Comparison of Three Different LCIA Methods: EDIP97, CML2001 and Eco-indicator 99

Goal, Scope and Background

A number of impact assessment methodologies are available to the LCA practitioner. They differ, and often there is not one obvious choice among them. The question therefore naturally arises: ‘Does it make any difference to my conclusions which method I choose?’ To investigate this issue, a comparison is performed of three frequently applied life cycle impact assessment methods.

Methods

The three life cycle impact assessment methods EDIP97 [1], CML2001 [2] and Eco-indicator 99 [3] are compared on their performance through application to the same life cycle inventory from a study of a water-based UV-lacquer. EDIP97 and CML2001 are both midpoint approaches and hence quite similar in their scope and structure, and this allows a comparison during both characterisation and normalisation. The third impact assessment method Eco-indicator 99 is an endpoint method and different in scope and structure from the other two. A detailed comparison can not be done but a comparative analysis of the main contributors to the Eco-indicator 99 results and the weighted and aggregated EDIP97 results is performed.

Results and Discussion

Following a translation into common units of the EDIP97 and CML2001 output, differences up to two orders of magnitude are found for some of the indicator results for the impact categories describing toxicity to humans and ecosystems, and there is little similarity in the patterns of major contributors among the two methods. For human toxicity the CML2001 score is dominated by contribution from metals while the EDIP97 score is caused by a solvent and nitrogen oxides. For aquatic ecotoxicity, metals are the main contributors for both methods but while it is vanadium for CML2001, it is strontium for EDIP97. After normalisation, the differences are reduced but still considerable. For the other impact categories, the two methods show only minor differences. The comparison of the main contributors to the Eco-indicator 99 results and the weighted and aggregated EDIP97 results identifies nitrogen oxides as the main contributor for both methods. It is, however, much more dominant for Eco-indicator 99 while the EDIP97 score represents important contributions from a number of different substances, and furthermore, the analysis reveals that the aggregated scores for the two methods come from different impacts. It is thus difficult to extend the findings for these two methods to other inventories.

Conclusion

For EDIP97 and CML2001, it mainly matters which method is used if the chemical impacts on human health and ecosystem health are important for the study. For the other impact categories, the differences are minor for these two methodologies. For EDIP97 and Eco-indicator 99, the patterns of most important contributors to the weighted and aggregated impact scores are rather different, and considering the known differences in the underlying framework and models, the results of the two methods may well go in opposite directions for some inventories even if the conclusion is the same for the inventory studied in this paper.

Recommendations and Oudook

Particularly for the impact categories representing toxic impacts from chemicals, the study demonstrates the need for more a detailed analysis of the causes underlying the big differences revealed between the methods.

     

Comparative LCA of ethanol versus gasoline in Brazil using different LCIA methods

Purpose

The main objective of this study is to expand the discussion about how, and to what extent, the environmental performance is affected by the use of different life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) illustrated by the case study of the comparison between environmental impacts of gasoline and ethanol form sugarcane in Brazil.

Methods

The following LCIA methods have been considered in the evaluation: CML 2001, Impact 2002+, EDIP 2003, Eco-indicator 99, TRACI 2, ReCiPe, and Ecological Scarcity 2006. Energy allocation was used to split the environmental burdens between ethanol and surplus electricity generated at the sugarcane mill. The phases of feedstock and (bio)fuel production, distribution, and use are included in system boundaries.

Results and discussion

At the midpoint level, comparison of different LCIA methods showed that ethanol presents lower impacts than gasoline in important categories such as global warming, fossil depletion, and ozone layer depletion. However, ethanol presents higher impacts in acidification, eutrophication, photochemical oxidation, and agricultural land use categories. Regarding to single-score indicators, ethanol presented better performance than gasoline using ReCiPe Endpoint LCIA method. Using IMPACT 2002+, Eco-indicator 99, and Ecological Scarcity 2006, higher scores are verified for ethanol, mainly due to the impacts related to particulate emissions and land use impacts.

Conclusions

Although there is a relative agreement on the results regarding equivalent environmental impact categories using different LCIA methods at midpoint level, when single-score indicators are considered, use of different LCIA methods lead to different conclusions. Single-score results also limit the interpretability at endpoint level, as a consequence of small contributions of relevant environmental impact categories weighted in a single-score indicator.     

A life cycle assessment study of a Canadian post-combustion carbon dioxide capture process system

Purpose

While carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) has been widely recognized as a useful technology for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, it is necessary to evaluate the environmental performance of CCS from a full life cycle perspective to comprehensively understand its environmental impacts. The primary research objective is to conduct a study on life cycle assessment of the post-combustion carbon dioxide capture process based on data from SaskPower’s electricity generation station at the Boundary Dam in Saskatchewan, Canada. A secondary objective of this study is to identify the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methodology which is most suitable for the assessment of carbon dioxide capture technology integrated with the power generation system in the Canadian context.

Methods

The study takes a comparative approach by including three scenarios of carbon dioxide capture at the electricity generation station: no carbon dioxide capture (“no capture”), partial capture (“retrofit”), and fully integrated carbon dioxide capture of the entire facility (“capture”). The four LCIA methods of EDIP 97, CML2001, IMPACT2002+, and TRACI are used to convert existing inventory data into environmental impacts. The LCIA results from the four methods are compared and interpreted based on midpoint categories.

Results and discussion

The LCA results showed an increase in the retrofit and capture scenarios compared to the no capture scenario in the impact categories of eutrophication air, ecotoxicity water, ecotoxicity ground surface soil, eutrophication water, human health cancer ground surface soil, human health cancer water, human health noncancer ground surface soil, ozone depletion air, human health noncancer water, and ionizing radiation. The reductions were observed in the retrofit and capture scenarios in the impact categories of acidification, human health criteria air-point source, human health noncancer air, ecotoxicity air, global warming, human health cancer air, and respiratory effects.

Conclusions

Although the four LCIA methodologies significantly differ in terms of reference substances used for individual impact categories, all (TRACI, IMPACT2002+, CML2001, and EDIP 97) showed similar results in all impact categories.     

The Glasgow consensus on the delineation between pesticide emission inventory and impact assessment for LCA

Purpose

Pesticides are applied to agricultural fields to optimise crop yield and their global use is substantial. Their consideration in life cycle assessment (LCA) is affected by important inconsistencies between the emission inventory and impact assessment phases of LCA. A clear definition of the delineation between the product system model (life cycle inventory—LCI, technosphere) and the natural environment (life cycle impact assessment—LCIA, ecosphere) is missing and could be established via consensus building.

Methods

A workshop held in 2013 in Glasgow, UK, had the goal of establishing consensus and creating clear guidelines in the following topics: (1) boundary between emission inventory and impact characterisation model, (2) spatial dimensions and the time periods assumed for the application of substances to open agricultural fields or in greenhouses and (3) emissions to the natural environment and their potential impacts. More than 30 specialists in agrifood LCI, LCIA, risk assessment and ecotoxicology, representing industry, government and academia from 15 countries and four continents, met to discuss and reach consensus. The resulting guidelines target LCA practitioners, data (base) and characterisation method developers, and decision makers.

Results and discussion

The focus was on defining a clear interface between LCI and LCIA, capable of supporting any goal and scope requirements while avoiding double counting or exclusion of important emission flows/impacts. Consensus was reached accordingly on distinct sets of recommendations for LCI and LCIA, respectively, recommending, for example, that buffer zones should be considered as part of the crop production system and the change in yield be considered. While the spatial dimensions of the field were not fixed, the temporal boundary between dynamic LCI fate modelling and steady-state LCIA fate modelling needs to be defined.

Conclusions and recommendations

For pesticide application, the inventory should report pesticide identification, crop, mass applied per active ingredient, application method or formulation type, presence of buffer zones, location/country, application time before harvest and crop growth stage during application, adherence with Good Agricultural Practice, and whether the field is considered part of the technosphere or the ecosphere. Additionally, emission fractions to environmental media on-field and off-field should be reported. For LCIA, the directly concerned impact categories and a list of relevant fate and exposure processes were identified. Next steps were identified: (1) establishing default emission fractions to environmental media for integration into LCI databases and (2) interaction among impact model developers to extend current methods with new elements/processes mentioned in the recommendations.

     

Uncertainty in LCA case study due to allocation approaches and life cycle impact assessment methods

Purpose

Uncertainty is present in many forms in life cycle assessment (LCA). However, little attention has been paid to analyze the variability that methodological choices have on LCA outcomes. To address this variability, common practice is to conduct a sensitivity analysis, which is sometimes treated only at a qualitative level. Hence, the purpose of this paper was to evaluate the uncertainty and the sensitivity in the LCA of swine production due to two methodological choices: the allocation approach and the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) method.

Methods

We used a comparative case study of swine production to address uncertainty due to methodological choices. First, scenario variation through a sensitivity analysis of the approaches used to address the multi-functionality problem was conducted for the main processes of the system product, followed by an impact assessment using five LCIA methods at the midpoint level. The results from the sensitivity analysis were used to generate 10,000 independent simulations using the Monte Carlo method and then compared using comparison indicators in histogram graphics.

Results and discussion

Regardless of the differences between the absolute values of the LCA obtained due to the allocation approach and LCIA methods used, the overall ranking of scenarios did not change. The use of the substitution method to address the multi-functional processes in swine production showed the highest values for almost all of the impact categories, except for freshwater ecotoxicity; therefore, this method introduced the greater variations into our analysis. Regarding the variation of the LCIA method, for acidification, eutrophication, and freshwater ecotoxicity, the results were very sensitive. The uncertainty analysis with the Monte Carlo simulations showed a wide range of results and an almost equal probability of all the scenarios be the preferable option to decrease the impacts on acidification, eutrophication, and freshwater ecotoxicity. Considering the aggregate result variation across allocation approaches and LCIA methods, the uncertainty is too high to identify a statistically significant alternative.

Conclusions

The uncertainty analysis showed that performing only a sensitivity analysis could mislead the decision-maker with respect to LCA results; our analysis with the Monte Carlo simulation indicates no significant difference between the alternatives compared. Although the uncertainty in the LCA outcomes could not be decreased due to the wide range of possible results, to some extent, the uncertainty analysis can lead to a less uncertain decision-making by demonstrating the uncertainties between the compared alternatives.

     

Application of robust optimization in matrix-based LCI for decision making under uncertainty

Purpose

When product systems are optimized to minimize environmental impacts, uncertainty in the process data may impact optimal decisions. The purpose of this article is to propose a mathematical method for life cycle assessment (LCA) optimization that protects decisions against uncertainty at the life cycle inventory (LCI) stage.

Methods

A robust optimization approach is proposed for decision making under uncertainty in the LCI stage. The proposed approach incorporates data uncertainty into an optimization problem in which the matrix-based LCI model appears as a constraint. The level of protection against data uncertainty in the technology and intervention matrices can be controlled to reflect varying degrees of conservatism.

Results and discussion

A simple numerical example on an electricity generation product system is used to illustrate the main features of this methodology. A comparison is made between a robust optimization approach, and decision making using a Monte Carlo analysis. Challenges to implement the robust optimization approach on common uncertainty distributions found in LCA and on large product systems are discussed. Supporting source code is available for download at https://github.com/renwang/Robust_Optimization_LCI_Uncertainty.

Conclusions

A robust optimization approach for matrix-based LCI is proposed. The approach incorporates data uncertainties into an optimization framework for LCI and provides a mechanism to control the level of protection against uncertainty. The tool computes optimal decisions that protects against worst-case realizations of data uncertainty. The robust optimal solution is conservative and is able to avoid the negative consequences of uncertainty in decision making.     

Ecological Toxicity Methods and Metals. An examination of two case studies (8 pp + 1)

Goal, Scope and Background The Apeldoorn Workshop (April 15th, 2004, Apeldoorn, NL) brought together specialists in LCA and Risk Assessment to discuss current practices and complications of the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) ecological toxicity (ecotox) methodologies for metals. The consensus was that the LCIA methods currently available do not appropriately characterize impacts of metals due to lack of fundamental metals chemistry in the models. A review of five methods available to perform ecotox impact assessment for metals has been prepared to provide Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) practitioners with a better understanding of the current state of the science and potential biases related to metals. The intent is to provide awareness on issues related to ecotox impact assessment. Methods In this paper two case studies, one a copper based product (copper tube), the other a zinc-based product (gutter systems), were selected and examined by applying freshwater ecological toxicity impact models – USES-LCA, Eco-indicator 99 (EI 99), IMPACT 2002, EDIP 97, and CalTOX-ETP. Both studies are recent, comprehensive, cradle-to-gate, and peer-reviewed. The objective is to review the LCIA results in the context of the practical concerns identified by the Apeldoorn Declaration, in particular illustrating any inconsistencies such as chemical characterization coverage, species specificity, and relative contribution to impact results. Results and Discussion The results obtained from all five of the LCIA methods for the copper tube LCI pointed to the same substance as being the most important – copper. This result was obtained despite major fundamental differences between the LCIA methods applied. However, variations of results were found when examining the freshwater ecological toxicity potential of zinc gutter systems. Procedural difficulties and inconsistencies were observed. In part this was due to basic differences in model nomenclature and differences in coverage (IMPACT 2002+ and EDIP 97 contained characterization factors for aluminium that resulted in 90% and 22% contribution to burden respectively, the other three methods did not). Differences were also observed relative to the emissions source compartment. In the case of zinc, air emissions were found to be substantial for some ecotox models, whereas, water emissions results were found to be of issue for others. Conclusions This investigation illustrates the need to proceed with caution when applying LCIA ecotox methodologies to life cycle studies that include metals. Until further improvements are made, the deficiencies should be clearly communicated as part of LCIA reporting. Business or policy decisions should not without further discussion be based solely on the results of the currently available methods for assessing ecotoxicity in LCIA. Outlook The outlook to remedy deficiencies in the ecological toxicity methods is promising. Recently, the LCIA Toxic Impacts Task Force of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative has formed a subgroup to address specific issues and guide the work towards establishment of sound characterization factors for metals. Although some measure of precision of estimation of potential impact has been observed, such as in the case of copper, accuracy is also a major concern and should be addressed. Further investigation through controlled experimentation is needed, particularly LCIs composed of a variety of inorganics as well as organics constituents. Support for this activity has come from the scientific community and industry as well. Broader aspects of structure and nomenclature are being collectively addressed by the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. These efforts will bring practical solutions to issues of naming conventions and LCI to LCIA flow assignments.     

How to take time into account in the inventory step: a selective introduction based on sensitivity analysis

Purpose

Life cycle assessment is usually an assessment tool, which only considers steady-state processes, as the temporal and spatial dimensions are lost during the life cycle inventory (LCI). This approach therefore reduces the environmental relevance of certain results, as it has been underlined in the case of climate change studies. Given that the development of dynamic impact methods is based on dynamic inventory data, it seems essential to develop a general methodology to achieve a temporal LCI.

Methods

This study presents a method for selecting the steps, within the whole process network, for which dynamics need to be considered while others can be approximated by steady-state representation. The selection procedure is based on the sensitivity of the impacts on the variation of environmental and economic flows. Once these flows have been identified, their respective timescales are compared to the inherent timescales of the impact categories affected by the flows. The timescales of the impacts are divided into three categories (days, months, years) based on a literature review of the ReCiPe method. The introduction of a temporal dynamic depends on the relationship between the timescale of the environmental and economic flows on the one hand and that of the concerned impact on the other hand.

Results and discussion

This approach is illustrated by the life cycle assessment of palm methyl ester and ethanol from sugarcane. In both cases, the introduction of a temporal dynamic is limited to a small proportion of the total number of flows: 0.1 % in the sugarcane ethanol production and 0.01 % in the palm methyl ester production. Future developments of time integration in the LCI and in the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) are also discussed in order to deal with the need of characterization functions and the recurrent problem of waiting times.

Conclusions

This work provides a method to select specific flows where the introduction of temporal dynamics is most relevant. It is based on sensitivity analyses and on the relationship between the timescales of the flows and the timescale of the involved impact. The time-distributed LCI generated by using this approach could then be coupled with a dynamic LCIA proposed in the literature.     

A cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment of wood fibre-reinforced polylactic acid (PLA) and polylactic acid/thermoplastic starch (PLA/TPS) biocomposites

Purpose

Biopolymers are considered to be environmentally friendlier than petroleum-based polymers, but little is known about their environmental performance against petroleum-based products. This paper presents the results of a life cycle assessment (LCA) of two prototype biocomposite formulations produced by extrusion of wood fibre with either polylactic acid (PLA) or a blend of PLA and locally produced thermoplastic starch (TPS).

Methods

The study followed the LCA methodology outlined in the two standards set out by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO): ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 of 2006. A life cycle inventory (LCI) for the biocomposite formulations was developed, and a contribution analysis was performed to identify the significant inputs. Environmental performances of the two formulations were then compared with each other and polypropylene (PP), a petroleum-based polymer. The US Environmental Protection Agency’s impact assessment method, “TRACI: The Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts”, was combined with Cumulative Energy Demand (a European method) in order to characterize the inventory flows. Environmental impact categories chosen for the analysis were the following: global warming, stratospheric ozone depletion, acidification of land and water, eutrophication, smog, human health (respiratory, carcinogenic, and non-carcinogenic) effects and ecotoxicity.

Results and discussion

We found that PLA is the significant input which contributes mostly to fossil fuel consumption, acidification and respiratory and smog effects. Impacts from PLA transport from the faraway source significantly added more burden to its contributions. TPS causes less environmental burden compared to PLA; the environmental performance of the biocomposite improved when a blend of PLA and TPS is used in formulating the biocomposite. The two formulations performed better than PP in all the environmental impact categories except eutrophication effects, which is important on a regional basis.

Conclusions

The following conclusions were drawn from this study:

• PLA is the environmentally significant input among the three raw materials.
• TPS causes less environmental burden than PLA. Environmental performance of the biocomposite improves in the life cycle energy consumption, fossil energy use, ozone depletion and non-carcinogenic impact categories when a blend of PLA and TPS is used.
• The biocomposite can outperform PP in all the impact categories except eutrophication effects if manufactured using hydroelectricity.

The biopolymer could be a potential alternative to PP as it could cause less of a burden to the environment on a cradle-to-gate basis. Environmental impacts at the complete life cycle levels should be looked into in order to fully understand its potential.     

Comparing the midpoint and endpoint approaches based on ReCiPe—a study of commercial buildings in Hong Kong

Purpose

Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been increasingly implemented in analyzing the environmental performance of buildings and construction projects. To assess the life cycle environmental performance, decision-makers may adopt the two life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) approaches, namely the midpoint and endpoint models. Any imprudent usage of the two approaches may affect the assessment results and thus lead to misleading findings. ReCiPe, a well-known work, includes a package of LCIA methods to provide assessments on both midpoint and endpoint levels. This study compares different potential LCIA results using the midpoint and endpoint approaches of ReCiPe based on the assessment of a commercial building in Hong Kong.

Methods

This paper examines 23 materials accounting for over 99 % of the environmental impacts of all the materials consumed in commercial buildings in Hong Kong. The midpoint and endpoint results are compared at the normalization level. A commercial building in Hong Kong is further studied to provide insights as a real case study. The ranking of impact categories and the contributions from various construction materials are examined for the commercial building. Influence due to the weighting factors is discussed.

Results and discussion

Normalization results of individual impact categories of the midpoint and endpoint approaches are consistent for the selected construction materials. The difference in the two approaches can be detected when several impact categories are considered. The ranking of materials is slightly different under the two approaches. The ranking of impact categories demonstrates completely different features. In the case study of a commercial building in Hong Kong, the contributions from subprocesses are different at the midpoint and endpoint. The weighting factors can determine not only the contributions of the damage categories to the total environment, but also the value of a single score.

Conclusions

In this research, the midpoint and endpoint approaches are compared using ReCiPe. Information is whittled down from the inventories to a single score. Midpoint results are comprehensive while endpoint results are concise. The endpoint approach which provides additional information of damage should be used as a supplementary to the midpoint model. When endpoint results are asked for, a LCIA method like ReCiPe that provides both the midpoint and endpoint analysis is recommended. This study can assist LCA designers to interpret the midpoint and endpoint results, in particular, for the assessment of commercial buildings in Hong Kong.     

Interpretation of comparative LCAs: external normalization and a method of mutual differences

Purpose

Identification of environmentally preferable alternatives in a comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) can be challenging in the presence of multiple incommensurate indicators. To make the problem more manageable, some LCA practitioners apply external normalization to find those indicators that contribute the most to their respective environmental impact categories. However, in some cases, these results can be entirely driven by the normalization reference, rather than the comparative performance of the alternatives. This study evaluates the influence of normalization methods on interpretation of comparative LCA to facilitate the use of LCA in decision-driven applications and inform LCA practitioners of latent systematic biases. An alternative method based on significance of mutual differences is proposed instead.

Methods

This paper performs a systematic evaluation of external normalization and describes an alternative called the overlap area approach for the purpose of identifying relevant issues in a comparative LCA. The overlap area approach utilizes the probability distributions of characterized results to assess significant differences. This study evaluates the effects in three LCIA methods, through application of four comparative studies. For each application, we call attention to the category indicators highlighted by each interpretation approach.

Results and discussion

External normalization in the three LCIA methods suffers from a systematic bias that emphasizes the same impact categories regardless of the application. Consequently, comparative LCA studies that employ external normalization to guide a selection may result in recommendations dominated entirely by the normalization reference and insensitive to data uncertainty. Conversely, evaluation of mutual differences via the overlap area calls attention to the impact categories with the most significant differences between alternatives. The overlap area approach does not show a systematic bias across LCA applications because it does not depend on external references and it is sensitive to changes in uncertainty. Thus, decisions based on the overlap area approach will draw attention to tradeoffs between alternatives, highlight the role of stakeholder weights, and generate assessments that are responsive to uncertainty.

Conclusions

The solution to the issues of external normalization in comparative LCAs proposed in this study call for an entirely different algorithm capable of evaluating mutual differences and integrating uncertainty in the results.

     

A novel approach for uncertainty propagation applied to two different bio-waste management options

Purpose

A novel approach was used for quantifying uncertainty propagation in life cycle assessment (LCA). The approach was designed to be efficient and applicable in practice. The model was applied to a specific case study concerning alternative strategies for managing bio-waste: incineration versus anaerobic digestion followed by composting.

Methods

The uncertainty of each impact category was calculated starting from the variance (σ²) and geometric mean (μ) of the lognormal distribution of each input data. A procedure consisting of three mandatory steps and one facultative step was developed. Mandatory steps were calculation of the associated normal distribution for each input, calculation of the percentile curve for each input, and calculation of the percentile curve of the impact categories. The facultative step consisted in calculating the lognormal distribution of the impact categories if all the values of the percentile curve were >0.

Results and discussion

The uncertainty associated with the results of the anaerobic digestion and composting scenario was significantly higher than those associated with the incineration scenario. These results were confirmed by those obtained by Monte Carlo simulations. Environmental gains calculated for the scenario with incineration concerning acidification, global warming, terrestrial eutrophication, and photochemical ozone creation had a high level of probability (i.e., >90 %). On the contrary, the impact categories of the scenario with anaerobic digestion and composting had higher uncertainties.

Conclusions

The source of uncertainty in LCA analysis can be due to multiple factors. Among these, the variability of the values of the LCI can have a significant influence on the results of the study. LCA analysis based on the exploitation of geometric means and/or average values of inputs reported in LCI can lead to results affected by a low level of reliability. In particular, this aspect can play a relevant role for LCA-based decisions when different scenarios and options are compared. As in the case study reported in this work, neglecting the propagation of uncertainty can result in a relevant bias for obtaining a full informative impression of the problem analyzed.

     

Identifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in life cycle impact assessment

Purpose

Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) is a field of active development. The last decade has seen prolific publication of new impact assessment methods covering many different impact categories and providing characterization factors that often deviate from each other for the same substance and impact. The LCA standard ISO 14044 is rather general and unspecific in its requirements and offers little help to the LCA practitioner who needs to make a choice. With the aim to identify the best among existing characterization models and provide recommendations to the LCA practitioner, a study was performed for the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission (JRC).

Methods

Existing LCIA methods were collected and their individual characterization models identified at both midpoint and endpoint levels and supplemented with other environmental models of potential use for LCIA. No new developments of characterization models or factors were done in the project. From a total of 156 models, 91 were short listed as possible candidates for a recommendation within their impact category. Criteria were developed for analyzing the models within each impact category. The criteria addressed both scientific qualities and stakeholder acceptance. The criteria were reviewed by external experts and stakeholders and applied in a comprehensive analysis of the short-listed characterization models (the total number of criteria varied between 35 and 50 per impact category). For each impact category, the analysis concluded with identification of the best among the existing characterization models. If the identified model was of sufficient quality, it was recommended by the JRC. Analysis and recommendation process involved hearing of both scientific experts and stakeholders.

Results and recommendations

Recommendations were developed for 14 impact categories at midpoint level, and among these recommendations, three were classified as “satisfactory” while ten were “in need of some improvements” and one was so weak that it has “to be applied with caution.” For some of the impact categories, the classification of the recommended model varied with the type of substance. At endpoint level, recommendations were only found relevant for three impact categories. For the rest, the quality of the existing methods was too weak, and the methods that came out best in the analysis were classified as “interim,” i.e., not recommended by the JRC but suitable to provide an initial basis for further development.

Discussion, conclusions, and outlook

The level of characterization modeling at midpoint level has improved considerably over the last decade and now also considers important aspects like geographical differentiation and combination of midpoint and endpoint characterization, although the latter is in clear need for further development. With the realization of the potential importance of geographical differentiation comes the need for characterization models that are able to produce characterization factors that are representative for different continents and still support aggregation of impact scores over the whole life cycle. For the impact categories human toxicity and ecotoxicity, we are now able to recommend a model, but the number of chemical substances in common use is so high that there is a need to address the substance data shortage and calculate characterization factors for many new substances. Another unresolved issue is the need for quantitative information about the uncertainties that accompany the characterization factors. This is still only adequately addressed for one or two impact categories at midpoint, and this should be a focus point in future research. The dynamic character of LCIA research means that what is best practice will change quickly in time. The characterization methods presented in this paper represent what was best practice in 2008–2009.     

Comparison of different normalised LCIA results and their feasibility in communication

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to answer the following three questions: (1) What are the reference values of normalisation for Finnish production and Finnish consumption and how do they differ from the European reference values?, (2) How do these differences influence the interpretation of normalised LCIA results?, and (3) How can normalised LCIA results be made more comprehensible to non-LCA experts with the help of communication material?

Methods

Finnish reference values for normalisation were calculated on the basis of the Finnish environmentally extended input–output model and ReCiPe LCIA method. The influence of different normalised results on the interpretation of LCIA was assessed based on an LCA study of print products. LCA communication material (product-specific fact sheets) was developed by organising workshops and interviews with stakeholders in the paper and printing industry.

Results and discussion

A comparison of the production based Finnish reference values to the European reference values shows that Finland contributes roughly 1 % to the European values in all impact categories except in the fossil depletion category where the contribution is 3 %. The order of magnitude of the impact categories varies depending on the reference system used for normalisation, which influences the interpretation of LCIA results. The normalised results were made more comprehensible by developing fact sheets including background information and guidance for interpretation of the LCIA results.

Conclusions

The interpreter of normalised LCIA results does not usually have the information to estimate how the chosen reference system influences the results. A sensitivity analysis with different reference values may help to highlight this effect. When communicating to non-LCA-practitioners, LCIA results need to be connected to a wider context, which can be achieved by using normalisation to give an idea of the order of magnitude of the results. However, the harmfulness of the impact categories in relation to each other cannot be judged on the basis of the normalised results, which seems to be a difficult concept for non-LCA-practitioners to understand.     

Geographic variability of agriculture requires sector-specific uncertainty characterization

Purpose

Regionalization in life cycle assessment (LCA) has focused on spatially differentiated environmental variables for regional impact assessment models. Relatively less attention has been paid to spatial disparities in intermediate flows for life cycle inventory (LCI).

Methods

First, we compiled state-specific LCIs for four major crops in the USA and evaluated their geographic variability in the characterized results due to the differences in intermediate inputs. Second, we evaluated the consequence of choosing average or region-specific LCIs in understanding the life cycle environmental implications of land use change from cotton to corn or soybean. Finally, we analyzed the implications of our findings in characterizing the uncertainties associated with geographic variability under the conventional pedigree approach.

Results and discussion

Our results show that spatial disparities in LCI alone lead to two to fourfold differences in characterized results for most impact categories. The differences, however, increase to over an order of magnitude for freshwater ecotoxicity and human health non-cancer. Among the crops analyzed, winter wheat shows higher variability partly due to a larger difference in yield. As a result, the use of national average data derived from top corn and soybean producing states significantly underestimates the characterized impacts of corn and soybean in the states where land conversion from cotton to corn or soybean actually took place. The results also show that the conventional pedigree approach to uncertainty characterization in LCA substantially underestimates uncertainties arising from geographic variability of agriculture. Compared to the highest geometric standard deviation (GSD) value of 1.11 under the pedigree approach, the GSDs that we derived are as high as 7.1, with the median around 1.9.

Conclusions

The results highlight the importance of building regional life cycle inventory for understanding the environmental impacts of crops at the regional level. The high geographic variability of crops also indicates the need for sector-specific approaches to uncertainty characterization. Our results also suggest that the uncertainty values in the existing LCI databases might have been signficantly underestimated especially for those products with high geographic variability, demanding a cautious interpretation of the results derived from them. 

     

Notions on the Design and Use of an Ideal Regional or Global LCA Database

Goal, Scope and Background

More and more national and regional life cycle assessment (LCA) databases are being established satisfying the increasing demand on LCA in policy making (e.g. Integrated Product Policy, IPP) and in industry. In order to create harmonised datasets in such unified databases, a common understanding and common rules are required. This paper describes major requirements on the way towards an ideal national background LCA database in terms of co-operation, but also in terms of life cycle inventory analysis (LCI) and impact assessment (LCIA) methodology.

Methods

A classification of disputed methodological issues is made according to their consensus potential. In LCI, three main areas of dissent are identified where consensus seems hardly possible, namely system modelling (consequential versus attributional), allocation (including recycling) and reporting (transparency and progressiveness). In LCIA the time aspect is added to the well-known value judgements of the weighting step.

Results and Discussions

It is concluded that LCA methodology should rather allow for plurality than to urge harmonisation in any case. A series of questions is proposed to identify the most appropriate content of the LCA background database or the most appropriate LCI dataset. The questions help to identify the best suited approach in modelling the product system in general and multioutput and recycling processes in particular. They additionally help to clarify the position with regard to time preferences in LCIA. Intentionally, the answers to these questions are not attributed to particular goal and scope definitions, although some recommendations and clarifying explanations are provided.

Recommendations and Perspective

It is concluded that there is not one single ideal background database content. Value judgements are also present in LCI modelling and require pluralistic solutions; solutions possibly based on the same primary data. It is recommended to focus the methodological discussion on aspects where consensus is within reach, sensible and of added value for all parties.

     

Life cycle assessment of nanocomposites made of thermally conductive graphite nanoplatelets

Purpose

Polymers typically have intrinsic thermal conductivity much lower than other materials. Enhancement of this property may be obtained by the addition of conductive fillers. Nanofillers are preferred to traditional ones, due to their low percolation threshold resulting from their high aspect ratio. Beyond these considerations, it is imperative that the development of such new fillers takes place in a safe and sustainable manner. A conventional life cycle assessment (LCA) has been conducted on epoxy-based composites, filled with graphite nanoplatelets (GnP). In particular, this study focuses on energy requirements for the production of such composites, in order to stress environmental hot spots and primary energy of GnP production process (nano-wastes and nanoparticles emissions are not included).

Methods

A cradle-to-grave approach has been employed for this assessment, in an attributional modeling perspective. The data for the LCA have been gathered from both laboratory data and bibliographic references. A technical LCA software package, SimaPro (SimaPro 7.3), which contains Ecoinvent (2010) life cycle inventory (LCI) database, has been used for the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), studying 13 mid-point indicators. Sensitivity and uncertainty analyses have also been performed.

Results and discussion

One kilogram of GnP filler requires 1,879 MJ of primary energy while the preparation of 1 kg of epoxy composite loaded with 0.058 kg of GnP 303 MJ. Besides energy consumption in the filler preparation, it is shown that the thermoset matrix material has also a non-negligible impact on the life cycle despite the use of GnP: the primary energy required to make epoxy resin is 187 MJ, i.e., 62 % of the total energy to make 1 kg of composite.

Conclusions

Raw material extraction and filler and resin preparation phase exhibit the highest environmental impact while the composite production is negligible. Thermosetting resin remains the highest primary energy demand when used as matrix for GnP fillers. The result of the sensitivity analysis carried out on the electricity mix used during the GnP and the composite production processes does not affect the conclusions.     

Significance of the use of non-renewable fossil CED as proxy indicator for screening LCA in the beverage packaging sector

Purpose

This study discusses the significance of the use of non-renewable fossil cumulative energy demand (CED) as proxy indicator in the beverage packaging sector, in order to detect those situations in which companies can benefit from the use of proxy indicators before a full life cycle assessment (LCA) application. Starting from a case study of two milk containers, the objectives of this paper are to assess if the use of this inventory indicator can be a suitable proxy indicator both (1) to decide which is the packaging alternative with the lowest environmental impact and (2) to identify the most impacting process units of the two products under study.

Method

The analysis was made according to ISO14040-44. The goal of the comparative LCA was to evaluate and to compare the potential environmental impacts from cradle to grave of a laminated carton container and a HDPE bottle. The results of the comparative LCA obtained with the non-renewable CED indicator are compared with a selection of impact categories: climate change, particulate matter formation, terrestrial acidification, fossil depletion, photochemical oxidant formation. A further analysis is made for the two products under study in order to determine which are the environmental hot spots in terms of life cycle stages, by the means of a contribution analysis.

Results and discussion

From the comparative LCA, the use of non-renewable CED revealed to be useful for a screening as the results given by the non-renewable CED indicator are confirmed by all the impact categories considered, even if underestimated. If the aim of the LCA study was to define which is the packaging solution with a lower environmental impact, the choice of this inventory indicator could have led to the same decision as if a comprehensive LCIA method was used. The contribution analysis, focusing on the identification of environmental hot spots in the packaging value chain, revealed that the choice of an inventory indicator as non-renewable CED can lead to misleading results, if compared with another impact category, such as climate change.

Conclusions

As in the future development of beverage packaging system, LCA will be necessarily integrated in the design process, it is important to define other ways of simplifying its application and spread its use among companies. The LCI indicator non-renewable fossil CED can effectively be used in order to obtain a preliminary estimation of the life cycle environmental impacts of two or more competing products in the beverage packaging sector.     

Land use impact assessment in the construction sector: an analysis of LCIA models and case study application

Purpose

Land use is a potentially important impact category in life cycle assessment (LCA) studies of buildings. Three research questions are addressed in this paper: Is land use a decisive factor in the environmental impact of buildings?; Is it important to include the primary land use of buildings in the assessment?; and How does the environmental performance of solid structure and timber frame dwellings differ when assessed by distinct available models for quantifying land use impacts?

Methods

This paper compares several operational land use impact assessment models, which are subsequently implemented in an LCA case study comparing a building constructed using timber frame versus a solid structure. Different models were used for addressing the different research questions.

Results and discussion

The results reveal that contrasting decisions may be supported by LCA study results, depending on whether or not and how land use is included in the assessment. The analysis also highlights the need to include the building land footprint in the assessment and to better distinguish building locations in current land use impact assessment models.

Conclusions

Selecting land use assessment models that are most appropriate to the goals of the study is recommended as different models assess different environmental issues related to land use. In general, the combination of two land use assessment methods for buildings is recommended, i.e. soil organic matter (SOM) of Milà i Canals and Eco-indicator 99.