Comparison of Three Different LCIA Methods: EDIP97, CML2001 and Eco-indicator 99

Does it matter which one you choose?
  • Louise Camilla Dreyer
  • Anne Louise Niemann
  • Michael Z. Hauschild
LCA Discussions

Abstract

Goal, Scope and Background

A number of impact assessment methodologies are available to the LCA practitioner. They differ, and often there is not one obvious choice among them. The question therefore naturally arises: ‘Does it make any difference to my conclusions which method I choose?’ To investigate this issue, a comparison is performed of three frequently applied life cycle impact assessment methods.

Methods

The three life cycle impact assessment methods EDIP97 [1], CML2001 [2] and Eco-indicator 99 [3] are compared on their performance through application to the same life cycle inventory from a study of a water-based UV-lacquer. EDIP97 and CML2001 are both midpoint approaches and hence quite similar in their scope and structure, and this allows a comparison during both characterisation and normalisation. The third impact assessment method Eco-indicator 99 is an endpoint method and different in scope and structure from the other two. A detailed comparison can not be done but a comparative analysis of the main contributors to the Eco-indicator 99 results and the weighted and aggregated EDIP97 results is performed.

Results and Discussion

Following a translation into common units of the EDIP97 and CML2001 output, differences up to two orders of magnitude are found for some of the indicator results for the impact categories describing toxicity to humans and ecosystems, and there is little similarity in the patterns of major contributors among the two methods. For human toxicity the CML2001 score is dominated by contribution from metals while the EDIP97 score is caused by a solvent and nitrogen oxides. For aquatic ecotoxicity, metals are the main contributors for both methods but while it is vanadium for CML2001, it is strontium for EDIP97. After normalisation, the differences are reduced but still considerable. For the other impact categories, the two methods show only minor differences. The comparison of the main contributors to the Eco-indicator 99 results and the weighted and aggregated EDIP97 results identifies nitrogen oxides as the main contributor for both methods. It is, however, much more dominant for Eco-indicator 99 while the EDIP97 score represents important contributions from a number of different substances, and furthermore, the analysis reveals that the aggregated scores for the two methods come from different impacts. It is thus difficult to extend the findings for these two methods to other inventories.

Conclusion

For EDIP97 and CML2001, it mainly matters which method is used if the chemical impacts on human health and ecosystem health are important for the study. For the other impact categories, the differences are minor for these two methodologies. For EDIP97 and Eco-indicator 99, the patterns of most important contributors to the weighted and aggregated impact scores are rather different, and considering the known differences in the underlying framework and models, the results of the two methods may well go in opposite directions for some inventories even if the conclusion is the same for the inventory studied in this paper.

Recommendations and Oudook

Particularly for the impact categories representing toxic impacts from chemicals, the study demonstrates the need for more a detailed analysis of the causes underlying the big differences revealed between the methods.

Keywords

CML2001 (Life Cycle Assessment-An Operational Guide to the ISO Standards 2001) comparison criteria Eco-indicator 99 ecotoxicity EDIP97 (Environmental Design of Industrial Products) human toxicity life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) reference substances 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Wenzel H, Hauschild M, Airing L (1997): Environmental Assessment of Products. Vol. 1-Methodology, tools and case studies in product development. First edition. Chapman & Hall, United Kingdom, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Hingham, MA. USA. ISBN 0-412-80800-5Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Guinée JB (ed) (2001): Life Cycle Assessment: An operational guide to the ISO Standards; LCA in Perspective; Guide; Operational Annex to Guide. Centre for Environmental Science, Leiden University, The Netherlands. May 2001Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Goedkoop M, Effting S, Collignon M (2000): The Eco-indicator 99-A damage oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Manual for Designers. Second edition 17-4-2000. PRé Consultants B.V., Amersfoort, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Udo de Haes HA (ed.) (1996): Towards a methodology for life cycle impact assessment. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC-Europe), Brussels, 1996Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    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. Int J LCA 4 (2) 1–15, 1999Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Udo de Haes HA, Jolliet O, Finnveden G, Goedkoop M, Hauschild M, Herrwich E, Hofstetter P, Klöpffer W, Krewitt W, Lindeijer E, Mueller-Wenk R, Olsen S, Pennington D, Potting J, Steen B (eds): Life Cycle Impact Assessment: Striving towards best practice. SETAC, Pensacola, 2002Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    ISO Standard 14042-Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment-Life cycle impact assessment. First edition 2000-03-01. Reference number ISO 14042:2000(E). International Organisation of Standardisation, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Hauschild M, Potting J (2003): Spatial differentiation in life cycle impact assessment-the EDIP2000 methodology. Guidelines from the Danish Environmental Protection Agency No. xxx 2003, Copenhagen (in press)Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Hauschild M, Wenzel H (1998): Environmental Assessment of Products. Vol. 2, Scientific Background. First edition. Chapman & Hall, United Kingdom, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Hingham, MA. USA. ISBN 0412-80810-2Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2000): The Eco-indicator 99-A damage oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Methodology Report. Second edition 17-4-2000. PRé Consultants B.V., Amersfoort, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Guinée JB (ed) (2001): Life Cycle Assessment: An operational guide to the ISO Standards; Scientific background. Centre for Environmental Science, Leiden University, The Netherlands, May 2001Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Huijbregts M (1999): Priority assessment of toxic substances in LCA. Development and application of the multimedia fate, exposure and effect model USES-LCA. IVAM Environmental Research, University of Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Dreyer LC, Niemann AL (2001): Life Cycle Assessment of UV-lacquers and Comparison of Three Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods. Master Thesis IPL-099-01. Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Management, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark, August 2001Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Hauschild M, Pennington D (2002): Indicators for ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment. Chapter 6 in Udo de Haes HA, Finnveden G, Goedkoop M, Hauschild M, Hertwich E, Hofstetter P, Jolliet O, Klöpffer W, Krewitt W, Lindeijer E, Müller-Wenk R, Olsen, SI, Pennington D, Potting J, Steen B (eds): Life Cycle Impact Assessment: Striving towards best practice. ISBN 1-880611-54-6, SETAC Press, Pensacola, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    OMNIITOX: Operational Models aNd Information tools for Industrial applications of eco/TOXicological impact assessments (http://www.omniitox.net/)Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative: http://www.uneptie.org/pc/sustain/lcinitiative/home. htmGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ecomed Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Louise Camilla Dreyer
    • 1
  • Anne Louise Niemann
    • 1
  • Michael Z. Hauschild
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Management, Section for Innovation and SustainabilityTechnical University of DenmarkLyngbyDenmark

Personalised recommendations