Application of Markov Chain Model to Calculate the Average Number of Times of Use of a Material in Society. An Allocation Methodology for Open-Loop Recycling. Part 1: Methodology Development (7 pp)

- Preamble. In this series of two papers, a methodology to calculate the average number of times a material is used in a society from cradle to grave is presented and applied to allocation of environmental impact of virgin material. Part 1 focuses on methodology development and shows how the methodology works with hypothetical examples of material flows. Part 2 presents case studies for steel recycling in Japan, in which the methodology is applied and allocation of environmental impact of virgin steel is conducted. - Abstract Goal, Scope and Background. It has been recognized that LCA has a limitation in assessing open cycle recycling of materials because of inevitable subjective judgments in setting system boundary. According with the enforcement of recycling laws, there has been a rapid increase in recycling ratio of materials at the end-of-life of products in many industrialized countries. So, materials' life cycle is getting more complicated, which makes it difficult to quantify the environmental impacts of materials used in a product in an appropriate way. The purpose of this paper is to develop a methodology to calculate the average number of times a material is used in a society from cradle to grave. The method developed in this paper derives the average number of times material is used; this value could be used for allocation of environmental burdens of virgin material as well as an indicator for assessing the state of material use in a certain year, based on material flow of material in that year. Main Features Our methodology is based on Markov chain model using matrix-based numerical analysis. A major feature of this method is that it creates transition probability matrices for a material from the way in which the material is produced, consumed, and recycled, making it possible to simply elicit indicators that assess the status of material use in products in society. Our methodology could be an alternative method to derive the average number of times material is used, which could be used for allocation of environmental burdens of virgin material. Results and Discussions The methodology was applied to hypothetical examples of material flows, in which a virgin material was produced and used in products, recycled and finally landfilled. In some cases, closed loop and open loop recycling of materials existed. The transition probability matrix was created for each material flow, and how many times a virgin material is used in products until all of the elements are ultimately landfilled. Conclusions This methodology is applicable to a complicated material flow if the status of residence of a material and its flow in a society can be figured out. All the necessary data are the amount of virgin material production, amount of the material used in products, recycling rate of the material at the end of life of each product, the amount of scrap of the material that are used for products. In Part 2 of this paper, case studies for steel were conducted.     

Application of LCA as a decision-making tool for waste management systems

Aim, Scope and Background  When materials are recycled they are made available for use for several future life cycles and can therefore replace virgin material more than just once. In order to analyse the optimal waste management system for a given material, the authors have analysed the material flows in a life cycle perspective. It is important to distinguish this approach for material flow analysis for a given material from life cycle analysis of products. A product life cycle analysis analyses the product system from cradle to grave, but uses some form of allocation in order to separate the life cycle of one product from another in cases where component materials are recycled. This paper does not address allocation of burdens between different product systems, but rather focuses on methodology for decision making for waste management systems where the optimal waste management system for a given material is analysed. The focus here is the flow of the given material from cradle (raw material extraction) to grave (the material, or its inherent energy, is no longer available for use). The limitation on the number of times materials can be recycled is set by either the recycling rate, or the technical properties of the recycled material. Main Features  This article describes a mathematical geometric progression approach that can be used to expand the system boundaries and allow for recycling a given number of times. Case studies for polyethylene and paperboard are used to illustrate the importance of including these aspects when part of the Goal and Scope for the LCA study is to identify which waste management treatment options are best for a given material. The results and discussion examine the different conclusions that can be reached about which waste management option is most environmentally beneficial when the higher burdens and benefits of recycling several times are taken into account. Results  In order to assess the complete picture of the burdens and benefits arising from recycling the system boundaries must be expanded to allow for recycling many times. A mathematical geometric progression approach manages to take into account the higher burdens and benefits arising from recycling several times. If one compares different waste management systems, e.g. energy recovery with recycling, without expanding the system to include the complete effects of material recycling one can reach a different conclusion about which waste management option is preferred. Conclusions  When the purpose of the study is to compare different waste management options, it is important that the system boundaries are expanded in order to include several recycling loops where this is a physical reality. The equations given in this article can be used to include these recycling loops. The error introduced by not expanding the system boundaries can be significant. This error can be large enough to change the conclusions of a comparative study, such that material recycling followed by incineration is a much better option than waste incineration directly. Recommendations and Outlook  When comparing waste management solutions, where material recycling is a feasible option, it is important to include the relevant number of recycling loops to ensure that the benefits of material recycling are not underestimated. The methodology presented in this article should be used in future comparative studies for strategic decision-making for waste management. The approach should not be used for LCAs for product systems without due care, as this could lead to double counting of the benefits of recycling (depending on the goal and scope of the analysis). For materials where the material cycle is more of a closed loop and one cannot truly say that recycled materials replace virgin materials, a more sophisticated approach will be required, taking into account the fact that recycled materials will only replace a certain proportion of virgin materials.     

End-of-life of a polypropylene bumper skin

The aim of this article is to show how, at PSA peugeot-citroën, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is used as a tool to evaluate the environmental burdens associated with a product, a process or an activity by identifying and quantifying energy, material used and wastes released to the environment. In this paper, the LCA methodology is applied to a practical case study: the comparison of various end-of-life scenarios (recycling versus incineration with or without energy recovery with landfill as a reference) for a polypropylene (PP) bumper skin. All the LCA steps (goal, inventory, impacts assessment, interpretation) are developed in this study. It is shown that in the particular case of PP, incineration with energy recovery is on an environmental point of view between 30 and 60% recycling. However, due to some uncertainties on data quality, the absolute values of the inputs/outputs for the inventory step may not be sufficient to allow strong decision making and the use of the factorial experiments (Taguchi) is then proposed to select the dominant parameters of the study. Strong environmental conclusions can then be drawn from the study.     

Sensitivity analysis of methodological choices in road pavement LCA

Purpose

There are methodological questions concerning life cycle assessment (LCA) and carbon footprint evaluation of road pavements, including allocation among co-products or at end-of-life (EOL) recycling. While the development and adoption of a standard methodology for road pavement LCA would assist in transparency and decision making, the impact of the chosen method on the results has not yet been fully explored.

Methods

This paper examines the methodological choices made in UK PAS 2050 and asphalt Pavement Embodied Carbon Tool (asPECT), and reviews the allocation methods available to conduct road pavement LCA. A case study of a UK inter-urban road construction (cradle-to-laid) is presented to indicate the impact of allocation amongst co-products (bitumen and blast furnace slag); a typical UK asphalt production (cradle-to-gate) is modelled to show the influence of allocation at EOL recycling.

Results and discussion

Allocation based on mass is found to consistently lead to the highest figures in all impact categories, believed to be typical for construction materials. Changing from industry chosen allocation methods (Eurobitume, asPECT) to 100 % mass or economic allocation leads to changes in results, which vary across impact categories. This study illustrates how the allocation methods for EOL recycling affect the inventory of a unit process (asphalt production).

Conclusions and recommendations

Sensitivity analysis helps to understand the impact of chosen allocation method and boundary setting on LCA results. This initial work suggests that economic allocation to co-products used as secondary pavement materials may be more appropriate than mass allocation. Allocation at EOL recycling by a substitution method may remain most appropriate, even where the balance of credits between producers and users may be hampered by an inability to confidently predict future recycling rates and methods. In developing sector-specific guidelines, further sensitivity checks are recommended, such as for alternative materials and traffic management during maintenance.     

Allocation in recycling of composites - the case of life cycle assessment of products from carbon fiber composites

Purpose

Composites consist of at least two merged materials. Separation of these components for recycling is typically an energy-intensive process with potentially significant impacts on the components’ quality. The purpose of this article is to suggest how allocation for recycling of products manufactured from composites can be handled in life cycle assessment to accommodate for the recycling process and associated quality degradations of the different composite components, as well as to describe the challenges involved.

Method

Three prominent recycling allocation approaches were selected from the literature: the cut-off approach, the end-of-life recycling approach with quality-adjusted substitution, and the circular footprint formula. The allocation approaches were adapted to accommodate for allocation of impacts by conceptualizing the composite material recycling as a separation process with subsequent recycling of the recovered components, allowing for separate modeling of the quality changes in each individual component. The adapted allocation approaches were then applied in a case study assessing the cradle-to-grave climate impact and energy use of a fictitious product made from a composite material that in the end of life is recycled through grinding, pyrolysis, or by means of supercritical water treatment. Finally, the experiences and results from applying the allocation approaches were analyzed with regard to what incentives they provide and what challenges they come with.

Results and discussion

Using the approach of modeling the composite as at least two separate materials rather than one helped to clarify the incentives provided by each allocation approach. When the product is produced using primary materials, the cut-off approach gives no incentive to recycle, and the end-of-life recycling approach and the circular footprint formula give incentives to recycle and recover materials of high quality. Each of the allocation approaches come with inherent challenges, especially when knowledge is limited regarding future systems as in prospective studies. This challenge is most evident for the circular footprint formula, for example, with regard to the supply and demand balance.

Conclusions

We recommend modeling the composite materials in products as separate, individual materials. This proved useful for capturing changes in quality, trade-offs between recovering high quality materials and the environmental impact of the recycling system, and the incentives the different approaches provide. The cut-off and end-of-life approaches can both be used in prospective studies, whereas the circular footprint formula should be avoided as a third approach when no market for secondary material is established.

     

Avoiding Co-Product Allocation in Life-Cycle Assessment

Abstract: In a life‐cycle assessment (LCA) involving only one of several products from the same process, how are the resource consumption and the emissions associated with this process to be partitioned and distributed over these co‐products? This is the central question in co‐product allocation, which has been one of the most controversial issues in the development of the methodology for life‐cycle assessment, as it may significantly influence or even determine the result of the assessments. In this article, it is shown that in prospective life‐cycle assessments, co‐product allocation can always be avoided by system expansion. Through a number of examples, it is demonstrated how system expansion is performed, with special emphasis on issues that earlier have been a focus of the allocation debate, such as joint production (e.g., of chlorine and sodium hydroxide, zinc and heavy metals, and electricity and heat), the handling of “near‐to‐waste” by‐products, processes simultaneously supplying services to multiple product systems, and credits for material recycling and downcycling. It is shown that all the different co‐product situations can be covered by the same theoretical model and the same practical procedure, and that it is also possible to include the traditional co‐product allocation as a special case of the presented procedure. The uncertainty aspects of the presented procedure are discussed. A comparison is made with the procedure of ISO 14041, “Life‐cycle assessment—Goal and scope definition and inventory analysis,” the international standard.     

Comparative LCA of treatment options for US scrap tires: material recycling and tire-derived fuel combustion

Purpose

This life cycle assessment (LCA) study compares two prevalent end-of-life (EOL) treatment methods for scrap tires: material recycling and energy recovery. The primary intended use of the study results is to inform stakeholders of the relative environmental burdens and trade-offs associated with these two EOL vehicle tire treatment methods. The study supports prioritization of the waste treatment hierarchy for this material stream in the US.

Methods

This LCA compares (1) material recycling through ambient-temperature mechanical processing and (2) energy recovery through co-incineration of both whole and preprocessed scrap tires at a cement kiln. The avoided burden recycling methodology reflects the substitution of virgin synthetic rubber used in asphalt modification with the ground tire rubber from material recycling and the substitution of conventional kiln fuels with the tire-derived fuel (TDF). Both attributional (ALCA) and consequential (CLCA) methodologies are used: the ALCA assesses the environmental profiles of the treatment methods and the CLCA examines the potential effects of shifting more scrap tires to material recycling. The attributional portion of the LCA study was conducted in accordance with ISO standards 14044 series.

Results

The results in both methodological approaches indicate that the material recycling scenario provides greater impact reductions than the energy recovery scenario in terms of the examined environmental impact potentials: energy demand, iron ore consumption, global warming potential, acidification, eutrophication, smog formation, and respiratory effects. The additional impact reductions from material recycling are significant, and the establishment of new infrastructure required for a shift to material recycling incurs relatively insignificant burdens. Sensitivity analyses indicate that this conclusion does not change for (1) a range of TDF heating values, (2) a decrease in the mixed scrap tire rubber-to-steel composition ratio, (3) two alternative electricity grid fuel mixes with higher and lower carbon dioxide emission rankings than that of the baseline scenario, or (4) a comparison of material recycling to energy recovery when TDF is used in pulp and paper mills instead of cement kilns.

Conclusions

These results provide a basis for more informed decision-making when prioritizing scrap tire waste treatment hierarchy.     

Proposal of a method for allocation in building-related environmental LCA based on economic parameters

Application and development of the LCA methodology to the context of the building sector makes several building specific considerations necessary, as some key characteristics of products in the building sector differ considerably from those of other industrial sectors. The largest difference is that the service life of a building can stretch over centuries, rather than decades or years as seen for consumer products. The result of the long service life is that it is difficult to obtain accurate data and to make relevant assumptions about future conditions regarding, for example, recycling. These problems have implications on the issue of allocation in the building sector, in the way that several allocation procedures ascribe environmental loads to users of recycled or reused products and materials in the future which are unknown today. The long service life for buildings, building materials and building components, is associated with the introduced concept of a virtual parallel time perspective proposed here, which basically substitutes historical and future processes and values with current data. Further, the production and refining of raw material as a parallel to upgrading of recycled material, normally contains several intermediate products. A suggestion is given for how to determine the comparability of intermediate materials. The suggested method for allocation presented is based on three basic assumptions: (1) If environmental loads are to be allocated to a succeeding product life cycle, the studied actual life cycle has to take responsibility for upgrading of the residual material into secondary resources. (2) Material characteristics and design of products are important factors to estimate the recyclable amount of the material. Therefore, a design factor is suggested using information for inherent material properties combined with information of the product context at the building level. (3) The quality reduction between the materials in two following product life cycles is indicated as the ratio between the market value for the material in the products. The presented method can be a good alternative for handling the problem of open-loop recycling allocation in the context of the building sector if a consensus for the use of the fictive parallel time perspective and the use of the design factor can be established. This as the use of the time perspective and design factor is crucial to be able to deal with the problem of long service lives for buildings and building materials and the specific characteristics of the same building materials and components built into different building contexts.     

Design of recycling system for poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA). Part 2: process hazards and material flow analysis

Introduction

In this series of papers, we present a design of poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) recycling system considering environmental impacts, chemical hazards, and resource availability. We applied life cycle assessment (LCA), environment, health, and safety (EHS) assessment as well as material flow analysis to the evaluation of the recycling system.

Purpose

Recycling systems for highly functional plastics such as PMMA have not been studied sufficiently. Along with the popularization of PMMA-containing products such as liquid crystal displays (LCDs), the use of PMMA is steadily increasing, which will result in more waste of PMMA in the next decades. In this study, pyrolysis process for recycling waste PMMA into methyl methacrylate (MMA) monomer was examined, considering not only general environmental impacts quantified by life cycle assessment but also local environment, health, and safety hazards, and raw material availability.

Methods

Process EHS hazards assessment was applied to quantify the local effects of the PMMA monomer recycling process. Process hazards are strongly connected with the hazardous properties of chemical substances and stream conditions within the process. Two alternative cooling methods exist, and their difference was analyzed by LCA and EHS assessment. Besides the process hazard, the availability of waste PMMA must be an important point for the feasibility of implementing the PMMA monomer recycling process. The available amount can be quantified by analyzing the material flow of PMMA-containing products. PMMA contained in LCDs as light guide panels was selected as a feasible source of waste PMMA, and the quantity of PMMA flows in the society was evaluated.

Results and discussion

In the case of PMMA, monomer recycling has less process hazard than the production of fresh MMA from crude oil. The implementation of circulated cooling water could significantly decrease the process hazard in PMMA pyrolysis attributable to chemical hazards. Material flow analysis revealed that the availability of waste PMMA shows a fluctuating trend in the next 20 years because of the sharp peak demand for LCD television sets. The fluctuation is strongly dependent on the lifetime of LCD television sets.

Conclusions

PMMA monomer recycling has a potential to reduce environmental impacts with a less process hazards than fresh MMA production from crude oil. The availability of waste PMMA has a strong relationship with the lifetime of LCD television sets. The multiple and comprehensive assessments can reveal various aspects of a process technology.     

Comparative LCAs for Curbside Recycling Versus Either Landfilling or Incineration with Energy Recovery (12 pp)

Background This article describes two projects conducted recently by Sound Resource Management (SRMG) – one for the San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste Management Authority (SLO IWMA) and the other for the Washington State Department of Ecology (WA Ecology). For both projects we used life cycle assessment (LCA) techniques to evaluate the environmental burdens associated with collection and management of municipal solid waste. Both projects compared environmental burdens from curbside collection for recycling, processing, and market shipment of recyclable materials picked up from households and/or businesses against environmental burdens from curbside collection and disposal of mixed solid waste. Method logy. The SLO IWMA project compared curbside recycling for households and businesses against curbside collection of mixed refuse for deposition in a landfill where landfill gas is collected and used for energy generation. The WA Ecology project compared residential curbside recycling in three regions of Washington State against the collection and deposition of those same materials in landfills where landfill gas is collected and flared. In the fourth Washington region (the urban east encompassing Spokane) the WA Ecology project compared curbside recycling against collection and deposition in a wasteto- energy (WTE) combustion facility used to generate electricity for sale on the regional energy grid. During the time period covered by the SLO study, households and businesses used either one or two containers, depending on the collection company, to separate and set out materials for recycling in San Luis Obispo County. During the time of the WA study households used either two or three containers for the residential curbside recycling programs surveyed for that study. Typically participants in collection programs requiring separation of materials into more than one container used one of the containers to separate at least glass bottles and jars from other recyclable materials. For the WA Ecology project SRMG used life cycle inventory (LCI) techniques to estimate atmospheric emissions of ten pollutants, waterborne emissions of seventeen pollutants, and emissions of industrial solid waste, as well as total energy consumption, associated with curbside recycling and disposal methods for managing municipal solid waste. Emissions estimates came from the Decision Support Tool (DST) developed for assessing the cost and environmental burdens of integrated solid waste management strategies by North Carolina State University (NCSU) in conjunction with Research Triangle Institute (RTI) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA)1. RTI used the DST to estimate environmental emissions during the life cycle of products. RTI provided those estimates to SRMG for analysis in the WA Ecology project2. For the SLO IWMA project SRMG also used LCI techniques and data from the Municipal Solid Waste Life- Cycle Database (Database), prepared by RTI with the support of US EPA during DST model development, to estimate environmental emissions from solid waste management practices3. Once we developed the LCI data for each project, SRMG then prepared a life cycle environmental impacts assessment of the environmental burdens associated with these emissions using the Environmental Problems approach discussed in the methodology section of this article. Finally, for the WA study we also developed estimates of the economic costs of certain environmental impacts in order to assess whether recycling was cost effective from a societal point of view. Conclusions Recycling of newspaper, cardboard, mixed paper, glass bottles and jars, aluminum cans, tin-plated steel cans, plastic bottles, and other conventionally recoverable materials found in household and business municipal solid wastes consumes less energy and imposes lower environmental burdens than disposal of solid waste materials via landfilling or incineration, even after accounting for energy that may be recovered from waste materials at either type disposal facility. This result holds for a variety of environmental impacts, including global warming, acidification, eutrophication, disability adjusted life year (DALY) losses from emission of criteria air pollutants, human toxicity and ecological toxicity. The basic reason for this conclusion is that energy conservation and pollution prevention engendered by using recycled rather than virgin materials as feedstocks for manufacturing new products tends to be an order of magnitude greater than the additional energy and environmental burdens imposed by curbside collection trucks, recycled material processing facilities, and transportation of processed recyclables to end-use markets. Furthermore, the energy grid offsets and associated reductions in environmental burdens yielded by generation of energy from landfill gas or from waste combustion are substantially smaller then the upstream energy and pollution offsets attained by manufacturing products with processed recyclables, even after accounting for energy usage and pollutant emissions during collection, processing and transportation to end-use markets for recycled materials. The analysis that leads to this conclusion included a direct comparison of the collection for recycling versus collection for disposal of the same quantity and composition of materials handled through existing curbside recycling programs in Washington State. This comparison provides a better approximation to marginal energy usage and environmental burdens of recycling versus disposal for recyclable materials in solid waste than does a comparison of the energy and environmental impacts of recycling versus management methods for handling typical mixed refuse, where that refuse includes organics and non-recyclables in addition to whatever recyclable materials may remain in the garbage. Finally, the analysis also suggests that, under reasonable assumptions regarding the economic cost of impacts from pollutant emissions, the societal benefits of recycling outweigh its costs.     

End-of-life modelling in life cycle assessment—material or product-centred perspective?

Purpose

End-of-life (EoL) modelling in life cycle assessment has already been broadly discussed within several studies. However, no consensus has been achieved on how to model recycling in LCA, even though several approaches have been developed. Within this paper, results arising from the application of two new EoL formulas, the product environmental footprint (PEF) and the multi-recycling-approach (MRA) ones, are compared and discussed. Both formulas consider multiple EoL scenarios such as recycling, incineration and landfill.

Methods

The PEF formula has been developed within the PEF programme whose intent is to define a harmonized methodology to evaluate the environmental performance of products. The formula is based on a 50:50 allocation approach, as burdens and benefits associated with recycling are accounted for a 50% rate. The MRA formula has been developed to change focus from products to materials. Recycling cycles and material losses over time are considered with reference to material pools. Allocation between systems is no longer needed, as the actual number of potential life cycles for a certain material is included in the calculation. Both the approaches have been tested within two case studies.

Results and discussion

Methodological differences could thereof be determined, as well as applicability concerns, due to the type of data required for each formula. As far as the environmental performance is concerned, impacts delivered by MRA are lower than those delivered by PEF for aluminium, while the opposite happens for plastic and rubber due to the higher share of energy recovery accounted in PEF formula. Stainless steel impacts are almost the same.

Conclusions and recommendations

The application of the two formulas provides some inputs for the EoL dilemma in LCA. The use of a wider perspective, better reflecting material properties all over the material life cycle, is of substantial importance to properly represent recycling situations. In MRA, such properties are treated and less data are required compared to the PEF formula. On the contrary, the PEF model better accommodates the modelling of products whose materials, at end of life, can undertake the route of recycling or recovery (or landfill), depending on country-specific EoL management practices. However, its application requires more data.

     

LCA and decision making: when and how to use consequential LCA; 62nd LCA forum,Swiss Federal Institute of Technology,Zürich, 9 September 2016

The 62nd life cycle assessment (LCA) forum was held on 9 September 2016 to discuss the state of research and application with regard to consequential life cycle assessment. This conference report presents the highlights of the LCA forum. The state of the art of consequential LCA was presented from different viewpoints. It was pointed out that consequential LCA is more than marginal mixes and avoided burdens and involves causal modelling. It was also said that social responsibility calls for consequential LCA. Currently, different models are used to support decision making. It was suggested to make use of the variety of models to check the conclusiveness of their results and thus the reliability of the LCAs. Current and future implementations of consequential LCI models in background databases and linking algorithms were presented. Several speakers presented consequential LCA case studies covering the sectors energy, transport, housing and mining. Some of the LCA models used in the case studies are complemented with general and partial computable equilibrium models and agent-based models and use environmentally extended input-output data or process-based LCA data. Some of the presentations focused on elements such as constrained production, marginal market mixes and technologies or recycling and system expansion. In three parallel workshops, the needs, contents and methodology, and implementation of consequential LCA approaches were discussed. The participants seemed to generally agree on the basic goal that LCA should be able to reflect the consequences of decisions. The inquiry among the participants showed that the demand for consequential LCA studies is hardly existent. The appropriate implementation of consequential modelling in LCA databases and on the appropriate model to be used in consequential LCA case studies was debated. It revealed a need for further and extensive discussions to be able to reach (minimum) consensus.     

Extending the Life Cycle Methodology to Cover Impacts of Land Use Systems on the Water Balance (7 pp)

Goal, Scope and Background Whilst initially designed for industrial production systems, environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) has recently been increasingly applied to agriculture and forestry projects. Several authors suggested that the standard LCA methodology needs to be refined to cover the particularities of agri- and silvicultural production systems. Until now, water quantity received little attention in these methodological revisions, notwithstanding the well-known impact of agriculture and forestry on issues like water availability, drought and flood risk. This paper proposes an add-on to existing LCA methods in the form of an indicator set that integrates water quantity impacts of agri- and silvicultural production. Method First, system boundaries are discussed in order to identify the water flows between the production system and the environment. These flows are attributed to impact categories, linked to environmental burdens and to the areas of protection. Appropriate indicators are selected for each potential burden. Results and Discussion At the present, two input related impact categories deal with water quantity: Abiotic resource depletion and land use. The list of output related impact categories presented by Udo de Haes et al. (1999) does not include water quantity impacts like flood and drought risk. A new impact category “regional water balance” is introduced to cover these risks. Exceedance probabilities are used as indicators for these temporal variations in streamflow. Conclusion and Outlook The method presented in this paper can bring a life cycle assessment closer to real world concerns. The main drawback, however, is the increasing data requirement that might hinder the feasibility of the method. Future research should focus on this problem, for instance by applying a relatively simple numerical model that can calculate the indicator scores from more easily accessible data.     

A critical evaluation of Brazilian life cycle assessment studies

Purpose

A critical evaluation of the life cycle assessment (LCA) studies was performed in the main scientific bibliographic databases (online and free access) of Brazil where the LCA methodology could be considered.

Methods

This has been an exploratory study with a qualitative evaluation of quantitative LCA studies with regard to International Organization of Standardization (ISO) 14040 standards. Firstly, the selected papers were those which used the LCA methodology in case studies (quantitative LCA studies). This survey was based on previously chosen keywords which were directly and/or indirectly related to LCA in Portuguese, English, and Spanish.

Results and discussion

One hundred and twenty papers related to LCA were found, among which 21 have been effectively used the LCA methodology applied to case studies. The study has indicated agriculture and livestock as some promising areas for the use of LCA methodology in Brazil. As for the scope of LCA, it has been found that nine papers have adopted the cradle-to-grave approach, whereas 12 papers have limited the study to some life cycle stage (cradle-to-gate, gate-to-gate, or gate-to-grave). This behavior can be justified by the difficulty in obtaining data from raw material, supply chain, inputs, or about the disposal, reuse, and recycling of products/systems. The criteria set out in the ISO 14040 standard was carried out in 17 out of the 21 selected papers.

Conclusions

The LCA of Brazilian studies could be improved. For instance, when considering the requirements and guidelines of ISO standards, at the goal phase, the papers have clearly mentioned their target audience. The scope phase requires more explanation about the allocation procedures, once the process/product is not isolated, and for most processes, it may generate more than one product. As regards the Life Cycle Inventory, these studies could improve their data sources, once few papers used primary sources. According to our understanding, the best phase performed by the papers was life cycle impact assessment. Hopefully, LCA will become a known research area and will be adopted by most of the Brazilian scientific community. It is further expected that LCA might have a regular publication in scientific journals (perhaps an own journal).     

Informing Packaging Design Decisions at Toyota Motor Sales Using Life Cycle Assessment and Costing

Throughout their life cycle stages—material production, package manufacture, distribution, end-of-life management—packaging systems consume natural resources and energy, generate waste, and emit pollutants. Each of these stages also carries a financial cost. Motivated by a desire to decrease environmental burdens while reducing financial costs associated with the packaging of accessory and service parts, Toyota Motor Sales (TMS) partnered with the Donald Bren School of Environmental Science & Management to build a life cycle assessment and costing tool to support packaging design decisions. The resulting Environmental Packaging Impact Calculator (EPIC) provides comprehensive life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC). It allows packaging designers to identify environmentally and economically preferable packaging systems in daily decision-making. EPIC's parameterized process flow model allows users to assess many different packaging systems using a single model. Its input/output interface is designed for users without preexisting knowledge of LCA theory or practice and calculates results based on relatively few input data. The main motivation behind this environmental design tool is to provide relevant information to those individuals who are in the best position to reduce life cycle impacts and costs from TMS's packaging and distribution systems.     

Metals recycling maps and allocation procedures in life cycle assessment

Goal, scope, and background  

The aim of this work is to present guidance on the application of ISO 14044 to allocation procedures for metal recycling. As such, graphical patterns of metal recycling and generic “rules” for metal recycling maps are presented. The results are intended to be useful in assessing and validating the suitability of allocation procedures for metal recycling in the context of life cycle assessment (LCA) and assist in the understanding of metals flow patterns in product systems. LCA uses a product-focus; therefore, the perspective here is on recycling metals in post-consumer products. The discussions, analysis, and illustrations in this paper emphasize old (post-consumer) scrap and do not detail flows of new (post-manufacturing, pre-consumer) or prompt (internal) scrap. The work included participation and review from International Council on Mining and Metals, the Nickel Institute, the International Copper Association, the International Zinc Association, worldsteel (formerly International Iron and Steel Institute), and the International Aluminium Institute.     

Screening LCA for large numbers of products

CIBA’s Textile Dyes and Chemicals divisions use screening LCAs for their 1700 sales products to improve portfolio management and ecological process development. Material flow, energy, and waste data for in-house manufacturing processes are extracted from our company databases into our LCA system ECOSYS. For meaningful comparisons of whole life cycles, we must include LCA estimates for over 4000 raw materials from other suppliers. Even crude estimates are preferable to the frequently practiced omission of unknown process steps since they allow worst-case or sensitivity analyses. Sources for mass flows are (decreasing order of reliability): process literature (SRI-PEP Yearbook, Ullmann, Kirk-Othmer, patents), yields of analogous processes, theoretical stoichiometry. Energy demands come from literature, or from a set of standard operation estimates developed by our process engineers. Wastes/emissions, if not published, are derived from yields and elemental balances, estimated emissions of energy carriers (BUWAL-132), and typical end-of-pipe measures in CIBA. These data sets are kept as “added-burden modules” (ABM) in our system, each with a set of “inherent burdens”, which are transformed to step-specific burden estimates by a “propagation” program, before the overall burdens of the whole process tree are cumulated. This program checks every process for actually measured burdens, before applying the attached ABM estimates to fill the gaps. Centralization of estimates as ABM with inherent burdens facilitates maintenance and adaptation. At present, well over 250 important intermediates were estimated and used in our product trees; many more follow rapidly. This article is an example of how industry is using LCA to address environmental issues.