Abstract
Data availability and data quality are still critical factors for successful LCA work. The SETAC-Europe LCA Working Group ‘Data Availability and Data Quality’ has therefore focused on ongoing developments toward a common data exchange format, public databases and accepted quality measures to find science-based solutions than can be widely accepted. A necessary prerequisite for the free flow and exchange of life cycle inventory (LCI) data and the comparability of LCIs is the consistent definition, nomenclature, and use of inventory parameters. This is the main subject of the subgroup ‘Recommended List of Exchanges’ that presents its results and findings here:
-
•
Rigid parameter lists for LCIs are not practical; especially, compulsory lists of measurements for all inventories are counterproductive. Instead, practitioners should be obliged to give the rationale for their scientific choice of selected and omitted parameters. The standardized (not: mandatory!) parameter list established by the subgroup can help to facilitate this.
-
•
The standardized nomenclature of LCI parameters and the standardized list of measurement bases (units) for these parameters need not be appliedinternally (e.g. in LCA software), but should be adhered to inexternal communications (data for publication and exchange). Deviations need to be clearly stated.
-
•
Sum parameters may or may not overlap - misinterpretations in either direction introduce a bias of unknown significance in the subsequent life cycle impact assessments (LCIA). The only person who can discriminate unambiguously is the practitioner who measures or calculates such values. Therefore, a clear statement of independence or overlap is necessary for every sum parameter reported.
-
•
Sum parameters should be only used when the group of emissions as such is measured. Individually measured emission parameters should not be hidden in group or sum parameters.
-
•
Problematic substances (such as carcinogens, ozone depleting agents and the like) maynever be obscured in group emissions (together with less harmful substances or with substances of different environmental impact), butmust be determined and reported individually, as mentioned in paragraph 3.3 of this article.
-
•
Mass and energy balances should be carried out on a unit process level. Mass balances should be done on the level of the entire mass flow in a process as well as on the level of individual chemical elements.
-
•
Whenever possible, practitioners should try to fill data gaps with their knowledge of analogous processes, environmental expert judgements, mass balance calculations, worst case assumptions or similar estimation procedures.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
APME (1993): Boustead I: Eco-profiles of the European Plastics Industry, Report 2: Olefin Feedstock Sources, PWMI/APME, Brussels/Belgium
Bretz R, Fankhauser P(1996): Screening LCA for Large Numbers of Products. Int J LCA (3): 139–146
BUWAL (1990): Ahbe S, Braunschweig A, Müller-Wenk R: Me-hodik für Ökobilanzen auf der Basis ükologischer Optimierung, Swiss Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft (BUWAL), Schriftenreihe Umwelt Nr 132, Bern/Switzerland
BUWAL (1991): Habersatter K (Ed), Ökobilanz von Packstoffen, Stand 1990, Swiss Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft (BUWAL), Schriftenreihe Umwelt Nr 132, Bern/Switzerland
BUWAL (1997): Braunschweig A, Brand G, Scheidegger A, Schwank O: Bewertung in Ökobilanzen mit der Methode der ökologischen Knappheit, Swiss Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft (BUWAL), Schriftenreihe Umwelt Nr 297, Bern/Switzerland
BUWAL (1998): Habersatter K, Fecker I et al.: Ökoinventare für Verpackungen Vol I + II, Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape (BUWAL), Schriftenreihe Umwelt Nr 250/ I+II, 2nd corrected and updated version, Bern/Switzerland
CML (1992a): Heijungs R, Guinée JB, Huppes G, Lankreijer RM, Udo de Haes HA, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Ansems AMM, Eggels PG, van Duin R, de Goede HP: Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Products, I. Guide, Report No 9266, Centre for Environmental Science CML, Leiden/The Netherlands
CML (1992b): Heijungs R, Guinée JB, Huppes G, Lankreijer RM, Udo de Haes HA, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Ansems AMM, Eggels PG, van Duin R, de Goede HP: Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Products, II. Backgrounds, Report No 9267, Centre for Environmental Science CML, Leiden/The Netherlands
De Beaufort ASH, Bretz R (Eds) (2001): Code of Life Cycle Inventory Practice. SETAC WG ‘Data Availability and Quality’. SETAC-Europe, Brussels (forthcoming)
ETH (1994): Frischknecht R, Hofstetter O, Knöpfel I, Dones R, Zollinger E: Environmental Life-Cycle Inventories of Energy Systems: Methods and Selected Results (Ökoinventare für Energiesysteme), 1st Edition, ETH Zürich (ESU) / PSI Villigen / Swiss Bundesamt fur Energiewirtschaft, ESU Series 1/94, Zürich/ Switzerland
Foerster R, Stahel U, Scheidegger A (1998): Zuordnung der Oekofaktoren 97 und des Eco-indicator 95 zu Schweizer Oekoinventaren, OeBU Schriftenreihe 16/1998 (also available as Excel sheet).
Frischknecht R, Braunschweig A, Hofstetter P, Suter P (2000): Human Health Damages due to Ionising Radiation in Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 20(2)159–189
ISO 14040 (1997): Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Framework
ISO 14041 (1998): Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Goal and Scope Definition and Inventory Analysis. International Standard Committee Draft
ISO 14042 (2000): Environmental Management - Life Cycle As- sessment - Life Cycle Impact Assessment
ISO 14048 (1999): TC 207/SC5/WG 2/TG - Structure and Outline for a first Working Draft
ISO 14048 (2001): Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - LCA data documentation format. 2nd Committee Draft
PRÉ (1995): Goedkoop, M: The Eco-indicator 95, Weighting method for environmental effects, Final Report, NOVEM /RIVM / NOH / PRÉ Consultants, Amersfoort/The Netherlands
PRÉ (1999): Goedkoop M, Spriensma R: Eco-indicator 99, a damage oriented LCA impact assessment method, Methodology report and Annexe report, publikatiereeks produktenbeleid Nr 1999/ 36A+B, Ministry of Urban Planning, Housing and the Environment, The Hague, The Netherlands (1999), 2nd revised ed. PRÉ Consultants, Amersfoort NL, www.pre.nl/eco-indicator99/
SPOLD (1997): The SPOLD file format ′97, from the SPOLD Website http://www.spold.org/publ/index.html
SPOLD (1999): Weidema BP, The SPOLD file format ′99, from the SPOLD Website
STN International (2000): The CAS REGISTRY file, STN database network. Contacts: STN International; c/o FIZ Karlsruhe, P.O. Box 2465, D-76012 Karlsruhe, Germany, or STN International; c/o Chemical Abstract Service, 2540 Olentangy River Road, P.O.Box 3012, Columbus, Ohio 43210-0012, U.S.A.; see also http://www.cas.org/. Technical university libraries with a subscription to Chemical Abstracts usually have on-line access
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, Background Document for the Second Working Group on Life Cycle Impact Assessment of SETAC-Europe (WIA-2), Part I, Int J LCA 4 (2) 66–74, Part II, Int J LCA 4 (3) 167-174
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hischier, R., Baitz, M., Bretz, R. et al. Guidelines for consistent reporting of exchanges/to nature within life cycle inventories (LCI). Int J LCA 6, 192–198 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02979374
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02979374