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.

     

A generalized computational structure for regional life-cycle assessment

Purpose

Regional life-cycle assessment (LCA) is gaining an increasing attention among LCA scholars and practitioners. Here, we present a generalized computational structure for regional LCA, discuss in-depth the major challenges facing the field, and point to a direction in which we believe regional LCA should be headed.

Methods

Using an example, we first demonstrate that when there is regional heterogeneity (be it due to environmental conditions or technologies), average data would be inadequate for estimating the life-cycle impacts of a product produced in a specific region or even that of an average product produced in many regions. And when there is such regional heterogeneity, an understanding of how regions are connected through commodity flows is important to the accuracy of regional LCA estimates. Then, we present a generalized computational structure for regional LCA that takes into account interregional commodity flows, can evaluate various cases of regional differentiation, and can account for multiple impact categories simultaneously. In so doing, we show what kinds of data are required for this generalized framework of regional LCA.

Results and discussion

We discuss the major challenges facing regional LCA in terms of data requirements and computational complexity, and their implications for the choice of an optimal regional scale (i.e., the number of regions delineated within the geographic boundary studied).

Conclusions

We strongly recommend scholars from LCI and LCIA to work together and choose a spatial scale that not only adequately captures environmental characteristics but also allows inventory data to be reasonably compiled or estimated.

     

The EcoSpold 2 format—why a new format?

Purpose

This paper introduces the new EcoSpold data format for life cycle inventory (LCI).

Methods

A short historical retrospect on data formats in the life cycle assessment (LCA) field is given. The guiding principles for the revision and implementation are explained. Some technical basics of the data format are described, and changes to the previous data format are explained.

Results

The EcoSpold 2 data format caters for new requirements that have arisen in the LCA field in recent years.

Conclusions

The new data format is the basis for the Ecoinvent v3 database, but since it is an open data format, it is expected to be adopted by other LCI databases. Several new concepts used in the new EcoSpold 2 data format open the way for new possibilities for the LCA practitioners and to expand the application of the datasets in other fields beyond LCA (e.g., Material Flow Analysis, Energy Balancing).

     

Bridge processes: a solution for LCI datasets independent of background databases

Introduction

New platforms are emerging that enable more data providers to publish life cycle inventory data.

Background

Providing datasets that are not complete LCA models results in fragments that are difficult for practitioners to integrate and use for LCA modeling. Additionally, when proxies are used to provide a technosphere input to a process that was not originally intended by the process authors, in most LCA software, this requires modifying the original process.

Results

The use of a bridge process, which is a process created to link two existing processes, is proposed as a solution.

Discussion

Benefits to bridge processes include increasing model transparency, facilitating dataset sharing and integration without compromising original dataset integrity and independence, providing a structure with which to make the data quality associated with process linkages explicit, and increasing model flexibility in the case that multiple bridges are provided. A drawback is that they add additional processes to existing LCA models which will increase their size.

Conclusions

Bridge processes can be an enabler in allowing users to integrate new datasets without modifying them to link to background databases or other processes they have available. They may not be the ideal long-term solution but provide a solution that works within the existing LCA data model.

     

Life cycle assessment of a steam thermolysis process to recover carbon fibers from carbon fiber-reinforced polymer waste

Purpose

Carbon fibers have been widely used in composite materials, such as carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP). Therefore, a considerable amount of CFRP waste has been generated. Different recycling technologies have been proposed to treat the CFRP waste and recover carbon fibers for reuse in other applications. This study aims to perform a life cycle assessment (LCA) to evaluate the environmental impacts of recycling carbon fibers from CFRP waste by steam thermolysis, which is a recycling process developed in France.

Methods

The LCA is performed by comparing a scenario where the CFRP waste is recycled by steam-thermolysis with other where the CFRP waste is directly disposed in landfill and incineration. The functional unit set for this study is 2 kg of composite. The inventory analysis is established for the different phases of the two scenarios considered in the study, such as the manufacturing phase, the recycling phase, and the end-of-life phase. The input and output flows associated with each elementary process are standardized to the functional unit. The life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) is performed using the SimaPro software and the Ecoinvent 3 database by the implementation of the CML-IA baseline LCIA method and the ILCD 2011 midpoint LCIA method.

Results and discussion

Despite that the addition of recycling phase produces non-negligible environmental impacts, the impact assessment shows that, overall, the scenario with recycling is less impactful on the environment than the scenario without recycling. The recycling of CFRP waste reduces between 25 and 30% of the impacts and requires about 25% less energy. The two LCIA methods used, CML-IA baseline and ILCD 2011 midpoint, lead to similar results, allowing the verification of the robustness and reliability of the LCIA results.

Conclusions

The recycling of composite materials with recovery of carbon fibers brings evident advantages from an environmental point of view. Although this study presents some limitations, the LCA conducted allows the evaluation of potential environmental impacts of steam thermolysis recycling process in comparison with a scenario where the composites are directly sent to final disposal. The proposed approach can be scaled up to be used in other life cycle assessments, such as in industrial scales, and furthermore to compare the steam thermolysis to other recycling processes.

     

Criteria for the evaluation of life cycle assessment software packages and life cycle inventory data with application to concrete

Purpose

Life cycle assessment (LCA) software packages have proliferated and evolved as LCA has developed and grown. There are now a multitude of LCA software packages that must be critically evaluated by users. Prior to conducting a comparative LCA study on different concrete materials, it is necessary to examine a variety of software packages for this specific purpose. The paper evaluates five LCA tools in the context of the LCA of seven concrete mix designs (conventional concrete, concrete with fly ash, slag, silica fume or limestone as cement replacement, recycled aggregate concrete, and photocatalytic concrete).

Methods

Three key evaluation criteria required to assess the quality of analysis are adequate flexibility, sophistication and complexity of analysis, and usefulness of outputs. The quality of life cycle inventory (LCI) data included in each software package is also assessed for its reliability, completeness, and correlation to the scope of LCA of concrete products in Canada. A questionnaire is developed for evaluating LCA software packages and is applied to five LCA tools.

Results and discussion

The result is the selection of a software package for the specific context of LCA of concrete materials in Canada, which will be used to complete a full LCA study. The software package with the highest score is software package C (SP-C), with 44 out of a possible 48 points. Its main advantage is that it allows for the user to have a high level of control over the system being modeled and the calculation methods used.

Conclusions

This comparative study highlights the importance of selecting a software package that is appropriate for a specific research project. The ability to accurately model the chosen functional unit and system boundary is an important selection criterion. This study demonstrates a method to enable a critical and rigorous comparison without excessive and redundant duplication of efforts.

     

From behind the curtain: talking about values in LCA

Purpose

Practitioners of life cycle assessment (LCA) acknowledge that more input from social scientists can help advance the cause of life cycle management (LCM). This commentary offers a social science perspective on a long-running question within LCA, namely, how the field should manage not only stakeholders’ values but also those of practitioners themselves.

Methods

More than 60 interviews were conducted with LCA practitioners and their industry clients. Qualitative data were also collected through participant observation at several LCA and LCM conferences, a study of the field’s history, and extensive content and discourse analysis of LCA publications and online forums.

Results and discussion

Results show that LCA practitioners’ values are informed partly by the knowledge acquired through their LCA work. At the same time, LCA standards and professional norms implicitly advise practitioners to keep those values out of their work as much as possible, so as not to compromise its apparent objectivity. By contrast, many social scientists contend openly that value-based judgments, based on “situated knowledge,” can actually enhance the rigor, accountability, and credibility of scientific assessments.

Conclusions

LCA practitioners’ own situated knowledge justifies not only the value choices required by LCA but also their evaluative judgments of contemporary life cycle-based sustainability initiatives. This more critical voice could advance the goals of LCM while also boosting the credibility of LCA more generally.

     

Impacts from hydropower production on biodiversity in an LCA framework—review and recommendations

Purpose

Expanding renewable energy production is widely accepted as a promising strategy in climate change mitigation. However, even renewable energy production has some environmental impacts, some of which are not (yet) covered in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). We aim to identify the most important cause-effect pathways related to hydropower production on biodiversity, as one of the most common renewable energy sources, and to provide recommendations for future characterization factor (CF) development.

Methods

We start with a comprehensive review of cause-effect chains related to hydropower production for both aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity. Next, we explore contemporary coverage of impacts on biodiversity from hydropower production in LCA. Further, we select cause-effect pathways displaying some degree of consistency with existing LCA frameworks for method development recommendations. For this, we compare and contrast different hydrologic models and discuss how existing LCIA methodologies might be modified or combined to improve the assessment of biodiversity impacts from hydropower production.

Results and discussion

Hydropower impacts were categorized into three overarching impact pathways: (1) freshwater habitat alteration, (2) water quality degradation, and (3) land use change. Impacts included within these pathways are flow alteration, geomorphological alteration to habitats, changes in water quality, habitat fragmentation, and land use transformation. For the majority of these impacts, no operational methodology exists currently. Furthermore, the seasonal nature of river dynamics requires a level of temporal resolution currently beyond LCIA modeling capabilities. State-of-the-art LCIA methods covering biodiversity impacts exist for land use and impacts from consumptive water use that can potentially be adapted to cases involving hydropower production, while other impact pathways need novel development.

Conclusions

In the short term, coverage of biodiversity impacts from hydropower could be significantly improved by adding a time step representing seasonal ecological water demands to existing LCIA methods. In the long term, LCIA should focus on ecological response curves based on multiple hydrologic indices to capture the spatiotemporal aspects of river flow, by using models based on the “ecological limits to hydrologic alteration” (ELOHA) approach. This approach is based on hydrologic alteration-ecological response curves, including site-specific environmental impact data. Though data-intensive, ELOHA represents the potential to build a global impact assessment framework covering multiple ecological indicators from local impacts. Further, we recommend LCIA methods based on degree of regulation for geomorphologic alteration and a fragmentation index based on dam density for “freshwater habitat alteration,” which our review identified as significant unquantified threats to aquatic biodiversity.

     

Regionalization of agri-food life cycle assessment: a review of studies in Portugal and recommendations for the future

Purpose

One of the main trends in life cycle assessment (LCA) today is towards increased regionalization in inventories and impact assessment methods. LCA studies require the collection of activity data but also of increasingly region-specific background data to accurately depict supply chain processes and enable the application of an increasing number of geographically explicit impact assessment models. This is particularly important for agri-food products. In this review, we assess progress in Portugal towards this goal and provide recommendations for future developments.

Methods

We perform a comprehensive review of available LCA studies conducted for Portuguese agri-food products, in order to evaluate the current state of Portuguese agri-food LCA. Among other issues, we assess availability of data, methods used, level of regionalization, impact assessment model relevance and coherence for inter-product comparability. We also provide conclusions and recommendations based on recent developments in the field.

Results and discussion

We found 22 LCA studies, covering 22 different products. The analysis of these studies reveals limitations in inter-study comparability. The main challenges have to do with a lack of country-specific foreground data sources applied consistently in the studies found, with discrepancies in impact assessment categories, and with the use of simple functional units that may misrepresent the product analyzed.

Conclusions

We conclude that Portuguese agri-food LCA studies do not have a systematic and country-scale approach in order to guarantee regional accuracy and comparability. We propose a research strategy to engage the Portuguese agri-food LCA community in devising a consistent framework before practical application studies are conducted.

     

Estimating human toxicity potential of land application of sewage sludge: the effect of modelling choices

Purpose

Many municipalities are facing increasing pressure to adapt solid waste and wastewater management infrastructures in order to better close nutrient cycles. The focus of this study is on the estimation of the human toxicity potential associated with chemical contaminants released upon the application of sewage sludge to agricultural land. More specifically, this study investigated the effect of modelling choices regarding fate and exposure assessment.

Methods

Monitoring data were collected for contaminants present in the sewage sludge from the wastewater treatment plant in Gothenburg and from other municipal wastewater treatment plants in Sweden. Based on these monitoring data, an overall burden of disease was estimated using characterisation factors taken from the USEtox models (versions 1.01 and 2.0). For the exposure through vegetables, an alternative life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) model was developed. The intake fractions thus obtained were used in combination with human health effect factors taken from the USEtox 2.0 database. The model results were compared with the USEtox models, and whether these two versions of the USEtox model provide significantly different results was also examined. The potential relevance of accidental ingestion of sludge was also considered.

Results and discussion

The different LCIA models provided burden of disease estimates that differed from one another for individual contaminants (up to five orders of magnitude). The aggregated burdens of disease (i.e. sum for all contaminants considered in this study) estimated through different model variants, however, were of the same order of magnitude. For both metals and organic contaminants, only a small set of contaminants was found to make significant contributions to the aggregate burden of disease. However, it is uncertain whether the 15 metals and 106 organic contaminants covered by this study are those of greatest health significance of all contaminants potentially present in sewage sludge.

Conclusions and recommendations

The results of this study indicate that the technical information provided by the various approaches to modelling human toxicity in life cycle assessment (LCA) in the context of land application of sewage sludge management is consistent on the whole. However, given the uncertainties associated with the assessment of human toxicity in LCA, it is important to also contemplate the extent to which LCA in general is capable of informing the sewage sludge debate when it comes to human toxicity and possibly also other indicators. Future research could focus on identifying which types of questions of interest in the context of sewage management can be answered by LCA and which cannot.

     

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.

     

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.

     

What causes more LCA research—subjective values,objective problems,or scientific traditions?

Purpose

This paper aims to verify whether life cycle assessment (LCA) research can be mainly treated as a kind of pro-environmental behavior due to public environment concerns, or academic and research activities based on scientific traditions.

Methods

This paper uses the international comparisons method for modeling and SPSS 16.0 for data processing. The data in this study were obtained from the Human Development Report by the United Nations Development Programme and the Web of Science by the Institute for Scientific Information.

Results and discussion

Our empirical study shows that the two main factors influencing the outputs per capita of the research articles in LCA in a particular country are the value of Environmental Performance Index, which represents the overall environmental quality, as well as the outputs per capita of the research articles in environmental science and technology. The results of statistical analysis show two J-type curves: with the change of the independent variables, the dependent variable changes in the same direction, but at a rate that is first slow, then fast.

Conclusions

LCA research results from scientific traditions and can only develop based on fundamental research in environmental science and technology. Further, LCA research is a pro-environmental behavior due to actual and objective effects rather than subjective motives as more research on LCA can accompany, even in some degree may lead to better overall environmental qualities. However, although environmental concerns are likely to affect the number of LCA studies as an implicit variable, this has not been empirically confirmed in our optimization model.

     

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.

     

Impacts of onshore wind energy production on birds and bats: recommendations for future life cycle impact assessment developments

Purpose

Models for quantifying impacts on biodiversity from renewable energy technologies are lacking within life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). We aim to provide an overview of the effects of wind energy on birds and bats, with a focus on quantitative methods. Furthermore, we investigate and provide the necessary background for how these can be integrated into new developments of LCIA models in future.

Methods

We reviewed available literature summarizing the effects of wind energy developments on birds and bats. We provide an overview of available quantitative assessment methods that have been employed outside of the LCIA framework to model the different impacts of wind energy developments on wildlife. Combining the acquired knowledge on impact pathways and associated quantitative methods, we propose possibilities for future approaches for a wind energy impact assessment methodology for LCIA.

Results and discussion

Wind energy production has impacts on terrestrial biodiversity through three main pathways: collision, disturbance, and habitat alterations. Birds and bats are consistently considered the most affected taxonomic groups, with different responses to the before-mentioned impact pathways. Outside of the LCIA framework, current quantitative impact assessment prediction models include collision risk models, species distribution models, individual-based models, and population modeling approaches. Developed indices allow scaling of species-specific vulnerability to mortality, disturbance, and/or habitat alterations.

Conclusions

Although insight into the causes behind collision risk, disturbance, and habitat alterations for bats and birds is still limited, the current knowledge base enables the development of a robust assessment tool. Modeling the impacts of habitat alterations, disturbance, and collisions within an LCIA framework is most appropriate using species distribution models as those enable the estimation of species’ occurrences across a region. Although local-scale developments may be more readily feasible, further up-scaling to global coverage is recommended to allow comparison across regions and technologies, and to assess cumulative impacts.

     

Conceptualising attributional LCA is necessary for resolving methodological issues such as the appropriate form of land use baseline

Purpose

The purposes of this commentary are to further an on-going debate concerning the appropriate form of land use baseline for attributional life cycle assessment (LCA) and to respond to a number of arguments advanced by Soimakallio (Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:1364–1375, 2016). The commentary also seeks to clarify the conceptual nature of attributional LCA.

Methods

The overarching approach for resolving the question of the appropriate form of land use baseline for attributional LCA is to clarify what attributional LCA is seeking to represent, i.e. methodological questions can only be resolved if it is clear what the method is seeking to do. An illustrative example is used to explore the different results produced by ‘natural regeneration’ and ‘natural’ baselines.

Results and discussion

It is proposed that attributional LCA should be conceptualised as an inventory of anthropogenic impacts, conceptually akin to other forms of environmental inventory, such as national GHG inventories. The use of natural regeneration baselines is not consistent with this conceptualisation of attributional LCA, and such baselines necessitate further ad hoc or arbitrary adjustments, such as arbitrary temporal windows or the inconsistent treatment of natural emissions.

Conclusions

The use of natural regeneration baselines may be motivated by the impulse to make attributional LCA both an inventory-type method and an assessment of system-wide change. Pulling attributional LCA in two different directions at once results in a conceptually and methodologically incoherent method. The solution is to recognise attributional LCA as an inventory-type method, which therefore has distinct but complementary uses to consequential LCA, which is an assessment of system-wide change.

     

Human health characterization factors of nano-TiO<Subscript>2</Subscript> for indoor and outdoor environments

Purpose

The increasing use of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) in industrial applications and consumer products is leading to an inevitable release of these materials into the environment. This makes it necessary to assess the potential risks that these new materials pose to human health and the environment. Life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology has been recognized as a key tool for assessing the environmental performance of nanoproducts. Until now, the impacts of ENMs could not be included in LCA studies due to a lack of characterization factors (CFs). This paper provides a methodological framework for identifying human health CFs for ENMs.

Methods

The USEtox? model was used to identify CFs for assessing the potential carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects on human health caused by ENM emissions in both indoor (occupational settings) and outdoor environments. Nano-titanium dioxide (nano-TiO₂) was selected for defining the CFs in this study, as it is one of the most commonly used ENMs. For the carcinogenic effect assessment, a conservative approach was adopted; indeed, a critical dose estimate for pulmonary inflammation was assumed.

Results and discussion

We propose CFs for nano-TiO₂ from 5.5E?09 to 1.43E?02 cases/kg_emitted for both indoor and outdoor environments and for carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects.

Conclusions

These human health CFs for nano-TiO₂ are an important step toward the comprehensive application of LCA methodology in the field of nanomaterial technology.

     

Normalisation and weighting in life cycle assessment: <Emphasis Type="Italic">quo vadis</Emphasis>?

Purpose

Building on the rhetoric question “quo vadis?” (literally “Where are you going?”), this article critically investigates the state of the art of normalisation and weighting approaches within life cycle assessment. It aims at identifying purposes, current practises, pros and cons, as well as research gaps in normalisation and weighting. Based on this information, the article wants to provide guidance to developers and practitioners. The underlying work was conducted under the umbrella of the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, Task Force on Cross-Cutting issues in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA).

Methods

The empirical work consisted in (i) an online survey to investigate the perception of the LCA community regarding the scientific quality and current practice concerning normalisation and weighting; (ii) a classification followed by systematic expert-based assessment of existing methods for normalisation and weighting according to a set of five criteria: scientific robustness, documentation, coverage, uncertainty and complexity.

Results and discussion

The survey results showed that normalised results and weighting scores are perceived as relevant for decision-making, but further development is needed to improve uncertainty and robustness. The classification and systematic assessment of methods allowed for the identification of specific advantages and limitations.

Conclusions

Based on the results, recommendations are provided to practitioners that desire to apply normalisation and weighting as well as to developers of the underlying methods.