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.     

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.     

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results and discussion

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

Conclusions

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

On the uncanny capabilities of consequential LCA

Purpose

Plevin et al. (2014) reviewed relevant life cycle assessment (LCA) studies for biofuels and argued that the use of attributional LCA (ALCA) for estimating the benefits of biofuel policy is misleading. While we agree with the authors on many points, we found that some of the arguments by the authors were not presented fairly and that a number of specific points warrant additional comment. The main objective of this commentary is to examine the authors’ comparative statements between consequential LCA (CLCA) and ALCA.

Methods

We examined the notion that the LCA world is divided into CLCA and ALCA. In addition, we evaluated the authors’ notion of “wrong” models.

Results

We found that the authors were comparing an idealized, hypothetical CLCA with average (or less than average), real-life ALCAs. Therefore, we found that the comparison alone cannot serve as the basis for endorsing real-life CLCAs for biofuel policy. We also showed that there are many LCA studies that do not belong to either of the two approaches distinguished by the authors. Furthermore, we found that the authors’ notion of “wrong” models misses the essence of modeling and reveals the authors’ unwarranted confidence in certain modeling approaches.

Conclusions

Dividing the LCA world into CLCAs and ALCAs overlooks the studies in between and hampers a constructive dialog about the creative use of modeling frameworks. Unreasonable confidence in certain modeling approaches based on their “conceptual” superiority does not help support “robust decision making” that should ultimately land itself on the ground.     

User needs analysis and development of priorities for life cycle impact assessment

The development of the LCIA programme of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative started with a global survey of LCA practitioners. There were 91 LCIA-specific responses from all global regions. Respondents gave an indication of how they use LCA with respect to both the stage of LCA that they base decisions on (LCI, LCIA or a combination of both) as well as the types of decisions which they support with LCA information. The issues requiring immediate attention within the UNEP SETAC Life Cycle Initiative identified from this User Needs analysis are the need for transparency in the methodology, for scientific confidence and for scientific co-operation as well as the development of a recommended set of factors and methodologies. Of interest is the fact that results from the different regions highlighted the need for different impact categories. Based on this information proposals were made for new impact categories to be included in LCA (and thus LCIA). The LCIA programme aims to enhance the availability of sound LCA data and methods and to deliver guidance on their use. More specifically, it aims to 1) make results and recommendations widely available for users through the creation of a worldwide accessible information system and 2) establish recommended characterisation factors and related methodologies for the different impact categories, possibly consisting of sets at both midpoint and damage level. The work of the LCIA programme of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative has been started within four task forces on 1) LCIA information system and framework, 2) natural resources and land use, 3) toxic impacts, and 4) transboundary impacts. All participants willing to contribute to these efforts are invited to contact the LCIA programme manager or to join the next LCIA workgroup meeting that will take place in at the world SETAC congress in Portland on Thursday 18 November 2004.     

Global guidance principles for life cycle assessment databases: development of training material and other implementation activities on the publication

Purpose

The paper introduces the publication on “Global Guidance Principles for Life Cycle Assessment Databases”; it focuses on the development of training material and other implementation activities on the publication.

Methods

The document is the output of the “Shonan Guidance Principles” workshop. The publication provides guidance principles for life cycle assessment (LCA) databases; this includes how to collect raw data, how to develop datasets, and how to manage databases. The publication also addresses questions concerning data documentation and review, coordination among databases, capacity building, and future scenarios. As a next step, the publication is used to prepare training material and other implementation activities.

Results

The publication was launched at the LCM 2011 Conference. Since then outreach activities have been organized in particular in emerging economies. Further developments with regard to the guidance principles are foreseen as part of a flagship project within phase 3 of the Life Cycle Initiative. Training material is being developed that will include how to set up databases and develop datasets. The topic has been taken up by United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in its Rio?+?20 Voluntary Commitments: UNEP and Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (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.

Conclusions

The adoption of the “Global Guidance Principles” publication as a de facto global standard is expected to facilitate the work of database teams, especially, in developing countries, and the collaboration in regional networks. These efforts are supported by the development of training material and other implementation activities.     

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results and recommendations

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

Discussion, conclusions, and outlook

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

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.     

The Role of SETAC in the Development of LCA

-

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.019

Background

Life cycle assessments have been performed using different methods before the name was coined since about 1970 in several countries of North America and Europe. It was the merit of SETAC to start a standardization process which culminated in the LCA-guidelines ('A code of practice') in 1993. It is the aim of this paper to trace back this and further LCA-related achievements by SETAC on the basis of documents and personal memories. It may be subjective in the selection and weighting of some events, but objectivity is strived for with regard to the whole and, in my view, singular development.

Results and Discussion

Starting 1990 with two workshops in Smuggler's Notch (Vermont) and Leuven (Belgium), SETAC and SETAC Europe organized several workshops during which important topics (framework, impact assessment, data quality, etc.) were treated and published in the form of reports which are still available. The main contribution by CML and its head, Helias Udo de Haes, was a practical method of impact assessment, transforming the formerly more technocratic LCA (energy, resources, waste) into an instrument of environmental assessment of product systems. In addition, important contributions to the allocation problem were made. Starting in 1993, ISO took over the leadership in standardization and SETAC started the famous working groups in North America and Europe, often dealing with the same topics in parallel. Due to the different cultures, the results were frequently complimentary rather than harmonic. The CML-method of LCIA, widely accepted in Europe, had to wait for about 10 years to be accepted at the other side of the Atlantic. It was helpful that SETAC – meanwhile a global organization – looked for a partner in order to implement LCA all over the world. This partner was found in the 'United Nations Environmental Programme' (UNEP) and the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative was officially launched by Klaus Töpfer in Prague in April 2002. SETAC also assumed an important role in communicating LCA via publications: workshop and conference reports, the 'code of practice', working group results and LCA News Letters. The annual meetings offered forums for LCA scientists, practitioners and users, well prepared by the LCA Steering Committee (SETAC Europe) and the LCA Advisory Group (SETAC North America).

Recommendation

. The main recommendation to SETAC is to adhere to LCA as the main environmental assessment tool for products and to expand it to a true sustainability assessment tool by adding Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and a still to be invented 'Social Life Cycle Assessment'. SETAC is to remain the scientific arm within the UNEP/SETAC LC Initiative, without loosing its identity. Working groups should be global rather than regional in the future, as suggested by the SETAC Europe LCA Steering Committee at the 2004 World Congress in Portland, Oregon.

     

Review: life cycle assessments in Nigeria,Ghana, and Ivory Coast

Purpose

Life cycle assessments (LCAs) are considered common quantitative environmental techniques to analyze the environmental impact of products and/or services throughout their entire life cycle. A few LCA studies have been conducted in West Africa. This study aimed to discuss the availability of LCA (and similar) studies in Nigeria, Ghana, and Ivory Coast.

Methods

An online literature review of reports published between 2000 and 2016 was conducted using the following keywords: “life cycle assessment,” “carbon footprinting,” “water footprinting,” “environmental impact,” “Nigeria,” “Ghana” and “Ivory Coast.”

Results and discussion

A total of 31 LCA and environmental studies in Nigeria, Ghana, and Ivory Coast were found; all but one were conducted after 2008. These were mainly academic and most were publicly available. The industries studied included energy sector, waste management, real estate, food sector, and others such as timber and gold. The minimal number of studies on LCAs and environmental impacts in these West African states could be because companies are failing to promote quantitative environmental studies or studies are kept internally for the use of other assessment techniques. Furthermore, it could be that academic research institutions lack cutting-edge research resources for LCA, environmental impact, carbon, and water footprinting studies.

Conclusions

Further quantitative environmental studies should be conducted in Nigeria, Ghana, and Ivory Coast to increase the understanding of environmental impacts. In these countries, the existence of LCA studies (and by association the localized life cycle inventory (LCI) datasets) is crucial as more companies request this information to feed into background processes.

     

Reflections on a massive open online life cycle assessment course

Purpose

This article summarizes student performance and survey data from a recent massive open online course (MOOC) on life cycle assessment (LCA). Its purpose is to shed light on student learning outcomes, challenges, and success factors, as well as on improvement opportunities for the MOOC and the role of online courses in LCA education in general.

Methods

Student survey data and course performance data were compiled, analyzed, and interpreted for 1257 students who completed a pre-course survey and 262 students who completed a post-course survey. Both surveys were designed to assess student learning outcomes, topical areas of difficulty, changing perceptions on the nature of LCA, and future plans after completing the MOOC.

Results and discussion

Results suggest that online courses can attract and motivate a large number of students and equip them with basic analytical skills to move on to more advanced LCA studies. However, results also highlight how MOOCs are not without structural limitations, especially related to mostly “locked in” content and the impracticality of directly supporting individual students, which can create challenges for teaching difficult topics and conveying important limitations of LCA in practice.

Conclusions

Online courses, and MOOCs in particular, may present an opportunity for the LCA community to efficiently recruit and train its next generations of LCA analysts and, in particular, those students who might not otherwise have an opportunity to take an LCA course. More surveys should be conducted by LCA instructors and researchers moving forward to enable scientific development and sharing of best practice teaching methods and materials.     

Status update on LCA studies and networking in Tanzania

Purpose

Life cycle assessment (LCA) has become a standard for assessing what impacts do products and/or services have throughout their entire life cycle. Since the inception of LCA technique, studies have been conducted in different parts of the world, including Tanzania. This study describes the current status of LCA, capacities, and networking in Tanzania. The study has identified what has already been done and potential research gaps that could be explored in future LCA studies.

Methods

A state-of-the-art review was conducted on published articles, reports, and other materials on LCA in Tanzania (covering a time frame of 1990–2015) which were searched on databases of scientific research and the general internet using a combination of keywords: “life cycle assessment and Tanzania,” “LCA and Tanzania,” and “life cycle assessment and LCA and Tanzania.” Reviews were on current status, research gaps, and the need for future research. Information related to education or training activities and networking were also gathered and reviewed.

Results and discussion

Literature review has revealed that in Tanzania the first LCA study was published in 2007. Few articles and reports were identified in which LCA technique was used mainly for academic research in agriculture, electricity generation, charcoal, biodiesel production from jatropha oil, bioethanol production from sugarcane molasses, production of biofuels from pyrolysis of wood, and production of charcoal from sawmill residues. The very small number of LCA studies conducted in the country could be due to the lack of skilled personnel, lack of local data, and lack of research funds. Tanzania Life Cycle Assessment Network was created to link LCA practitioners and to promote and support further development of LCA in the country. Also, LCA potential is huge yet to be fully explored.

Conclusions

This state-of-the-art review is the first of its kind that summarizes and puts together all LCA studies in Tanzania. Most studies faced the challenge of lack of local data, which resulted to the use of secondary data from the literature. In LCA, the use of data from different geographical conditions could cause bias of the results and consequently could affect the decision made or to be made from the study. In this regard, the study recommends the establishment of national LCI database to solve this problem. Also, most studies covered only few impact categories prompting for full LCA studies in future studies. The study also found that there is a need to establish regular LCA training and courses for capacity development.

     

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.

     

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.

     

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.

     

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results and discussion

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

Conclusions and recommendations

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

     

When consumer behavior dictates life cycle performance beyond the use phase: case study of inkjet cartridge end-of-life management

Purpose

Conventional wisdom suggests that product reuse can provide environmental savings. The purpose of this study is to first compare the environmental impacts of retail refilling and remanufactured inkjet cartridge alternatives to production of new inkjet cartridges, and then determine the extent to which consumer behavior can influence life cycle outcomes.

Methods

A life cycle inventory was developed for an inkjet cartridge with an integral print head using material composition data collected from cartridge disassembly and material processing, product manufacturing, and transportation inputs estimated from market data and the ecoinvent database in SimaPro 7.3. Although previous comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) studies for printer cartridges typically use “pages printed” or a variation thereof for the functional unit, “cartridge use cycles” is more suitable for examining reused inkjet cartridge alternatives that depend on the inkjet cartridge end-of-life (EOL) route chosen by the consumer. Since multiple reuse cycles achieved from refilling by a retailer was of specific interest, a functional unit defined in the form of “five use cycles” included the mode and manner in which consumers purchased inkjet cartridge use cycles.

Results and discussion

Cartridge refills present the lowest environmental impact, offering a 76 % savings in global warming potential (GWP) impact compared to production and purchase of a new inkjet cartridge alternative, followed by the remanufacturing case, which provided a 36 % savings in GWP impact compared to the new inkjet cartridge. However, results varied widely, even switching to favor new cartridge purchase, depending on how consumer transport was modeled, specifically the mode of travel, travel patterns (number of trips), and method of allocating impact to each trip.

Conclusions

Refilling an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) cartridge four consecutive times provides the best alternative for reducing environmental impact for those consumers that purchase inkjet cartridges one at a time. On the other hand, consumers that purchase multiple cartridges in a single trip to a retailer reduce environmental impact more by transport minimization than by refilling. Results reinforce the need for more comprehensive inclusion of consumer behavior when modeling life cycle environmental impact of product alternatives.