average carbon footprint of semi-intensive dairy sheep farming in Western Macedonia was 3.41 kg of CO2-eq/kg of fat- and protein-corrected milk, while the corresponding value for intensive sheep farming was 3.58 kg of CO2-eq/kg of fat- and protein-corrected milk. The results also indicate that in intensive systems, higher milk production is not consistent with a larger environmental footprint compared to semi-intensive farming systems. The use of soybean and maize for animal feed, along with emissions from enteric fermentation, is the main hotspots in milk production process.

Conclusions

The above findings can contribute to drawing conclusions concerning the management of the production hotspots, in an attempt to reduce the carbon footprint of the farms and propose a more sustainable plan for rearing animals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available because all data have been collected by a questionnaire. They are available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request.

References

  • Abdelguerfi A, Ameziane El Hassani T (2011) Interactions between cereal cropping systems and pastoral areas as the basis for sustainable agriculture development in mediterranean countries. In: Grassland Productivity and Ecosystems Services. CABI Publishing pp 261–270

  • Acharya AS, Prakash A, Saxena P, Nigam A (2013) Sampling: why and how of it? Indian J Med Special 4. https://doi.org/10.7713/ijms.2013.0032

  • Barros MV, Salvador R, Maciel AM et al (2022) An analysis of Brazilian raw cow milk production systems and environmental product declarations of whole milk. J Clean Prod 367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133067

  • Bassignana CF, Merante P, Belliére SR et al (2022) Assessment of agricultural biodiversity in organic livestock farms in Italy. Agronomy 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12030607

  • Batalla I, Knudsen MT, Mogensen L et al (2015) Carbon footprint of milk from sheep farming systems in Northern Spain including soil carbon sequestration in grasslands. J Clean Prod 104:121–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.043

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Battini F, Agostini A, Boulamanti AK et al (2014) Mitigating the environmental impacts of milk production via anaerobic digestion of manure: case study of a dairy farm in the Po Valley. Sci Total Environ 481:196–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.02.038

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Baumann M, Gasparri I, Piquer-Rodríguez M, Gavier Pizarro G, Griffiths P, Hostert P, Kuemmerle T (2017) Carbon emissions from agricultural expansion and intensification in the Chaco. Glob Change Biol 23(5):1902–1916

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benini L et al (2014) Indicators and targets for the reduction of the environmental impact of EU consumption: overall environmental impact (resource) indicators - Deliverable 3. Available at: https://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/uploads/JRC92824_qms_h08_lcind_deliverable3_final_20141113.pdf (Accessed: 02 June 2023)

  • Berton M, Bovolenta S, Corazzin M et al (2021) Environmental impacts of milk production and processing in the Eastern Alps: a “cradle-to-dairy gate” LCA approach. J Clean Prod 303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127056

  • Bizzarri G, Gapon S (2019) Climate change and the global dairy cattle sector. The role of the dairy sector in a low-carbon future

  • Borghesi G, Stefanini R, Vignali G (2022) Life cycle assessment of packaged organic dairy product: a comparison of different methods for the environmental assessment of alternative scenarios. J Food Eng 318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2021.110902

  • Bosco S, Volpi I, Cappucci A et al (2021) Innovating feeding strategies in dairy sheep farming can reduce environmental impact of ewe milk. Ital J Anim Sci 20:2147–2163. https://doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2021.2003726

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bueno C et al (2016) Sensitivity analysis of the use of life cycle impact assessment methods: a case study on building materials. J Clean Prod 112:2208–2220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bussink D, Oenema O (1998) Ammonia volatilization from dairy farming systems in temperate areas: a review. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 51:19–33. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009747109538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carvalho LS, Willers CD, Soares BB et al (2022) Environmental life cycle assessment of cow milk in a conventional semi-intensive Brazilian production system. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29:21259–21274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17317-5

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chatziminaoglou I, Liamadis D, Avdi M (2006) Introduction to animal production, 2nd edn. Giahoudis Press

  • de Vries JW, Melse RW (2017) Comparing environmental impact of air scrubbers for ammonia abatement at pig houses: a life cycle assessment. Biosyst Eng 161:53–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2017.06.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di HJ, Cameron KC (2002) Nitrate leaching in temperate agroecosystems: sources, factors and mitigating strategies

  • Drews J, Czycholl I, Krieter J (2020) A life cycle assessment study of dairy farms in northern Germany: the influence of performance parameters on environmental efficiency. J Environ Manage 273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111127

  • EDA (2018) Product environmental footprint category rules for dairy products

  • Egas D, Ponsá S, Colon J (2020) CalcPEFDairy: a Product Environmental Footprint compliant tool for a tailored assessment of raw milk and dairy products. J Environ Manage 260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.110049

  • ELGO DIMITRA (2022) Management of fresh milk production data. https://www.elgo.gr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=888&Itemid=1267&lang=el. Accessed 18 Nov 2022

  • English A, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2019) The state of food and agriculture. Moving forward on food loss and waste reduction

  • Escribano M, Elghannam A, Mesias FJ (2020) Dairy sheep farms in semi-arid rangelands: a carbon footprint dilemma between intensification and land-based grazing. Land use policy 95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104600

  • European Commission. Joint Research Centre. Institute for Environment and Sustainability (2010) International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook. Publications Office, General guide for life cycle assessment - detailed guidance

    Google Scholar 

  • Eurostat (2022) Eurostat - Your key to European Statistics. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/agriculture/data/database. Accessed 1 Oct 2022

  • FAO (2016) The state of food and agriculture, 2016. Climate change, agriculture and food security

  • Fehlenberg V, Baumann M, Gasparri NI, Piquer-Rodriguez M, Gavier-Pizarro G, Kuemmerle T (2017) The role of soybean production as an underlying driver of deforestation in the South American Chaco. Glob Environ Chang 45:24–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Field A (2018) Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics, 5th edn

  • Froldi F, Lamastra L, Corrado S, Moschini M (2022a) Carbon footprint of raw milk for direct human consumption produced in Po Valley: data input uncertainties and effect on output variance. Environmental Challenges 8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2022.100536

  • Froldi F, Lamastra L, Trevisan M et al (2022b) Environmental impacts of cow’s milk in Northern Italy: effects of farming performance. J Clean Prod 363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132600

  • Gaudare U, Pellerin S, Benoit M, Durand G, Dumont B, Barbieri P, Nesme T (2021) Comparing productivity and feed-use efficiency between organic and conventional livestock animals. Environ Res Lett 16:024012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • González-Quintero R, Kristensen T, Sánchez-Pinzón MS et al (2021) Carbon footprint, non-renewable energy and land use of dual-purpose cattle systems in Colombia using a life cycle assessment approach. Livest Sci 244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2020.104330

  • Guerci M, Bava L, Zucali M et al (2014) Effect of summer grazing on carbon footprint of milk in Italian Alps: a sensitivity approach. J Clean Prod 73:236–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halmemies-Beauchet-Filleau A, Rinne M, Lamminen M et al (2018) Review: Alternative and novel feeds for ruminants: nutritive value, product quality and environmental aspects. In: Animal. Cambridge University Press pp S295–S309

  • Havlík P, Valin H, Herrero M et al (2014) Climate change mitigation through livestock system transitions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111:3709–3714. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1308044111

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Here Technologies (2022) https://www.here.com/platform/dynamic-map-content. Accessed 18 Oct 2022

  • Huang X, Shi B, Wang S et al (2021) Mitigating environmental impacts of milk production via integrated maize silage planting and dairy cow breeding system: a case study in China. J Clean Prod 309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127343

  • IDF (2022) The IDF global Carbon Footprint standard for the dairy sector. Bulletin of the IDF No. 520/2022. International Dairy Federation (ed.), Brussels

  • IPCC (2019) 2019 refinement to the 2006 IPCC guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Chapter 10, IPCC. Available at https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2019rf/pdf/4_Volume4/19R_V4_Ch10_Livestock.pdf (Accessed: 01 June 2023)

  • ISO 14044 (2006) Environmental management, life cycle assessment - requirements and guidelines. International Standard for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland

  • Karthik D, Suresh J, Ravindra Reddy Y et al (2021) Farming systems in sheep rearing: Impact on growth and reproductive performance, nutrient digestibility, disease incidence and heat stress indices. PLoS One 16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244922

  • Khorasani GR, Janzen RA, McGill WB, Kennelly JJ (1997) Site and extent of mineral absorption in lactating cows fed whole-crop cereal grain silage of alfalfa silage. J Anim Sci 75:239. https://doi.org/10.2527/1997.751239x

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kochewad SA, Meena LR, Kumar S et al (2017) Sheep rearing systems and their productive performances-a review

  • Kraatz S, Berg W (2007) Determination of the energy demand for livestock buildings at the example dairy farming

  • Kristallidou E, Lazou T, Pavlou E (2013) Βασικές αρχές διαχείρισης Αιγοπροβατοτροφικής μονάδας. Giahoudi Press, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar M, Kumar Choubey V, Deepak A et al (2021) Life cycle assessment (LCA) of dairy processing industry: a case study of North India. J Clean Prod 326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129331

  • Lamnatou C, Ezcurra-Ciaurriz X, Chemisana D, Plà-Aragonés LM (2022) Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of a food-production system in Spain: Iberian ham based on an extensive system. Sci Total Environ 808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151900

  • Leip A, Weiss F, Wassenaar T et al (2010) Evaluation of the livestock sector’s contribution to the EU greenhouse gas emissions (GGELS)-Final report-Administrative Arrangements

  • Mahath CS, Mophin Kani K, Dubey B (2019) Gate-to-gate environmental impacts of dairy processing products in Thiruvananthapuram, India. Resour Conserv Recycl 141:40–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.09.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maheswaran S, Cranston LM, Millner JP et al (2022) Effects of sheep grazing systems on water quality with a focus on nitrate leaching. Agriculture (Switzerland) 12

  • March MD, Hargreaves PR, Sykes AJ, Rees RM (2021) Effect of nutritional variation and LCA methodology on the carbon footprint of milk production from Holstein Friesian dairy cows. Front Sustain Food Syst 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.588158

  • Marinchenko TE (2020) Renewable source of full protein for animal feeding. In: IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. IOP Publishing Ltd

  • Metawi H, Kandi H, el Shaer H (1999) Sheep productivity under extensive and semi-intensive production systems in Egypt. In: Rubino R., Morand-Fehr P. (eds)

  • Michael D, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (Australia) (2011) Carbon reduction benchmarks & strategies : new animal products. RIRDC

  • Ministry of Environment and Energy (MEEN) (2021) Climate change - emissions inventory

  • Morais TG, Teixeira RFM, Rodrigues NR, Domingos T (2018) Carbon footprint of milk from pasture-based dairy farms in Azores, Portugal. Sustainability (Switzerland) 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103658

  • Notarnicola SR, Luigia P et al (2015) Life cycle assessment in the agri-food sector. Springer International Publishing, Cham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ntinas GK, Dannehl D, Schuch I et al (2020) Sustainable greenhouse production with minimised carbon footprint by energy export. Biosyst Eng 189:164–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2019.11.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OPEKEPE (2020) Εγκύκλιος χορήγησης Ενισχύσεων βάσει ολοκληρωμένου συστήματος διαχείρισης αιτήσεων έτους 2020. OPEKEPE

  • Opio C, Gerber P, Mottet A, Falcucci A, Tempio G, MacLeod M, Vellinga T, Henderson B & Steinfeld H (2013) Greenhouse gas emissions from ruminant supply chains – A global life cycle assessment. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome.

  • Plaza J, Revilla I, Nieto J et al (2021) Milk quality and carbon footprint indicators of dairy sheep farms depend on grazing level and identify the different management systems. Animals 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11051426

  • Pulina G, Macciotta N, Nudda A (2005) Milk composition and feeding in the Italian dairy sheep. Ital J Anim Sci 4:5–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qu Q, Groot JCJ, Zhang K, Schulte RPO (2021) Effects of housing system, measurement methods and environmental factors on estimating ammonia and methane emission rates in dairy barns: A meta-analysis. Biosyst Eng 205:64–75

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ramos-Suárez JL, Ritter A, Mata González J, Camacho Pérez A (2019) Biogas from animal manure: a sustainable energy opportunity in the Canary Islands. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 104:137–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson K, Symes W, Garnham M (2015) Carbon footprint of dairy goat milk production in New Zealand. J Dairy Sci 98:4279–4293. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-9104

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Romano E, Roma R, Tidona F et al (2021) Dairy farms and life cycle assessment (Lca): the allocation criterion useful to estimate undesirable products. Sustainability (Switzerland) 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084354

  • Sabia E, Claps S, Napolitano F et al (2015) In vivo digestibility of two different forage species inoculated with arbuscular mycorrhiza in Mediterranean red goats. Small Rumin Res 123:83–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2014.10.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabia E, Gauly M, Napolitano F et al (2020) Dairy sheep carbon footprint and ReCiPe end-point study. Small Rumin Res 185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2020.106085

  • Saltelli A, Ratto M, Andres T, Campolongo F, Cariboni J, Gatelli D, Saisana M, Tarantola S (2008) Global sensitivity analysis: the primer. Wiley, ISBN: 978–0–470–05997–5

  • Sandars DL, Audsley E, Cañete C et al (2003) Environmental benefits of livestock manure management practices and technology by life cycle assessment. Biosyst Eng 84:267–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1537-5110(02)00278-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sari M, Önk K, Aydin E et al (2014) Hemşin erkek kuzulari{dotless}nda farkli{dotless} besi sistemlerinin besi performansi{dotless} ve vücut ölçülerine etkisi. Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg 20:209–215. https://doi.org/10.9775/kvfd.2013.9823

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sasu-Boakye Y, Cederberg C, Wirsenius S (2014) Localising livestock protein feed production and the impact on land use and greenhouse gas emissions. Animal 8:1339–1348. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731114001293

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sintori A, Liontakis A, Tzouramani I (2019) Assessing the environmental efficiency of greek dairy sheep farms: GHG emissions and mitigation potential. Agriculture (Switzerland) 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9020028

  • Sundrum A (2001) Organic livestock farming - a critical review. Livest Prod Sci 67:207–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tahir I, Alkheraije KA (2023) ‘A review of important heavy metals toxicity with special emphasis on nephrotoxicity and its management in cattle’, Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 10. doi:10.3389/fvets.2023.1149720. Tallentire CW, Mackenzie SG, Kyriazakis I (2018) Can novel ingredients replace soybeans and reduce the environmental burdens of European livestock systems in the future? J Clean Prod 187:338–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Todde G, Murgia L, Caria M, Pazzona A (2018a) A comprehensive energy analysis and related carbon footprint of dairy farms, part 1: direct energy requirements. Energies (Basel) 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11020451

  • Vagnoni E, Franca A, Breedveld L et al (2015) Environmental performances of Sardinian dairy sheep production systems at different input levels. Sci Total Environ 502:354–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.09.020

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wang L, Setoguchi A, Oishi K et al (2019) Life cycle assessment of 36 dairy farms with by-product feeding in Southwestern China. Sci Total Environ 696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133985

  • Wang M, Wu W, Liu W, Bao Y (2007) Life cycle assessment of the winter wheat-summer maize production system on the North China Plain. Int J Sust Dev World 14:400–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504500709469740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss F, Leip A (2012) Greenhouse gas emissions from the EU livestock sector: a life cycle assessment carried out with the CAPRI model. Agric Ecosyst Environ 149:124–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.12.015

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wiedemann SG, Biggs L, Nebel B et al (2020) Environmental impacts associated with the production, use, and end-of-life of a woollen garment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 25:1486–1499. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01766-0

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wiedemann SG, Ledgard SF, Henry BK et al (2015) Application of life cycle assessment to sheep production systems: investigating co-production of wool and meat using case studies from major global producers. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:463–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0849-z

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkes A, Wassie S, Odhong’ C et al (2020) Variation in the carbon footprint of milk production on smallholder dairy farms in central Kenya. J Clean Prod 265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121780

  • Yan MJ, Humphreys J, Holden NM (2011) An evaluation of life cycle assessment of European milk production. J Environ Manage 92:372–379

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zanni S, Roccaro M, Bocedi F et al (2022) LCA to estimate the environmental impact of dairy farms: a case study. Sustainability (Switzerland) 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106028

  • Zervas G, Tsiplakou E (2012) An assessment of GHG emissions from small ruminants in comparison with GHG emissions from large ruminants and monogastric livestock. Atmos Environ 49:13–23

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang JJ, Wei Y, Fang Z (2019) Ozone pollution: a major health hazard worldwide. Front Immunol 10

Download references

Funding

This research was carried out as part of the project «Development of an electronic platform for environmental and economic impact assessment of bio-energy production systems in C. Macedonia for sustainable and competitive management by companies in agri-chain» (Project code: ΚΜΡ6-0067147) under the framework of the Action «Investment Plans of Innovation» of the Operational Program «Central Macedonia 2014 2020» that is co-funded by the European Regional Development Fund and Greece.”

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Plant Breeding and Genetic Resources, ELGO-DIMITRA, 57001, Thermi, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Maria Ravani, Georgios Liantas, Ioanna Chatzigeorgiou & Georgios K. Ntinas

  2. Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Western Macedonia, Florina, Greece

    Maria V. Alvanou, Evangelia Tampaki & Ioannis Α. Giantsis

Authors
  1. Maria Ravani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Georgios Liantas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maria V. Alvanou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Evangelia Tampaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ioanna Chatzigeorgiou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ioannis Α. Giantsis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Georgios K. Ntinas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Georgios K. Ntinas.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Communicated by Thomas Jan Nemecek.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 24 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ravani, M., Liantas, G., Alvanou, M.V. et al. Life cycle analysis of semi-intensive and intensive sheep milk production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 29, 218–239 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-023-02245-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-023-02245-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation