Identifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in life cycle impact assessment

  • Michael Z. Hauschild
  • Mark Goedkoop
  • Jeroen Guinée
  • Reinout Heijungs
  • Mark Huijbregts
  • Olivier Jolliet
  • Manuele Margni
  • An De Schryver
  • Sebastien Humbert
  • Alexis Laurent
  • Serenella Sala
  • Rana Pant
LIFE CYCLE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (LCIA)

Abstract

Purpose

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).

Methods

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.

Results and recommendations

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.

Discussion, conclusions, and outlook

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.

Keywords

Best practice Characterization Endpoint Impact indicator International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Life cycle impact assessment Midpoint 

Supplementary material

11367_2012_489_MOESM1_ESM.docx (135 kb)
ESM 1(DOCX 134 kb)

References

  1. Bare JC, Pennington DW, Udo de Haes HA (1999) Life cycle impact assessment sophistication—international workshop. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4(5):299–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bare JC, Hofstetter P, Pennington DW, de Haes HA U (2000) Life cycle impact assessment midpoints vs. endpoints: the sacrifices and the benefits. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5(5):319–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bare JC, Norris GA, Pennington DW, McKone T (2003) TRACI, the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts. J Ind Ecol 6(3–4):49–78Google Scholar
  4. Bayart J-B, Bulle C, Deschênes L, Margni M, Pfister S, Vince F, Koehler A (2010) A framework for assessing off-stream freshwater use in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(5):439–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Daniel JS, Velders GJM et al. (2007) Halocarbon scenarios, ozone depletion potentials, and global warming potentials. Chapter 8 in Scientific assessment of ozone depletion: 2006, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project—report no. 50. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  6. De Schryver A, Goedkoop MJ (2009a) Climate change. Chapter 3. In: Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts MAJ, De Schryver A, Struijs J, Van Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe 2008, A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Report I: Characterisation, first edition, 6 January 2009, http://www.lcia-recipe.net – accessed January 2012
  7. De Schryver A, Goedkoop MJ (2009b) Land use. Chapter 10. In: Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts MAJ, De Schryver A, Struijs J, Van Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe 2008 A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Report I: Characterisation, first edition, 6 January 2009, http://www.lcia-recipe.net – accessed January 2012
  8. De Schryver A, Goedkoop MJ (2009c) Mineral Resource. Chapter 12. In: Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts MAJ, De Schryver A, Struijs J, Van Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe 2008 A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Report I: Characterisation, first edition, 6 January 2009, http://www.lcia-recipe.net – accessed January 2012
  9. Den Outer PN, van Dijk A, Slaper H (2008) Validation of ultraviolet radiation budgets using satellite observations from the OMI instrument. RIVM Report no 610002002, Bilthoven, The Netherlands, pp 59Google Scholar
  10. Dreicer M, Tort V, Manen P (1995) ExternE, externalities of energy, vol. 5 9 Nuclear, Centr d’étude sur l’Evaluation de la Protection dans le domaine 10 nucléaire (CEPN). In: European Commission DGXII (ed) Science, 11 Research and development JOULE, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  11. Dreyer LC, Niemann AL, Hauschild MZ (2003) Comparison of three different LCIA methods: EDIP97, CML2001 and Eco-indicator 99. Does it matter which one you choose? Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(4):191–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. EC-JRC (2010a) Analysis of existing environmental impact assessment methodologies for use in life cycle assessment—background document. ILCD Handbook—International Reference Life Cycle Data System, European Union. At http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/assessment/assessment/projects#consultation_impact – accessed January 2012
  13. EC-JRC (2010b) Framework and requirements for LCIA models and indicators. ILCD Handbook—International Reference Life Cycle Data System, European Union EUR24586EN. ISBN 978-92-79-17539-8. At http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/assessment/assessment/projects#consultation_impact – accessed January 2012
  14. EC-JRC (2011) Recommendations based on existing environmental impact assessment models and factors for life cycle assessment in European context. ILCD Handbook—International Reference Life Cycle Data System, European Union EUR24571EN. ISBN 978-92-79-17451-3. At http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/assessment/assessment/projects#consultation_impact – accessed January 2012
  15. Forster P, Ramaswamy V, Artaxo P, Berntsen T, Betts R, Fahey DW, Haywood J, Lean J, Lowe DC, Myhre G, Nganga J, Prinn R, Raga G, Schulz M, Van Dorland R (2007) Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. Chapter 2. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Frischknecht R, Braunschweig A, Hofstetter P, Suter P (2000) Modelling human health effects of radioactive releases in life cycle impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 20(2):159–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frischknecht R, Steiner R, Jungbluth N (2008) Methode der ökologischen Knappheit—Ökofaktoren 2006, ö.b.u. und Bundesamt für Umwelt, BernGoogle Scholar
  18. Gallego A, Rodriguez L, Hospido A, Moreira MT, Feijoo G (2010) Development of regional characterisation factors for aquatic eutrophication. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:32–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Garnier-Laplace JC, Beaugelin-Seiller K, Gilbin R, Della-Vedova C, Jolliet O, Payet J (2008) A screening level ecological risk assessment and ranking method for liquid radioactive and chemical mixtures released by nuclear facilities under normal operating conditions. Proceedings of the International conference on Radioecology and Environmental Protection, 15–20 June 2008, BergenGoogle Scholar
  20. Garnier-Laplace JC, Beaugelin-Seiller K, Gilbin R, Della-Vedova C, Jolliet O, Payet J (2009) A screening level ecological risk assessment and ranking method for liquid radioactive and chemical mixtures released by nuclear facilities under normal operating conditions. Radioprotection 44(5):903–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goedkoop MJ, De Schryver A (2009) Fossil resource. Chapter 13. In: Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts MAJ, De Schryver A, Struijs J, Van Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe 2008 A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Report I: Characterisation, first edition, 6 January 2009, http://www.lcia-recipe.net – accessed January 2012
  22. Goedkoop MJ, Spriensma R (2000) Eco-indicator 99, a damage oriented method for lifecycle impact assessment, methodology report (update April 2000)Google Scholar
  23. Goedkoop MJ, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver A, Struijs J, Van Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe 2008—a life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level; First edition Report I: Characterisation, first edition, 6 January 2009, http://www.lcia-recipe.net – accessed January 2012
  24. Greco S, Wilson A, Spengler J, Levy J (2007) Spatial patterns of mobile source particulate matter emissions-to-exposure relationships across the United States. Atmos Environ 41(5):1011–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Guinée JB (ed), Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, de Koning A, van Oers L, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Suh S, Udo de Haes HA, de Bruijn JA, van Duin R, Huijbregts MAJ (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment: operational guide to the ISO standards. Series: eco-efficiency in industry and science. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (Hardbound, ISBN 1-4020-0228-9; Paperback, ISBN 1-4020-0557-1)Google Scholar
  26. Hauschild M, Potting J (2005) Spatial differentiation in life cycle impact assessment—the EDIP2003 methodology. Environmental News no. 80. The Danish Ministry of the Environment, Environmental Protection Agency, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  27. Hauschild MZ, Huijbregts M, Jolliet O, MacLeod M, Margni M, van de Meent D, Rosenbaum RK, McKone T (2008) Building a model based on scientific consensus for life cycle impact assessment of chemicals: the search for harmony and parsimony. Environ Sci Technol 42(19):7032–7037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hellweg S, Demou E, Bruzzi R, Meijer A, Rosenbaum RK, Huijbregts MAJ, Mckone TE (2009) Integrating human indoor air pollutant exposure within life cycle impact assessment. Environ Sci Technol 43(6):1670–1679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Henderson A, Hauschild M, Van de Meent D, Huijbregts MAJ, Larsen HF, Margni M, McKone TE, Payet J, Rosenbaum RK, Jolliet O (2011) USEtox fate and ecotoxicity factors for comparative assessment of toxic emissions in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(8):701–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Huijbregts MAJ, Rombouts LJA, Ragas AMJ, Van de Meent D (2005) Human-toxicological effect and damage factors of carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic chemicals for life cycle impact assessment. Integr Environ Assess Manag 1:181–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Humbert S (2009) Geographically differentiated life-cycle impact assessment of human health. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USAGoogle Scholar
  32. Humbert S, Marshall JD, Shaked S, Spadaro J, Nishioka Y, Preiss P, McKone TE, Horvath A, Jolliet O (2011) Intake fraction for particulate matter: recommendations for life cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol 45(11):4808–4816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. ISO (2006) ISO 14044:2006 Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. International Standards OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  34. Itsubo N, Sakagami M, Washida T, Kokubu K, Inaba A (2004) Weighting across safeguard subjects for LCIA through the application of conjoint analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(3):196–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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(6):324–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jolliet O, Müller-Wenk R, Bare JC, Brent A, Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Itsubo N, Peña C, Pennington D, Potting J, Rebitzer G, Stewart M, Udo de Haes H, Weidema B (2004) The LCIA midpoint-damage framework of the UNEP/SETAC life cycle initiative. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(6):394–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Margni M, Gloria T, Bare J, Seppälä J, Steen B, Struijs J, Toffoletto L, Jolliet O (2007) Guidance on how to move from current practice to recommended practice in life cycle impact assessment: UNEP/SETAC life cycle initiativeGoogle Scholar
  38. Milà i Canals L, Romanyà J, Cowell SJ (2007) Method for assessing impacts on life support functions (LSF) related to the use of ‘fertile land’ in life cycle assessment (LCA). J Clean Prod 15:1426–1440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Milà i Canals L, Chenoweth J, Chapagain A, Orr S, Antón A, Clift R (2009) Assessing freshwater use impacts in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(1):28–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Montzka SA, Fraser PJ (1999) Controlled substances and other source gases. Chapter 2 in scientific assessment of ozone depletion: 1998, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project—report no. 44, World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  41. Pant R, Van Hoof G, Schowanek D, Feijtel TCJ, de Koning A, Hauschild MZ, Pennington DW, Olsen SI, Rosenbaum R (2004) Comparison between three different LCIA methods for aquatic ecotoxicity and a product environmental risk assessment—insights from a detergent case study within OMNIITOX. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(5):295–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Payet J (2004) Assessing toxic impacts on aquatic ecosystems in LCA. PhD thesis 3112, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de LausanneGoogle Scholar
  43. Pfister S, Hellweg S (2009) The water “shoesize” vs. footprint of bioenergy. Letter PNAS 106(35):E93–E94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pfister S, Koehler A, Hellweg S (2009) Assessing the environmental impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA. Environ Sci Technol 43(11):4098–4104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pizzol M, Christensen P, Schmidt J, Thomsen M (2011a) Impacts of “metals” on human health: a comparison between nine different methodologies for life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). J Clean Prod 19:646–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pizzol M, Christensen P, Schmidt J, Thomsen M (2011b) Eco-toxicological impact of “metals” on the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem: a comparison between eight different methodologies for life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). J Clean Prod 19:687–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pope CA, Burnett RT, Thun MJ, Calle EE, Krewski D, Ito K, Thurston GD (2002) Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. J Am Med Assoc 287:1132–1141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Posch M, Seppälä J, Hettelingh JP, Johansson M, Margni M, Jolliet O (2008) The role of atmospheric dispersion models and ecosystem sensitivity in the determination of characterisation factors for acidifying and eutrophying emissions in LCIA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(6):477–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rabl A, Spadaro JV (2004) The RiskPoll software, version is 1.051 (dated August 2004). www.arirabl.com – accessed January 2012
  50. Rosenbaum RK, Bachmann TM, Gold LS, Huijbregts MAJ, Jolliet O, Juraske R, Köhler A, Larsen HF, MacLeod M, Margni M, McKone TE, Payet J, Schuhmacher M, van de Meent D, Hauschild MZ (2008) USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterization factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(7):532–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rosenbaum RK, Huijbregts M, Henderson A, Margni M, McKone TE, van de Meent D, Hauschild MZ, Shaked S, Li DS, Slone TH, Gold LS, Jolliet O (2011) USEtox human exposure and toxicity factors for comparative assessment of toxic emissions in life cycle analysis: sensitivity to key chemical properties. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(8):710–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Saad R, Margni M, Koellner T, Wittstock B, Deschênes L (2011) Assessment of land use impacts on soil ecological functions: development of spatially differentiated characterization factors within a Canadian context. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(3):198–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Seppälä J, Posch M, Johansson M, Hettelingh JP (2006) Country-dependent characterization factors for acidification and terrestrial eutrophication based on accumulated exceedance as an impact category indicator. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(6):403–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Steen B (1999a) A systematic approach to environmental priority strategies in product development (EPS). Version 2000-general system characteristics; CPM report 1999:4, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  55. Steen B (1999b) A systematic approach to environmental priority strategies in product development (EPS). Version 2000-models and data of the default method; CPM report 1999:5, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  56. Struijs J, van Wijnen HJ, van Dijk A, Huijbregts MAJ (2009a) Ozone layer depletion. Chapter 4. In: Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts MAJ, De Schryver A, Struijs J, Van Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe 2008 A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Report I: Characterisation, first edition, 6 January 2009, http://www.lcia-recipe.net – accessed January 2012
  57. Struijs J, Beusen A, van Jaarsveld H, Huijbregts MAJ (2009b) Aquatic eutrophication. Chapter 6. In: Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts MAJ, De Schryver A, Struijs J, Van Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe 2008 A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Report I: characterisation, first edition, 6 January 2009, http://www.lcia-recipe.net – accessed January 2012
  58. Struijs J, van Dijk A, Slaper H, van Wijnen HJ, Velders GJM, Chaplin G, Huijbregts MAJ (2010) Spatial- and time-explicit human damage modeling of ozone depleting substances in life cycle impact assessment. Environ Sci Technol 44(1):204–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Struijs J, Beusen A, de Zwart D, Huijbregts M (2011) Characterization factors for inland water eutrophication at the damage level in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(1):59–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Toffoletto L, Bulle C, Godin J, Reid C, Deschênes L (2007) LUCAS—a new LCIA method used for a Canadian-specific context. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(2):93–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Udo de Haes HA, Jolliet O, Finnveden G, Hauschild M, Krewitt W, Müller-Wenk R (1999) Best available practice regarding impact categories and category indicators in life cycle impact assessment. Background document for the Second Working Group on Life Cycle Impact Assessment of SETAC-Europe (WIA-2). Int J Life Cycle Assess 4(2):66–74 and 4(3):167–174Google Scholar
  62. Udo de Haes HA, Finnveden G, Goedkoop M, Hauschild M, Hertwich E, Hofstetter P, Klöpffer W, Krewitt W, Lindeijer E, Jolliet O, Mueller-Wenk R, Olsen S, Pennington D, Potting J, Steen B (eds) (2002) Life cycle impact assessment: striving towards best practice. SETAC Press, Pensacola, ISBN 1-880611-54-6Google Scholar
  63. Van Dijk A, Den Outer PN, Slaper H (2008) Climate and Ozone change Effects on Ultraviolet radiation and Risks (COEUR) using and validating earth observations; RIVM Report 61000 2001/2008; Bilthoven, The Netherlands, 2008Google Scholar
  64. Van Zelm R, Huijbregts MAJ, Van Jaarsveld HA, Reinds GJ, De Zwart D, Struijs J, Van de Meent D (2007) Time horizon dependent characterization factors for acidification in life-cycle assessment based on forest plant species occurrence in Europe. Environ Sci Technol 41(3):922–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Van Zelm R, Huijbregts MAJ, Den Hollander HA, Van Jaarsveld HA, Sauter FJ, Struijs J, Van Wijnen HJ, Van de Meent D (2008) European characterization factors for human health damage of PM10 and ozone in life cycle impact assessment. Atmos Environ 42:441–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Van Zelm R, Schipper AM, Rombouts M, Snepvangers J, Huijbregts MAJ (2011) Implementing groundwater extraction in life cycle impact assessment: characterization factors based on plant species richness. Environ Sci Technol 45(2):629–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Z. Hauschild
    • 1
  • Mark Goedkoop
    • 2
  • Jeroen Guinée
    • 3
  • Reinout Heijungs
    • 3
  • Mark Huijbregts
    • 4
  • Olivier Jolliet
    • 5
    • 7
  • Manuele Margni
    • 6
    • 7
  • An De Schryver
    • 2
  • Sebastien Humbert
    • 7
  • Alexis Laurent
    • 1
  • Serenella Sala
    • 8
  • Rana Pant
    • 8
  1. 1.Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management EngineeringTechnical University of Denmark (DTU)LyngbyDenmark
  2. 2.PRé Consultants B.V.AmersfoortThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML), Department of Industrial Ecology, Faculty of ScienceUniversiteit LeidenLeidenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of Environmental ScienceRadboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Department of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public HealthUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  6. 6.Department of Mathematical and Industrial Engineering, CIRAIGÉcole Polytechnique de MontréalMontréalCanada
  7. 7.Quantis InternationalLausanneSwitzerland
  8. 8.Sustainability Assessment Unit, Institute for Environment and SustainabilityEuropean Commission-Joint Research CentreIspraItaly

Personalised recommendations