## 4 Results and Discussion
### Farm-to-Retailer Environmental Profile of Dry Lentils  
Table 7 presents the farm-to-retailer midpoint impact category scores for one functional unit of the dry lentils considered. From the farm-to-retailer perspective, it is evident that MLs exhibit a significantly higher land use impact compared to OLs. This difference is primarily due to the lower yields of harvested and cleaned grains, as highlighted in Tables 1 and 2. Additionally, Table 7 indicates that ML grains have greater impacts on climate change (CC) and freshwater ecotoxicity (ETFW), probably because of their higher reliance on fertilizers derived from fossil fuels (cf. Table 1). Table 8 provides a detailed end-point characterization of the farm-to-retailer environmental profiles for both dry lentil types, using the PEF method. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**IC\({}_{\text{NWj}}\)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**ML**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**OL**} \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(μPt/kg)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(\%)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(\%)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(μPt/kg)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(\%)**} \\ \hline CC & 27.6 & \(\pm\) & 6.4 & 14.4 & 24.0 & \(\pm\) & 3.0 & 16.5 \\ OD & 0.03 & \(\pm\) & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.01 & \(\pm\) & 0.00 & 0.01 \\ IR & 0.3 & \(\pm\) & 0.1 & 0.2 & 0.14 & \(\pm\) & 0.02 & 0.09 \\ PhOF & 5.1 & \(\pm\) & 1.2 & 2.7 & 6.4 & \(\pm\) & 0.8 & 4.4 \\ PM & 8.9 & \(\pm\) & 2.2 & 4.7 & 11.4 & \(\pm\) & 1.5 & 7.9 \\ A & 5.0 & \(\pm\) & 1.2 & 2.6 & 4.5 & \(\pm\) & 0.6 & 3.1 \\ FWE & 1.6 & \(\pm\) & 0.4 & 0.8 & 0.6 & \(\pm\) & 0.1 & 0.4 \\ ME & 2.0 & \(\pm\) & 0.5 & 1.1 & 2.7 & \(\pm\) & 0.3 & 1.9 \\ TE & 3.4 & \(\pm\) & 0.8 & 1.8 & 4.2 & \(\pm\) & 0.5 & 2.9 \\ ETFW & 19.7 & \(\pm\) & 4.7 & 10.3 & 14.7 & \(\pm\) & 2.0 & 10.1 \\ C-HT & 0.5 & \(\pm\) & 0.1 & 0.3 & 0.5 & \(\pm\) & 0.1 & 0.3 \\ NC-HT & 1.7 & \(\pm\) & 0.4 & 0.9 & 1.3 & \(\pm\) & 0.2 & 0.9 \\ LU & 107.6 & \(\pm\) & 25.5 & 56.1 & 67.7 & \(\pm\) & 8.0 & 46.6 \\ WU & 0.2 & \(\pm\) & 0.1 & 0.1 & 0.16 & \(\pm\) & 0.02 & 0.1 \\ RUF & 2.6 & \(\pm\) & 0.7 & 1.3 & 4.4 & \(\pm\) & 0.6 & 3.1 \\ RUMM & 5.5 & \(\pm\) & 1.3 & 2.9 & 2.5 & \(\pm\) & 0.3 & 1.7 \\ PEF & 192 & \(\pm\) & 45 & 100.0 & 145 & \(\pm\) & 17 & 100.0 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: End-point environmental characterization of 1 kg of the dried ML and OL grains at the farm gate using the PEF standard method: mean value and standard deviation of any normalized and weighted impact category (IC\({}_{\text{NWj}}\)) and corresponding percentage contribution to the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF). Figure 2: Column chart comparing each normalized and weighted impact category (IC\({}_{\text{NWj}}\)) and the PEF score for 1 kg of the dry ML and OL grains analyzed at the farm gate, based on the PEF standard method. All symbols used to represent each impact category are given in the Nomenclature section. In this analysis, land use (LU) emerged as the largest contributor to the PEF, accounting for 47% for ML grains and 37% for OL grains. Climate change (CC) was the second most significant factor, contributing 19% to the PEF for ML grains and 21% for OL grains. For ML grains, freshwater ecotoxicity (ETFW) ranked third, contributing 8.9%, followed by particulate matter (PM), at 5.7%. In comparison, for OL grains, particulate matter (PM) contributed 9.1%, while freshwater ecotoxicity (ETFW) accounted for 8.6% of the PEF. Ultimately, the farm-to-retailer PEF was approximately 484 uPt/kg for MLs and 282 uPt/kg for OLs. These scores were predominantly influenced by the agricultural phase, which accounted for 82.5% and 80.5% of the PEF for ML and OL grains, respectively, as depicted in the Sankey diagrams in Figure S3. Transportation and electricity consumption followed, contributing 13.7% and 8.1%, and 21.9% and 4.9%, respectively. Table 8 reveals a substantial degree of uncertainty in the environmental impact scores, with approximately 20% for ML grains and 10% for OL grains.