中国生命周期评价理论与实践研究进展及对策分析

主要分析了我国生命周期评价的理论与实践研究进展与数据库构建现状,针对当前我国生命周期评价理论与应用研究的关键薄弱环节即不确定性分析、本土化数据库构建、本土化生命周期环境影响评价模型构建,指出了利用泰勒系列展开模型进行符合我国产业链生产现状的精确、完整、具有代表性、具有时空动态特征的生命周期数据库构建的必要性;并指出需要根据我国国情(例如:环境、地理、人口、暴露等)来构建生命周期环境影响评价模型的紧迫性。     

Life cycle assessment of a pyrolysis/gasification plant for hazardous paint waste

Goal, Scope and Background Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) remains an important tool in Dutch waste management policies. In 2002 the new National Waste Management Plan 2002–2012 (NWMP) became effective. It was supported by some 150 LCA studies for more than 20 different waste streams. The LCA results provided a benchmark level for new waste management technologies. Although not new, operational techniques using combined pyrolysis/gasification are still fairly rare in Europe. The goal of this study is to determine the environmental performance of the only full scale pyrolysis/gasification plant in the Netherlands and to compare it with more conventional techniques such as incineration. The results of the study support the process of obtaining environmental permits. Methods In this study we used an impact assessment method based on the guidelines described by the Centre of Environmental Science (CML) of Leiden University. The functional unit is defined as treatment of 1 ton of collected hazardous waste (paint packaging waste). Similar to the NWMP, not only normalized scores are presented but also 7 aggegated scores. All interventions from the foreground process (land use, emissions, final waste) are derived directly from the site with the exception of emissions to soil which were calculated. Interventions are accounted to each of the different waste streams by physical relations. Data from background processes are taken from the IVAM LCA database 4.0 mostly originating from the Swiss ETH96 database and adapted to the Dutch situation. Allocation was avoided by using system enlargement. The study has been peer reviewed by an external expert. Results and Discussion It was possible to determine an environmental performance for the pyrolysis/ gasification of paint packaging waste. The Life Cycle Inventory was mainly hampered by the uncertainty occurred with estimated air emissions. Here several assumptions had to be made because several waste inputs and two waste treatment installations profit from one flue gas cleaning treatment thus making it difficult to allocate the emission values from the flue gasses. Compared to incineration in a rotary kiln, pyrolysis/gasification of hazardous waste showed better scores for most of the considered impact categories. Only for the impact categories biodiversity and life support the incineration option proved favorable due to a lower land use. Several impact categories had significant influence on the conclusions: acidification, global warming potential, human toxicity and terrestrial ecotoxicity. The first three are related to a better energy efficiency for pyrolysis/gasification leading to less fossil energy consumption. Terrestrial ecotoxicity in this case is related to specific emissions of mercury and chromium (III). A sensitivity analysis has been performed as well. It was found that the environmental performance of the gasification technique is sensitive to the energy efficiency that can be reached as well as the choice for the avoided fossil energy source. In this study a conservative choice for diesel oil was made whereas a choice for heavy or light fuel oil would further improve the environmental profile. Conclusions Gasification of hazardous waste has a better environmental performance compared to the traditional incineration in rotary kilns mainly due to the high energy efficiency. As was determined by sensitivity analysis the differences in environmental performance are significant. Improvement options for a better performance are a decrease of process emissions (especially mercury) and a further improvement of the energy balance by decreasing the electricity consumption for shredders and oxygen consumption or making more use of green electricity. Recommendations and Perspectives Although the life cycle inventory was sufficiently complete, still some assumptions had to be made in order to establish sound mass balances on the level of individual components and substances. The data on input of waste and output of emissions and final waste were not compatible. It was recommended that companies put more emphasis on data storage accounted to particular waste streams. This is even more relevant since more companies in the future are expected to include life cycle impacts in their environmental performance.     

Environmental impact of two aerobic composting technologies using life cycle assessment

Background, aim, and scope  Composting is a viable technology to treat the organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) because it stabilizes biodegradable organic matter and contributes to reduce the quantity of municipal solid waste to be incinerated or land-filled. However, the composting process generates environmental impacts such as atmospheric emissions and resources consumption that should be studied. This work presents the inventory data and the study of the environmental impact of two real composting plants using different technologies, tunnels (CT) and confined windrows (CCW). Materials and methods  Inventory data of the two composting facilities studied were obtained from field measurements and from plant managers. Next, life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology was used to calculate the environmental impacts. Composting facilities were located in Catalonia (Spain) and were evaluated during 2007. Both studied plants treat source separated organic fraction of municipal solid waste. In both installations the analysis includes environmental impact from fuel, water, and electricity consumption and the main gaseous emissions from the composting process itself (ammonia and volatile organic compounds). Results and discussion  Inventory analysis permitted the calculation of different ratios corresponding to resources consumption or plant performance and process yield with respect to 1 t of OFMSW. Among them, it can be highlighted that in both studied plants total energy consumption necessary to treat the OFMSW and transform it into compost was between 130 and 160 kWh/t OFMSW. Environmental impact was evaluated in terms of global warming potential (around 60 kg CO₂/t OFMSW for both plants), acidification potential (7.13 and 3.69 kg SO₂ eq/t OFMSW for CT and CCW plant respectively), photochemical oxidation potential (0.1 and 3.11 kg C₂H₄ eq/t OFMSW for CT and CCW plant, respectively), eutrophication (1.51 and 0.77 kg /t OFMSW for CT and CCW plant, respectively), human toxicity (around 15 kg 1,4-DB eq/t OFMSW for both plants) and ozone layer depletion (1.66 × 10⁻⁵ and 2.77 × 10⁻⁵ kg CFC⁻¹¹ eq/t OFMSW for CT and CCW plant, respectively). Conclusions  This work reflects that the life cycle perspective is a useful tool to analyze a composting process since it permits the comparison among different technologies. According to our results total energy consumption required for composting OFMSW is dependent on the technology used (ranging from 130 to 160 kWh/t OFMSW) as water consumption is (from 0.02 to 0.33 m³ of water/t OFMSW). Gaseous emissions from the composting process represent the main contribution to eutrophication, acidification and photochemical oxidation potentials, while those contributions related to energy consumption are the principal responsible for global warming. Recommendations and perspectives  This work provides the evaluation of environmental impacts of two composting technologies that can be useful for its application to composting plants with similar characteristics. In addition, this study can also be part of future works to compare composting with other OFMSW treatments from a LCA perspective. Likewise, the results can be used for the elaboration of a greenhouse gasses emissions inventory in Catalonia and Spain.     

Energy and emission benefits of alternative transportation liquid fuels derived from switchgrass: a fuel life cycle assessment

We conducted a mobility chains, or well-to-wheels (WTW), analysis to assess the energy and emission benefits of cellulosic biomass for the U.S. transportation sector in the years 2015-2030. We estimated the life-cycle energy consumption and emissions associated with biofuel production and use in light-duty vehicle (LDV) technologies by using the Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation (GREET) model. Analysis of biofuel production was based on ASPEN Plus model simulation of an advanced fermentation process to produce fuel ethanol/protein, a thermochemical process to produce Fischer-Tropsch diesel (FTD) and dimethyl ether (DME), and a combined heat and power plant to co-produce steam and electricity. Our study revealed that cellulosic biofuels as E85 (mixture of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline by volume), FTD, and DME offer substantial savings in petroleum (66-93%) and fossil energy (65-88%) consumption on a per-mile basis. Decreased fossil fuel use translates to 82-87% reductions in greenhouse gas emissions across all unblended cellulosic biofuels. In urban areas, our study shows net reductions for almost all criteria pollutants, with the exception of carbon monoxide (unchanged), for each of the biofuel production option examined. Conventional and hybrid electric vehicles, when fueled with E85, could reduce total sulfur oxide (SO(x)) emissions to 39-43% of those generated by vehicles fueled with gasoline. By using bio-FTD and bio-DME in place of diesel, SO(x) emissions are reduced to 46-58% of those generated by diesel-fueled vehicles. Six different fuel production options were compared. This study strongly suggests that integrated heat and power co-generation by means of gas turbine combined cycle is a crucial factor in the energy savings and emission reductions.     

Comparative life cycle assessment of two landfill technologies for the treatment of municipal solid waste

Goal and Scope  The potential environmental impacts associated with two landfill technologies for the treatment of municipal solid waste (MSW), the engineered landfill and the bioreactor landfill, were assessed using the life cycle assessment (LCA) tool. The system boundaries were expanded to include an external energy production function since the landfill gas collected from the bioreactor landfill can be energetically valorized into either electricity or heat; the functional unit was then defined as the stabilization of 600 000 tonnes of MSW and the production of 2.56x10⁸ MJ of electricity and 7.81x10⁸ MJ of heat. Methods  Only the life cycle stages that presented differences between the two compared options were considered in the study. The four life cycle stages considered in the study cover the landfill cell construction, the daily and closure operations, the leachate and landfill gas associated emissions and the external energy production. The temporal boundary corresponded to the stabilization of the waste and was represented by the time to produce 95% of the calculated landfill gas volume. The potential impacts were evaluated using the EDIP97 method, stopping after the characterization step. Results and Discussion  The inventory phase of the LCA showed that the engineered landfill uses 26% more natural resources and generates 81% more solid wastes throughout its life cycle than the bioreactor landfill. The evaluated impacts, essentially associated with the external energy production and the landfill gas related emissions, are on average 91% higher for the engineered landfill, since for this option 1) no energy is recovered from the landfill gas and 2) more landfill gas is released untreated after the end of the post-closure monitoring period. The valorization of the landfill gas to electricity or heat showed similar environmental profiles (1% more raw materials and 7% more solid waste for the heat option but 13% more impacts for the electricity option). Conclusion and Recommendations  The methodological choices made during this study, e.g. simplification of the systems by the exclusion of the identical life cycle stages, limit the use of the results to the comparison of the two considered options. The validity of this comparison could however be improved if the systems were placed in the larger context of municipal solid waste management and include activities such as recycling, composting and incineration.     

Comparative life cycle assessment of three biohydrogen pathways

A life cycle assessment was performed to quantify and compare the energetic and environmental performances of hydrogen from wheat straw (WS-H₂), sweet sorghum stalk (SSS-H₂), and steam potato peels (SPP-H₂). Inventory data were derived from a pilot plant. Impacts were assessed using the impact 2002+ method. When co-product was not considered, the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were 5.60 kg CO_2eq kg⁻¹ H₂ for WS-H₂, 5.32 kg CO_2eq kg⁻¹ H₂ for SSS-H₂, and 5.18 kg CO_2eq kg⁻¹ H₂ for SPP-H₂. BioH₂ pathways reduced GHG emissions by 52-56% compared to diesel and by 54-57% compared to steam methane reforming production of H₂. The energy ratios (ER) were also comparable: 1.08 for WS-H₂, 1.14 for SSS-H₂ and 1.17 for SPP-H₂. A shift from SPP-H₂ to WS-H₂ would therefore not affect the ER and GHG emissions of these BioH₂ pathways. When co-product was considered, a shift from SPP-H₂ to WS-H₂ or SSS-H₂ decreased the ER, while increasing the GHG emissions significantly. Co-product yield should be considered when selecting BioH₂ feedstocks.     

农业生命周期评价研究进展

作为评价产品系统全链条环境影响的有效工具,生命周期评价（LCA）方法已广泛用于工业领域。农业领域也面临着高强度的资源和环境压力,LCA在农业领域的应用应运而生。旨在综述已有农业LCA研究的基础上,鉴别农业LCA应用存在的问题,并为农业LCA未来的发展提出建议。目前农业LCA存在系统边界和功能单位界定不明晰、缺少区域清单数据库、生命周期环境影响评价模型（LCIA）不能准确反映农业系统环境影响、结果解释存在误区等方面的问题。为了科学准确地衡量农业系统的环境影响,促进农业系统的可持续发展,文章认为农业LCA应该从以下几个方面加强研究,即科学界定评价的参照系、系统边界的扩大及功能单位的合理选取、区域异质性数据库构建与LCIA模型开发、基于组织农业LCA的开发以及对于利益相关者行为的研究。     

A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment

Background, aims, and scope  Life cycle assessment (LCA) stands as the pre-eminent tool for estimating environmental effects caused by products and processes from ‘cradle to grave’ or ‘cradle to cradle.’ It exists in multiple forms, claims a growing list of practitioners and remains a focus of continuing research. Despite its popularity and codification by organizations such as the International Organization for Standardization and the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, life cycle assessment is a tool in need of improvement. Multiple authors have written about its individual problems, but a unified treatment of the subject is lacking. The following literature survey gathers and explains issues, problems and problematic decisions currently limiting LCA’s impact assessment and interpretation phases. Main features  The review identifies 15 major problem areas and organizes them by the LCA phases in which each appears. This part of the review focuses on the latter eight problems. It is meant as a concise summary for practitioners interested in methodological limitations which might degrade the accuracy of their assessments. For new researchers, it provides an overview of pertinent problem areas toward which they might wish to direct their research efforts. Having identified and discussed LCA’s major problems, closing sections highlight the most critical problems and briefly propose research agendas meant to improve them. Results and discussion  Multiple problems occur in each of LCA’s four phases and reduce the accuracy of this tool. Considering problem severity and the adequacy of current solutions, six of the 15 discussed problems are of paramount importance. In LCA’s latter two phases, spatial variation and local environmental uniqueness are critical problems requiring particular attention. Data availability and quality are identified as critical problems affecting all four phases. Conclusions and recommendations  Observing that significant efforts by multiple researchers have not resulted in a single, agreed upon approach for the first three critical problems, development of LCA archetypes for functional unit definition, boundary selection and allocation is proposed. Further development of spatially explicit, dynamic modeling is recommended to ameliorate the problems of spatial variation and local environmental uniqueness. Finally, this paper echoes calls for peer-reviewed, standardized LCA inventory and impact databases, and it suggests the development of model bases. Both of these efforts would help alleviate persistent problems with data availability and quality.

The potential role of life cycle assessment in regulation of chemicals in the European union

Scope and Background  This paper presents the preliminary results from an ongoing feasibility study, investigating potential application of elements from the life cycle assessment (LCA) framework in European chemicals’ policy. Many policy areas affect manufacturing, marketing and use of chemicals. This article focuses on the general chemical legislation, especially issues related to regulatory risk assessment and subsequent decisions on risk reduction measures. Method  Current and upcoming chemical regulation has been reviewed and empirical knowledge has been gained from an ongoing case study and from dialogues with various stakeholders. Results and Discussion  LCAs are comparative and more holistic in view as compared to chemical risk assessments for regulatory purposes¹. LCAs may therefore potentially improve the basis for decisions between alternatives in cases where a risk assessment calls for risk reduction. In this process, LCA results might feed into a socio-economic analysis having similar objectives, but some methodological aspects related to system boundaries need to be sorted out. Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) of toxic effects has traditionally been inspired by the more regulatory-orientated risk assessment approaches. However, the increasing need for regulatory priority setting and comparative/ cumulative assessments might in the future convey LCIA principles into the regulatory framework. The same underlying databases on inherent properties of chemicals are already applied in both types of assessment. Similarly, data on the use and exposure of chemicals are needed within both risk assessments and LCA, and the methodologies might therefore benefit from a joint ‘inventory’ database. Outlook  The final outcome of the feasibility study will be an implementation plan suggesting incorporation of core findings in future chemical regulation and related policy areas.     

Life cycle assessment of emerging technologies: A review

In recent literature, prospective application of life cycle assessment (LCA) at low technology readiness levels (TRL) has gained immense interest for its potential to enable development of emerging technologies with improved environmental performances. However, limited data, uncertain functionality, scale up issues and uncertainties make it very challenging for the standard LCA guidelines to evaluate emerging technologies and requires methodological advances in the current LCA framework. In this paper, we review published literature to identify major methodological challenges and key research efforts to resolve these issues with a focus on recent developments in five major areas: cross‐study comparability, data availability and quality, scale‐up issues, uncertainty and uncertainty communication, and assessment time. We also provide a number of recommendations for future research to support the evaluation of emerging technologies at low technology readiness levels: (a) the development of a consistent framework and reporting methods for LCA of emerging technologies; (b) the integration of other tools with LCA, such as multicriteria decision analysis, risk analysis, technoeconomic analysis; and (c) the development of a data repository for emerging materials, processes, and technologies.     

A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment

Background, aims, and scope  Life cycle assessment (LCA) stands as the pre-eminent tool for estimating environmental effects caused by products and processes from ‘cradle to grave’ or ‘cradle to cradle.’ It exists in multiple forms, claims a growing list of practitioners, and remains a focus of continuing research. Despite its popularity and codification by organizations such as the International Organization for Standards and the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, life cycle assessment is a tool in need of improvement. Multiple authors have written about its individual problems, but a unified treatment of the subject is lacking. The following literature survey gathers and explains issues, problems and problematic decisions currently limiting LCA’s goal and scope definition and life cycle inventory phases. Main features  The review identifies 15 major problem areas and organizes them by the LCA phases in which each appears. This part of the review focuses on the first 7 of these problems occurring during the goal and scope definition and life cycle inventory phases. It is meant as a concise summary for practitioners interested in methodological limitations which might degrade the accuracy of their assessments. For new researchers, it provides an overview of pertinent problem areas toward which they might wish to direct their research efforts. Results and discussion  Multiple problems occur in each of LCA’s four phases and reduce the accuracy of this tool. Considering problem severity and the adequacy of current solutions, six of the 15 discussed problems are of paramount importance. In LCA’s first two phases, functional unit definition, boundary selection, and allocation are critical problems requiring particular attention. Conclusions and recommendations  Problems encountered during goal and scope definition arise from decisions about inclusion and exclusion while those in inventory analysis involve flows and transformations. Foundational decisions about the basis of comparison (functional unit), bounds of the study, and physical relationships between included processes largely dictate the representativeness and, therefore, the value of an LCA. It is for this reason that problems in functional unit definition, boundary selection, and allocation are the most critical examined in the first part of this review.

基于生命周期评价的上海市水稻生产的碳足迹

碳足迹是指由企业、组织或个人引起的碳排放的集合。参照PAS2050规范并结合生命周期评价方法对上海市水稻生产进行了碳足迹评估。结果表明:(1)目前上海市水稻生产的碳排放为11.8114 t CO2e/hm2,折合每吨水稻生产周期的碳足迹为1.2321 t CO2e;(2)稻田温室气体排放是水稻生产最主要的碳排放源,每吨水稻生产的总排放量为0.9507 t CO2e,占水稻生产全部碳排放的77.1%,其中甲烷(CH4)又是最主要的温室气体,对稻田温室气体碳排放的贡献率高达96.6%;(3)化学肥料的施用是第二大碳排放源,每吨水稻生产的总排放量为0.2044 t CO2e,占水稻生产总碳排放的16.5%,其中N最高,排放量为0.1159 t CO2e。因此,上海低碳水稻生产的关键在降低稻田甲烷的排放,另外可通过提高氮肥利用效率,减少氮肥施用等方法减少种植过程中碳排放。     

Consequential life cycle assessment of miscanthus livestock bedding,diverting straw to bioelectricity generation

Straw is an important livestock bedding material facing increasing demand for alternative uses in Europe and is often transported long distances from arable to livestock regions. Alternative bedding materials cultivated directly on livestock farms could potentially avoid this transport and competition for use. For the first time, we applied consequential life cycle assessment (LCA) to account for the direct and indirect implications of miscanthus bedding production on livestock farms, considering displacement of fodder or livestock, and substitution of fossil fuels with straw in electricity generation. We modelled the effect of substituting straw with ‘home‐grown’ miscanthus bedding across seven beef and sheep farms. The consequences of displacing grass forage (or animal) production with home‐grown miscanthus bedding cultivation were evaluated via three farmer decision scenarios: buy extra concentrate feed (D₁), utilize remaining pasture areas more efficiently (D₂) and buy grass silage (D₃). Electricity generated from displaced straw (bedding) substituted either natural gas or coal electricity. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken using 34 scenario permutations to represent combinations of feed and electricity substitution, miscanthus fertilization rates and yields, and the quality of displaced pasture. Consequential LCA indicates that miscanthus bedding production could be environmentally beneficial, under scenarios involving D₂ and D₃. However, greenhouse gas emissions and wider environmental burdens may be increased under D₁ scenarios, owing to the environmental cost of additional concentrate feed production, and possible indirect land use change, outweighing the benefits from: (a) fossil electricity substitution with straw bioelectricity; (b) reduced animal emissions via improved digestibility of concentrate feed; (c) avoided straw transport. The ratio of the yield of miscanthus to replaced grass was found to be a critical determinant of D₁ environmental outcomes. We conclude that if grass forage production can be better managed, the use of miscanthus as a bedding material on livestock farms provides environmental benefits via diversion of straw to bioenergy use.     

Relevance and feasibility of social life cycle assessment from a company perspective

Background, aim, and scope

Methodology development should reflect demands from the intended users: what are the needs of the user group and what is feasible in terms of requirements involving data and work? Mapping these questions of relevance and feasibility is thus a way to facilitate a higher degree of relevance of the developed methodology. For the emerging area of social life cycle assessment (SLCA), several different potential user groups may be identified. This article addresses the issues of relevance and feasibility of SLCA from a company perspective through a series of interviews among potential company users.

Methods and materials

The empirical basis for the survey is a series of eight semi-structured interviews with larger Danish companies, all of which potentially have the capacity and will to use comprehensive social assessment methodologies. SLCA is not yet a well-defined methodology, but still it is possible to outline several potential applications of SLCA and the tasks a company must be able to perform in order to make use of these applications. The interviews focus on the companies’ interest in these potential applications and their ability and willingness to undertake the required work.

Results

Based on these interviews, three hypotheses are developed relating to these companies’ potential use of SLCA, viz.: (1) needs which may be supported by SLCA relate to three different applications, being comparative assertions, use stage assessments, and weighting of social impacts; (2) assessing the full life cycle of a product or service is rarely possible for the companies; and (3) companies see their social responsibility in the product chain as broader than dictated by the product perspective of SLCA. Trends for these three hypotheses developed on the basis of the opinions of the interviewees. Also, factors influencing the generalization of the results to cover other industries are analyzed.

Discussion

Full comparative assertions as known from environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) may be difficult in a company context due to several difficulties in assessing the full life cycle. Furthermore, the comparative assertion may potentially be hampered by differences in how companies typically allocate responsibility along the product chain and how it is done in SLCA, creating a boundary setting issue. These problems do, only in a limited degree, apply for both the use stage assessment and the tool for weighting social issues.

Conclusion

Despite these difficulties, it is concluded that all three applications of SLCA may be possible for the interviewed companies, but it seems the tendency is to demand assessment tools with very limited life cycle perspective, which to some extent deviate from the original thought behind the LCA tools as being holistic decision aid tools.

Perspectives

It is advocated that there is a need to focus more on questions regarding the relevance and feasibility of SLCA from several different perspectives to direct the future methodology development.     

Life cycle assessment of biofuels: Energy and greenhouse gas balances

The promotion of biofuels as energy for transportation in the industrialized countries is mainly driven by the perspective of oil depletion, the concerns about energy security and global warming. However due to sustainability constraints, biofuels will replace only 10 to 15% of fossil liquid fuels in the transport sector. Several governments have defined a minimum target of GHG emissions reduction for those biofuels that will be eligible to public incentives, for example a 35% emissions reduction in case of biofuels in Members States of the European Union. This article points out the significant biases in estimating GHG balances of biofuels stemming from modelling choices about system definition and boundaries, functional unit, reference systems and allocation methods. The extent to which these choices influence the results is investigated. After performing a comparison and constructive criticism of various modelling choices, the LCA of wheat-to-bioethanol is used as an illustrative case where bioethanol is blended with gasoline at various percentages (E5, E10 and E85). The performance of these substitution options is evaluated as well. The results show a large difference in the reduction of the GHG emissions with a high sensitivity to the following factors: the method used to allocate the impacts between the co-products, the type of reference systems, the choice of the functional unit and the type of blend. The authors come out with some recommendations for basing the estimation of energy and GHG balances of biofuels on principles such as transparency, consistency and accuracy.     

Cradle-to-gate life cycle inventory and assessment of pharmaceutical compounds

Background, Goal and Scope  The research presented here represents one part of GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK) efforts to identify and improve the life cycle impact profile of pharmaceutical products. The main goal of this work was to identify and analyze the cradle-to-gate environmental impacts in the synthesis of a typical Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API). A cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment of a commercial pharmaceutical product is presented as a case study. Methods  Life cycle inventory data were obtained using a modular gate-to-gate methodology developed in partnership with North Carolina State University (NCSU) while the impact assessment was performed utilizing GSK’s sustainability metrics methodology. Results and Discussion  Major contributors to the environmental footprint of a typical pharmaceutical product were identified. The results of this study indicate that solvent use accounts for a majority of the potential cradle-to-gate impacts associated with the manufacture of the commercial pharmaceutical product under study. If spent solvent is incinerated instead of recovered the life-cycle profile and impacts are considerably increased. Conclusions  This case study provided GSK with key insights into the life-cycle impacts of pharmaceutical products. It also helped to establish a well-documented approach to using life cycle within GSK and fostered the development of a practical methodology that is applicable to strategic decision making, internal business processes and other processes and tools.     

生命周期评价方法在城市生活垃圾管理中的应用研究述评

结合城市生活垃圾管理系统特征,系统归纳基于生命周期评价(Life cycle assessment,LCA)方法的城市生活垃圾管理模型的发展现状,并对LCA方法在城市生活垃圾管理中的实践以及在我国开展城市生活垃圾管理LCA研究的应用前景进行评述。分析表明,LCA是城市生活垃圾管理领域的重要工具之一,基于LCA方法的城市生活垃圾管理模型在全生命周期环境影响评价与识别、处置工艺选择与改进、可持续生活垃圾管理决策支持等方面具有十分重要的应用价值。中国在本地化生活垃圾管理系统LCA模型开发、清单数据库和评价指标体系构建以及与其他研究方法集成等方面面临挑战。