Life cycle assessment of two baby food packaging alternatives: glass jars vs. plastic pots

Background, aim, and scope  This paper compares the life cycle assessment (LCA) of two packaging alternatives used for baby food produced by Nestlé: plastic pot and glass jar. The study considers the environmental impacts associated with packaging systems used to provide one baby food meal in France, Spain, and Germany in 2007. In addition, alternate logistical scenarios are considered which are independent of the two packaging options. The 200-g packaging size is selected as the basis for this study. Two other packaging sizes are assessed in the sensitivity analysis. Because results are intended to be disclosed to the public, this study underwent a critical review by an external panel of LCA experts. Materials and methods  The LCA is performed in accordance to the international standards ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. The packaging systems include the packaging production, the product assembly, the preservation process, the distribution, and the packaging end-of-life. The production of the content (before preservation process), as well as the use phase are not taken into account as they are considered not to change when changing packaging. The inventory is based on data obtained from the baby food producer and the suppliers, data from the scientific literature, and data from the ecoinvent database. Special care is taken to implement a system expansion approach for end-of-life open and closed loop recycling and energy production (ISO 14044). A comprehensive impact assessment is performed using two life cycle impact assessment methodologies: IMPACT 2002+ and CML 2001. An extensive uncertainty analysis using Monte Carlo as well as an extensive sensitivity study are performed on the inventory and the reference flows, respectively. Results  When looking at the impacts due to preservation process and packaging (considering identical distribution distances), we observe a small but significant environmental benefit of the plastic pot system over the glass jar system. Depending on the country, the impact is reduced by 14% to 27% for primary energy, 28% to 31% for global warming, 31% to 34% for respiratory inorganics, and 28% to 31% for terrestrial acidification/nutrification. The environmental benefit associated with the change in packaging mainly results from (a) production of plastic pot (including its end-of-life; 43% to 51% of total benefit), (b) lighter weight of packaging positively impacting transportation (20% to 35% of total benefit), and (c) new preservation process permitted by the plastic system (23% to 34% of total benefit). The jar or pot (including cap or lid, cluster, stretch film, and label) represents approximately half of the life cycle impacts, the logistics approximately one fourth, and the rest (especially on-site energy, tray, and hood) one fourth. Discussion  The sensitivity analysis shows that assumptions made in the basic scenarios are rather conservative for plastic pots and that the conclusions for the 200-g packaging size also apply to other packaging sizes. The uncertainty analysis performed on the inventory for the German market situation shows that the plastic pot system has less impact than the glass jar system while considering similar distribution distances with a confidence level above 97% for most impact categories. There is opportunity for further improvement independent of the type of packaging used, such as by reducing distribution distances while still optimizing lot size. The validity of the main conclusions presented in this study is confirmed by results of both impact assessment methodologies IMPACT 2002+ and CML 2001. Conclusions  For identical transportation distances, the plastic pot system shows a small but significant reduction in environmental burden compared to the glass jar system. Recommendations and perspectives  As food distribution plays an important role in the overall life cycle burdens and may vary between scenarios, it is important to avoid additional transportation of the packaged food in order to maintain or even improve the advantage of the plastic pot system. The present study focuses on the comparison of packaging systems and directly related consequences. It is recommended that further environmental optimization of the product also includes food manufacturing (before preservation process) and the supply chain of raw materials.     

Life Cycle assessment of bio-ethanol derived from cellulose

Objective, Scope, Background  A comprehensive Life Cycle Assessment was conducted on bio-ethanol produced using a new process that converts cellulosic biomass by enzymatic hydrolysis. Options for sourcing the feedstock either from agricultural and wood waste, or, if the demand for bio-ethanol is sufficient, from cultivation are examined. The main focus of the analysis was to determine its potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in a 10% blend of this bio-ethanol with gasoline (E10) as a transportation fuel. Methods  SimaPro 4.0 was used as the analysis tool, which allowed a range of other environmental impacts also to be examined to assess the overall relative performance to gasoline alone. All impacts were assigned to the fuel because of uncertainties in markets for the by-products. This LCA therefore represents a worst case scenario. Results, Conclusion  It is shown that E10 gives an improved environmental performance in some impact categories, including greenhouse gas emissions, but has inferior performances in others. Whether the potential benefits of the bio-ethanol blend to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will be realized is shown to be particularly sensitive to the source of energy used to produce the process steam required to break down the cellulose to produce sugars and to distil the final product. One key area where improvements in environmental performance might be derived is in enzyme production. Recommendations and Outlook  The LCA profile helps to highlight those areas where positive and negative environmental impacts can be expected. Technological innovation can be directed accordingly to preserve the benefits while minimizing the negative impacts as development progresses to commercial scales.     

Plastics recycling: challenges and opportunities

Plastics are inexpensive, lightweight and durable materials, which can readily be moulded into a variety of products that find use in a wide range of applications. As a consequence, the production of plastics has increased markedly over the last 60 years. However, current levels of their usage and disposal generate several environmental problems. Around 4 per cent of world oil and gas production, a non-renewable resource, is used as feedstock for plastics and a further 3–4% is expended to provide energy for their manufacture. A major portion of plastic produced each year is used to make disposable items of packaging or other short-lived products that are discarded within a year of manufacture. These two observations alone indicate that our current use of plastics is not sustainable. In addition, because of the durability of the polymers involved, substantial quantities of discarded end-of-life plastics are accumulating as debris in landfills and in natural habitats worldwide.Recycling is one of the most important actions currently available to reduce these impacts and represents one of the most dynamic areas in the plastics industry today. Recycling provides opportunities to reduce oil usage, carbon dioxide emissions and the quantities of waste requiring disposal. Here, we briefly set recycling into context against other waste-reduction strategies, namely reduction in material use through downgauging or product reuse, the use of alternative biodegradable materials and energy recovery as fuel.While plastics have been recycled since the 1970s, the quantities that are recycled vary geographically, according to plastic type and application. Recycling of packaging materials has seen rapid expansion over the last decades in a number of countries. Advances in technologies and systems for the collection, sorting and reprocessing of recyclable plastics are creating new opportunities for recycling, and with the combined actions of the public, industry and governments it may be possible to divert the majority of plastic waste from landfills to recycling over the next decades.     

Life cycle assessment of biodiesel production from microalgae in ponds

This paper analyses the potential environmental impacts and economic viability of producing biodiesel from microalgae grown in ponds. A comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) study of a notional production system designed for Australian conditions was conducted to compare biodiesel production from algae (with three different scenarios for carbon dioxide supplementation and two different production rates) with canola and ULS (ultra-low sulfur) diesel. Comparisons of GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions (g CO₂-e/t km) and costs (¢/t km) are given. Algae GHG emissions (−27.6 to 18.2) compare very favourably with canola (35.9) and ULS diesel (81.2). Costs are not so favourable, with algae ranging from 2.2 to 4.8, compared with canola (4.2) and ULS diesel (3.8). This highlights the need for a high production rate to make algal biodiesel economically attractive.     

From Life Cycle Assessment to Life Cycle Management

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a widely accepted methodology to support decision‐making processes in which one compares alternatives, and that helps prevent shifting of environmental burdens along the value chain or among impact categories. According to regulation in the European Union (EU), the movement of waste needs to be reduced and, if unavoidable, the environmental gain from a specific waste treatment option requiring transport must be larger than the losses arising from transport. The EU explicitly recommends the use of LCA or life cycle thinking for the formulation of new waste management plans. In the last two revisions of the Industrial Waste Management Programme of Catalonia (PROGRIC), the use of a life cycle thinking approach to waste policy was mandated. In this article we explain the process developed to arrive at practical life cycle management (LCM) from what started as an LCA project. LCM principles we have labeled the “3/3” principle or the “good enough is best” principle were found to be essential to obtain simplified models that are easy to understand for legislators and industries, useful in waste management regulation, and, ultimately, feasible. In this article, we present the four models of options for the management of waste solvent to be addressed under Catalan industrial waste management regulation. All involved actors concluded that the models are sufficiently robust, are easy to apply, and accomplish the aim of limiting the transport of waste outside Catalonia, according to the principles of proximity and sufficiency.     

Comparative evaluation of Life Cycle Impact assessment methods with a South African case study

Goal and Background  LCIA procedures that have been used in the South Africa manufacturing industry include the CML, Ecopoints, EPS and Eco-indicators 95 and 99 procedures. The aim of this paper is to evaluate and compare the applicability of these European LCIA procedures within the South African context, using a case study. Methods  The five European methods have been evaluated based on the applicability of the respective classification, characterisation, normalization and weighting approaches for the South African situation. Impact categories have been grouped into air, water, land and mined abiotic resources for evaluation purposes. The evaluation and comparison is further based on a cradle-to-gate Screening Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) case study of the production of dyed two-fold wool yarn in South Africa. Results and Discussion  Where land is considered as a separate category (CML, Eco-indicator 99 and EPS), the case study highlights this inventory constituent as the most important. Similarly, water usage is shown as the second most important in one LCIA procedure (EPS) where it is taken into account. However, the impact assessment modelling for these categories may not be applicable for the variance in South African ecosystems. If land and water is excluded from the interpretation, air emissions, coal usage, ash disposal, pesticides and chrome emissions to water are the important constituents in the South African wool industry. Conclusions  In most cases impact categories and procedures defined in the LCIA methods for air pollution, human health and mined abiotic resources are applicable in South Africa. However, the relevance of the methods is reduced where categories are used that impact ecosystem quality, as ecosystems differ significantly between South Africa and the European continent. The methods are especially limited with respect to water and land resources. Normalisation and weighting procedures may also be difficult to adapt to South African conditions, due to the lack of background information and social, cultural and political differences. Recommendations and Outlook  Further research is underway to develop a framework for a South African LCIA procedure, which will be adapted from the available European procedures. The wool SLCA must be revisited to evaluate and compare the proposed framework with the existing LCIA procedures.     

Life cycle assessment of natural gas power plants in Thailand

Background, aim, and scope  The main primary energy for electricity in Thailand is natural gas, accounting for 73% of the grid mix. Electricity generation from natural gas combustion is associated with substantial air emissions. The two technologies currently used in Thailand, thermal and combined cycle power plant, have been evaluated for the potential environmental impacts in a “cradle-to-grid” study according to the life cycle assessment (LCA) method. This study evaluates the environmental impacts of each process of the natural gas power production over the entire life cycle and compares two different power plant technologies currently used in Thailand, namely, combined cycle and thermal. Materials and methods  LCA is used as a tool for the assessment of resource consumption and associated impacts generated from utilization of natural gas in power production. The details follow the methodology outlined in ISO 14040. The scope of this research includes natural gas extraction, natural gas separation, natural gas transmission, and natural gas power production. Most of the inventory data have been collected from Thailand, except for the upstream of fuel oil and fuel transmission, which have been computed from Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation version 1.7 and Global Emission Model for Integrated Systems version 4.3. The impact categories considered are global warming, acidification, photochemical ozone formation, and nutrient enrichment potential (NEP). Results  The comparison reveals that the combined cycle power plant, which has a higher efficiency, performs better than the thermal power plant for global warming potential (GWP), acidification potential (ACP), and photochemical ozone formation potential (POCP), but not for NEP where the thermal power plant is preferable. Discussion  For the thermal power plant, the most significant environmental impacts are from power production followed by upstream of fuel oil, natural gas extraction, separation, and transportation. For the combined cycle power plant, the most significant environmental impacts are from power production followed by natural gas extraction, separation, and transportation. The significant difference between the two types of power production is mainly from the combustion process and feedstock in power plant. Conclusions  The thermal power plant uses a mix of natural gas (56% by energy content) and fuel oil (44% by energy content); whereas, the combined cycle power plant operates primarily on natural gas. The largest contribution to GWP, ACP, and NEP is from power production for both thermal as well as combined cycle power plants. The POCP for the thermal power plant is also from power production; whereas, for combined cycle power plant, it is mainly from transmission of natural gas. Recommendations and perspectives  In this research, we have examined the environmental impact of electricity generation technology between thermal and combined cycle natural gas power plants. This is the overview of the whole life cycle of natural gas power plant, which will help in decision making. The results of this study will be useful for future power plants as natural gas is the major feedstock being promoted in Thailand for power production. Also, these results will be used in further research for comparison with other feedstocks and power production technologies.     

Life Cycle Attribute Assessment

Practitioners of life cycle assessment (LCA) have recently turned their attention to social issues in the supply chain. The United Nations life cycle initiative's social LCA task force has completed its guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products, and awareness of managing upstream corporate social responsibility (CSR) issues has risen due to the growing popularity of LCA. This article explores one approach to assessing social issues in the supply chain—life cycle attribute assessment (LCAA). The approach was originally proposed by Gregory Norris in 2006, and we present here a case study. LCAA builds on the theoretical structure of environmental LCA to construct a supply chain model. Instead of calculating quantitative impacts, however, it asks the question “What percentage of my supply chain has attribute X?” X may represent a certification from a CSR body or a self‐defined attribute, such as “is locally produced.” We believe LCAA may serve as an aid to discussions of how current and popular CSR indicators may be integrated into a supply chain model. The case study demonstrates the structure of LCAA, which is very similar to that of traditional environmental LCA. A labor hours data set was developed as a satellite matrix to determine number of worker hours in a greenhouse tomato supply. Data from the Quebec tomato producer were used to analyze how the company performed on eight sample LCAA indicators, and conclusions were drawn about where the company should focus CSR efforts.     

Excluding site-specific data from the lca inventory: how this affects life cycle impact assessment

The exclusion of site-specific data from the inventory phase of an LCA continues to be a point of controversy. Though the current simplified data collection strategy is widely supported by the LCA community, there are still many who are concerned about the implications this limitation has for the utility and reliability of LCA results. This is particularly relevant to practitioners who are attempting to draw conclusions about the environmental performance of different systems for the development of environmental policy. The current site-generic methodology introduces uncertainties into LCA results that have the potential to misdirect decisions on improvement measures. Therefore, in this paper we assess the practicality of collecting site-specific data and examine its value for study interpretation and decision-making. In our case study, we compare the contribution of a number of plastics-based packaging systems to photochemical oxidant formation. Our results demonstrate that the aggregation of photochemical oxidant precursor emissions into a single global parameter is an unreliable indicator of environmental burden and that the real significance of each packaging’ contribution to the formation of photochemical smog in the atmosphere can only be understood after the addition of spatial and temporal information. We conclude that for non-global cumulative impact categories, additional spatial and temporal data should be collected, and that the benefits to decision makers far outweigh the additional effort needed to acquire this data for the LCA inventory.     

Life cycle assessment of lightweight and end-of-life scenarios for generic compact class passenger vehicles

Goal, Scope and Background  The automotive industry has a long history in improving the environmental performance of vehicles - fuel economy and emission improvements, introduction of recycled and renewable materials, etc. The European Union also aims at improving the environmental performance of products by reducing, in particular, waste resulting from End-of-Life Vehicles (ELVs) for example. The European Commission estimates that ELVs contribute to approximately 1 % of the total waste in Europe [9]. Other European Union strategies are considering more life cycle aspects, as well as other impacts including resource or climate change. This article is summarizing the results of a European Commission funded project (LIRECAR) that aims at identifying the environmental impacts and relevance for combinations of recycling / recovery and lightweight vehicle design options over the whole life cycle of a vehicle - i.e. manufacturing, use and recycling/recovery. Three, independent and scientific LCA experts reviewed the study according to ISO 14040. From the beginning, representatives of all Life Cycle Stakeholders have been involved (European materials & supplier associations, an environmental Non-Governmental Organization, recycler’s association). Model and System Definition  The study compared 3 sets of theoretical vehicle weight scenarios: 1000 kg reference (material range of today’s end-of-life, mid-sized vehicles produced in the early 1990’s) and 2 lightweight scenarios for 100 kg and 250 kg less weight based on reference functions (in terms of comfort, safety, etc.) and a vehicle concept. The scenarios are represented by their material range of a broad range of lightweight strategies of most European car manufacturers. In parallel, three End-of-Life (EOL) scenarios are considered: EOL today and two theoretical extreme scenarios (100% recycling, respectively, 100% recovery of shredder residue fractions that are disposed of today). The technical and economical feasibility of the studied scenarios is not taken into consideration (e.g. 100% recycling is not possible). Results and Discussion  Significant differences between the various, studied weight scenarios were determined in several scenarios for the environmental categories of global warming, ozone depletion, photochemical oxidant creation (summer smog), abiotic resource depletion, and hazardous waste. However, these improvement potentials can be only realized under well defined conditions (e.g. material compositions, specific fuel reduction values and EOL credits) based on case-by-case assessments for improvements over the course of the life cycle. Looking at the studied scenarios, the relative contribution of the EOL phase represents 5% or less of the total life cycle impact for most selected impact categories and scenarios. The EOL technology variations studied do not impact significantly the considered environmental impacts. Exceptions include total waste, as long as stockpile goods (overburden, tailings and ore/coal processing residues) and EOL credits are considered. Conclusions and Recommendations  LIRECAR focuses only on lightweight/recycling, questions whereas other measures (changes in safety or comfort standards, propulsion improvements for CO₂, user behavior) are beyond the scope of the study. The conclusions are also not necessarily transferable to other vehicle concepts. However, for the question of end-of-life options, it can be concluded that LIRECAR cannot support any general recommendation and/or mandatory actions to improve recycling if lightweight is affected. Also, looking at each vehicle, no justification could be found for the general assumption that lightweight and recycling greatly influence the affected environmental dimension (Global Warming Potential or resource depletion and waste, respectively). LIRECAR showed that this general assumption is not true under all analyzed circumstances and not as significant as suggested. Further discussions and product development targets shall not focus on generic targets that define the approach/technology concerned with how to achieve environmental improvement (weight reduction [kg], recycling quota [%]), but on overall life cycle improvement). To enable this case-by-case assessment, exchanges of necessary information with suppliers are especially relevant.     

Stakeholder involvement in australian paper and packaging waste management LCA study

Intention, Goal, Scope, Background  To discuss the process of stakeholder involvement as undertaken in a post-consumer paper and packaging waste management LCA study conducted during 1997-2001 for the Melbourne Metropolitan Area, Victoria, Australia. Secondly, to present the findings from a survey conducted with the stakeholder groups regarding their perception of involvement in the project. Objectives  To investigate the stakeholder’s perception; and value of being involved in the LCA study intended to generate quantitative environmental information to support debate, development and implementation of waste management practices. Methods  Stakeholders that were involved in the study, both actively and passively, were surveyed by questionnaire Survey findings were analysed in conjunction with stakeholder interaction experiences obtained in the course of the study. as]Results and Discussion Respondents to the survey believed there was a sufficient level of interaction between stakeholders and researchers during the course of the project. The advisory committee approach helped to timely recognize issues and deal with them appropriately. It furdier assisted in the collection of life cycle inventory data and in obtaining ownership of outcomes by the research ream appropriately responding to the needs and issues raised by stakeholders. Recommendations and Outlook  General recommendations for the inclusion of stakeholders in future studies are to use stakeholder interactions, wherever it is possible and practical, which in turn play an educational role, engage stakeholders from the start of the process and allow additional time in the project plan for review stages, as well as ensuring that all relevant groups are represented — industry, industry associations, government and non-governmental organizations, and also provide sufficient material and progress for discussion at meetings.     

Life Cycle Impact assessment of land use based on the hemeroby concept

The impact category ‘land use’ describes in the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology the environmental impacts of occupying, reshaping and managing land for human purposes. Land use can either be the long-term use of land (e.g. for arable farming) or changing the type of land use (e.g. from natural to urban area). The impact category ‘land use’ comprises those environmental consequences, which impact the environment due to the land use itself, for instance through the reduction of landscape elements, the planting of monocultures or artificial vegetation, or the sealing of surfaces. Important environmental consequences of land use are the decreasing availability of habitats and the decreasing diversity of wildlife species. The assessment of the environmental impacts of land use within LCA studies is the objective of this paper. Land use leads to a degradation of the naturalness of the area utilised. In this respect the naturalness of any area can be defined as the sum of land actually not influenced by humans and the remaining naturalness of land under use. To determine the remaining naturalness of land under use, this study suggests applying the Hemeroby concept. “Hemeroby is a measure for the human influence on ecosystems” (Kowarik 1999). The Hemeroby level of an area describes the intensity of land use and can therefore be used to characterise different types of land use. Characterization factors are proposed, which allow calculating the degradation of the naturalness of an area due to a specific type of land use. Since the resource ‘nature/naturalness’ is on a larger geographical scale by far not homogeneous, the assessment of land use needs to be regionalised. Therefore, the impact category ‘land use’ has been subdivided into the impact sub-categories ‘land use in European biogeographic regions’. Following the general LCA framework, normalization values for the impact sub-categories are calculated in order to facilitate the evaluation of the characterization results with regard to their share in a reference value. Weighting factors, which enable an aggregation of the results of the different land use sub-categories and make them comparable to other impact categories (e.g. climate change or acidification) are suggested based on the assumption that the current land use pattern in the European biogeographic regions is acceptable.     

Recycling of aluminum can in terms of Life Cycle Inventory (LCI)

Background, Aims and Scope  Life Cycle Assessment is a technique for evaluating the environmental performance of a given product by: identifying and quantifying the energy and raw materials used in its manufacturing process, as well as the emissions of pollutants to water, soil, and air inherent in this production, use and disposal, and evaluating the environmental impact associated with the use of energy and materials and the emissions of pollutants, thus identifying opportunities to improve the system in order to optimize the environmental performance of the product. CETEA (Packaging Technology Center) has conducted a Life Cycle Assessment — LCA study of aluminum can with emphasis in life cycle inventory, collecting data for the reference years 2000–2002. The goal of this paper is to present part of this complete study, focusing the influence of aluminium recycling rate on the Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) of aluminum beverage cans in Brazil. Methods  The adopted methodology was based on the recommendations of SETAC — Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry and the ISO 14040 Standard, approved by the Sub-Committee 05 of the Environmental Administration Technical Committee, TC-207, from ISO — INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR STANDARDIZATION [1,2]. Data storage and modeling were performed by employing the PIRA Environmental Management System — PEMS [3]. Results  Taking into account the impact categories adopted in this study, it has been shown that recycling helps to improve the aluminium can environmental profile measured as LCI data. Discussion  For the transformed aluminium products, the recycling rate affects the values of the environmental parameters inventoried, but not in the same proportion, since the contribution of other stages of the product system life cycle and the recycling process remain unchanged, including the yield of this process. In general, the recycling balance is always positive due to the importance of the stages that precede the packaging production and the problem of increasing the municipal waste volume. Conclusions  The advantages of the recycling are obviously concentrated on the inventoried parameters related to the primary aluminum production and to the package disposal. The verified benefits of the recycling increase with the recycling rate enhancement. However, the effects on the inventory do not have the same magnitude of the recycling rate. This happens due to the relative contributions of the other life cycle stages, such as the transportation and sheet or can production. In agreement with the presented results, it is possible to conclude that the aluminum can recycling reduces part of the consumption of natural resources and the emissions associated to the stages previous to the production of the packaging. The parameters specifically related to the stage of aluminum production suffer reduction directly proportional to the increase of the recycling rate. In this way, all of the efforts made to increase the recycling rate will have a positive contribution to the LCI of the aluminum can. Recommendations  It is worth pointing out that LCA studies are iterative and dynamic. The data can always be refined, substituted or complemented with updated information in order to improve the representativeness of the analyzed sector. Perspectives  From this study, the aluminum sector in Brazil is able to quantify the benefits of future actions for environmental improvement of the Brazilian aluminum industry, as well as to contribute technically to Environmental Labeling initiatives regarding aluminum products. ESS-Submission Editor: Alain Dubreuil (dubreuil@nrcan.gc.ca)     

Impact assessment for LCAs involving agricultural production

LCA has been developed primarily for industrial production systems. Application to agricultural systems requires systematic application of existing methodology and new methodological developments. Conventional approaches can obscure potential options for improving the environmental performance of systems involving agricultural production due to use of restricted system boundaries, incomplete assessment of impacts, and exclusion of ancillaries from the analysis. For use of nutrients such as phosphorus, it is proposed that Impact Assessment should be based on the quantity dispersed after use rather than on the input to the productive system. Eventually, the impacts associated with depletion should be based on technological or thermodynamic assessment of concentration for reuse, but this approach requires further theoretical development.     

A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment

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

Evaluation of two simplified Life Cycle assessment methods

Goal, Scope and Background  Two methods of simplified LCA were evaluated and compared to the results of a quantitative LCA. These are the Environmentally responsible product assessment matrix developed by Graedel and Allenby and the MECO-method developed in Denmark. Methods  We used these in a case study and compared the results with the results from a quantitative LCA. The evaluation also included other criteria, such as the field of application and the level of arbitrariness. Results and Discussion  The MECO-method has some positive qualities compared to the Environmentally responsible product assessment matrix. Examples of this are that it generates information complementary to the quantitative LCA and provides the possibility to consider quantitative information when such is available. Some of the drawbacks with the Environmentally responsible product assessment matrix are that it does not include the whole lifecycle and that it allows some arbitrariness. Conclusions  Our study shows that a simplified and semi-quantitative LCA (such as the MECO-method) can provide information that is complementary to a quantitative LCA. In this case the method generates more information on toxic substances and other impacts, than the quantitative LCA. We suggest that a simplified LCA can be used both as a pre-study to a quantitative LCA and as a parallel assessment, which is used together with the quantitative LCA in the interpretation. Recommendations and Outlook  A general problem with qualitative analyses is how to compare different aspects. Life cycle assessments are comparative. The lack of a quantitative dimension hinders the comparison and can thereby hinder the usefulness of the qualitative method. There are different approaches suggested to semiquantify simplified methods in order to make quantitative comparisons possible. We think that the use of fabricated scoring systems should be avoided. If quantitative information is needed, one should consider performing a simplified quantitative LCA instead.     

Life cycle assessment of commercial furniture: a case study of Formway LIFE chair

Background, aims and scope  The environmental aspects of companies and their products are becoming more significant in delivering competitive advantage. Formway Furniture, a designer and manufacturer of office furniture products, is a New Zealand-based company that is committed to sustainable development. It manufactures two models of the light, intuitive, flexible and environmental (LIFE) office chair: one with an aluminium base and one with a glass-filled nylon (GFN) base. It was decided to undertake a life cycle assessment (LCA) study of these two models in order to: (1) determine environmental hotspots in the life cycle of the two chairs (goal 1); (2) compare the life cycle impacts of the two chairs (goal 2); and (3) compare alternative potential waste-management scenarios (goal 3). The study also included sensitivity analysis with respect to recycled content of aluminium in the product. Materials and methods  The LIFE chair models consist of a mix of metal and plastic components manufactured by selected Formway suppliers according to design criteria. Hence, the research methodology included determining the specific material composition of the two chair models and acquisition of manufacturing data from individual suppliers. These data were compiled and used in conjunction with pre-existing data, specifically from the ecoinvent database purchased in conjunction with the SimaPro7 LCA software, to develop the life cycle inventory of the two chair models. The life cycle stages included in the study extended from raw-material extraction through to waste management. Impact assessment was carried out using CML 2 baseline 2000, the methodology developed by Leiden University’s Institute for Environmental Sciences. Results  This paper presents results for global warming potential (GWP100). The study showed a significant impact contribution from the raw-material extraction/refinement stage for both chair models; aluminium extraction and refining made the greatest contribution to GWP100. The comparison of the two LIFE chair models showed that the model with the aluminium base had a higher GWP100 impact than the model with the GFN base. The waste-management scenario compared the GWP100 result when (1) both chair models were sent to landfill and (2) steel and aluminium components were recycled with the remainder of the chair sent to landfill. The results showed that the recycling scenario contributed to a reduced GWP100 result. Since production and processing of aluminium was found to be significant, a sensitivity analysis was carried out to determine the impact of using aluminium with different recycled contents (0%, 34% and 100%) in both waste-management scenarios; this showed that increased use of recycled aluminium was beneficial. The recycling at end-of-life scenarios was modelled using two different end-of-life allocation approaches, i.e. consequential and attributional, in order to illustrate the variation in results caused by choice of allocation approach. The results using the consequential approach showed that recycling at end-of-life was beneficial, while use of the attributional method led to a similar GWP100 as that seen for the landfill scenario. Discussion  The results show that the main hotspot in the life cycle is the raw-material extraction/refinement stage. This can be attributed to the extraction and processing of aluminium, a material that is energy intensive. The LIFE chair model with the aluminium base has a higher GWP100 as it contains more aluminium. Sensitivity analysis pertaining to the recycled content of aluminium showed that use of aluminium with high recycled content was beneficial; this is because production of recycled aluminium is less energy intensive than production of primary aluminium. The waste-management scenario showed that recycling at end-of-life resulted in a significantly lower GWP100 than landfilling at end-of-life. However, this result is dependent upon the modelling approach used for recycling. Conclusions  With respect to goal 1, the study found that the raw-material extraction/refinement stage of the life cycle was a significant factor for both LIFE chair models. This was largely due to the use of aluminium in the product. For goal 2, it was found that the LIFE chair model with the aluminium base had a higher GWP100 than the GFN model, again due to the material content of the two models. Results for goal 3 illustrated that recycling at end-of-life is beneficial when using a system expansion (consequential) approach to model recycling; if an attributional ‘cut-off’ approach is used to model recycling at end-of-life, there is virtually no difference in the results between landfilling and recycling. Sensitivity analysis pertaining to the recycled content of aluminium showed that use of higher recycled contents leads to a lower GWP100 impact. Recommendation and perspectives  Most of the GWP100 impact was contributed during the raw-material extraction/refinement stage of the life cycle; thus, the overall impact of both LIFE chair models may be reduced through engaging in material choice and supply chain environmental management with respect to environmental requirements. The study identified aluminium components as a major contributor to GWP100 for both LIFE chair models and also highlighted the sensitivity of the results to its recycled content. Thus, it is recommended that the use of aluminium in future product designs be limited unless it is possible to use aluminium with a high recycled content. With respect to waste management, it was found that a substantial reduction in the GWP100 impact would occur if the chairs are recycled rather than landfilled, assuming an expanding market for aluminium. Thus, recycling the two LIFE chair models at end-of-life is highly recommended.