## 4 Results and Discussion
### Environmental Profile of Harvested Lentils Seats at the Farm Gate
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l l l l l} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**IC\({}_{\text{j}}\)**} & \multicolumn{2}{l}{**ML**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**OL**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Unit**} \\  & **PHS** & **\%** & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**IC\({}_{\text{j}}\) Score**} & **PHS** & **\%** & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**IC\({}_{\text{j}}\) Score**} & \\ \hline CC & Sd & 30.2 & \(9.91\times 10^{-1}\) & \(\pm\) & \(2.29\times 10^{-1}\)a & Sd & 30.7 & \(8.61\times 10^{-1}\) & \(\pm\) & \(1.09\times 10^{-1}\)b & kg CO\({}_{\text{Be}}\) \\ OD & Pest & 45.0 & \(2.36\times 10^{-8}\) & \(\pm\) & \(5.63\times 10^{-9}\)a & TR & 39.4 & \(9.07\times 10^{-9}\) & \(\pm\) & \(1.19\times 10^{-9}\)b & kg CC\({}_{\text{Be}}\) \\ IR & Fert & 65.8 & \(2.83\times 10^{-2}\) & \(\pm\) & \(6.80\times 10^{-3}\)a & TR & 60.1 & \(1.16\times 10^{-2}\) & \(\pm\) & \(1.42\times 10^{-3}\)b & kBq \({}^{235}\)U\({}_{\text{Be}}\) \\ PhOF & DF & 51.9 & \(4.39\times 10^{-3}\) & \(\pm\) & \(1.08\times 10^{-3}\)b & DF & 74.8 & \(5.45\times 10^{-3}\) & \(\pm\) & \(6.91\times 10^{-4}\)a & kg NMVOC\({}_{\text{e}}\) \\ PM & DF & 54.3 & \(5.93\times 10^{-8}\) & \(\pm\) & \(1.46\times 10^{-8}\)b & DF & 75.7 & \(7.60\times 10^{-8}\) & \(\pm\) & \(9.66\times 10^{-9}\)a & disease inc. \\ A & Fert & 43.4 & \(4.50\times 10^{-3}\) & \(\pm\) & \(1.09\times 10^{-3}\)a & DF & 72.5 & \(4.03\times 10^{-3}\) & \(\pm\) & \(5.09\times 10^{-4}\)a & ml H\({}^{\text{e}}\) \\ FWE & Fert & 68.0 & \(9.19\times 10^{-5}\) & \(\pm\) & \(2.20\times 10^{-5}\)a & TR & 67.4 & \(3.42\times 10^{-5}\) & \(\pm\) & \(4.14\times 10^{-6}\)b & kg P\({}_{\text{e}}\) \\ ME & DF & 61.4 & \(1.33\times 10^{-3}\) & \(\pm\) & \(3.31\times 10^{-4}\)b & DF & 81.1 & \(1.79\times 10^{-3}\) & \(\pm\) & \(2.29\times 10^{-4}\)a & kg Ne\({}_{\text{Be}}\) \\ TE & DF & 55.4 & \(1.61\times 10^{-2}\) & \(\pm\) & \(3.97\times 10^{-3}\)b & DF & 80.3 & \(1.98\times 10^{-2}\) & \(\pm\) & \(2.53\times 10^{-3}\)a & mol N\({}_{\text{e}}\) \\ ETFW & Sd & 71.9 & \(5.83\times 10^{-1}\) & \(\pm\) & \(1.40\times 10^{-1}\)a & Sd & 86.0 & \(4.35\times 10^{-1}\) & \(\pm\) & \(5.99\)b & CTU\({}_{\text{e}}\) \\ C-HT & TR & 46.6 & \(4.45\times 10^{-10}\)a & \(\pm\) & \(1.06\times 10^{-10}\)a & TR & 65.8 & \(3.93\times 10^{-10}\) & \(\pm\) & \(4.84\times 10^{-11}\)b & CTU\({}_{\text{h}}\) \\ NC-HT & Sd & 54.3 & \(1.17\times 10^{-8}\) & \(\pm\) & \(2.80\times 10^{-9}\)a & Sd & 63.2 & \(8.98\times 10^{-9}\)a & \(\pm\) & \(1.17\times 10^{-9}\)b & CTU\({}_{\text{h}}\) \\ LU & FE & 98.3 & \(1.11\times 10^{-3}\) & \(\pm\) & \(2.63\times 10^{-2}\)a & FE & 97.6 & \(6.99\times 10^{-2}\) & \(\pm\) & \(8.30\times 10^{-10}\)b & Pt \\ WU & Fert & 57.4 & \(3.17\times 10^{-2}\) & \(\pm\) & \(7.64\times 10^{-3}\)a & DF & 61.8 & \(2.14\times 10^{-2}\) & \(\pm\) & \(2.67\times 10^{-3}\)b & m\({}^{3}\) depriv. \\ RUF & DF & 100.0 & 2.01 & \(\pm\) & \(5.28\times 10^{-1}\)b & DF & 100.0 & 3.46 & \(\pm\) & \(4.55\times 10^{-1}\)a & MJ \\ RUMM & Fert & 63.9 & \(4.66\times 10^{-6}\) & \(\pm\) & \(1.12\times 10^{-6}\)a & TR & 66.8 & \(2.08\times 10^{-6}\)a & \(\pm\) & \(2.55\times 10^{-7}\)b & kg Sb\({}_{\text{e}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* In each row, values with the same letter have no significant difference at \(p<0.05\).  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Environmental profile for 1 kg of the dried ML and OL grains at the farm gate according to the PEF standard method: primary hotspot (PHS) type and corresponding percentage contribution, and mean value and standard deviation for each mid-point impact category (IC\({}_{\text{j}}\)) score. considerably higher than the most likely values. This uncertainty is primarily attributed to the wide variation in crop yields and cleaning waste percentages observed over the past four cropping seasons. The Tukey test was also used to assess statistically significant differences between the impact category scores referring to ML and OL production at the farm gate at the 95% confidence level.