Considering human toxicity as an impact category in life cycle assessment

Characterization of toxic chemicals with relevance to human exposure does normally not belong to Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) and is still a topic of research. The concept of hazard potential classes proposed in this paper is primarily based on threshold limit values that are considered to be a measure of the severity of potential effects. In the absence of threshold limit values the R-phrases of the ordinance of dangerous substances are used. Substances are assigned to five hazard potential classes (A to E). Potentially dangerous chemicals are identified and substances of low toxicological relevance are excluded from further evaluation. The location where a probable exposure might occur (indoor versus outdoor) and inter-media transport of substances is considered. The product comparison is based both on the results of the proposed “semi-quantitative screening method” and on toxicological expert knowledge.     

A life cycle impact assessment procedure with resource groups as areas of protection

Goal and Background  Current Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) procedures have demonstrated certain limitations in the South African manufacturing industry context. The aim of this paper is to propose a modified LCIA procedure, which is based on the protection of resource groups. Methods  A LCIA framework is introduced that applies the characterisation procedure of available midpoint categories, with the exception of land use. Characterisation factors for land occupation and transformation is suggested for South Africa. A distanceto-target approach is used for the normalisation of midpoint categories, which focuses on the ambient quality and quantity objectives for four resource groups: Air, Water, Land and Mined Abiotic Resources. The quality and quantity objectives are determined for defined South African Life Cycle Assessment (SALCA) Regions and take into account endpoint or damage targets. Following the precautionary approach, a Resource Impact Indicator (RII) is calculated for the resource groups. Subjective weighting values for the resource groups are also proposed, based on survey results from the manufacturing industry sector and the expenditure trends of the South African national government. The subjective weighting values are used to calculate overall Environmental Performance Resource Impact Indicators (EPRIIs) when comparing life cycle systems with each other. The proposed approaches are evaluated with a known wool case study. Results and Discussion  The calculation of a RJI ensures that all natural resources that are important from a South African perspective are duly considered in a LCIA. The results of a LCIA are consequently not reliant on a detailed Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) and the number of midpoint categories that converge on a single resource group. The case study establishes the importance of region-specificity, for LCIs and LCIAs. Conclusions  The proposed LCIA procedure demonstrates reasonable ease of communication of LCIA results. It further allows for the inclusion of additional midpoint categories and is adaptable for specific regions. Recommendations and Outlook  The acceptance of the LCIA procedure must be evaluated for different industry and government sectors. Also, the adequate incorporation of Environmental Performance Resource Impact Indicators (EPRIIs) into decision-making for Life Cycle Management purposes must be researched further. Specifically, the application of the procedures for supply chain management will be investigated.     

Towards social life cycle assessment: a quantitative product social impact assessment

Purpose

The main goal of this paper is to present the feasibility of the quantitative method presented in the Product Social Impact Assessment (PSIA) handbook throughout a case study. The case study was developed to assess the social impacts of a tire throughout its entire life cycle. We carried out this case study in the context of the Roundtable for the Product Social Metrics project in which 13 companies develop two methodologies, a qualitative and a quantitative one, for assessing the social impact of product life cycle.

Methods

The quantitative methodology implemented for assessing the social impact of a Run On Flat tire mounted in a BMW 3 series consists of 26 indicators split in three groups. Each group represents a stakeholder group. Primary data of the quantitative indicators were collected along the product life cycle of the Run On Flat by involving the companies, which owned the main steps of the product life cycle. Throughout this case study, an ideal/worst-case scenario was defined for the distance-to-target approach to compare the social performances of more products when they are available.

Results and discussion

The implementation of the PSIA quantitative method to a Run On Flat illustrated the necessity to have a referencing step in order to interpret the results. This is particularly important when the results are used to support decision-making process in which no experts are involved. It frequently happens in a big company where the management level has to take often decisions on different topics. Reference values were defined using ideal or worst-case-target scenarios (Fontes et al. 2014). For those topics where it was possible, an ideal/ethical scenario was defined, e.g., 0 h of child labor per product. In other cases, we defined a worst-case scenario, e.g., 0 training hours per product. It was then possible to interpret the results using a distance-to-target approach. A matrix was developed in the case study for identifying in which step of the product life cycle data is not available; that means we need more transparency in the supply chain.

Conclusions

Each value of the matrix can be compared to the ideal/worst scenario to compare the step to each other and to identify along the product life cycle which step and the relative supplier that needs further measures to improve the product performance. Furthermore, a quantitative value for each indicator related to the product life cycle is calculated and compared with the ideal/worst scenario. The case study on Run On Flat represents the first implementation of the quantitative method of PSIA.

     

Towards life cycle sustainability assessment: an implementation to photovoltaic modules

Purpose

The main goal of the paper is to carry out the first implementation of sustainability assessment of the assembly step of photovoltaic (PV) modules production by Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) and the development of the Life Cycle Sustainability Dashboard (LCSD), in order to compare LCSA results of different PV modules. The applicability and practicability of the LCSD is reported thanks to a case study. The results show that LCSA can be considered a valuable tool to support decision-making processes that involve different stakeholders with different knowledge and background.

Method

The sustainability performance of the production step of Italian and German polycrystalline silicon modules is assessed using the LCSD. The LCSD is an application oriented to the presentation of an LCSA study. LCSA comprises life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle costing and social LCA (S-LCA). The primary data collected for the German module are related to two different years, and this led to the evaluation of three different scenarios: a German 2008 module, a German 2009 module, and an Italian 2008 module.

Results and discussion

According to the LCA results based on Ecoindicator 99, the German module for example has lower values of land use [1.77 potential disappeared fractions (PDF) m²/year] and acidification (3.61 PDF m²/year) than the Italian one (land use 1.99 PDF m²/year, acidification 3.83 PDF m²/year). However, the German module has higher global warming potential [4.5E?C05 disability-adjusted life years (DALY)] than the Italian one [3.00E?05 DALY]. The economic costs of the German module are lower than the Italian one, e.g. the cost of electricity per FU for the German module is 0.12??/m² compared to the Italian 0.85??/m². The S-LCA results show significant differences between German module 2008 and 2009 that represent respectively the best and the worst overall social performances of the three considered scenarios compared by LCSD. The aggregate LCSD results show that the German module 2008 has the best overall sustainability performance and a score of 665 points out of 1,000 (and a colour scale of light green). The Italian module 2008 has the worst overall sustainability performance with a score of 404 points, while the German module 2009 is in the middle with 524 points.

Conclusions

The LCSA and LCSD methodologies represent an applicable framework as a tool for supporting decision-making processes which consider sustainable production and consumption. However, there are still challenges for a meaningful application, particularly the questions of the selection of social LCA indicators and how to weigh sets for the LCSD.     

Exergy-based accounting for land as a natural resource in life cycle assessment

Purpose

In life cycle assessment (LCA), literature suggests accounting for land as a resource either by what it delivers (e.g., biomass content) or the time and space needed to produce biomass (land occupation), in order to avoid double-counting. This paper proposes and implements a new framework to calculate exergy-based spatial explicit characterization factors (CF) for land as a resource, which deals with both biomass and area occupied on the global scale.

Methods

We created a schematic overview of the Earth, dividing it into two systems (human-made and natural), making it possible to account for what is actually extracted from nature, i.e., the biomass content was set as the elementary flow to be accounted at natural systems and the land occupation (through the potential natural net primary production) was set as the elementary flow at human-made systems. Through exergy, we were able to create CF for land resources for these two different systems. The relevancy of the new CF was tested for a number of biobased products.

Results and discussion

Site-generic CF were created for land as a resource for natural systems providing goods to humans, and site-generic and site-dependent CF (at grid, region, country, and continent level) were created for land as a resource within human-made systems. This framework differed from other methods in the sense of accounting for both land occupation and biomass content but without double-counting. It is set operationally for LCA and able to account for land resources with more completeness, allowing spatial differentiation. When site-dependent CF were considered for land resources, the overall resource consumption of certain products increased up to 77 % in comparison with site-generic CF-based data.

Conclusions

This paper clearly distinguished the origin of the resource (natural or human-made systems), allowing consistent accounting for land as a resource. Site-dependent CF for human-made systems allowed spatial differentiation, which was not considered in other resource accounting life cycle impact assessment methods.     

Assessing potential desertification environmental impact in life cycle assessment

Background, aim and scope  

Life cycle assessment (LCA) enables the objective assessment of global environmental burdens associated with the life cycle of a product or a production system. One of the main weaknesses of LCA is that, as yet, there is no scientific agreement on the assessment methods for land-use related impacts, which results in either the exclusion or the lack of assessment of local environmental impacts related to land use. The inclusion of the desertification impact in LCA studies of any human activity can be important in high-desertification risk regions.     

Mineral resources in life cycle impact assessment—part I: a critical review of existing methods

Purpose

The safeguard subject of the Area of Protection “natural Resources,” particularly regarding mineral resources, has long been debated. Consequently, a variety of life cycle impact assessment methods based on different concepts are available. The Life Cycle Initiative, hosted by the UN Environment, established an expert task force on “Mineral Resources” to review existing methods (this article) and provide guidance for application-dependent use of the methods and recommendations for further methodological development (Berger et al. in Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2020).

Methods

Starting in 2017, the task force developed a white paper, which served as its main input to a SETAC Pellston Workshop® in June 2018, in which a sub-group of the task force members developed recommendations for assessing impacts of mineral resource use in LCA. This article, based mainly on the white paper and pre-workshop discussions, presents a thorough review of 27 different life cycle impact assessment methods for mineral resource use in the “natural resources” area of protection. The methods are categorized according to their basic impact mechanisms, described and compared, and assessed against a comprehensive set of criteria.

Results and discussion

Four method categories have been identified and their underlying concepts are described based on existing literature: depletion methods, future efforts methods, thermodynamic accounting methods, and supply risk methods. While we consider depletion and future efforts methods more “traditional” life cycle impact assessment methods, thermodynamic accounting and supply risk methods are rather providing complementary information. Within each method category, differences between methods are discussed in detail, which allows for further sub-categorization and better understanding of what the methods actually assess.

Conclusions

We provide a thorough review of existing life cycle impact assessment methods addressing impacts of mineral resource use, covering a broad overview of basic impact mechanisms to a detailed discussion of method-specific modeling. This supports a better understanding of what the methods actually assess and highlights their strengths and limitations. Building on these insights, Berger et al. (Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2020) provide recommendations for application-dependent use of the methods, along with recommendations for further methodological development.

     

Choice of land reference situation in life cycle impact assessment

Purpose

Land use life cycle impact assessment is calculated as a distance to target value—the target being a desirable situation defined as a reference situation in Milà i Canals et al.’s (Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(1):2–4, 2007) widely accepted framework. There are several reference situations. This work aims to demonstrate the effect of the choice of reference situation on land impact indicators.

Methods

Various reference situations are reported from the perspective of the object of assessment in land in life cycle assessment (LCA) studies and the modeling choices used in life cycle land impact indicators. They are analyzed and classified according to additional LCA modeling requirements: the type of LCA approach (attributional or consequential), cultural perspectives (egalitarian, hierarchist or individualist), and temporal preference. Sets of characterization factors (CF) by impact pathway, land cover, and region are calculated for different reference situations. These sets of CFs by reference situation are all compared with a baseline set. A case study on different crop types is used to calculate impact scores from different sets of CFs and compare them.

Results and discussion

Comparing the rankings of the CFs from two different sets present inversions from 5% to 35% worldwide. Impact scores of the case study present inversions of 10% worldwide. These inversions demonstrate that the choice of a reference situation may reverse the LCA conclusions for the land use impact category. Moreover, these reference situations must be consistent with the different modeling requirements of an LCA study (approach, cultural perspective, and time preference), as defined in the goal and scope.

Conclusions

A decision tree is proposed to guide the selection of a consistent and suitable choice of reference situation when setting other LCA modeling requirements.

     

Overview and recommendations for regionalized life cycle impact assessment

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment - Regionalized life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) has rapidly developed in the past decade, though its widespread application, robustness, and...     

Defining freshwater as a natural resource: a framework linking water use to the area of protection natural resources

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment - While many examples have shown unsustainable use of freshwater resources, existing LCIA methods for water use do not comprehensively address...     

The environmental impact of activities after life: life cycle assessment of funerals

Purpose

Although the funeral market is propagating new ‘green’ alternatives and exploring innovative techniques like resomation, very little is known about the environmental impact of funerals. This research aimed to develop a benchmark of funerals, by quantifying the environmental impacts of the most common funeral techniques, i.e. burial and cremation, by identifying where the main impacts originate from and by comparing these impacts to impacts of other activities during a person’s life.

Methods

The environmental impacts of funerals were analysed by means of a life cycle assessment (LCA), based on Dutch company information, literature and expert judgements. The results were analysed per impact category but also on an aggregated level by means of shadow prices. Two sensitivity analyses were performed: one examined the high impact of cotton in funeral coffins; the other checked the results by means of another weighting method.

Results and discussion

The results showed no significant difference between the two funeral techniques in five impact categories. Burial has the lowest impact in more than half of the categories, but its impact is many times higher in the two most differing categories than for cremation. The total shadow price of burial is about 30 % higher than the shadow price of cremation, but the main cause for this difference is a highly debated category, namely land use. If the results would be considered without the shadow prices of land impact categories, burial would score 25 % lower than cremation. These results are representing average practise and may deviate on certain aspects for other countries, but as a starting point for further studies, this benchmark is well applicable.

Conclusions and recommendations

This study delivered an environmental benchmark of funerals and insights in the impacts of the individual processes, which can be used in further assessment of ’green’ funeral options. The benchmark results show that the environmental impact of funerals is largely determined by secondary processes and that the total impact can be quite small in comparison to other human activities. Besides these environmental insights, it is important to take into account social, cultural, climatic, local, economical and ethical arguments before changing policies or giving recommendations.

     

Sensitivity to weighting in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA)

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment - Weighting in life cycle assessment (LCA) incorporates stakeholder preferences in the decision-making process of comparative LCAs. Research...     

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.     

Measuring ecological impact of water consumption by bioethanol using life cycle impact assessment

Purpose  

Though the development of biofuel has attracted numerous studies for quantifying potential water demand applying life cycle thinking, the impacts of biofuel water consumption still remain unknown. In this study, we aimed to quantify ecological impact associated with corn-based bioethanol water consumption in Minnesota in responding to different refinery expansion scenarios by applying a life cycle impact assessment method.     

Linear programming as a tool in life cycle assessment

Linear Programming (LP) is a powerful mathematical technique that can be used as a tool in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). In the Inventory and Impact Assessment phases, in addition to calculating the environmental impacts and burdens, it can be used for solving the problem of allocation in multiple-output systems. In the Improvement Assessment phase, it provides a systematic approach to identifying possibilities for system improvements by optimising the system on different environmental objective functions, defined as burdens or impacts. Ultimately, if the environmental impacts are aggregated to a single environmental impact function in the Valuation phase, LP optimisation can identify the overall environmental optimum of the system. However, the aggregation of impacts is not necessary: the system can be optimised on different environmental burdens or impacts simultaneously by using Multiobjective LP. As a result, a range of environmental optima is found offering a number of alternative options for system improvements and enabling the choice of the Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO). If, in addition, economic and social criteria are introduced in the model, LP can be used to identify the best compromise solution in a system with conflicting objectives. This approach is illustrated by a real case study of the borate products system. An erratum to this article is available at .     

Land use and biodiversity indicators for life cycle impact assessment

Background  The primary purpose of environmental assessment is to protect biological systems. Data collected over the last several decades indicates that the greatest impacts on biological resources derive from physical changes in land use. However, to date there is no consensus on indicators of land use that could be applicable worldwide at all scales. This has hampered the assessment of land use in the context of LCA. Objectives  The Institute for Environmental Research and Education and its partner Defenders of Wildlife have begun an effort to develop the necessary consensus. Methods  In July 2000, they held a workshop attended by a diverse group of interested parties and experts to develop a preliminary list of life cycle indicators for land use impacts. Results  Their preliminary list of impact indicators includes: protection of priority habitats/species; soil characteristics: soil health; proximity to & protection of high priority vegetative communities; interface between water and terrestrial habitats/buffer zones; assimilative capacity of water and land; hydrological function; percent coverage of invasive species within protected areas; road density; percent native-dominated vegetation; restoration of native vegetation; adoption of Best Management Practices linked to biodiversity objectives; distribution (patchiness; evenness, etc.); and connectivity of native habitat. Conclusion  The list of indicators conforms well to other efforts in developing indicators. There appears to be convergence among experts in the field and in related fields on the appropriate things to measure. Future Prospects  These indicators are currently being tested in the United States. Further workshops and testing is planned towards developing internationally recognized indicators for land use.     

Soil salinisation: a local life cycle assessment impact category

Salinity is an increasing environmental problem in agricultural ecosystems and is not adequately represented in conventional life cycle assessment (LCA) impact categories. It is often not the total quantity of salts emitted or the proportion of salt accumulated in the soil profile that is the primary mechanism for deteriorating soil conditions for irrigated salinity, rather the ratio of major cations in the soil matrix and the potential for colloid dispersion and reduced permeability. A soil salinisation potential (SP) is proposed as an indicator for irrigated salinity and potential soil degradation from poor irrigation practices. The indicator uses the threshold electrolyte concentration concept that predicts the adjusted sodium adsorption ratio (SAR)/ Electrical conductivity (EC) ratio that soil will no longer flocculate, but potentially disperse. The SAR is converted to a threshold EC and compared to the measured EC in order to develop a site-specific irrigation equivalence factor (EF). This site/region/process specific EF is then used to weight the sodium load to soil and repeated for each stage throughout the entire life cycle to determine the overall Salinisation Potential (SP). The data required for calculating the SP is generally readily available either on site or from the water chemistry of the local watercourses. Preliminary calculations simply require the volume, pH, electrical conductivity (EC), alkalinity and the concentrations of Na, Ca, and Mg of the irrigation water. The site/process/region specific nature of the indicator ensures a quantitative measure to enable comparisons between different systems and is useful for identifying stages in the life cycle of a product (particularly food products), where the potential for soil salinisation and soil degradation is most severe.