An overall assessment of Life Cycle Inventory quality

Application to the production of polyethylene bottles
  • Patrick Rousseaux
  • Eric Labouze
  • Young -Jin Suh
  • Isabelle Blanc
  • Valérie Gaveglia
  • Alain Navarro
LCA Case Studies

Abstract

A qualitative, quantitative, and overall quality assessment of life cycle inventory is suggested. The method is composed of five indicators which are set up at three levels of the inventory quality: flows, processes, and the system. The method allows one to assess the reliability of the method generating inventory data (justness of data, completeness of data, representativity of processes, repeatability of system definition) and at the same time to quantify the uncertainty of the resulting data made under the data generation method. LCA practitioners can finally decide the overall inventory quality through the information for the acceptability of the inventory result comparing the objective of quality and the cost necessary to improve the quality. The operation of the method was verified in the application to the production of polyethylene bottles. The proposed method was also found applicable for the validation of data in the ISO’s LCA data documentation format.

Keywords

Case studies data quality life cycle inventory polyethylene bottles quality indicator uncertainty 

References

  1. AFNOR (1994): Vocabulaire international des termes fondamentaux et généraux de métrologie. NF X 07–001. Association Franchise de NormalisationGoogle Scholar
  2. Blanc I, Labouze E (1999): Analyse du cycle de vie-Evaluation de la qualité des données. Techniques de l’ingénieur, Vol G1 (G5750), 9 ppGoogle Scholar
  3. Boustead I (1993): Eco-profiles of the European plastics industry, Report 3: Polyethylene and Polypropylene. Brussels (Belgium), European Center for Plastics in the Environment (PWMI), 20 ppGoogle Scholar
  4. Chevalier J-L, Le Téno J-F (1996): Life cycle analysis with ill-defined data and its application to building products. Int J LCA 1 (2) 90–96Google Scholar
  5. Coulon R, Camobreco V, Teulon H, Besnainou J (1997): Data quality and uncertainty in LCI. Int J LCA 2 (3) 178–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Courtier J-C (1994): Vocabulaire de la mesure. Techniques de l’ingenieur, Vol R11 (R113), 14 ppGoogle Scholar
  7. Habersatter K (1990): Cahier de l’environnement n° 132: Bilan écologique des matériaux d’emballage, état en 1990. Bern (Swiss), BUWAL, 262 ppGoogle Scholar
  8. Heijungs R (1996): Identification of key issues for further investigation in improving the reliability of life-cycle assessments. J Cleaner Prod 4 (3–4) 159–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Huijbregts MAJ (1998): Application of uncertainty and variability in LCA, Part I – A general framework for the analysis of uncertainty and variability in life cycle assessment. Int J LCA 3 (5) 273–280Google Scholar
  10. ISO (1992): Principes généraux concernant les grandeurs, les unités et les symboles. ISO 31/0. International Standard OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  11. ISO (1997): Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – General Principles and Framework. ISO 14040. International Standard OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  12. ISO (1998): Environmental Management- Life Cycle Assessment – Goal and Scope Definition – Inventory Analysis. ISO 14041. International Standard OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  13. ISO (2000): Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – LCA data documentation format. ISO/CD 14048. International Standard OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  14. Kennedy DJ, Montgomery DC, Rollier DA, Keats JB (1997): Assessing input data uncertainty in life cycle inventory models. Int J LCA 2 (4) 229–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Labouze E, Roederer O (1996): A suggested rating system to assess the data quality in your LCA study. 6th annual meeting of SETAC-Europe, Giardini Naxos Taormina, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  16. Maurice B, Frischknecht R, Coelho-Schwirtz V, Hungerbühlcr K (2000): Uncertainty analysis in life cycle inventory – Application to the production of electricity with French coal power plants. J Cleaner Prod 8, 95–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. RECORD (1998): Evaluation de la qualité des données d’inventaires des ACV. Lyon(Fr), 2 Vols, 45 pp and 76 pp. Report for Association RE.CO.R.D n° 96-1002/1A, -1003/1AGoogle Scholar
  18. Rousseaux P (1993): Evaluation comparative de l’impact environnemental global (ECIEG) du cycle des produits. Thesis, Gestion et traitement du déchet: INSA de Lyon, 1993, 276 ppGoogle Scholar
  19. SETAC (1994): Life-cycle assessment data quality – A conceptual framework. Florida (USA). Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 157 ppGoogle Scholar
  20. Steen B (1997): On uncertainty and sensitivity of LCA-based priority setting. J Cleaner Prod 5 (4) 255–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Weidema BP, Wesnaes MS (1996): Data quality management for life cycle inventories – An example of using data quality indicators. J Cleaner Prod 4 (3–4) 167–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wrisberg N, Lindeijer E, Mulders P, RAM A, Van der Ven B, Van der Wel H (1997): A semi-quantitative approach for assessing data quality in LCA. 7th annual meeting of SETAC-Europe, Amsterdam, the NetherlandsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ecomed Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick Rousseaux
    • 1
  • Eric Labouze
    • 2
  • Young -Jin Suh
    • 1
  • Isabelle Blanc
    • 2
  • Valérie Gaveglia
    • 3
  • Alain Navarro
    • 4
  1. 1.Laboratoire d’Analyse Environnementale des Procédés et des Systèmes Industriels (LAEPSI)Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de LyonVilleurbanneFrance
  2. 2.BIO Intelligence Service S.A.ParisFrance
  3. 3.POLDEN, Insavalor S.A.VilleurbanneFrance
  4. 4.Association RECORD (Réseau Coopératif de Recherche sur les Déchets)VilleurbanneFrance

Personalised recommendations