Comparing priority setting in integrated hazardous substance assessment and in life cycle impact assessment

Purpose  

The purpose of the study was to compare three recent Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) models in prioritizing substances and products from national emission inventories. The focus was on ecotoxic and human toxic impacts. The aim was to test model output against expert judgment on chemical risk assessment.     

USEtox fate and ecotoxicity factors for comparative assessment of toxic emissions in life cycle analysis: sensitivity to key chemical properties

Purpose  

The USEtox model was developed in a scientific consensus process involving comparison of and harmonization between existing environmental multimedia fate models. USEtox quantitatively models the continuum from chemical emission to freshwater ecosystem toxicity via chemical-specific characterization factors (CFs) for Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA). This work provides understanding of the key mechanisms and chemical parameters influencing fate in the environment and impact on aquatic ecosystems.     

Comparison between three different LCIA methods for aquatic ecotoxicity and a product environmental risk assessment

Background and Objective  In the OMNIITOX project 11 partners have the common objective to improve environmental management tools for the assessment of (eco)toxicological impacts. The detergent case study aims at: i) comparing three Procter &c Gamble laundry detergent forms (Regular Powder-RP, Compact Powder-CP and Compact Liquid-CL) regarding their potential impacts on aquatic ecotoxicity, ii) providing insights into the differences between various Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) methods with respect to data needs and results and iii) comparing the results from Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) with results from an Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA). Material and Methods  The LCIA has been conducted with EDIP97 (chronic aquatic ecotoxicity) [1], USES-LCA (freshwater and marine water aquatic ecotoxicity, sometimes referred to as CML2001) [2, 3] and IMPACT 2002 (covering freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity) [4]. The comparative product ERA is based on the EU Ecolabel approach for detergents [5] and EUSES [6], which is based on the Technical Guidance Document (TGD) of the EU on Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) of chemicals [7]. Apart from the Eco-label approach, all calculations are based on the same set of physico-chemical and toxicological effect data to enable a better comparison of the methodological differences. For the same reason, the system boundaries were kept the same in all cases, focusing on emissions into water at the disposal stage. Results and Discussion  Significant differences between the LCIA methods with respect to data needs and results were identified. Most LCIA methods for freshwater ecotoxicity and the ERA see the compact and regular powders as similar, followed by compact liquid. IMPACT 2002 (for freshwater) suggests the liquid is equally as good as the compact powder, while the regular powder comes out worse by a factor of 2. USES-LCA for marine water shows a very different picture seeing the compact liquid as the clear winner over the powders, with the regular powder the least favourable option. Even the LCIA methods which result in die same product ranking, e.g. EDIP97 chronic aquatic ecotoxicity and USES-LCA freshwater ecotoxicity, significantly differ in terms of most contributing substances. Whereas, according to IMPACT 2002 and USES-LCA marine water, results are entirely dominated by inorganic substances, the other LCIA methods and the ERA assign a key role to surfactants. Deviating results are mainly due to differences in the fate and exposure modelling and, to a lesser extent, to differences in the toxicological effect calculations. Only IMPACT 2002 calculates the effects based on a mean value approach, whereas all other LCIA methods and the ERA tend to prefer a PNEC-based approach. In a comparative context like LCA the OMNIITOX project has taken the decision for a combined mean and PNEC-based approach, as it better represents the ‘average’ toxicity while still taking into account more sensitive species. However, the main reason for deviating results remains in the calculation of the residence time of emissions in the water compartments. Conclusion and Outlook  The situation that different LCIA methods result in different answers to the question concerning which detergent type is to be preferred regarding the impact category aquatic ecotoxicity is not satisfactory, unless explicit reasons for the differences are identifiable. This can hamper practical decision support, as LCA practitioners usually will not be in a position to choose the ’right’ LCIA method for their specific case. This puts a challenge to the entire OMNIITOX project to develop a method, which finds common ground regarding fate, exposure and effect modelling to overcome the current situa-tion of diverging results and to reflect most realistic conditions.     

Life cycle impact assessment and interpretation of municipal solid waste management scenarios based on the midpoint and endpoint approaches

Purpose  

Few studies have examined differing interpretations of life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) results between midpoints and endpoints for the same systems. This paper focuses on the LCIA of municipal solid waste (MSW) systems by taking both the midpoint and endpoint approaches and uses LIME (Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method based on Endpoint Modeling, version 2006). With respect to global and site-dependent factors, environmental impact categories were divided into global, regional, and local scales. Results are shown as net emissions consisting of system emissions and avoided emissions.     

Evaluation of selection methods for toxicological impacts in LCA recommendations for OMNIITOX

Goal, Scope and Background  

The aim of this study has been to come up with recommendations on how to develop a selection method (SM) within the method development research of the OMNHTOX project. An SM is a method for prioritization of chemical emissions to be included in a Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) characterisation, in particular for (eco)toxicological impacts. It is therefore designed for pre-screening to support a characterisation method. The main reason why SMs are needed in the context of LCIA is the high number of chemical emissions that potentially contribute to the impacts on ecosystems and human health. It will often not be feasible to cover all emissions with characterisation factors and, therefore, there exists a need to focus the effort on the most significant chemical emissions in the characterisation step. Until now not all LCA studies include tox-icity-related impact categories, and when they do there are typically many gaps. This study covers the only existing methods explicitly designed as SMs (EDIP-selection, Priofactor and CPM-selection), the dominating Chemical Ranking and Scoring (CRS) method in Europe (EURAM) and in the USA (WMPT) that can be adapted for this purpose, as well as methods presenting novel approaches which could be valuable in the development of improved SMs (CART analysis and Hasse diagram technique).     

The formulation of life cycle impact assessment framework for Malaysia using Eco-indicator

Background, aim, and scope  

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is an emerging supporting tool designed to help practitioner in systematically assessing the environmental performance of selected product’s life cycle. A product’s life cycle includes the extraction of raw materials, production, and usage, and ends with waste treatment or disposal. Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) as a part of LCA is a method used to derive the environmental burdens from selected product’s stages. LCIA is structured in classification, characterization, normalization and weighting. Presently most of the LCIA practices use European database to establish the characterization, normalization and weighting value. However, using these values for local LCA practice might not be able to reflect the actual Malaysian’s environmental scenario. The aim of this study is to create a Malaysian version of normalization and weighting value using the pollution database within Malaysia.     

Comparison of environmental impact and external cost assessment methods

Background, aim, and scope  

Impact assessment can be completed with the help of Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) as a part of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and External Cost Assessment methods. These methods help, for project and product classifications, to protect human health and the environment. Comparison of different impact assessment methods along parallel evaluations of real air pollution case studies helps to detect similarities and dependencies between them. The comparison helps and supports the work in both areas by mutually exploiting the merits of both methods. On the other hand, the detected similarities and dependencies also support the accuracy of the assessment work.     

MEXALCA: a modular method for the extrapolation of crop LCA

Purpose  

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is widely used for the environmental assessment of food products, but difficulties arise when evaluating large portfolios of food products or when faced with a diversity of sources of ingredients and/or frequent changes of suppliers. In such situations, a specific, in-depth assessment of each ingredient is not feasible, and screening approaches using a few LCIA (Life Cycle Impact Assessment) results are not recommended. The goal of this paper is to propose an intermediate solution between a screening assessment using limited data and specific LCA for all products considering all sources of ingredients.     

Life Cycle Impact Assessment—where we are, trends, and next steps: a late report from a UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative workshop and a few updates from recent developments

Purpose

The paper provides a late report from the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Life Cycle Initiative workshop “Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)—where we are, trends, and next steps;” it embeds this report into recent development with regard to the envisaged development of global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment indicators and related methodologies.

Methods

The document is the output of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative’s workshop on “Life Cycle Impact Assessment—where we are, trends, and next steps.” The presentations and discussions held during the workshop reviewed the first two phases of the Life Cycle Initiative and provided an overview of current LCIA activities being conducted by the Initiative, governments and academia, as well as corporate approaches. The outcomes of the workshop are reflected in light of the implementation of the strategy for Phase 3 of the Life Cycle Initiative.

Results

The range of views provided during the workshop indicated different user needs, with regards to, amongst other things, the required complexity of the LCIA methodology, associated costs, and the selection of LCIA categories depending on environmental priorities. The workshop’s results signified a number of potential focus areas for Phase 3 of the Initiative, including capacity building efforts concerning LCIA in developing countries and emerging economies, the preparation of training materials on LCIA, the production of global guidance on LCIA, and the potential development of a broader sustainability indicators framework.

Conclusions

These suggestions have been taken into account in the strategy for Phase 3 of the Life Cycle Initiative in two flagship projects, one on global capability development on life cycle approaches and the other on global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment indicators. In the context of the latter project, first activities are being organized and planned. Moreover, UNEP has included the recommendations in its Rio + 20 Voluntary Commitments: UNEP and SETAC through the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative commit to facilitate improved access to good quality life cycle data and databases as well as expanded use of key environmental indicators that allows the measurement and monitoring of progress towards the environmental sustainability of selected product chains.     

LCA of the timber sector in Ghana: preliminary life cycle impact assessment (LCIA)

Purpose  

Most life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) approaches in life cycle assessment (LCA) are developed for western countries. Their LCIA approaches and characterization methodologies for different impact categories may not be necessarily relevant to African environmental conditions and particularly not for the timber sector in Ghana. This study reviews the relevance of existing impact categories and LCIA approaches, and uses the most relevant for the timber sector of Ghana.     

Developing characterisation factors for land fragmentation impacts on biodiversity in LCA: key learnings from a sugarcane case study

Purpose

Habitat change was identified by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment as the main direct driver of biodiversity loss. However, while habitat loss is already implemented in Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) methods, the additional impact on biodiversity due to habitat fragmentation is not assessed yet. Thus, the goal of this study was to include fragmentation effects from land occupation and transformation at both midpoint and endpoint levels in LCIA.

Methods

One promising metric, combining the landscape spatial configuration with species characteristics, is the metapopulation capacity λ, which can be used to rank landscapes in terms of their capacity to support viable populations spatially structured. A methodology to derive worldwide regionalised fragmentation indexes based on λ was used and combined with the Species Fragmented-Area Relationship (SFAR), which relies on λ to assess a species loss due to fragmentation. We adapted both developments to assess fragmentation impacts due to land occupation and transformation at both midpoint and endpoint levels in LCIA. An application to sugarcane production occurring in different geographical areas, more or less sensitive to land fragmentation, was performed.

Results and discussion

The comparison to other existing LCIA indicators highlighted its great potential for complementing current assessments through fragmentation effect inclusion. Last, both models were discussed through the evaluation grid used by the UNEP-SETAC land use LCIA working group for biodiversity impact assessment models.

Conclusions

Midpoint and endpoint characterisation factors were successfully developed to include the impacts of habitat fragmentation on species in LCIA. For now, they are provided for bird species in all forest ecoregions belonging to the biodiversity hotspots. Further work is required to develop characterisation factors for all taxa and all terrestrial ecoregions.

     

Towards harmonizing natural resources as an area of protection in life cycle impact assessment

Purpose

In this paper, we summarize the discussion and present the findings of an expert group effort under the umbrella of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Life Cycle Initiative proposing natural resources as an Area of Protection (AoP) in Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA).

Methods

As a first step, natural resources have been defined for the LCA context with reference to the overall UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) framework. Second, existing LCIA methods have been reviewed and discussed. The reviewed methods have been evaluated according to the considered type of natural resources and their underlying principles followed (use-to-availability ratios, backup technology approaches, or thermodynamic accounting methods).

Results and discussion

There is currently no single LCIA method available that addresses impacts for all natural resource categories, nor do existing methods and models addressing different natural resource categories do so in a consistent way across categories. Exceptions are exergy and solar energy-related methods, which cover the widest range of resource categories. However, these methods do not link exergy consumption to changes in availability or provisioning capacity of a specific natural resource (e.g., mineral, water, land etc.). So far, there is no agreement in the scientific community on the most relevant type of future resource indicators (depletion, increased energy use or cost due to resource extraction, etc.). To address this challenge, a framework based on the concept of stock/fund/flow resources is proposed to identify, across natural resource categories, whether depletion/dissipation (of stocks and funds) or competition (for flows) is the main relevant aspect.

Conclusions

An LCIA method—or a set of methods—that consistently address all natural resource categories is needed in order to avoid burden shifting from the impact associated with one resource to the impact associated with another resource. This paper is an important basis for a step forward in the direction of consistently integrating the various natural resources as an Area of Protection into LCA.

     

Characterisation framework development for the SIMPASS (Singapore IMPact ASSessment) methodology

Purpose  

Life cycle assessment (LCA) practitioners in Singapore currently rely on foreign life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methodologies when conducting studies, despite the fact that foreign methodologies may not be relevant, adaptable and sensitive to Singapore's circumstances. As a result, work has been undertaken to develop the Singapore IMPact ASSessment (SIMPASS) methodology by adapting and modifying existing LCIA methodologies to suit the Singaporean context. It is envisioned that the use of SIMPASS will improve the accuracy of LCA studies conducted for industries operating in Singapore.     

Quantifying system uncertainty of life cycle assessment based on Monte Carlo simulation

Background, aim, and scope

Many studies evaluate the results of applying different life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methods to the same life cycle inventory (LCI) data and demonstrate that the assessment results would be different with different LICA methods used. Although the importance of uncertainty is recognized, most studies focus on individual stages of LCA, such as LCI and normalization and weighting stages of LCIA. However, an important question has not been answered in previous studies: Which part of the LCA processes will lead to the primary uncertainty? The understanding of the uncertainty contributions of each of the LCA components will facilitate the improvement of the credibility of LCA.

Methodology

A methodology is proposed to systematically analyze the uncertainties involved in the entire procedure of LCA. The Monte Carlo simulation is used to analyze the uncertainties associated with LCI, LCIA, and the normalization and weighting processes. Five LCIA methods are considered in this study, i.e., Eco-indicator 99, EDIP, EPS, IMPACT 2002+, and LIME. The uncertainty of the environmental performance for individual impact categories (e.g., global warming, ecotoxicity, acidification, eutrophication, photochemical smog, human health) is also calculated and compared. The LCA of municipal solid waste management strategies in Taiwan is used as a case study to illustrate the proposed methodology.

Results

The primary uncertainty source in the case study is the LCI stage under a given LCIA method. In comparison with various LCIA methods, EDIP has the highest uncertainty and Eco-indicator 99 the lowest uncertainty. Setting aside the uncertainty caused by LCI, the weighting step has higher uncertainty than the normalization step when Eco-indicator 99 is used. Comparing the uncertainty of various impact categories, the lowest is global warming, followed by eutrophication. Ecotoxicity, human health, and photochemical smog have higher uncertainty.

Discussion

In this case study of municipal waste management, it is confirmed that different LCIA methods would generate different assessment results. In other words, selection of LCIA methods is an important source of uncertainty. In this study, the impacts of human health, ecotoxicity, and photochemical smog can vary a lot when the uncertainties of LCI and LCIA procedures are considered. For the purpose of reducing the errors of impact estimation because of geographic differences, it is important to determine whether and which modifications of assessment of impact categories based on local conditions are necessary.

Conclusions

This study develops a methodology of systematically evaluating the uncertainties involved in the entire LCA procedure to identify the contributions of different assessment stages to the overall uncertainty. Which modifications of the assessment of impact categories are needed can be determined based on the comparison of uncertainty of impact categories.

Recommendations and perspectives

Such an assessment of the system uncertainty of LCA will facilitate the improvement of LCA. If the main source of uncertainty is the LCI stage, the researchers should focus on the data quality of the LCI data. If the primary source of uncertainty is the LCIA stage, direct application of LCIA to non-LCIA software developing nations should be avoided.     

Addressing speciation in the effect factor for characterisation of freshwater ecotoxicity—the case of copper

Purpose  

Determination of the ecotoxicity effect factor (EF) in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) is based on test data reporting the total dissolved concentration of a substance. In spite of the recognised influence of chemical speciation and physico-chemical characteristics of the aquatic systems on toxicity of dissolved metals, these properties are not considered when calculating characterization factors (CFs) for metals. It is hypothesised that the main cause of the variation in reported EC50 values of Cu among published test results lies in different speciation patterns for Cu in the test media, and that the toxicity of Cu is predominantly caused by the free Cu²⁺ ion. Hence, the free Cu²⁺ ion concentration should substitute the total dissolved metal concentration when determining the EF.     

Addressing water needs of freshwater ecosystems in life cycle impact assessment of water consumption: state of the art and applicability of ecohydrological approaches to ecosystem quality characterization

Purpose

In recent history, human development overbalanced towards economic growth has often been accompanied by the degradation and reduction of freshwater resources at the expense of freshwater dependent ecosystems. For their subsistence and correct functioning, understanding environmental water requirements (EWR) represents an area of great interest for life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) and it has been only marginally explored. The aim of this paper is to investigate how this concept has evolved in ecological and hydrological literature and how it can be better integrated in LCIA, to identify potential options for improvement of LCIA indicators in the short, mid and long term.

Methods

To address the limitations of existing LCIA approaches in modelling EWR, four families of EWR methods have been reviewed, namely hydrological, hydraulic, habitat simulation and holistic methods. Based on existing scientific literature and their broad application, 24 methods have been selected and their suitability to be adopted in LCIA has been evaluated against nine criteria, with regard to data management issues, accuracy, scientific robustness, and potential for future development. A semi-quantitative performance score has been subsequently assigned for each criterion, showing the main strengths and weaknesses of selected methods.

Results and discussion

The underlying rationale of the chosen approaches is markedly different, likewise the input information needed and results applicability. Hydrological methods are well suited for the development of global models and they are the only ones currently considered in LCIA, although their applicability remains limited to water stress indicators. Habitat modelling is identified as an essential step for the development of mechanistic LCIA models and endpoint indicators. In this respect, hydraulic, habitat simulation and holistic methods are fit for the purpose. However, habitat simulation methods represent the best compromise between scientific robustness and applicability in LCIA. For this reason, a conceptual framework for the development of habitat-based characterization factors has been proposed. Among the evaluated habitat simulation methods, ESTIMHAB showed the best performance and was the method retained for the development of an LCIA model that will assess the consequences of water consumption on stream ecosystems.

Conclusions

This study identifies the advantages of specific modelling approaches for the assessment of water requirements for ecosystems. Selected methods could support the development of LCIA models at different levels. In the short-term for improving environmental relevance of water stress indicators, and in the mid/long-term to build up midpoint habitat indicators relating water needs of ecosystems with new endpoint metrics.

     

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.     

The ecoinvent database version 3 (part II): analyzing LCA results and comparison to version 2

Purpose

Version 3 of ecoinvent includes more data, new modeling principles, and, for the first time, several system models: the “Allocation, cut-off by classification” (Cut-off) system model, which replicates the modeling principles of version 2, and two newly introduced models called “Allocation at the point of substitution” (APOS) and “Consequential” (Wernet et al. 2016). The aim of this paper is to analyze and explain the differences in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) results of the v3.1 Cut-off system model in comparison to v2.2 as well as the APOS and Consequential system models.

Methods

In order to do this, functionally equivalent datasets were matched across database versions and LCIA results compared to each other. In addition, the contribution of specific sectors was analyzed. The importance of new and updated data as well as new modeling principles is illustrated through examples.

Results and discussion

Differences were observed in between all database versions using the impact assessment methods Global Warming Potential (GWP100a), ReCiPe Endpoint (H/A), and Ecological Scarcity 2006 (ES’06). The highest differences were found for the comparison of the v3.1 Cut-off and v2.2. At average, LCIA results increased by 6, 8, and 17 % and showed a median dataset deviation of 13, 13, and 21 % for GWP, ReCiPe, and ES’06, respectively. These changes are due to the simultaneous update and addition of new data as well as through the introduction of global coverage and spatially consistent linking of activities throughout the database. As a consequence, supply chains are now globally better represented than in version 2 and lead, e.g., in the electricity sector, to more realistic life cycle inventory (LCI) background data. LCIA results of the Cut-off and APOS models are similar and differ mainly for recycling materials and wastes. In contrast, LCIA results of the Consequential version differ notably from the attributional system models, which is to be expected due to fundamentally different modeling principles. The use of marginal instead of average suppliers in markets, i.e., consumption mixes, is the main driver for result differences.

Conclusions

LCIA results continue to change as LCI databases evolve, which is confirmed by a historical comparison of v1.3 and v2.2. Version 3 features more up-to-date background data as well as global supply chains and should, therefore, be used instead of previous versions. Continuous efforts will be required to decrease the contribution of Rest-of-the-World (RoW) productions and thereby improve the global coverage of supply chains.

     

Regional LCA in a global perspective. A basis for spatially differentiated environmental life cycle assessment

Background, aim and scope  

In the context of environmental life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) is one of the central issues with respect to modelling and methodological data collection. The thesis described in this paper focusses on the assessment of toxicity-related impacts, and on the collection of normalisation data. A view on the complementary roles of LCA toxicity assessment on the one hand and human and environmental risk assessment (HERA) on the other is presented, and the global, spatially differentiated LCA toxicity assessment model GLOBOX for the assessment of organics and metals is described. Normalisation factors for the year 2000 are calculated on a global as well as on a European level.     

Implications of considering metal bioavailability in estimates of freshwater ecotoxicity: examination of two case studies

Purpose  

Previous methods of estimating characterization factors (CFs) of metals in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) models were based on multimedia fate, exposure, and effect models originally developed to address the potential impacts of organic chemicals. When applied to metals, the models neglect the influence of ambient chemistry on metal speciation, bioavailability and toxicity. Gandhi et al. (2010) presented a new method of calculating CFs for freshwater ecotoxicity that addresses these metal-specific issues. In this paper, we compared and assessed the consequences of using the new method versus currently available LCIA models for calculating freshwater ecotoxicity, as applied to two case studies previously examined by Gloria et al. (2006): (1) the production of copper (Cu) pipe and (2) a zinc (Zn) gutter system.