Advertisement

Life Cycle Assessment of Polyethylene Terephthalate Packaging: An Overview

  • Thiago S. GomesEmail author
  • Leila L. Y. Visconte
  • Elen B. A. V. Pacheco
Review
  • 70 Downloads

Abstract

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a common technique to evaluate the environmental impact of poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) packaging. A review is needed to gain a clear view of the accumulated knowledge, scientific trends and what remains to be done. The main purpose of this paper is to present an overview of LCA of PET, mainly for packaging. LCA studies of PET consist largely of two segments: final destination of post-consumer PET, comparing recycling with other options (incineration, landfilling); and alternative materials, comparing PET with other polymers or materials such as glass and aluminum cans. In the first case, the scenarios most often compared have been landfill disposal and mechanical recycling. There has also been considerable research on the use of post-consumer PET for energy conversion and chemical recycling. In the second case, the main polymer compared with PET is poly(lactic acid), whose mechanical properties make it unsuitable for carbonated beverage bottles. Numerous articles have focused only on energy consumption or global warming potential. Few studies have discussed mechanical recycling technologies in LCA and there is a lack of data on the processes used in developing countries. This review highlights the need to conduct LCA studies of PET, since many aspects are still not fully understood.

Keywords

Poly(ethylene terephthalate) PET Life cycle assessment Recycling Environmental impact 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) and the National Research Council (CNPq).

References

  1. 1.
    Plastics Insight (2018) Polyethylene terephthalate (PET): production, price, market and its properties. Noida, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Romero-Hernández O, Romero Hernández S, Muñoz D, Detta-Silveira E, Palacios-Brun A, Laguna A (2009) Environmental implications and market analysis of soft drink packaging systems in Mexico. A waste management approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:107–113.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-008-0053-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sevigné-Itoiz E, Gasol CM, Rieradevall J, Gabarrell X (2015) Contribution of plastic waste recovery to greenhouse gas (GHG) savings in Spain. Waste Manag 46:557–567.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.08.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Foolmaun RK, Ramjeawon T (2013) Comparative life cycle assessment and social life cycle assessment of used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles in Mauritius. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:155–171.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0447-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sinha V, Patel MR, Patel JV (2010) PET waste management by chemical recycling: A review. J Polym Environ 18:8–25.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-008-0106-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eerhart AJJE, Faaij APC, Patel MK (2012) Environmental Science Replacing fossil based PET with biobased PEF; process analysis, energy and GHG balance. Energy Environ Sci 5:6407–6422.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c2ee02480b CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gironi F, Piemonte V (2011) Life cycle assessment of polylactic acid and polyethylene terephthalate bottles for drinking water. Environ Prog Sustain Energy 30:459–468.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.10490 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Madival S, Auras R, Singh SP, Narayan R (2009) Assessment of the environmental profile of PLA, PET and PS clamshell containers using LCA methodology. J Clean Prod 17:1183–1194.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.03.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Papong S, Malakul P, Trungkavashirakun R, Wenunun P, Chom-In T, Nithitanakul M, Sarobol E (2014) Comparative assessment of the environmental profile of PLA and PET drinking water bottles from a life cycle perspective. J Clean Prod 65:539–550.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Williams E (2011) Environmental effects of information and communications technologies. Nature 479:354–358.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10682 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kralisch D, Ott D, Gericke D (2015) Rules and benefits of life cycle assessment in green chemical process and synthesis design: a tutorial review. Green Chem 17:123–145.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C4GC01153H CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tabone MD, Cregg JJ, Beckman EJ, Landis AE (2010) Sustainability metrics: life cycle assessment and green design in polymers. Environ Sci Technol 44:8264–8269.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es101640n CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Komly C-E, Azzaro-Pantel C, Hubert A, Pibouleau L, Archambault V (2012) Multiobjective waste management optimization strategy coupling life cycle assessment and genetic algorithms: application to PET bottles. Resour Conserv Recycl 69:66–81.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.08.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leejarkpai T, Mungcharoen T, Suwanmanee U (2016) Comparative assessment of global warming impact and eco-efficiency of PS (polystyrene), PET (polyethylene terephthalate) and PLA (polylactic acid) boxes. J Clean Prod 125:95–107.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Suter GW (2013) Review papers are important and worth writing. Environ Toxicol Chem 32:1929–1930.  https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.2316 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Saleh Y (2016) Comparative life cycle assessment of beverages packages in Palestine. J Clean Prod 131:28–42.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.080 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Detrois C, Steinbauer T (2012) PET beverage bottles. In: Brandau O (ed) Bottles, preforms and closures: a design guide for pet packaging, 2nd edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1–45Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Laurin L (2017) Overview of LCA—history, concept, and methodology. In: Encyclopedia of sustainable technologies. Elsevier, pp 217–222Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    International Organization for Standardization - ISO (2006) ISO 14040:2006 Preview environmental management—Life cycle assessment—principles and framework. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    International Organization for Standardization - ISO (2006) ISO 14044—environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hunkeler D (2016) Life cycle assessment (LCA): a guide to best practice. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:1063–1066.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1083-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pryshlakivsky J, Searcy C (2013) Fifteen years of ISO 14040: a review. J Clean Prod 57:115–123.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2013.05.038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brogaard LK, Damgaard A, Jensen MB, Barlaz M, Christensen TH (2014) Evaluation of life cycle inventory data for recycling systems. Resour Conserv Recycl 87:30–45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2014.03.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bueno C, Hauschild MZ, Rossignolo JA, Ometto AR, Mendes NC (2016) Sensitivity analysis of the use of life cycle impact assessment methods: a case study on building materials. J Clean Prod 112:2208–2220.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    United Nations Environment Programme - UNEP, Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry - SETAC (2017) Global guidance for life cycle impact assessment indicators, vol 1, p 166.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.nutr.22.120501.134539
  26. 26.
    Shen L, Worrell E, Patel MK (2010) Open-loop recycling: a LCA case study of PET bottle-to-fibre recycling. Resour Conserv Recycl 55:34–52.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.06.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Foolmaun RK, Ramjeeawon T (2012) Disposal of post-consumer polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles: comparison of five disposal alternatives in the small island state of Mauritius using a life cycle assessment tool. Environ Technol 33:563–572.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2011.586055 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Toniolo S, Mazzi A, Niero M, Zuliani F, Scipioni A (2013) Comparative LCA to evaluate how much recycling is environmentally favourable for food packaging. Resour Conserv Recycl 77:61–68.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.06.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kang DH, Auras R, Singh J (2017) Life cycle assessment of non-alcoholic single-serve polyethylene terephthalate beverage bottles in the state of California. Resour Conserv Recycl 116:45–52.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.09.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    European Commission - Joint Research Centre - Institute for Environment and Sustainability (2010) ILCD handbook: general guide for life cycle assessment-detailed guidance.  https://doi.org/10.2788/38479
  31. 31.
    United States Environmental Protection Agency - US EPA (2012) Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and O ther Environmental Impacts (TRACI) User’s Guide Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and O ther Environmental Impacts (TRACI). US EPA, CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, De Schryver A, Struijs J, van Zelm R (2013) ReCiPe 2008. A LCIA method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Characterisation. Leiden University, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles R, Humbert S, Payet J, Rebitzer G, Rosenbaum R (2003) IMPACT 2002+: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8:324–330.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978505 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2001) The Eco-Indicator 99—a damage oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment—Methodology Report. Amersfoort, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Guinée JB, Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, Koning A, Oers L, Sleeswijk AW, Suh S, Haes HAU, Bruijn H, Duin RV, Huijbregts MAJ (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment. Operational guide to the ISO standards. I: LCA in perspective. IIa: Guide. IIb: Operational annex. III. Scientific Background, Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    International Organization for Standardization - ISO (2012) Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Illustrative examples on how to apply ISO 14044 to impact assessment situations. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Amienyo D, Gujba H, Stichnothe H, Azapagic A (2013) Life cycle environmental impacts of carbonated soft drinks. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:77–92.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0459-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    British Standards Institution - BSI (2011) BS 8905:2011 Framework for the assessment of the sustainable use of materials. Guidance. BSI, LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    White P, Carty M (2010) Reducing bias through process inventory dataset normalization. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:994–1013.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0215-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chilton T, Burnley S, Nesaratnam S (2010) A life cycle assessment of the closed-loop recycling and thermal recovery of post-consumer PET. Resour Conserv Recycl 54:1241–1249.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.04.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Foolmaun RK, Ramjeawon T (2008) Life cycle assessment (LCA) of PET bottles and comparative LCA of three disposal options in Mauritius. Int J Environ Waste Manag 2:125–138.  https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEWM.2008.016997 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lorite GS, Rocha JM, Miilumäki N, Saavalainen P, Selkälä T, Morales-Cid G, Goncalves MP, Pongrácz E, Rocha CMR, Toth G (2017) Evaluation of physicochemical/microbial properties and life cycle assessment (LCA) of PLA-based nanocomposite active packaging. LWT Food Sci Technol 75:305–315.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2016.09.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ciroth A, Srocka M (2008) How to obtain a precise and representative estimate for parameters in LCA—a case study for the functional unit. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:265–277.  https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2007.06.345 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Vigon B, Sonnemann G, Asselin A, Schrijvers D, Ciroth A, Chen SS, Braga T, Poolsawad N, Mungkalasiri J, Boureima F, Milà I, Canals L (2016) Review of LCA datasets in three emerging economies: a summary of learnings. Int J Life Cycle Assess.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1198-2 Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Nakatani J, Fujii M, Moriguchi Y, Hirao M (2010) Life-cycle assessment of domestic and transboundary recycling of post-consumer PET bottles. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:590–597.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0189-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Foolmaun RK, Ramjeawon T (2012) Life cycle sustainability assessments (LCSA) of four disposal scenarios for used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles in Mauritius. Environ Dev Sustain 15:783–806.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-012-9406-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hou Q, Mao G, Zhao L, Du H, Zuo J (2015) Mapping the scientific research on life cycle assessment: a bibliometric analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:541–555.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0846-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Chen L, Pelton REO, Smith TM (2016) Comparative life cycle assessment of fossil and bio-based polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles. J Clean Prod 137:667–676.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.094 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kuczenski B, Geyer R (2013) PET bottle reverse logistics—environmental performance of California’s CRV program. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:456–471.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0495-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Williams TGJL, Heidrich O, Sallis PJ (2010) A case study of the open-loop recycling of mixed plastic waste for use in a sports-field drainage system. Resour Conserv Recycl 55:118–128.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2010.08.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Van Der Velden NM, Patel MK, Vogtländer JG (2014) LCA benchmarking study on textiles made of cotton, polyester, nylon, acryl, or elastane. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:331–356.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0626-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ingrao C, Scrucca F, Tricase C, Asdrubali F (2016) A comparative life cycle assessment of external wall-compositions for cleaner construction solutions in buildings. J Clean Prod 124:283–298.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ingrao C, Lo Giudice A, Tricase C, Rana R, Mbohwa C, Siracusa V (2014) Recycled-PET fibre based panels for building thermal insulation: environmental impact and improvement potential assessment for a greener production. Sci Tot Environ 493:914–929.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.06.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Intini F, Kühtz S (2011) Recycling in buildings: an LCA case study of a thermal insulation panel made of polyester fiber, recycled from post-consumer PET bottles. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:306–315.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0267-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Foolmaun RK, Ramjeeawon T (2012) Comparative life cycle assessment and life cycle costing of four disposal scenarios for used polyethylene terephthalate bottles in Mauritius. Environ Technol 33:2007–2018.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2012.655321 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kühnen M, Hahn R (2017) Indicators in social life cycle assessment: a review of frameworks, theories, and empirical experience. J Ind Ecol 21:1547–1565.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12663 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Shen L, Nieuwlaar E, Worrell E, Patel MK (2011) Life cycle energy and GHG emissions of PET recycling: change-oriented effects. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:522–536.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0296-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Marsh K, Bugusu B (2007) Food packaging—roles, materials, and environmental issues: scientific status summary. J Food Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2007.00301.x Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Shen L, Worrell E, Patel MK (2012) Comparing life cycle energy and GHG emissions of bio-based PET, recycled PET, PLA, and man-made cellulosics. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefining 6:625–639.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1368 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Sorrentino A, Gorrasi G, Vittoria V (2007) Potential perspectives of bio-nanocomposites for food packaging applications. Trends Food Sci Technol 18:84–95.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2006.09.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Jiang L, Zhang J (2017) Biodegradable and biobased polymers. In: Applied plastics engineering handbook, 2nd edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 127–143Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Hottle T, Bilec MM, Landis AE (2017) Biopolymer production and end of life comparisons using life cycle assessment. Resour Conserv Recycl 122:295–306.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.03.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Castro-Aguirre E, Iñiguez-Franco F, Samsudin H, Fang X, Auras R (2016) Poly(lactic acid)—mass production, processing, industrial applications, and end of life. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 107:333–366.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2016.03.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Groot WJ, Borén T (2010) Life cycle assessment of the manufacture of lactide and PLA biopolymers from sugarcane in Thailand. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:970–984.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0225-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Tsanaktsis V, Papageorgiou GZ, Bikiaris DN (2015) A facile method to synthesize high-molecular-weight biobased polyesters from 2,5-furandicarboxylic acid and long-chain diols. J Polym Sci Part A Polym Chem 53:2617–2632.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pola.27730 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Akanuma Y, Selke SEM, Auras R (2014) A preliminary LCA case study: comparison of different pathways to produce purified terephthalic acid suitable for synthesis of 100% bio-based PET. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1238–1246.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0725-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Mirabella N, Castellani V, Sala S (2013) Life cycle assessment of bio-based products: a disposable diaper case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1036–1047.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0556-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Vink ETH, Glassner DA, Kolstad JJ, Wooley RJ, O’Connor RP (2007) The eco-profiles for current and near-future NatureWorks® polylactide (PLA) production. Ind Biotechnol 3:58–81.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ind.2007.3.058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Ashurst PR, Hargitt R, Palmer F (2017) Packaging, storage and distribution of soft drinks and fruit juice. In: Soft drink and fruit juice problems solved, pp 161–184.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100918-5.00010-2
  70. 70.
    Ashurst PR (2016) Carbonated beverages. Reference module in food science. Elsevier, Amsterdam.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100596-5.03240-6 Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Azapagic A, Stichnothe H, Gujiba H, Morgan A, Orias NE, Rong Y, Jeswani H, Amienyo D (2010) CCaLC—carbon footprinting tool [Computer software]. The University of Manchester, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Accorsi R, Versari L, Manzini R (2015) Glass vs. plastic: life cycle assessment of extra-virgin olive oil bottles across global supply chains. Sustainability 7:2818–2840.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su7032818 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Von Falkenstein E, Wellenreuther F, Detzel A (2010) LCA studies comparing beverage cartons and alternative packaging: Can overall conclusions be drawn? Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:938–945.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0218-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Manfredi M, Vignali G (2015) Comparative life cycle assessment of hot filling and aseptic packaging systems used for beverages. J Food Eng 147:39–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2014.09.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Nessi S, Rigamonti L, Grosso M (2012) LCA of waste prevention activities: a case study for drinking water in Italy. J Environ Manag 108:73–83.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.04.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Finkbeiner M, Neugebauer S, Berger M (2013) Carbon footprint of recycled biogenic products: the challenge of modelling CO2 removal credits. Int J Sustain Eng 6:66–73.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2012.663414 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Amankwah-Amoah J (2015) Emerging economies, emerging challenges: mobilising and capturing value from big data. Technol Forecast Soc Change 110:167–174.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.10.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Bello-Orgaz G, Jung JJ, Camacho D (2016) Social big data: recent achievements and new challenges. Inf Fusion 28:45–59.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2015.08.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Rochat D, Binder CR, Diaz J, Jolliet O (2013) Combining material flow analysis, life cycle assessment, and multiattribute utility theory: assessment of end-of-life scenarios for polyethylene terephthalate in Tunja, Colombia Rochat et al. Combining MFA, LCA, and MAUT. J Ind Ecol 17:642–655.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12025 Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Chen X, Wilfart A, Puillet L, Aubin J (2017) A new method of biophysical allocation in LCA of livestock co-products: modeling metabolic energy requirements of body-tissue growth. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22:883–895.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1201-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Ekvall T, Finnveden G (2001) Allocation in ISO 14041—a critical review. J Clean Prod 9:197–208.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(00)00052-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Safadi EAbedE, Adrot O, Flaus J-M (2015) Advanced Monte Carlo Method for model uncertainty propagation in risk assessment. IFAC Pap Online 48:529–534.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IFACOL.2015.06.135 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Nitschelm L, Aubin J, Corson MS, Viaud V, Walter C (2016) Spatial differentiation in life cycle assessment LCA applied to an agricultural territory: current practices and method development. J Clean Prod 112:2472–2484.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.138 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Yang Y (2016) Toward a more accurate regionalized life cycle inventory. J Clean Prod 112:308–315.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.091 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Ecoinvent (2008) Ecoinvent v2.2 Database. Ecoinvent, ZurichGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Hauschild M, Goedkoop M, Guinee J, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, Jolliet O, Margni M, De Schryver A (2010) Recommendations for Life cycle impact assessment in the European context—based on existing environmental impact assessment models and factors (International Reference Life Cycle Data System—ILCD handbook)Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver A, Struijs J, Van Zelm R (2013) ReCiPe 2008, a life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level; First edition Report I: characterisationGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Scipioni A, Niero M, Mazzi A, Manzardo A, Piubello S (2013) Significance of the use of non-renewable fossil CED as proxy indicator for screening LCA in the beverage packaging sector. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:673–682.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0484-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Gößling-Reisemann S (2008) What is resource consumption and how can it be measured? Theoretical considerations. J Ind Ecol 12:10–25.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2008.00012.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Castro MBG, Remmerswaal JAM, Brezet JC, Reuter MA (2007) Exergy losses during recycling and the resource efficiency of product systems. Resour Conserv Recycl 52:219–233.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2007.01.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Finkbeiner M, Schau EM, Lehmann A, Traverso M (2010) Towards life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability 2:3309–3322.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su2103309 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Guinée JB, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Zamagni A, Masoni P, Buonamici R, Ekvall T, Rydberg T (2011) Life cycle assessment: past, present, and future. Environ Sci Technol 45:90–96.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es101316v CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Dubois-Iorgulescu AM, Saraiva AKEB, Valle R, Rodrigues LM (2016) How to define the system in social life cycle assessments? A critical review of the state of the art and identification of needed developments. Int J Life Cycle Assess 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1181-y

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto de Macromoléculas Professora Eloisa ManoUniversidade Federal do Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil
  2. 2.Escola Politécnica/Programa de Engenharia AmbientalUniversidade Federal do Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations