Identifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in life cycle impact assessment
Michael Zwicky Hauschild,Mark Goedkoop,Jeroen B. Guinée,Reinout Heijungs,Mark A. J. Huijbregts,Olivier Jolliet,Olivier Jolliet,Manuele Margni,Manuele Margni,An M. De Schryver,Sebastien Humbert,Alexis Laurent,Serenella Sala,Rana Pant +13 more
TLDR
In this article, the authors performed a study for the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission (JRC) to identify the best among existing characterization models and provide recommendations to the LCA practitioner.Abstract:
Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) is a field of active development. The last decade has seen prolific publication of new impact assessment methods covering many different impact categories and providing characterization factors that often deviate from each other for the same substance and impact. The LCA standard ISO 14044 is rather general and unspecific in its requirements and offers little help to the LCA practitioner who needs to make a choice. With the aim to identify the best among existing characterization models and provide recommendations to the LCA practitioner, a study was performed for the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission (JRC). Existing LCIA methods were collected and their individual characterization models identified at both midpoint and endpoint levels and supplemented with other environmental models of potential use for LCIA. No new developments of characterization models or factors were done in the project. From a total of 156 models, 91 were short listed as possible candidates for a recommendation within their impact category. Criteria were developed for analyzing the models within each impact category. The criteria addressed both scientific qualities and stakeholder acceptance. The criteria were reviewed by external experts and stakeholders and applied in a comprehensive analysis of the short-listed characterization models (the total number of criteria varied between 35 and 50 per impact category). For each impact category, the analysis concluded with identification of the best among the existing characterization models. If the identified model was of sufficient quality, it was recommended by the JRC. Analysis and recommendation process involved hearing of both scientific experts and stakeholders. Recommendations were developed for 14 impact categories at midpoint level, and among these recommendations, three were classified as “satisfactory” while ten were “in need of some improvements” and one was so weak that it has “to be applied with caution.” For some of the impact categories, the classification of the recommended model varied with the type of substance. At endpoint level, recommendations were only found relevant for three impact categories. For the rest, the quality of the existing methods was too weak, and the methods that came out best in the analysis were classified as “interim,” i.e., not recommended by the JRC but suitable to provide an initial basis for further development. The level of characterization modeling at midpoint level has improved considerably over the last decade and now also considers important aspects like geographical differentiation and combination of midpoint and endpoint characterization, although the latter is in clear need for further development. With the realization of the potential importance of geographical differentiation comes the need for characterization models that are able to produce characterization factors that are representative for different continents and still support aggregation of impact scores over the whole life cycle. For the impact categories human toxicity and ecotoxicity, we are now able to recommend a model, but the number of chemical substances in common use is so high that there is a need to address the substance data shortage and calculate characterization factors for many new substances. Another unresolved issue is the need for quantitative information about the uncertainties that accompany the characterization factors. This is still only adequately addressed for one or two impact categories at midpoint, and this should be a focus point in future research. The dynamic character of LCIA research means that what is best practice will change quickly in time. The characterization methods presented in this paper represent what was best practice in 2008–2009.read more
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
ReCiPe2016: a harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level
Mark A. J. Huijbregts,Mark A. J. Huijbregts,Zoran J. N. Steinmann,Pieter M. F. Elshout,Gea Stam,Francesca Verones,Marisa Vieira,Michiel C. Zijp,Anne Hollander,Rosalie van Zelm +9 more
TL;DR: The ReCiPe2016 method as discussed by the authors provides a state-of-the-art method to convert life cycle inventories to a limited number of life cycle impact scores on midpoint and endpoint level.
Journal ArticleDOI
Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunities in life cycle assessment
TL;DR: Life Cycle Assessment constitutes a viable screening tool that can pinpoint environmental hotspots in complex value chains, but it is cautioned that completeness in scope comes at the price of simplifications and uncertainties.
Journal ArticleDOI
Metrics of Green Chemistry and Sustainability: Past, Present, and Future
TL;DR: The first green chemistry metrics, the E factor (kgs waste/kg product) and atom economy (mol wt of product/sum of mol wts of starting materials), were introduced in the early 1990s and were actually green chemistry avant la lettre as mentioned in this paper.
Journal ArticleDOI
The role of life cycle assessment in supporting sustainable agri-food systems: A review of the challenges
Bruno Notarnicola,Serenella Sala,Assumpció Antón,Sarah J. McLaren,Erwan Saouter,Ulf Sonesson +5 more
TL;DR: In this article, the authors discuss the challenges for life cycle assessment arising from the complexity of food systems, and recommend research priorities for both scientific development and improvements in practical implementation, including addressing issues related to: the distinction between technosphere and ecosphere; the most appropriate functional unit; the multi-functionality of biological systems; and the modelling of the emissions and how this links with life cycle impact assessment.
Journal ArticleDOI
Environmental impacts of hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and battery electric vehicles—what can we learn from life cycle assessment?
Anders Nordelöf,Maarten Messagie,Anne-Marie Tillman,Maria Ljunggren Söderman,Joeri Van Mierlo,Joeri Van Mierlo +5 more
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors investigate the usefulness of different types of life cycle assessment (LCA) studies of electrified vehicles to provide robust and relevant stakeholder information, and present synthesized conclusions based on 79 papers.
References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
The LCIA midpoint-damage framework of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative
Olivier Jolliet,Ruedi Müller-Wenk,Jane C. Bare,Alan C. Brent,Mark Goedkoop,Reinout Heijungs,Norihiro Itsubo,Claudia Peña,David Pennington,José Potting,Gerald Rebitzer,Mary Stewart,Helias A. Udo de Haes,Bo Pedersen Weidema +13 more
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors propose a framework to combine traditional impact assessment methods and damage-oriented methods at the level of human health, natural environment, natural resources and man-made environment.
Journal ArticleDOI
Building a model based on scientific consensus for Life Cycle Impact Assessment of chemicals: the search for harmony and parsimony.
Michael Zwicky Hauschild,Mark A. J. Huijbregts,Olivier Jolliet,Matthew MacLeod,Manuele Margni,Dik van de Meent,Ralph K. Rosenbaum,Thomas E. McKone +7 more
TL;DR: A recent scientific consensus-building process for Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) models applied to chemical emissions is described, including the strategy, execution, and results of a process that used model comparison to achieve parsimony.
Journal ArticleDOI
USEtox fate and ecotoxicity factors for comparative assessment of toxic emissions in life cycle analysis: sensitivity to key chemical properties
Ralph K. Rosenbaum,Mark A. J. Huijbregts,Andrew D. Henderson,Manuele Margni,Thomas E. McKone,Dik van de Meent,Michael Zwicky Hauschild,Shanna Shaked,Ding Sheng Li,Lois Swirsky Gold,Olivier Jolliet +10 more
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors provide science-based consensus and guidance for health effects modelling in comparative assessments based on human exposure and toxicity, which is achieved by describing the USEtox™ exposure/toxicity models representing consensus and recommended modelling practice.
Book
Life-Cycle Impact Assessment: Striving towards Best Practice
H.A Udo de Haes,Göran Finnveden,Mark Goedkoop,Michael Zwicky Hauschild,Edgar G. Hertwich,Patrick Hofstetter,Olivier Jolliet,Walter Klöpffer,Wolfram Krewitt,E. Lindeijer,Ruedi Müller-Wenk,Stig Irving Olsen,David Pennington,José Potting,B Steen +14 more
ExternE - externalities of energy
M Holland,J Berry,D Forster +2 more
TL;DR: In this paper, the ExternE Project's earlier Methodology report, providing details of substantial advances that were made in 1996 and 1997, was updated, focusing on the following areas: global warming damages, major accidents, non-environmental externalities, effects of tropospheric ozone on health and crops; sustainability, valuation of mortality associated with air pollution; effects of a broader range of pollutants, such as dioxins and heavy metals; fuel chain impacts outside the European Union; and uncertainty.