## 3 Results and Discussion  
### LCA of Maize Production Induced by Laser versus Conventional Maize Production  
The environmental impacts of the two maize production systems analyzed in this study are presented in Table 2. As the table shows, the conventional method of maize production accounted for 10.5% higher environmental impacts among all the evaluated categories. This means that the pretreatment of maize seeds with a laser before planting is an environmentally friendly approach, even after normalizing the data with world values to accommodate the relative significance of each impact category (Figure 2). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Impact Category**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Unit**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Total**} \\ \cline{3-4}  & & **Non-Irradiated** & **Irradiated** \\ \hline
**Midpoint** & & & \\ Global warming & kg CO\({}_{2}\) eq & 2243.78 & 2006.82 \\ Strategyix ozone depletion & kg CFC11 eq & 0.034 & 0.031 \\ Ionizing radiation & kg\({}_{1}\)\(\alpha\)-06 eq & 14.28 & 12.91 \\ Ozone formation, Human health & kg NO\({}_{2}\) eq & 1.314 & 1.17 \\ Fine particulate matter formation & kg PM2.5 eq & 5.39 & 4.82 \\ Ozone formation, Terrestrial ecosystems & kg NO\({}_{2}\) eq & 1.42 & 1.28 \\ Terrestrial acidification & kg SO\({}_{2}\) eq & 31.66 & 28.31 \\ Freshwater eutrophication & kg P eq & 0.11 & 0.10 \\ Marine eutrophication & kg N eq & 0.03 & 0.029 \\ Terrestrial ecotoxicity & kg 1.4-DCB & 2401.10 & 2149.70 \\ Freshwater ecotoxicity & kg 1.4-DCB & 12.94 & 11.63 \\ Marine ecotoxicity & kg 1.4-DCB & 19.23 & 17.27 \\ Human carcinogenic toxicity & kg 1.4-DCB & 13.25 & 11.96 \\ Human non-cernogenic toxicity & kg 1.4-DCB & 2069.86 & 1851.40 \\ Land use & m\({}^{2}\) a crop eq & 784.08 & 699.31 \\ Mineral resource scarcity & kg Cu eq & 7.05 & 6.31 \\ Fossil resource scarcity & kg oil eq & 179.81 & 161.51 \\ Water consumption & m\({}^{3}\) & 39.48 & 39.26 \\
**Endpoint** & & & \\ Human health & DALY & \(6.10\times 10^{-3}\) & \(5.46\times 10^{-3}\) \\ Ecosystem & PDF species.yr & \(2.07\times 10^{-5}\) & \(1.86\times 10^{-5}\) \\ Resources & USD2013 & 67.64 & 60.74 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: The impact categories at the midpoint and endpoint levels. More farm inputs are required for maize production without laser pre-irradiation. These inputs increase the potential environmental impacts related to the extraction, production, and use. Figure 2 shows the higher environmental impacts associated with conventional maize production in all the evaluated impact categories. Soil management contributed significantly to the increased use of inputs and machinery. Data normalization revealed the importance of toxicity in the impact categories. Figure 3 shows that the greatest environmental impacts on marine and freshwater ecotoxicity resulted from the use of nitrogen fertilizers, with 8.2 and 7.3 kg 1,4-DCB/ton of grain produced by conventional practices and laser maize production, respectively. Other contributors were urea, with 7.4 and 6.6 kg 1,4-DCB/ton of grain produced by conventional and laser maize production, respectively. In contrast, the highest score in the freshwater ecotoxicity category was obtained from the nitrogen fertilizer with 5.4 kg 1,4-DCB/ton of grain produced by conventional maize production compared to 4.9 kg 1,4-DCB/ton of grain produced by laser-induced maize production. Figure 3 also shows the stages and substances contributing most to the human ecotoxicity category of environmental impacts. The use of nitrogen and urea are associated with its application, which produced 207.4 and 169.7 kg 1,4-DCB/ton, respectively, of grain produced under the conventional practices and was the primary factor contributing to this category's impacts compared with those generated by laser-induced maize production.