Use of LCA as a development tool within early research: challenges and issues across different sectors

  • Alexandra C. Hetherington
  • Aiduan Li Borrion
  • Owen Glyn Griffiths
  • Marcelle C. McManus



The aim of this paper is to highlight the challenges that face the use of life cycle assessment (LCA) for the development of emerging technologies. LCA has great potential for driving the development of products and processes with improved environmental credentials when used at the early research stage, not only to compare novel processing with existing commercial alternatives but to help identify environmental hotspots. Its use in this way does however provide methodological and practical difficulties, often exacerbated by the speed of analysis required to enable development decisions to be made. Awareness and understanding of the difficulties in such cases is vital for all involved with the development cycle.


This paper employs three case studies across the diverse sectors of nanotechnology, lignocellulosic ethanol (biofuel), and novel food processes demonstrating both the synergy of issues across different sectors and highlighting the challenges when applying LCA for early research. Whilst several researchers have previously highlighted some of the issues with use of LCA techniques at an early stage, most have focused on a specific product, process development, or sector. The use of the three case studies here is specifically designed to highlight conclusively that such issues are prevalent to use of LCA in early research irrespective of the technology being assessed.

Results and discussion

The four focus areas for the paper are system boundaries, scaling issues, data availability, and uncertainty. Whilst some of the issues identified will be familiar to all LCA practitioners as problems shared with standard LCAs, their importance and difficulty is compounded by factors distinct to novel processes as emerging technology is often associated with unknown future applications, unknown industrial scales, and wider data gaps that contribute to the level of LCA uncertainty. These issues, in addition with others that are distinct to novel applications, such as the challenges of comparing laboratory scale data with well-established commercial processing, are exacerbated by the requirement for rapid analysis to enable development decisions to be made.


Based on the challenges and issues highlighted via illustration through the three case studies, it is clear that whilst transparency of information is paramount for standard LCAs, the sensitivities, complexities, and uncertainties surrounding LCAs for early research are critical. Full reporting and understanding of these must be established prior to utilising such data as part of the development cycle.


Biofuel Emerging technologies Food processing Life cycle assessment Nanotechnology Novel Scale-up 



The authors would like to thank the funders of their individual research. This includes: EPSRC EP/H046305/1 Nano-Integration of Metal-Organic Frameworks and Catalysis for the Uptake and Utilisation of CO2 (Griffiths and McManus), BB/G01616X/1, BBSRC Centre For Sustainable Bioenergy (BSBEC): Programme 4: Lignocellulosic Conversion To Bioethanol (LACE) (Li and McManus), the DEFRA Link Food Quality and Innovation Programme on the Sustainable Emulsion Ingredients through Bio-Innovation (SEIBI), and the University of Bath, UK (Hetherington and McManus). Many thanks are also given to the reviewers for their input and constructive feedback in the synthesis and improvement of this article.


  1. Andersson K, Olssen T (1999) Including environmental aspects in production development: a case study of tomato ketchup. Food Sci Technol 32(3):134–141Google Scholar
  2. Bauer C, Buchgeister J, Hischier R, Poganietz WR, Schebek L, Warsen J (2008) Towards a framework for life cycle thinking in the assessment of nanotechnology. J Clean Prod 16(8–9):910–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bessou C, Ferchaud F, Benoît G, Bruno M (2011) Biofuels, greenhouse gases and climate change. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 31:1–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borrion AL, McManus MC, Hammond GP (2012) Environmental life cycle assessment of lignocellulosic conversion to ethanol: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 16(7):4638–4650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brar S, Verma M, Tyagi RD, Surampalli RY (2010) Engineered nanoparticles in wastewater and wastewater sludge—evidence and impacts. Waste Manage 30:504–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Breggin LK, Pendergrass J (2007) Where does the nano go? End-of-Life Regulation of Nanotechnologies. WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  7. Cherubini F, Stromman AH (2011) Life cycle assessment of bioenergy systems: state of the art and future challenges. Bioresource Technol 102:437–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daniel MC, Astruc D (2004) Gold nanoparticles: assembly, supramolecular chemistry, quantum-size-related properties, and applications toward biology, catalysis, and nanotechnology. Chem Rev 104(1):293–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Del Borghi A, Binaghi L, Del Borghi M, Gallo M (2007) The application of the environmental product declaration to waste disposal in a sanitary landfill—four case studies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(1):40–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Department for Transport (2012) Revised RTFO guidance.
  11. EC (2003) End of life vehicle regulations.
  12. EC (2006) Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment Regulations 2006.
  13. EC (2009). Directive on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, Belgium: European Commission.
  14. Edwards-Jones G, Plassmann K, York EH, Hounsome B, Jones DL, Mila ì Canals L (2009) Vulnerability of exporting nations to the development of a carbon label in the United Kingdom. Environ Sci Policy 12:479–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ekvall T, Weidema B (2004) System boundaries and input data in consequential life cycle inventory analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(3):161–171Google Scholar
  16. ELCD database (2012) Accessed 15 May 2012.
  17. Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T, Guinee J, Heijungs R, Hellweg S, Koehler A, Pennington D, Suh S (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Man 91(1):1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Franco A, Hansen SF, Olsen SI, Butti L (2007) Limits and prospects of the "incremental approach" and the European legislation on the management of risks related to nanomaterials. Regul Toxicol Pharm 48(2):171–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gavankar S, Suh S, Keller AF (2012) Life cycle assessment at nanoscale: review and recommendations. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(3):295–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Griffiths OG, O'Byrne JP, Torrente-Murciano L, Jones MD, Mattia D, McManus MC (2013a) Identifying the largest environmental life cycle impacts during carbon nanotube synthesis via chemical vapour deposition. J Cleaner Prod 42:180–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Griffiths OG, Owen RE, O'Byrne JP, Mattia D, Jones M, McManus MC (2013b) Using life cycle assessment to measure the environmental performance of catalysts and directing research in the conversion of CO2 into commodity chemicals: a look at the potential for fuels from ‘thin-air’. RSC Advances. doi: 10.1039/C3RA41900B Google Scholar
  22. Gutowski TG, Liow JYH, Sekulic DP (2010) Minimum exergy requirements for the manufacturing of carbon nanotubes. 2010 I.E. Int. Symposium on Sustainable Systems & Technology (ISSST)Google Scholar
  23. Heinzle E, Weirich D, Brogli F, Hoffmann VH, Koller G, Verduyn MA, Hungerbühler K (1998) Ecological and economic objective functions for screening in integrated development of fine chemical processes. 1. Flexible and expandable framework using indices. Ind Eng Chem Res 37:3395–3407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hospido A, Davis J, Berlin J, Sonesson U (2010) A review of methodological issues affecting LCA of novel food products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:44–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Iijima S (1991) Helical microtubules of graphitic carbon. Nature 354:56–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. ISO 27687 (2008) Nanotechnologies—terminology and definitions for nano-objects—nanoparticle, nanofibre and nanoplate: 16Google Scholar
  27. Jimenez-Gonzalez C, Kim S, Overcash MR (2000) Methodology for developing gate-to-gate life cycle inventory information. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5(3):153–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ju-Nam Y, Lead JR (2008) Manufactured nanoparticles: an overview of their chemistry, interactions and potential environmental implications. Sci Total Environ 400(1–3):396–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Khanna V, Bakshi BR (2009) Carbon nanofiber polymer composites: evaluation of life cycle energy use. Environ Sci Technol 43(6):2078–2084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kim S, Dale E (2006) Ethanol fuels: E10 or E85—life cycle perspectives. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:117–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kim HC, Fthenakis V (2012) Life cycle energy and climate change implications of nanotechnologies. J Ind Ecol. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00538.x Google Scholar
  32. Klopffer W (2007) Nanotechnology and life cycle assessment: synthesis of results obtained at a workshop, Washington DC, 2–3 October 2006Google Scholar
  33. Koller G, Fischer U, Hungerbühler K (2000) Assessing safety, health and environmental impact early during process development. Ind Eng Chem Res 39:960–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Krishnan N, Boyd S, Somani A, Raoux S, Clark D, Dornfeld D (2008) A hybrid life cycle inventory of nano-scale semiconductor manufacturing. Environ Sci Technol 42(8):3069–3075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kunnari E, Valkama J, Keskinen M, Mansikkamäki P (2009) Environmental evaluation of new technology: printed electronics case study. J Cleaner Prod 17(9):791–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kushnir D, Sanden BA (2011) Multi-level energy analysis of emerging technologies: a case study in new materials for lithium ion batteries. J Cleaner Prod 19:1405–1416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lloyd S, Lave L (2003) Life cycle economic and environmental implications of using nanocomposites in automobiles. Environ Sci Technol 37(15):3458–3466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Luttge R (2011) Microfabrication for industrial applications, 1st edn. William Andrew, Boston, pp 91–146Google Scholar
  39. MacLean HL, Spatari S (2009) The contribution of enzymes and process chemicals to the life cycle of ethanol. Environ Res Lett 4:014001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Meyer DE, Curran MA, Gonzalez MA (2009) An examination of existing data for the industrial manufacture and use of nanocomponents and their role in the life cycle impact of nanoproducts. Environ Sci Technol 43(5):1256–1263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nielsen PH, Wenzel H (2002) Integration of environmental aspects in product development: a stepwise procedure based on quantitative life cycle assessment. J Cleaner Prod 10(3):247–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Notarnicola B, Hayashi K, Curran MA, Huisingh D (2012) Progress in working towards a more sustainable agri-food industry. J Cleaner Prod 28:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Oberdoester G (2010) Nanotoxicology: an emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles (vol 113, pg 823, 2005). Environ Health Persp 118(9):A380–A380Google Scholar
  44. Oberdörster G, Oberdörster E, Oberdörster J (2005) Nanotoxicology: an emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles. Environ Health Perspect 113(7):823–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Oberdorster G, Stone V, Donaldson K (2007) Toxicology of nanoparticles: a historical perspective. Nanotoxicology 1(1):2–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Olapiriyakul S, Caudill RJ (2009) Thermodynamic analysis to assess the environmental impact of end-of-life recovery processing for nanotechnology products. Environ Sci Technol 43(21):8140–8146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pardo G, Zufia J (2012) Life cycle assessment of food-preservation technologies. J Cleaner Prod 28:198–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Peralta-Videa JR, Zhao L (2011) Nanomaterials and the environment: a review for the biennium 2008–2010. J Hazard Mater 186(1):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rickerby DG, Morrison M (2007) "Nanotechnology and the environment: a European perspective. Sci Technol Adv Mat 8(1–2):19–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Royal Society (2008) Sustainable biofuels prospects and challenges. Policy Document 01/08. ISBN 978 0 85403 662 2
  51. Roy P, Nei D, Orikasa T, Xu Q, Okadome H, Nakamura N, Shiina T (2009) A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products. J Food Eng 90:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Searcy E, Flynn PC (2008) Processing of straw/corn stover: comparison of life cycle emissions. Int J Green Energy 5:423–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Singh A, Pant D, Korres NE, Nizami A, Prasad S, Murphy JD (2010) Key issues in life cycle assessment of ethanol production from lignocellulosic biomass: challenges and perspectives. Bioresource Technol 101:5003–5012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Som C, Berges M (2010) The importance of life cycle concepts for the development of safe nanoproducts. Toxicology 269(2–3):160–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Spatari S, Bagley DM, MacLean HL (2010) Life cycle evaluation of emerging lignocellulosic ethanol conversion technologies. Bioresource Technol 101:654–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Suh S, Lenzen M, Treloar GJ, Hondo H, Horvath A, Huppes G, Jolliet O, Klann U, Krewitt W, Moriguchi Y, Munksgaard J, Norris G (2004) System boundary selection in life-cycle inventories using hybrid approaches. Environ Sci Technol 38(3):657–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tischner U, Masselter S, Hirschl B, German Umweltbundesamt (2000) How to do EcoDesign?: a guide for environmentally and economically sound design. Verlag form: Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  58. Tufvesson LM, Tufvesson P, Woodley JM, Börjesson P (2013) Life cycle assessment in green chemistry: overview of key parameters and methodological concerns. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:431–444Google Scholar
  59. Upadhyayula VKK, Meyer DE, Curran MA, Gonzalez MA (2012) Life cycle assessment as a tool to enhance the environmental performance of carbon nanotube products: a review. J Cleaner Prod 26:37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wender B, Seager T (2011) Towards prospective life cycle assessment: single wall carbon nanotubes for lithium-ion batteries. 2011 I.E. Int. Symposium on Sustainable Systems & Technol. (ISSST)Google Scholar
  61. Wiesner MR, Lowry GV, Alvarez P, Dionysiou D, Biswas P (2006) Assessing the risks of manufactured nanomaterials. Environ Sci Technol 40(14):4336–4345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars (2011) Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies: a nanotechnology consumer products inventory. 4 March 2011
  63. Zhang Q, Huang JQ, Zhao MQ, Qian WZ, Wei F (2011) Carbon nanotube mass production: principles and processes. Chemsuschem 4(7):864–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexandra C. Hetherington
    • 1
  • Aiduan Li Borrion
    • 1
  • Owen Glyn Griffiths
    • 1
  • Marcelle C. McManus
    • 1
  1. 1.Sustainable Energy Research Team, Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of BathBathUK

Personalised recommendations