This paper addresses the lack of ecotoxicity characterization factors (CFs) for persistent and mobile (PM) chemicals in life cycle assessment. The specific aims are (1) to provide CFs for 64 selected chemicals and benchmark them against the USEtox database, (2) to propose an ecotoxicity data harmonization strategy, and (3) to analyze the influence of ecotoxicity data sources and data harmonization strategies.
This paper seeks ways to address positive social impacts in social life cycle assessment (SLCA) and attempts to answer two questions: How can the SLCA methodology be improved in order to systematically identify all potential positive impacts in the supply chain? How can positive impacts be taken into consideration along with negative impacts in SLCA? In order to exemplify and provide more concrete methodological improvements, the case of vehicle fuels is used to investigate the possibilities to address positive impacts in SLCA.By scrutinising the social impacts addressed in the SLCA UNEP/SETAC By scrutinising the social impacts addressed in the SLCA UNEP/SETAC Guidelines today and reviewing approaches for positive impacts in other research fields, a developed approach to capture and aggregate positive social impacts in SLCA is proposed. To exemplify the application, the case of vehicle fuels is used to investigate the possibilities of addressing positive impacts in SLCA. This includes a literature review on potential positive social impacts linked to vehicle fuels. The subcategories in the SLCA Guidelines are proposed to be divided into positive and negative impacts and complemented with some additional positive impacts. Related indicators are proposed. A draft approach for assessing positive impacts is developed where the proposed indicators are categorised in four different levels, from low to very high potential positive impact. The possibility to aggregate positive social impacts is discussed. Besides multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), few useful ideas for aggregating positive impacts in SLCA were found in the literature that mostly focused on surveys and monetarisation. Positive social impacts linked to vehicle fuels (fossil fuels and biofuels) are identified, and the proposed approach is schematically applied to vehicle fuels.
This paper seeks ways to address positive social impacts in social life cycle assessment (SLCA) and attempts to answer two questions: How can the SLCA methodology be improved in order to systematically identify all potential positive impacts in the supply chain? How can positive impacts be taken into consideration along with negative impacts in SLCA? In order for SLCA to be an attractive tool, it needs to provide users with the possibility to include positive impacts, not as variables stipulating lack of negative impacts but rather as fulfilment of positive potentials. By scrutinising the social impacts addressed in the SLCA UNEP/SETAC Guidelines today and reviewing approaches for positive impacts in other research fields, a developed approach to capture and aggregate positive social impacts in SLCA is proposed. To exemplify the application, the case of vehicle fuels is used to investigate the possibilities of addressing positive impacts in SLCA. This includes a literature review on potential positive social impacts linked to vehicle fuels.
Introduction Unplanned events such as accidents and more massive black-swan events are contingent to modern technology. However, varying approaches and inconsistent guidelines make the inclusion of unplanned events in life cycle assessment (LCA) uncommon and challenging. This paper discusses the relevance of considering unplanned events in LCA and shows how they can be included in LCA practice.Method A theoretical background to the concepts of black swans, accidents, and unplanned events is first provided. We then propose a method for how unplanned events can be included in LCA practice, illustrated through three cases: (i) a sabotage in the energy system, (ii) an accident in the use phase, and (iii) a sudden policy change.
The results show that unplanned events can be included and may significantly affect LCA results, sometimes even fulfilling criteria for black-swan events.Conclusions We suggest that unplanned events should be included in LCA when relevant, e.g. as one scenario in LCAs of product systems sensitive to accidents. We also suggest that changes in flows due to unplanned events should be considered in unit processes, so that their impacts become distributed across downstream product systems depending on demand for the unit-process output.
The use of QSAR estimated data as basis for calculation of characterisation factors, and the further use of thosefactors for ranking based on ecotoxicity potential, was assessed as a feasible way to gather substance data for large datasets.However, further research and development of the guidance on how to make use of estimated data is needed to achieveimprovement of the accuracy of the results (PDF) The potential to use QSAR to populate ecotoxicity characterisation factors for simplified LCIA and chemical prioritisation. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324503117_The_potential_to_use_QSAR_to_populate_ecotoxicity_characterisation_factors_for_simplified_LCIA_and_chemical_prioritisation [accessed Jan 29 2019].
The Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) has been the cradle of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). This year marks an important anniversary for the LCA community: the 25th jubilee of SETAC LCA thematic groups of Europe and North America. In 1991 the North American Advisory Group was formally recognized as a group within the SETAC. In August 1991 a SETAC Pellston Workshop® in Smuggler's Notch, USA, formalized the structure of a product LCA. LCA was born. The same year the first meeting of a regional LCA thematic group in Europe took place, the 'SETAC Europe Task Group on Life Cycle Analysis'. This European group, in those early days overlapping with the Steering Committee, organized a first SETAC Europe LCA workshop in Leiden (the Netherlands) on the 2nd and 3rd of December 1991. Today LCA is a mature and multidisciplinary tool and the LCA community has become much wider and more diverse compared to those early days. Therefore, not all LCA practitioners may know about the SETAC LCA AGs, their contribution to the development of LCA and the opportunities to get involved. The objective of this editorial is therefore twofold. First, in occasion of their silver jubilee, it intends to credit the work of the SETAC LCA groups and acknowledge their major achievements. Secondly, it intends to give forward momentum to the European Advisory Group (EU AG) activities, illustrating their functions and opportunities for participations.
Purpose Life cycle assessment (LCA) is considered a robust method to analyse the environmental impacts of products and is used in public and private market applications such as Green Public Procurement (GPP) and Environmental Management Systems (EMS). Despite the usefulness of the methodology, difficulties exist with the interpretation of LCA results. The use of benchmarks can facilitate this process, but there is yet little research on the definition of environmental benchmarks. The aim of this paper is to analyse the distribution of environmental performance used for the definition of the benchmark and how it effects the use in selected product categories. Method LCA results from 54 Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) for insulation materials and 49 EPDs for bakery products are tested for their distribution. The outcome from the statistical analysis is used to compare and evaluate three calculation methods for a benchmark. Results and discussion The results of the study show that distributions and mid- and end-points of environmental performances of the studied indicators differ significantly for the two product categories. While some indicators for bakery products were closer to a normal distribution, most of the indicators are not normally distributed. This is reflected in the comparison of the chosen calculation methods for a benchmark, which showed that the distribution of the data affects the classification of the benchmark as well as the position of values on the benchmark. Conclusion The results emphasise that analysis of further product groups and the associated distribution of the environmental performance is needed to understand the implications of calculation methods on a benchmark. The availability of comparatively large datasets in a common structure is crucial for these analyses and can be facilitated through the digitalisation of LCA- and EPD-information. Furthermore, more research is needed on the communication formats for different benchmarking options, which must be applied for the different intended audiences to be effective.