The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

, Volume 21, Issue 12, pp 1759–1775 | Cite as

A bibliometric overview of Brazilian LCA research

  • Guilherme M. Zanghelini
  • Henrique R. A. de Souza Junior
  • Luiz Kulay
  • Edivan Cherubini
  • Paulo T. Ribeiro
  • Sebastião R. Soares



We bibliometrically evaluated the scientific literature outlined around Brazilian life cycle assessment (LCA). Our aim is twofold: (1) Analyze the Brazilian scientific literature on LCA, forming a current view of how the LCA methodology is applied in the country; (2) within this view, trace the evolution of themes, characterize institution collaboration, and indicate major influences in Brazilian LCA community.


Data were outlined around academic production and publications, from 1993 to 2015, indexed by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI- SCIE and SSCI) through a specific group of keywords. Initially, a temporal evolution and projection of papers, PhD and Master Theses, were performed. In sequence, indexed papers were analyzed through performance indicators (i.e., number of authors, impact factor, among others) and content evaluation (for instance, major addressed themes). Finally, a mapping of science was performed, with the aid of Cite Space software application, where coword (and evolution), cocollaboration (and evolution), and cocitation maps were created.

Results and discussion

The survey identified 429 documents divided among international and national papers, PhD and Master Theses. From those documents, 165 were indexed. In terms of production and performance, the results indicate an undeniable evolution of the Brazilian LCA research, as affirmed by relations solidified through time. The main research field is “LCA application” with 84 % of papers, whereas “LCA methodology” completes the framework. In LCA applications, 25 % of publications are related to Biofuels—divided into bioethanol and biodiesel—which makes it the current dominant LCA research area in Brazil. The collaboration network demonstrates three main institution groups, whereas evolution through the years indicates that this situation may further improve. Influential authors are linked to LCA of biofuels, general LCA guidelines, and methodological LCA developments.


Brazilian LCA research has been growing and more complex relations between themes and institutions denote that further developments can be expected. Cocollaboration indicates three main clusters, led by USP, Unicamp, and UFRJ. “Biofuels” is the main research area where sugarcane ethanol and biodiesel from different sources are the domain product systems. Cocitation analysis solidifies this statement, pointing to Isaias Macedo (and other biofuel researchers) as the main author in Brazilian LCA after ISO and Mark Goedkoop.


Bibliometrics Brazil LCA research Networks Trends 



The authors thank the National Council for the Improvement of Higher Education (CAPES) and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) for their support. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for valuable suggestions and comments.


  1. Alvarenga RAF, Dewulf J, Van Langenhove H, Huijbregts MAJ (2013) Exergy-based accounting for land as a natural resource in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(5):939–947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvarenga RAF, Erb K, Haberl H, Soares SR, van Zelm R, Dewulf J (2015) Global land use impacts on biomass production—a spatial-differentiated resource-related life cycle impact assessment method. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:440–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauer PE, Filho RM (2004) Incorporation of environmental impact criteria in the design and operation of chemical processes. Braz J Chem Eng 21(3), São Paulo - July/Sept. 2004. doi: 10.1590/S0104-66322004000300005
  4. Bezerra FL, Favacho CH, Souza RN, de Souza CRB (2014) Towards Supporting Systematic Mappings Studies: an automatic snowballing approach. In: Proceedings of the Simpósio Brasileiro de Banco de Dados (SBBD)Google Scholar
  5. Bjorn A, Owsianiak M, Laurent A, Molin C, Westh TB, Hauschild MZ (2013) Mapping and characterization of LCA networks. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:812–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brasil (2009) Lei n° 12.187, de 29 de Dezembro de 2009Google Scholar
  7. Caldeira-Pires A, Luz SM, Palma-Rojas S, Rodrigues TO, Silverio VC, Vilela F, Barbosa PC, Alves AM (2013) Sustainability of the biorefinery industry for fuel production. Energies 6(1):329–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cavalett O, Chagas MF, Seabra JEA, Bonomi A (2013) Comparative LCA of ethanol versus gasoline in Brazil using different LCIA methods. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(3):647–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cederberg C, Meyer D, Flysjö A (2009) Life cycle inventory of greenhouse gas emissions and use of land and energy in Brazilian beef production. SIK Report No 792. 2009. Swedish Institute for Food and BiotechnologyGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen C (2014) The cite space manual. Available at Accessed in February 2015
  11. Chen H, Yang Y, Yang Jiang W, Zhou J (2014) A bibliometric investigation of life cycle assessment research in the web of science databases. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1674–1685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cherubini E, Ribeiro PT (2015) Diálogos Setoriais Brasil e União Europeia: desafios e soluções para o fortalecimento da ACV no Brasil. Instituto Brasileiro de Informação em Ciência e Tecnologia - Ibict, Brasília, 187 ppGoogle Scholar
  13. Cherubini F, Strømman AH (2011) Life cycle assessment of bioenergy systems: state of the art and future challenges. Bioresour Technol 102:437–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cherubini F, Ulgiati S (2010) Crop residues as raw materials for biorefinery systems – a LCA case study. Appl Energy 87:47–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cherubini E, Zanghelini GM, Alvarenga RAF, Franco D, Soares SR (2015) Life cycle assessment of swine production in Brazil: a comparison of four manure management systems. J Clean Prod 87(15):68–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cobo MJ, López-Herrera AG, Herrera-Viedma E, Herrer F (2011) An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: a practical application to the Fuzzy Sets Theory field. J Informetr 5:146–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Coltro L, Garcia EEC, Queiroz GC (2003) Life cycle inventory for electric energy system in Brazil. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(5):290–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Coulter N, Monarch I, Konda S (1998) Software Engineering as Seen through Its Research Literature: a study in co-word analysis. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 49(13):1206–1223Google Scholar
  19. Estrela S (2015) I publish, therefore I am. Or am I? A reply to A bibliometric investigation of life cycle assessment research in the web of science databases by Chen et al. (2014) and Mapping the scientific research on life cycle assessment: a bibliometric analysis by Hou et al. (2015). Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:1601–1603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Figueirêdo MCB, Rodrigues GS, Caldeira-Pires A, Rosa MF, Aragão FAS, Vieira VPPB, Mota FSB (2014) Environmental performance evaluation of agro-industrial innovations – part 1: Ambitec-Life Cycle, a methodological approach for considering life cycle thinking. J Clean Prod 18(14):1366–1375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Hellweg S, Koehler A, Pennington D, Suh S (2009) Recent developments in Life Cycle Assessment. J Environ Manag 91(1):1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Althaus HJ, Doka G, Heck T, Hellweg S, Hischier R, Nemecek T, Rebitzer G, Spielmann M (2007a) Overview and Methodology. Final report ecoinvent data v2.0, No. 1, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, DübendorfGoogle Scholar
  23. Frischknecht R, Tuchschmid M, Faist Emmenegger M, Bauer C, Dones R (2007b) Strommix und Stromnetz. Ecoinvent report n 6, v2.0. Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Duebendorf, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  24. Glänzel W (2003) Bibliometricsas a research field. A course on theory and application of bibliometric indicators. Course Handouts, 2003. 115 pp. Available at: Accessed on February 2015
  25. Goedkoop MJ, Spriensma RS (1999) The Eco-indicator 99, a Damage oriented method for LCIA. Ministry VROM report 1999Google Scholar
  26. 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 Harmonized Category Indicators at the Midpoint and the Endpoint Level. Report 1: Characterization. Ministry of Housing Spatial Planning and the Environment. Netherlands [online]. Available at
  27. Guerra JPM, Coleta JR Jr, Arruda LCM, Silva GA, Kulay L (2014) Comparative analysis of electricity cogeneration scenarios in sugarcane production by LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(4):814–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Guinée JB, Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, de Koning A, van Oers L, Sleeswijk AW, Suh S, Udo de Haes HA, de Bruijn H, van Duin R, Huijbregts MAJ (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment. Operational guide to the ISO standards. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 692 ppGoogle Scholar
  29. 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 45:90–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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(4):541–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), GeneveGoogle Scholar
  32. Jalali S, Wohlin C (2012) Systematic literature studies: database searches vs. backward snowballing. In: Proceedings of the ACM-IEEE international symposium on Empirical software engineering and measurement, ESEM’12, pages 29–38, Lund, Sweden. ACM-IEEE. doi: 10.1145/2372251.2372257
  33. Josa A, Aguado A, Heino A, Ewan Byars E, Cardim A (2004) Comparative analysis of available life cycle inventories of cement in the EU. Cem Concr Res 34:1313–1320. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2003.12.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Léis CM, Cherubini E, Ruviaro CF, Prudêncio Da Silva V, Lampert VN, Spies A, Soares SR (2015) Carbon footprint of milk production in Brazil: a comparative case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:46–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Luo L, van der Voet E, Huppes G (2009) Life cycle assessment and life cycle costing of bioethanol from sugarcane in Brazil. Renew Sust Energ Rev 13(6-7):1613–1619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Macedo IC, Seabra JEA, Silva JEAR (2008) Greenhouse gases emissions in the production and use of ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil: the 2005/2006 averages and a prediction for 2020. Biomass Bioenerg. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2007.12.006 Google Scholar
  37. Ming HW, Te CY, Yuh SH (2009) A bibliometric analysis of the performance of Water Research. Scientometrics 84:813–820Google Scholar
  38. Mourad AL, Coltro L, Oliveira P, Kletecken RM, Baddini JP (2007) A simple methodology for elaborating the life cycle inventory of agricultural products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(6):408–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mourad AL, Garcia EEC, Vilela GB, von Zuben F (2008) Environmental effects from a recycling rate increase of cardboard of aseptic packaging system for milk using life cycle approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):140–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ometto AR, Roma WNL (2010) Atmospheric impacts of the life cycle emissions of fuel ethanol in Brazil: based on chemical exergy. J Clean Prod 18(1):71–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pacca S (2007) Impacts from decommissioning of hydroelectric dams: a life cycle perspective. Climate Change 84(3-4):281–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pacca S, Sivaraman D, Keoleian GA (2007) Parameters affecting the life cycle performance of PV technologies and systems. Energ Policy 35(6):3316–3326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Qian G (2014) Scientometric sorting by importance for literatures on life cycle assessments and some related methodological discussions. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1462–1467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rack M, Valdivia S, Sonnemann G (2013) Life Cycle Impact Assessment—where we are, trends, and next steps: a late report from a UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative workshop and a few updates from recent developments. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(7):1413–1420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ramirez P, Petti L, Haberland NT, Ugaya CML (2014) Subcategory assessment method for social life cycle assessment. Part 1: methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(8):1515–1523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Reap J, Roman F, Duncan S, Bras B (2008a) A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment: part 1—goal and scope and inventory analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:374–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Reap J, Roman F, Duncan S, Bras B (2008b) A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment: part 2—life cycle impact assessment and interpretation. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:374–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ribeiro FM, Silva GA (2010) Life-cycle inventory for hydroelectric generation: a Brazilian case study. J Clean Prod 18:44–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rodrigues TO, Caldeira-Pires A, Luz S, Frate CA (2014) GHG balance of crude palm oil for biodiesel production in the northern region of Brazil. Renew Energy 62:516–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ruviaro CF, Gianezini M, Brandão FS, Winck CA, Dewes H (2012) Life cycle assessment in Brazilian agriculture facing worldwide trends. J Clean Prod 28:9–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Seabra J, Macedo IC, Chum HL, Faroni CE, Sarto CA (2011) Life cycle assessment of Brazilian sugarcane products: GHG emissions and energy use. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 5(5):519–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. SETAC (1993) Guidelines for life-cycle assessment: a code of practice. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), edn 1Google Scholar
  53. Silva GA, Kulay A (2003) Application of life cycle assessment to the LCA case studies single superphosphate production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(4):209–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Silva DAL, Delai I, Montes MLD, Ometto AR (2014) Life cycle assessment of the sugarcane bagasse electricity generation in Brazil. Renew Sust Energ Rev 32:532–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Small H (1973) Co-citation in the scientific literature: a new measure of the relationship between two documents. J Am Soc Inf Sci 24(4):265–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Soares SR, Toffoletto L, Deschênes L (2006) Development of weighting factors in the context of LCIA. J Clean Prod 14(6–7):649–660, Advancing Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production – Canada’s ContributionCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Soares SR, Finotti AR, Prudêncio da Silva V, Alvarenga RAF (2013) Applications of life cycle assessment and cost analysis in health care waste management. Waste Manag 33:175–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Souza CG, Barbastefano RG (2011) Knowledge diffusion and collaboration network s on life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:561–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Souza DM, Flynn DFB, De Clerck F, Rosenbaum RK, Lisboa HM, Koellner T (2013) Land use impacts on biodiversity in LCA: proposal of characterization factors based on functional diversity. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(6):1231–1242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Taelman SE, De Meester S, Schaubroeck T, Sakshaug E, Alvarenga RAF, Dewulf J (2014) Accounting for the occupation of the marine environment as a natural resource in life cycle assessment: an exergy based approach. Resour Conserv Recycl 91:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ugaya CML, Walter ACS (2004) Life cycle inventory analysis—a case study of steel used in Brazilian automobiles. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(6):365–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. UNEP (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: social and socio-economic LCA guidelines complementing environmental LCA and life cycle costing, contributing to the full assessment of goods and services within the context of sustainable development. UNEP, ParisGoogle Scholar
  63. Von Blottnitz H, Curran MA (2007) A review of assessments conducted on bio-ethanol as a transportation fuel from a net energy, greenhouse gas, and environmental life cycle perspective. J Clean Prod 15:607–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. White HD, McCain KW (1989) Bibliometrics. In: Williams ME (ed) Annual review of information science and technology, vol 24. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. for the American Society for Information Science, Amsterdam, pp 119–186Google Scholar
  65. Willers CD, Rodrigues LB (2014) A critical evaluation of Brazilian life cycle assessment studies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:144–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Xie S, Zhang J, Ho Y (2008) Assessment of world aerosol research trends by bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics 77(1):113–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Xu Y, Boeing WJ (2013) Mapping biofuel field: a bibliometric evaluation of research output. Renew Sust Energ Rev 28:82–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zanghelini GM, Cherubini E, Galindro BM, Alvarenga RAF, Soares SR (2014a) A Aplicação da Avaliação do Ciclo de Vida no Brasil na Última Década. IV Congresso Brasileiro Sobre Gestão Pelo Ciclo de Vida. Novembro de 2014 - São Bernardo do Campo – SP – Brasil. doi: 10.13140/2.1.4672.1601
  69. Zanghelini GM, Cherubini E, Orsi P, Soares SR (2014b) Waste management Life Cycle Assessment: the case of a reciprocating air compressor in Brazil. J Clean Prod 70:164–174Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guilherme M. Zanghelini
    • 1
    • 2
  • Henrique R. A. de Souza Junior
    • 1
    • 3
  • Luiz Kulay
    • 4
  • Edivan Cherubini
    • 1
    • 2
  • Paulo T. Ribeiro
    • 5
  • Sebastião R. Soares
    • 1
  1. 1.Life Cycle Assessment Research Group (CICLOG)Federal University of Santa CatarinaFlorianopolisBrazil
  2. 2.EnCiclo Soluções Sustentáveis LtdaPalhoçaBrazil
  3. 3.Centro de Ciências AgroveterináriasSanta Catarina State University (UDESC)LagesBrazil
  4. 4.Chemical Engineering DepartmentSao Paulo UniversitySão PauloBrazil
  5. 5.3Drivers - Engineering, Innovation and Environment LtdaLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations