共查询到20条相似文献,搜索用时 23 毫秒
1.
2.
Sarah Cowell Katherine Begg Roland Clift 《The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment》2006,11(1):29-39
-
http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.009Goal, Scope and Method
logy. This paper describes a case study carried out as part of a wider programme to provide support for environmental decision-making in the highway maintenance programme of a local government body: Surrey County Council (SCC). UK local authorities are required to demonstrate that sustainable development principles are addressed in service provision, by improving environmental, economic or social wellbeing and improving public consultation. A methodological approach was developed to meet these requirements by using life cycle assessment (LCA) and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) through the process of decision conferencing.Results
In projects requiring strategic decisions, difficulties arise in identifying relevant sustainable development criteria and in evaluating maintenance options against these criteria where the context for decision-making is complex and characterised by uncertainty, where multiple public policy objectives compete and a number of decision-makers and key players are affected by the outcome. Clearly, a structured process is needed to engage such stakeholders in the decision process, utilising quantitative and qualitative information. The approach described proved to be capable of fulfilling these requirements.Conclusions
and Recommendations. The approach of combining LCA with MCDA through decision conferencing is capable of further development to support other strategic decision-making activities. However, this illustrative case study has revealed a need for methodological developments in LCA for local, project-level decisions.3.
Gregory A. Norris 《The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment》2006,11(1):97-104
-
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.017Background, Aims and Scope
Social impacts in supply chains and product life cycles are of increasing interest to policy makers and stakeholders. Work is underway to develop social impact indicators for LCA, and to identify the social inventory data that will drive impact assessment for this category. Standard LCA practice collects and aggregates inventory data of the form \units of input or output (elementary flow) per unit of process output.\ Measurement of social impacts within workplaces as well as host communities and societies poses new challenges not heretofore faced by LCA database developers. Participatory measurement and auditing of social impacts and of workplace health issues has been shown to provide important benefits relative to external auditor-based methods, including greater likelihood of detecting rights abuses, and stronger support of subsequent action for improvement. However, nonstandardized auditing and metrics poses challenges for the supply chain-wide aggregation and comparison functions of LCA. An analogous challenge arises in the case of resource extractive processes, for which the certification of best management practices provides an important and practical environmental metric. In both the social and resource extraction examples, it may be that attributes of the process are more valuable metrics to measure and incentivize than measured quantities per unit of process output. But how to measure, how to aggregate across life cycles, how to compare product life cycles, and how to incentivize progress as with product policy?Methods
A methodology is presented and demonstrated which estimates the health impacts of economic development stemming from product life cycles. This methodology does not introduce new social indicators; rather, it works with the already common LCA endpoint of human health, and introduces and applies a simplified empirical relationship to characterize the complex pathways from product life cycles' economic activity to health in the aggregate.Results
A simple case study indicates that the health benefits of economic development impacts in product life cycles have the potential to be very significant, possibly even orders of magnitude greater than the health damages from the increased pollution. While the simple macro model points up the dramatic importance of socio-economic pathways to health in product life cycles, it lacks any sensitivity to the vitally important, contextspecific attributes of the economic development associated with each process. This result begs the question of how to measure, aggregate, compare, and stimulate society-wide improvement of context-dependent attributes within and across product life cycles in LCA.Discussion
Before attempting an answer to the question noted above, a brief reconsideration is offered concerning life cycle assessment. Namely, where does it come from, and what does it bring?Recommendations and Outlook
Finally, the paper concludes by sketching a life cycle approach to promoting localized assessments, to summarizing their results over supply chains and life cycles, and to comparing product life cycles in terms of their results. Often, localized assessments will yield information on the attributes of a process, rather than (or in addition to) the traditional form of life cycle inventory information, which is \units of something per unit of process output.\ The methodology can enable product policy users to promote reporting of basic attributes of processes within supply chains, together with local measurement and reporting of context-relevant impacts. For attributes linked to progress on impacts of local and global concern, promotion of these attributes within supply chain processes will bring strong benefits. In addition, over time it may be possible for researchers to develop and refine models that estimate, based on cross-sectional and time series analysis of attributes and impacts, relationships between attributes and impacts. In any case, while local impacts across supply chains may not be precisely knowable – let alone controllable – by a microdecision maker at the time of their product-related decision, life cycle attribute analysis may give such decision makers an opportunity to empower progress throughout life cycles and supply chains, which is after all a motivating goal of LCA.4.
Goal, Scope and Background
More and more national and regional life cycle assessment (LCA) databases are being established satisfying the increasing demand on LCA in policy making (e.g. Integrated Product Policy, IPP) and in industry. In order to create harmonised datasets in such unified databases, a common understanding and common rules are required. This paper describes major requirements on the way towards an ideal national background LCA database in terms of co-operation, but also in terms of life cycle inventory analysis (LCI) and impact assessment (LCIA) methodology.Methods
A classification of disputed methodological issues is made according to their consensus potential. In LCI, three main areas of dissent are identified where consensus seems hardly possible, namely system modelling (consequential versus attributional), allocation (including recycling) and reporting (transparency and progressiveness). In LCIA the time aspect is added to the well-known value judgements of the weighting step.Results and Discussions
It is concluded that LCA methodology should rather allow for plurality than to urge harmonisation in any case. A series of questions is proposed to identify the most appropriate content of the LCA background database or the most appropriate LCI dataset. The questions help to identify the best suited approach in modelling the product system in general and multioutput and recycling processes in particular. They additionally help to clarify the position with regard to time preferences in LCIA. Intentionally, the answers to these questions are not attributed to particular goal and scope definitions, although some recommendations and clarifying explanations are provided.Recommendations and Perspective
It is concluded that there is not one single ideal background database content. Value judgements are also present in LCI modelling and require pluralistic solutions; solutions possibly based on the same primary data. It is recommended to focus the methodological discussion on aspects where consensus is within reach, sensible and of added value for all parties.5.
-
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.015Goal, Scope and Background
The weighting phase in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is and has always been a controversial issue, partly because this element requires the incorporation of social, political and ethical values. Despite the controversies, weighting is widely used in practise. In this paper we will present an approach for monetisation of environmental impacts which is based on the consistent use of ecotaxes and fees in Sweden as a basis for the economic values. The idea behind this approach is that taxes and fees are expressions of the values society places on resource uses and emissions. An underlying assumption for this is that the decisions taken by policy-makers are reflecting societal values thus reflecting a positive view of representative democracy.Methods
In the method a number of different ecotaxes are used. In many cases they can directly be used as valuation weighting factors, an example is the CO2-tax that can be used as a valuation of CO2-emissions. In some cases, a calculation has to be made in order to derive a weighting factor. An example of this is the tax on nitrogen fertilisers which can be recalculated to an emission of nitrogen which can be used as a weighting factor for nitrogen emissions. The valuation weighting factors can be connected to characterisation methods in the normal LCA practise. We have often used the Ecotax method in parallel to other weighting methods such as the Ecoindicator and EPS methods and the results are compared.Results and Discussion
A new set of weighting factors has been developed which has been used in case studies. It is interesting to note that the Ecotax method is able to identify different environmental problems as the most important ones in different case studies. In some cases, the Ecotax method has identified some interventions as the most important ones which lack weighting factors in other weighting methods. The midpoint-endpoint debate in the LCA literature has often centred on different types of uncertainties. Sometimes it is claimed that an advantage with having an endpoint approach is that the weighting would be easier and less uncertain. Here we are however suggesting a mid-point weighting method that we claim are no less uncertain than other often used weighting methods based on a damage assessment. This paper can therefore be seen as a discussion paper also in the midpoint-endpoint debate.Conclusion and Recommendation
The Ecotax method is ready to use. It should be further updated and developed as taxes are changed and new characterisation methods are developed. The method is not only relevant for LCA but also for other environmental systems analysis. The Ecotax method has also been used as a valuation method for Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA), Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and within the context of a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA).6.
Reinout Heijungs René Kleijn Ester van der Voet Arjan de Koning Lauran van Oers Ayman Elshkaki Ruben Huele Gjalt Huppes Sangwon Suh Anneke Wegener Sleeswijk 《The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment》2006,11(1):19-28
-
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.008Goal, Scope and Background
CML has contributed to the development of life cycle decision support tools, particularly Substance / Material Flow Analysis (SFA respectively MFA) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Ever since these tools emerged there have been discussions on how these tools relate to each other, and how they relate to more traditional tools. Remarkably little, however, has been published on these relationships from an empirical side: which combinations of tools have actually been used, and what is the added value of combining tools in practical case studies. In this paper, we report on CML's experience in this field by presenting a number of case studies with their related research questions, for which different tools were deployed.Methods
Three case studies are discussed: 1) Waste water treatment: various options for waste water treatment have been assessed on their eco-efficiency, using SFA to comment on the influence of these options on the flows of certain substances in the water system of a geographical area and a combination of LCA and life cycle costing (LCC) to assess the life-cycle impacts and costs of these options; 2) Prioritization of environmental policy measures: A methodology has been developed to prioritize environmental policy measures and investments within companies based on both the environmental impacts and the costs of these measures; and 3) Environmental weighting of materials: to add an environmental dimension to standard MFA accounts, materials were weighted with cradle-to-grave impact factors based on LCA data and impact assessment factors.Results and Discussion
For each of these cases, the research questions at stake, the tools applied, the results and the added value, limitations and problems of combining the tools are reported.Conclusions
and Perspective. Based on these experiences, it is concluded that using several tools to address a complicated problem is not only a theoretical proposal, but also something that has been applied successfully in a variety of practical situations. Furthermore, using several tools in combination does not necessarily lead to an increased information supply to decisionmakers. Instead, it may contribute to the comprehensibility and ease of interpretation of the information that would have been provided by using a single tool. Finally, it is concluded that there is not one generally valid protocol for which tools to use for which question. The essential idea of using a combination of tools is exactly the fact that research questions are not simple by nature and cannot be generalized into protocols.7.
Laura Binaghi Marco Del Borghi Michela Gallo 《The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment》2007,12(1):40-49
Goal, Scope and Background
The aim of the present study is to evaluate, through LCA, the potential environmental impact associated to urban waste dumping in a sanitary landfill for four case studies and to compare different technologies for waste treatment and leachate or biogas management in the framework of the EPD® system. Specific data were collected on the four Italian landfills during a five-year campaign from 2000 to 2004. This work also analyses the comparability of EPD results for different products in the same product category. For this purpose, a critical review of PSR 2003:3, for preparing an EPD on ‘Collection, transfer and disposal service for urban waste in sanitary landfills', is performed.Methods
PSR 2003:3 defines the requirements, based on environmental parameters, that should be considered in an LCA study for collecting and disposal service of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in a sanitary landfill. It defines functional unit, system boundaries towards nature, other technical systems and boundaries in time, cut-off rules, allocation rules and parameters to be declared in the EPD. This PSR is tested on four case studies representing the major landfills located from the farthest west to the farthest east side of the Ligurian Region. Those landfills are managed with different technologies as concerns waste pre-treatment and leachate or biogas treatment. For each landfill, a life cycle assessment study is performed.Results and Discussion
The comparison of the LCA results is performed separately for the following phases: Transport, Landfill, Leachate and Biogas. The following parameters are considered: Resource use (Use of non-renewable resources with and without energy content, Use of renewable resources with and without energy content, Water consumption); Pollutant emissions expressed as potential environmental impact (Global Warming Potential from biological and fossil sources, Acidification, Ozone depletion, Photochemical oxidant formation, Eutrophication, Land use, Hazardous and other Waste production). The comparison of the LCA results obtained for alternative landfill and biogas management techniques in the case studies investigated shows that the best practicable option that benefits the environment as a whole must be identified and chosen in the LCA context. For example, a strong waste pre-treatment causes a high biological GWP in the Landfill phase, but a low GWP contribution in the Biogas phase, due to the consequent low biogas production, evaluated for 30 years since landfill closure.Conclusion
The analysis of four case studies showed that, through the EPD tool, it is possible to make a comparison among different declarations for the same product category only with some modification and integration to existent PSR 2003:3. Results showed that different products have different performances for phases and impact categories. It is not possible to identify the \best product\ from an environmental point of view, but it is possible to identify the product (or service) with the lowest impact on the environment for each impact category and resource use.Recommendation and Perspective
In consequences of the verification of the comprehensiveness of existent PSR 2003:3 for the comparability of EPD, some modifications and integration to existent rules are suggested.8.
Michael Madjar Toshisuke Ozawa 《The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment》2006,11(1):105-115
-
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.018Goal, Scope and Background
Life cycle assessment has emerged into a useful tool to assess and potentially reduce the environmental impacts per functional unit. This has contributed to increase eco-efficiency but not necessarily to decrease absolute pollution per capita. The number of functional units is increasing and new functions add to the impacts of consumption. Despite the attempts to use different levels of definitions for the functional unit and applying LCA in the field of lifestyle studies there has been little success to grasp the consumption side of sustainable production and consumption. This contribution aims to tackle the consumption side by at least two extensions: the function of products, services, and activities is assessed with a multi-attribute need function and the propensity to cause both psychological and physical rebound effects are considered in the design phase.Methods
We develop a checklist approach with an evaluation and assessment table. The elements of the checklist are rooted in a number of independent fields of science: needs matrix, happiness enhancing factors, a number of limiting factors that can cause rebound effects, and streamlined LCA.Results and Conclusion
For illustration purposes we comparatively evaluate gardening, having a dog, a weekend house, and starting yoga classes and show that the new analysis framework is able to make transparent and operable the inclusion of a number of additional factors that remained so far implicit or neglected. The additional factors considered can be grouped into factors that may cause rebound effects through psychological or physical mechanisms. The assessment table combines the degree of satisfying needs and enhancing happiness in a psychological rebound score. The physical rebound score considers six factors that may constrain consumption: Costs, time, space, other scarce resources, information, and skills. This allows predicting the potential for rebound effects that would increase total impacts from consumption. In addition, it gives also a handle on how to use the knowledge on rebound effects to not only reduce the impacts of the product or activity at hand but also reducing other consumption that in turn might have adverse impacts.Recommendation and Perspective
Many assumptions in selecting and quantifying the additional factors and the final assessment procedure remain conceptual and therefore provisional. This contribution opens new avenues of investigations that need both further refinements of the theories and empirical evidence. Consumerism and materialism has undermined much of the success stories of improved eco-efficiency and LCA. We suggest using some of the very same psychological and physical mechanisms to foster sustainable consumption.9.
Background and Objective
. Values in the known weighting methods in Life Cycle Assessment are mostly founded by the societal systems of developed countries. What source of weights and which weighting methods are reliable for a big developing country like China? The purpose of this paper is to find a possible weighting method and available data that will work well for LCA practices conducted in China. Since government policies and decisions play a leading role in the process of environmental protection in developing countries, the weights derived from political statements may be a consensus by representatives of the public.Methods
'Distance-to-political target' principle is used in this paper to derive weights of five problem-oriented impact categories. The critical policy targets are deduced from the environmental policies issued in the period of the Ninth Five-year (1996-2000) and the Tenth Five-year (2001-2005) Plan for the Development of National Economy and Society of China. Policy targets on two five-year periods are presented and analyzed. Weights are determined by the quotient between the reference levels and target levels of a certain impact category.Results and Discussion
Since the Tenth Five-year Plan put forward the overall objective to reduce the level of regional pollution by 2005, the weights for AP, EP and POCP for 2000-2005 are more than 1. By comparison between the Ninth Five-year and Tenth Five-year period, the results show that the weights obtained in this paper effectively represent Chinese political environmental priorities in different periods. For the weights derived from China's political targets for the overall period 1995-2005, the rank order of relative importance is ODP>AP>POCP>EP>GWP. They are recommended to the potential users for the broader disparity among the five categories. By comparison with the weights presented by the widespread EDIP method, the result shows that there's a big difference in the relative importance of ozone depletion and global warming.-
In conclusion, the weighting factors and rank order of impact categories determined in this study represent the characteristics of the big developing country. The derived weighting set can be helpful to LCA practices of products within the industrial systems of China.10.
Wenhao Chen Nicholas M. Holden 《The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment》2017,22(9):1459-1472
Purpose
The majority of sustainability studies of dairy farms focused on environmental performance and profitability; however, social aspect has been hardly assessed. This study aims to investigate the social impacts of dairy farm via a case study using a social life cycle assessment framework.Methods
The assessment was carried out applying the social LCA Guideline by UNEP-SETAC. Nineteen suitable social indicators were selected from four stakeholder categories of the guideline. Characterization and normalization were further developed based on data availability. National farm survey data was used as foreground data for farm activities, supplemented with background data from public database and life cycle working environment (LCWE) data by Gabi database. All indicators were divided into three groups: functional unit-related quantitative indicators, non-functional unit-related quantitative indicators and semi-quantitative indicators.Results and discussion
Irish dairy farming has positive social impacts on value chain actors and society, predominantly positive impacts for local community and generally positive values for workers. The main negative impacts are health and safety issue, equal opportunity for workers, and safe and healthy living conditions for the local community. Possible actions to improve the social performance include introducing more efficient and robotic milk production systems; applying better handling methods and using real time decision support to operational management for emissions reduction.Conclusions
This study is the first attempt of social LCA in Ireland. It demonstrated a possible method to carry out SLCA for Irish dairy sector. The results identified the positive and negative social hotspot of dairy farm with recommendation for future improvement.11.
Walter Klöpffer 《The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment》2006,11(1):116-122
-
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.019Background
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.12.
Viêt Cao Manuele Margni Basil D. Favis Louise Deschênes 《The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment》2017,22(8):1220-1231
Purpose
Land use life cycle impact assessment is calculated as a distance to target value—the target being a desirable situation defined as a reference situation in Milà i Canals et al.’s (Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(1):2–4, 2007) widely accepted framework. There are several reference situations. This work aims to demonstrate the effect of the choice of reference situation on land impact indicators.Methods
Various reference situations are reported from the perspective of the object of assessment in land in life cycle assessment (LCA) studies and the modeling choices used in life cycle land impact indicators. They are analyzed and classified according to additional LCA modeling requirements: the type of LCA approach (attributional or consequential), cultural perspectives (egalitarian, hierarchist or individualist), and temporal preference. Sets of characterization factors (CF) by impact pathway, land cover, and region are calculated for different reference situations. These sets of CFs by reference situation are all compared with a baseline set. A case study on different crop types is used to calculate impact scores from different sets of CFs and compare them.Results and discussion
Comparing the rankings of the CFs from two different sets present inversions from 5% to 35% worldwide. Impact scores of the case study present inversions of 10% worldwide. These inversions demonstrate that the choice of a reference situation may reverse the LCA conclusions for the land use impact category. Moreover, these reference situations must be consistent with the different modeling requirements of an LCA study (approach, cultural perspective, and time preference), as defined in the goal and scope.Conclusions
A decision tree is proposed to guide the selection of a consistent and suitable choice of reference situation when setting other LCA modeling requirements.13.
Susanne Freidberg 《The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment》2018,23(7):1410-1414
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.14.
Valentina Prado Ben A. Wender Thomas P. Seager 《The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment》2017,22(12):2018-2029
Purpose
Identification of environmentally preferable alternatives in a comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) can be challenging in the presence of multiple incommensurate indicators. To make the problem more manageable, some LCA practitioners apply external normalization to find those indicators that contribute the most to their respective environmental impact categories. However, in some cases, these results can be entirely driven by the normalization reference, rather than the comparative performance of the alternatives. This study evaluates the influence of normalization methods on interpretation of comparative LCA to facilitate the use of LCA in decision-driven applications and inform LCA practitioners of latent systematic biases. An alternative method based on significance of mutual differences is proposed instead.Methods
This paper performs a systematic evaluation of external normalization and describes an alternative called the overlap area approach for the purpose of identifying relevant issues in a comparative LCA. The overlap area approach utilizes the probability distributions of characterized results to assess significant differences. This study evaluates the effects in three LCIA methods, through application of four comparative studies. For each application, we call attention to the category indicators highlighted by each interpretation approach.Results and discussion
External normalization in the three LCIA methods suffers from a systematic bias that emphasizes the same impact categories regardless of the application. Consequently, comparative LCA studies that employ external normalization to guide a selection may result in recommendations dominated entirely by the normalization reference and insensitive to data uncertainty. Conversely, evaluation of mutual differences via the overlap area calls attention to the impact categories with the most significant differences between alternatives. The overlap area approach does not show a systematic bias across LCA applications because it does not depend on external references and it is sensitive to changes in uncertainty. Thus, decisions based on the overlap area approach will draw attention to tradeoffs between alternatives, highlight the role of stakeholder weights, and generate assessments that are responsive to uncertainty.Conclusions
The solution to the issues of external normalization in comparative LCAs proposed in this study call for an entirely different algorithm capable of evaluating mutual differences and integrating uncertainty in the results.15.
Tiago G. Morais Ricardo F. M. Teixeira Tiago Domingos 《The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment》2016,21(6):875-884
Purpose
One of the main trends in life cycle assessment (LCA) today is towards increased regionalization in inventories and impact assessment methods. LCA studies require the collection of activity data but also of increasingly region-specific background data to accurately depict supply chain processes and enable the application of an increasing number of geographically explicit impact assessment models. This is particularly important for agri-food products. In this review, we assess progress in Portugal towards this goal and provide recommendations for future developments.Methods
We perform a comprehensive review of available LCA studies conducted for Portuguese agri-food products, in order to evaluate the current state of Portuguese agri-food LCA. Among other issues, we assess availability of data, methods used, level of regionalization, impact assessment model relevance and coherence for inter-product comparability. We also provide conclusions and recommendations based on recent developments in the field.Results and discussion
We found 22 LCA studies, covering 22 different products. The analysis of these studies reveals limitations in inter-study comparability. The main challenges have to do with a lack of country-specific foreground data sources applied consistently in the studies found, with discrepancies in impact assessment categories, and with the use of simple functional units that may misrepresent the product analyzed.Conclusions
We conclude that Portuguese agri-food LCA studies do not have a systematic and country-scale approach in order to guarantee regional accuracy and comparability. We propose a research strategy to engage the Portuguese agri-food LCA community in devising a consistent framework before practical application studies are conducted.16.
Ulrike Eberle Andreas Lange Joost Dewaele Diederik Schowanek 《The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment》2007,12(2):127-138
Background, Aims and Scope
This study aims to compare the energy requirements and potential environmental impacts associated with three different commercial laundry processes for washing microbiologically contaminated hospital and care home laundry. Thermal disinfection relies mainly on a 90°C washing temperature and hydrogen peroxide, while the chemothermal disinfection uses a combination of chemicals (mainly peracetic acid) and 70°C washing temperature. The chemical disinfection process relies on a combination of chemicals used at 40°C. Currently, chemothermal processes are the most commonly used in professional laundries. Traditional chemical processes are uncommon due to drawbacks of longer residence time and high chemical requirements. However, the innovative Sterisan chemical process based on phthalimidoperoxyhexanoic acid (PAP) – which is the key subject of this Life Cycle Assessment – was designed to overcome these technical limitations.Methods
This study is based on a screening Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) prepared in 2002 by Öko-Institut (Germany), which was carried out following the requirements of the ISO 14040 series standards. It includes energy resource consumption, water resource consumption, climate change, eutrophication and acidification potential as relevant environmental indicators. In 2004/2005, the study was further updated and broadened to include the aquatic eco-toxicity potential, photochemical oxidant formation and ozone depletion potential in order to represent the environmental burdens associated with the chemicals used.Based on available data, the system boundaries include detergent manufacturing, the professional wash process, waste water treatment, but excluding the laundry finishing process. The selected functional unit was 1kg washed hygiene laundry.Results and Discussion
The LCA indicates that the Sterisan chemical process has a lower potential environmental impact than thermal or chemothermal treatment for six out of seven key indicators. This includes a 55% lower energy and a 46% lower water consumption. The global warming potential and acidification potential are approximately halved, while the photochemical oxidant formation potential and eutrophication potential are almost reduced to one third. By contrast, for the aquatic eco-toxicity, the thermal- and chemothermal processes have an approximately 17 fold lower impact. The worse aquatic toxicity score for the Sterisan process is mainly caused by a solvent component in the formulation.Conclusion
The comparison of the thermal, chemothermal and Sterisan commercial laundry processes shows that the Sterisan process allows for very substantial reductions in energy and water consumption, as well as significant reductions in climate change, photochemical oxidant formation potential, air acidification potential and eutrophication potential. Yet, Sterisan has a clear disadvantage with regards to aquatic eco-toxicity potential.Recommendation and Perspective
Based on a current hygiene laundry volume of approx. 584000 tons of linen washed per year by commercial laundries in Germany, a full substitution of the market to the Sterisan process could potentially allow a primary energy saving of ~750000 GJ/year (roughly equivalent to the residential primary energy consumption of 23500 German citizens or the overall energy demand of approx. 6000 German citizens). In terms of improvements to the respective processes, the chemothermal and thermal process could benefit from a reduction of water volume, and change of detergent composition to reduce the eutrophication potential. As the washing temperature is an essential factor, only slight improvements for the energy consumption indicator can be obtained, e.g. by choosing green electricity and reducing the amount of water to be heated. The Sterisan process could be improved by lowering the solvent use, although for perspective, the current aquatic eco-toxicity score of the Sterisan process is still lower than that of a typical domestic laundry product.17.
Rolf Frischknecht Peter Fantke Laura Tschümperlin Monia Niero Assumpció Antón Jane Bare Anne-Marie Boulay Francesco Cherubini Michael Z. Hauschild Andrew Henderson Annie Levasseur Thomas E. McKone Ottar Michelsen Llorenç Milà i Canals Stephan Pfister Brad Ridoutt Ralph K. Rosenbaum Francesca Verones Bruce Vigon Olivier Jolliet 《The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment》2016,21(3):429-442
18.
Ingo Meinshausen Peter Müller-Beilschmidt Tobias Viere 《The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment》2016,21(9):1231-1235
Purpose
This paper introduces the new EcoSpold data format for life cycle inventory (LCI).Methods
A short historical retrospect on data formats in the life cycle assessment (LCA) field is given. The guiding principles for the revision and implementation are explained. Some technical basics of the data format are described, and changes to the previous data format are explained.Results
The EcoSpold 2 data format caters for new requirements that have arisen in the LCA field in recent years.Conclusions
The new data format is the basis for the Ecoinvent v3 database, but since it is an open data format, it is expected to be adopted by other LCI databases. Several new concepts used in the new EcoSpold 2 data format open the way for new possibilities for the LCA practitioners and to expand the application of the datasets in other fields beyond LCA (e.g., Material Flow Analysis, Energy Balancing).19.
Eskinder D. Gemechu Guido Sonnemann Steven B. Young 《The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment》2017,22(1):31-39