The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

, Volume 19, Issue 11, pp 1843–1853 | Cite as

Temporal differentiation of background systems in LCA: relevance of adding temporal information in LCI databases

  • Ariane Pinsonnault
  • Pascal Lesage
  • Annie Levasseur
  • Réjean Samson
LCI METHODOLOGY AND DATABASES
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Purpose

Because the potential impacts of emissions and extractions can be sensitive to timing, the temporal aggregation of life cycle inventory (LCI) data has often been cited as a limitation in life cycle assessment (LCA). Until now, examples of temporal emission and extraction distributions were restricted to the foreground processes of product systems. The objective of this paper is to evaluate the relevance of considering the temporal distribution of the background system inventory.

Methods

The paper focuses on the global warming impact category for which so-called dynamic characterization factors (CFs) were developed and uses the ecoinvent v2.2 database as both an example database to which temporal information can be added and a source of product systems to test the relevance of adding temporal information to the background system. Temporal information was added to the elementary and intermediate exchanges of 22 % of the unit processes in the database. Using the enhanced structure path analysis (ESPA) method to generate temporally differentiated LCIs in conjunction with time-dependent global warming characterization factors, potential impacts were calculated for all 4,034 product systems in the ecoinvent database.

Results and discussion

Each time, the results were calculated for (1) systems in which temporal information was only added to the first two tiers, representing studies in which only the foreground system is temporally differentiated, and (2) systems in which temporal information was also added to the background system. For 8.6 % of the database product systems, adding temporal differentiation to background unit processes affected the global warming impact scores by more than 10 %. For most of the affected product systems, considering temporal information in the background unit processes decreased the global warming impact scores. The sectors that show most sensitivity to the temporal differentiation of background unit processes are associated with wood and biofuel sectors.

Conclusions

Even though the addition of temporal information to unit processes in LCI databases would not benefit every LCA study, the enhancement can be relevant. It allows for a more accurate global warming impact assessment, especially for LCAs in which products of biomass are present in substantial amounts. Relevance for other impact categories could be discussed in further work.

Keywords

Dynamic LCA Global warming LCI databases Temporal differentiation Time 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The International Life Cycle Chair (a research unit of the CIRAIG) would like to acknowledge the financial support of its industrial partners: ArcelorMittal, Bell Canada, Bombardier, Cascades, Eco Entreprises Québec, Groupe EDF, GDF SUEZ, Hydro-Québec, Johnson & Johnson, LVMH, Michelin, Mouvement des caisses Desjardins, Nestlé, RECYC-QUÉBEC, Rio Tinto Alcan, RONA, SAQ, Solvay, Total, Umicore and Veolia Environnement.

Supplementary material

11367_2014_783_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.3 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 1295 kb)

References

  1. Bare JC, Pennington DW, Udo de Haes HA (1999) Life cycle impact assessment sophistication. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4(5):299–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beloin-Saint-Pierre D, Heijungs R, Blanc I (2014) The ESPA method: a solution to an implementation challenge of dynamic life cycle assessment studies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(4):861–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bourgault G, Lesage P, Samson R (2012) Systematic disaggregation: a hybrid LCI computation algorithm enhancing interpretation phase in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(6):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cherubini F, Peters GP, Berntsen T, Stromman AH, Hertwich E (2011) CO2 emissions from biomass combustion for bioenergy: atmospheric decay and contribution to global warming. GCB Bioenergy 3(5):413–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Collet P, Lardon L, Steyer J-P, Hélias A (2014) How to take time into account in the inventory step: a selective introduction based on sensitivity analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(2):320–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cucurachi S, Heijungs R, Ohlau K (2012) Towards a general framework for including noise impacts in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(4):471–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ecoinvent (2013) The ecoinvent database. http://www.ecoinvent.org/database/. Accessed Aug 2013
  8. European Commission (2011) International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) handbook‚ recommendations for life cycle impact assessment in the European context. Joint Research Centre‚ Institute for Environment and Sustainability Publications Office of the European Union, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  9. eurostat (2013) Transport database. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/transport/data/database. Accessed Sept 2013
  10. Forster P, Ramaswamy V, Artaxo P, Berntsen T, Betts R, Fahey DW et al (2007) Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. In: Solomon S, Quin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basic. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 129–234Google Scholar
  11. Guo M, Murphy RJ (2012) LCA data quality: sensitivity and uncertainty analysis. Sci Total Environ 435-436:230–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hauschild MZ, Udo de Haes H, Finnveden G, Goedkoop M, Hertwich E, Hofstetter P, Klöpffer W, Krewitt W, Lindeijer E (2002) Life cycle impact assessment: striving towards best practice. SETAC Press, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  13. Huijbregts MAJ, Guinee JB, Reijnders L (2001) Priority assessment of toxic substances in life cycle assessment. III: Export of potential impact over time and space. Chemosphere 44(1):59–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Humbert S, Rossi V, Margni M, Jolliet O, Loerincik Y (2009) Life cycle assessment of two baby food packaging alternatives: glass jars vs. plastic pots. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(2):95–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. IPCC (2000) Land use. Land-use Change and Forestry, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Kendall A, Price L (2012) Incorporating time-corrected life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in vehicle regulations. Environ Sci Technol 46(5):2557–2563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kendall A, Chang B, Sharpe B (2009) Accounting for time-dependent effects in biofuel life cycle greenhouse gas emissions calculations. Environ Sci Technol 43(18):7142–7147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lebailly F, Levasseur A, Samson R, Deschênes L (2013) Considering temporal variability for the characterization of metals aquatic ecotoxicity impacts in LCA. In: 23rd SETAC Europe, Glasgow, Scotland, 2013Google Scholar
  19. Levasseur A, Lesage P, Margni M, Deschênes L, Samson R (2010) Considering time in LCA: dynamic LCA and its application to global warming impact assessments. Environ Sci Technol 44(8):3169–3174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Levasseur A, Brandão M, Lesage P, Margni M, Pennington D, Clift R, Samson R (2011) Valuing temporary carbon storage. Nat Clim Chang 2(1):6–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Levasseur A, Lesage P, Margni M, Brandão M, Samson R (2012a) Assessing temporary carbon sequestration and storage projects through land use, land-use change and forestry: comparison of dynamic life cycle assessment with ton-year approaches. Clim Chang 115(3–4):1–18Google Scholar
  22. Levasseur A, Lesage P, Margni M, Samson R (2012b) Biogenic carbon and temporary storage addressed with dynamic life cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 17(1):117–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Manneh R, Margni M, Deschênes L (2012) Evaluating the relevance of seasonal differentiation of human health intake fractions in life cycle assessment. Integr Environ Assess Manag 8(4):749–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. O’Hare M, Plevin RJ, Martin JI, Jones AD, Kendall A, Hopson E (2009) Proper accounting for time increases crop-based biofuels’ greenhouse gas deficit versus petroleum. Environ Res Lett 4:024001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Peters GP (2007) Efficient algorithms for life cycle assessment, input-output analysis, and Monte-Carlo analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(6):373–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Phungrassami H (2008) A review of time consideration in life cycle assessment. Glob J Environ Res 2(2):62–65Google Scholar
  27. Potting J, Schöpp W, Blok K, Hauschild M (1998) Site-dependent life-cycle impact assessment of acidification. J Ind Ecol 2(2):63–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Reap J, Roman F, Duncan S, Bras B (2008) A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(5):374–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shah VP, Ries RJ (2009) A characterization model with spatial and temporal resolution for life cycle impact assessment of photochemical precursors in the United States. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(4):313–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sich B, Barlaz M (2000) Life-cycle inventory of landfill gas. In: Process model documentation: calculation of the cost and life-cycle inventory for waste disposal in traditional, bioreactor and ash landfills. North Carolina State University, p 225Google Scholar
  31. Suh S, Heijungs R (2007) Power series expansion and structural analysis for life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(6):381–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. UNEP (2011) Global guidance principles for life cycle assessment databases a basis for greener processes and productsGoogle Scholar
  33. Weidema B, Bauer C, Hischier R, Mutel C, Nemecek T, Reinhard J, Vadenbo C, Wernet G (2013) Overview and methodology: data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3. St Gallen, ecoinvent (1)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ariane Pinsonnault
    • 1
  • Pascal Lesage
    • 1
  • Annie Levasseur
    • 1
  • Réjean Samson
    • 1
  1. 1.CIRAIG, Department of Chemical EngineeringPolytechnique MontréalMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations