Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Identifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in life cycle impact assessment

  • LIFE CYCLE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (LCIA)
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) is a field of active development. The last decade has seen prolific publication of new impact assessment methods covering many different impact categories and providing characterization factors that often deviate from each other for the same substance and impact. The LCA standard ISO 14044 is rather general and unspecific in its requirements and offers little help to the LCA practitioner who needs to make a choice. With the aim to identify the best among existing characterization models and provide recommendations to the LCA practitioner, a study was performed for the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission (JRC).

Methods

Existing LCIA methods were collected and their individual characterization models identified at both midpoint and endpoint levels and supplemented with other environmental models of potential use for LCIA. No new developments of characterization models or factors were done in the project. From a total of 156 models, 91 were short listed as possible candidates for a recommendation within their impact category. Criteria were developed for analyzing the models within each impact category. The criteria addressed both scientific qualities and stakeholder acceptance. The criteria were reviewed by external experts and stakeholders and applied in a comprehensive analysis of the short-listed characterization models (the total number of criteria varied between 35 and 50 per impact category). For each impact category, the analysis concluded with identification of the best among the existing characterization models. If the identified model was of sufficient quality, it was recommended by the JRC. Analysis and recommendation process involved hearing of both scientific experts and stakeholders.

Results and recommendations

Recommendations were developed for 14 impact categories at midpoint level, and among these recommendations, three were classified as “satisfactory” while ten were “in need of some improvements” and one was so weak that it has “to be applied with caution.” For some of the impact categories, the classification of the recommended model varied with the type of substance. At endpoint level, recommendations were only found relevant for three impact categories. For the rest, the quality of the existing methods was too weak, and the methods that came out best in the analysis were classified as “interim,” i.e., not recommended by the JRC but suitable to provide an initial basis for further development.

Discussion, conclusions, and outlook

The level of characterization modeling at midpoint level has improved considerably over the last decade and now also considers important aspects like geographical differentiation and combination of midpoint and endpoint characterization, although the latter is in clear need for further development. With the realization of the potential importance of geographical differentiation comes the need for characterization models that are able to produce characterization factors that are representative for different continents and still support aggregation of impact scores over the whole life cycle. For the impact categories human toxicity and ecotoxicity, we are now able to recommend a model, but the number of chemical substances in common use is so high that there is a need to address the substance data shortage and calculate characterization factors for many new substances. Another unresolved issue is the need for quantitative information about the uncertainties that accompany the characterization factors. This is still only adequately addressed for one or two impact categories at midpoint, and this should be a focus point in future research. The dynamic character of LCIA research means that what is best practice will change quickly in time. The characterization methods presented in this paper represent what was best practice in 2008–2009.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. It is a classical dilemma of research evaluation that in order to have competent assessors, you run the risk that they have stakes in what they are evaluating. In the process, we tried to balance the potential bias by

    1. 1.

      Submitting the preselection of characterization models to review among all members of the LCIA method developers advisory group to the European LCA Platform

    2. 2.

      Developing the criteria prior to the evaluation of the existing models and submitting first the criteria and later the evaluation results to peer review among domain experts for each impact category and among LCIA method developers whose methods were assessed and who were not represented in the project team

    3. 3.

      Submitting all results to an open stakeholder consultation before finalization and publication.

    Table S2 of the Electronic supplementary material shows the representation of method developers behind all the considered methods and models in the project team and in the expert and stakeholder consultations.

  2. For the category on resource depletion, the environmental relevance criterion was taken to address the coverage of the critical parts of the impact pathway leading from resource use towards damage to the Area of Protection Resources.

  3. This recommendation is not consistent with the scoring of the methods reported in S4.12. After further evaluation and discussions, the scoring of the methods for mineral resources was changed by the EC-JRC on some points prior to the final version of the recommendation report (EC-JRC 2011), but the corresponding scoring table of the recommendation report was not updated to reflect these changes.

References

  • Bare JC, Pennington DW, Udo de Haes HA (1999) Life cycle impact assessment sophistication—international workshop. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4(5):299–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bare JC, Hofstetter P, Pennington DW, de Haes HA U (2000) Life cycle impact assessment midpoints vs. endpoints: the sacrifices and the benefits. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5(5):319–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bare JC, Norris GA, Pennington DW, McKone T (2003) TRACI, the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts. J Ind Ecol 6(3–4):49–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayart J-B, Bulle C, Deschênes L, Margni M, Pfister S, Vince F, Koehler A (2010) A framework for assessing off-stream freshwater use in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(5):439–453

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Daniel JS, Velders GJM et al. (2007) Halocarbon scenarios, ozone depletion potentials, and global warming potentials. Chapter 8 in Scientific assessment of ozone depletion: 2006, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project—report no. 50. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland

  • De Schryver A, Goedkoop MJ (2009a) Climate change. Chapter 3. In: Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts MAJ, De Schryver A, Struijs J, Van Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe 2008, A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Report I: Characterisation, first edition, 6 January 2009, http://www.lcia-recipe.net – accessed January 2012

  • De Schryver A, Goedkoop MJ (2009b) Land use. Chapter 10. In: Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts MAJ, De Schryver A, Struijs J, Van Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe 2008 A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Report I: Characterisation, first edition, 6 January 2009, http://www.lcia-recipe.net – accessed January 2012

  • De Schryver A, Goedkoop MJ (2009c) Mineral Resource. Chapter 12. In: Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts MAJ, De Schryver A, Struijs J, Van Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe 2008 A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Report I: Characterisation, first edition, 6 January 2009, http://www.lcia-recipe.net – accessed January 2012

  • Den Outer PN, van Dijk A, Slaper H (2008) Validation of ultraviolet radiation budgets using satellite observations from the OMI instrument. RIVM Report no 610002002, Bilthoven, The Netherlands, pp 59

  • Dreicer M, Tort V, Manen P (1995) ExternE, externalities of energy, vol. 5 9 Nuclear, Centr d’étude sur l’Evaluation de la Protection dans le domaine 10 nucléaire (CEPN). In: European Commission DGXII (ed) Science, 11 Research and development JOULE, Luxembourg

  • Dreyer LC, Niemann AL, Hauschild MZ (2003) Comparison of three different LCIA methods: EDIP97, CML2001 and Eco-indicator 99. Does it matter which one you choose? Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(4):191–200

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • EC-JRC (2010a) Analysis of existing environmental impact assessment methodologies for use in life cycle assessment—background document. ILCD Handbook—International Reference Life Cycle Data System, European Union. At http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/assessment/assessment/projects#consultation_impact – accessed January 2012

  • EC-JRC (2010b) Framework and requirements for LCIA models and indicators. ILCD Handbook—International Reference Life Cycle Data System, European Union EUR24586EN. ISBN 978-92-79-17539-8. At http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/assessment/assessment/projects#consultation_impact – accessed January 2012

  • EC-JRC (2011) Recommendations based on existing environmental impact assessment models and factors for life cycle assessment in European context. ILCD Handbook—International Reference Life Cycle Data System, European Union EUR24571EN. ISBN 978-92-79-17451-3. At http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/assessment/assessment/projects#consultation_impact – accessed January 2012

  • Forster P, Ramaswamy V, Artaxo P, Berntsen T, Betts R, Fahey DW, Haywood J, Lean J, Lowe DC, Myhre G, Nganga J, Prinn R, Raga G, Schulz M, Van Dorland R (2007) Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. Chapter 2. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Frischknecht R, Braunschweig A, Hofstetter P, Suter P (2000) Modelling human health effects of radioactive releases in life cycle impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 20(2):159–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frischknecht R, Steiner R, Jungbluth N (2008) Methode der ökologischen Knappheit—Ökofaktoren 2006, ö.b.u. und Bundesamt für Umwelt, Bern

  • Gallego A, Rodriguez L, Hospido A, Moreira MT, Feijoo G (2010) Development of regional characterisation factors for aquatic eutrophication. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:32–43

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Garnier-Laplace JC, Beaugelin-Seiller K, Gilbin R, Della-Vedova C, Jolliet O, Payet J (2008) A screening level ecological risk assessment and ranking method for liquid radioactive and chemical mixtures released by nuclear facilities under normal operating conditions. Proceedings of the International conference on Radioecology and Environmental Protection, 15–20 June 2008, Bergen

  • Garnier-Laplace JC, Beaugelin-Seiller K, Gilbin R, Della-Vedova C, Jolliet O, Payet J (2009) A screening level ecological risk assessment and ranking method for liquid radioactive and chemical mixtures released by nuclear facilities under normal operating conditions. Radioprotection 44(5):903–908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goedkoop MJ, De Schryver A (2009) Fossil resource. Chapter 13. In: Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts MAJ, De Schryver A, Struijs J, Van Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe 2008 A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Report I: Characterisation, first edition, 6 January 2009, http://www.lcia-recipe.net – accessed January 2012

  • Goedkoop MJ, Spriensma R (2000) Eco-indicator 99, a damage oriented method for lifecycle impact assessment, methodology report (update April 2000)

  • 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 harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level; First edition Report I: Characterisation, first edition, 6 January 2009, http://www.lcia-recipe.net – accessed January 2012

  • Greco S, Wilson A, Spengler J, Levy J (2007) Spatial patterns of mobile source particulate matter emissions-to-exposure relationships across the United States. Atmos Environ 41(5):1011–1025

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Guinée JB (ed), Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, de Koning A, van Oers L, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Suh S, Udo de Haes HA, de Bruijn JA, van Duin R, Huijbregts MAJ (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment: operational guide to the ISO standards. Series: eco-efficiency in industry and science. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (Hardbound, ISBN 1-4020-0228-9; Paperback, ISBN 1-4020-0557-1)

  • Hauschild M, Potting J (2005) Spatial differentiation in life cycle impact assessment—the EDIP2003 methodology. Environmental News no. 80. The Danish Ministry of the Environment, Environmental Protection Agency, Copenhagen

  • Hauschild MZ, Huijbregts M, Jolliet O, MacLeod M, Margni M, van de Meent D, Rosenbaum RK, McKone T (2008) Building a model based on scientific consensus for life cycle impact assessment of chemicals: the search for harmony and parsimony. Environ Sci Technol 42(19):7032–7037

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hellweg S, Demou E, Bruzzi R, Meijer A, Rosenbaum RK, Huijbregts MAJ, Mckone TE (2009) Integrating human indoor air pollutant exposure within life cycle impact assessment. Environ Sci Technol 43(6):1670–1679

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson A, Hauschild M, Van de Meent D, Huijbregts MAJ, Larsen HF, Margni M, McKone TE, Payet J, Rosenbaum RK, Jolliet O (2011) USEtox fate and ecotoxicity factors for comparative assessment of toxic emissions in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(8):701–709

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Huijbregts MAJ, Rombouts LJA, Ragas AMJ, Van de Meent D (2005) Human-toxicological effect and damage factors of carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic chemicals for life cycle impact assessment. Integr Environ Assess Manag 1:181–244

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Humbert S (2009) Geographically differentiated life-cycle impact assessment of human health. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA

  • Humbert S, Marshall JD, Shaked S, Spadaro J, Nishioka Y, Preiss P, McKone TE, Horvath A, Jolliet O (2011) Intake fraction for particulate matter: recommendations for life cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol 45(11):4808–4816

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2006) ISO 14044:2006 Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. International Standards Organization

  • Itsubo N, Sakagami M, Washida T, Kokubu K, Inaba A (2004) Weighting across safeguard subjects for LCIA through the application of conjoint analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(3):196–205

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles R, Humbert S, Payet J, Rebitzer G, Rosenbaum R (2003) IMPACT 2002+: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(6):324–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jolliet O, Müller-Wenk R, Bare JC, Brent A, Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Itsubo N, Peña C, Pennington D, Potting J, Rebitzer G, Stewart M, Udo de Haes H, Weidema B (2004) The LCIA midpoint-damage framework of the UNEP/SETAC life cycle initiative. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(6):394–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margni M, Gloria T, Bare J, Seppälä J, Steen B, Struijs J, Toffoletto L, Jolliet O (2007) Guidance on how to move from current practice to recommended practice in life cycle impact assessment: UNEP/SETAC life cycle initiative

  • Milà i Canals L, Romanyà J, Cowell SJ (2007) Method for assessing impacts on life support functions (LSF) related to the use of ‘fertile land’ in life cycle assessment (LCA). J Clean Prod 15:1426–1440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milà i Canals L, Chenoweth J, Chapagain A, Orr S, Antón A, Clift R (2009) Assessing freshwater use impacts in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(1):28–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montzka SA, Fraser PJ (1999) Controlled substances and other source gases. Chapter 2 in scientific assessment of ozone depletion: 1998, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project—report no. 44, World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland

  • Pant R, Van Hoof G, Schowanek D, Feijtel TCJ, de Koning A, Hauschild MZ, Pennington DW, Olsen SI, Rosenbaum R (2004) Comparison between three different LCIA methods for aquatic ecotoxicity and a product environmental risk assessment—insights from a detergent case study within OMNIITOX. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(5):295–306

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Payet J (2004) Assessing toxic impacts on aquatic ecosystems in LCA. PhD thesis 3112, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne

  • Pfister S, Hellweg S (2009) The water “shoesize” vs. footprint of bioenergy. Letter PNAS 106(35):E93–E94

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pfister S, Koehler A, Hellweg S (2009) Assessing the environmental impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA. Environ Sci Technol 43(11):4098–4104

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pizzol M, Christensen P, Schmidt J, Thomsen M (2011a) Impacts of “metals” on human health: a comparison between nine different methodologies for life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). J Clean Prod 19:646–656

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pizzol M, Christensen P, Schmidt J, Thomsen M (2011b) Eco-toxicological impact of “metals” on the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem: a comparison between eight different methodologies for life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). J Clean Prod 19:687–698

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pope CA, Burnett RT, Thun MJ, Calle EE, Krewski D, Ito K, Thurston GD (2002) Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. J Am Med Assoc 287:1132–1141

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Posch M, Seppälä J, Hettelingh JP, Johansson M, Margni M, Jolliet O (2008) The role of atmospheric dispersion models and ecosystem sensitivity in the determination of characterisation factors for acidifying and eutrophying emissions in LCIA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(6):477–486

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rabl A, Spadaro JV (2004) The RiskPoll software, version is 1.051 (dated August 2004). www.arirabl.com – accessed January 2012

  • Rosenbaum RK, Bachmann TM, Gold LS, Huijbregts MAJ, Jolliet O, Juraske R, Köhler A, Larsen HF, MacLeod M, Margni M, McKone TE, Payet J, Schuhmacher M, van de Meent D, Hauschild MZ (2008) USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterization factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(7):532–546

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum RK, Huijbregts M, Henderson A, Margni M, McKone TE, van de Meent D, Hauschild MZ, Shaked S, Li DS, Slone TH, Gold LS, Jolliet O (2011) USEtox human exposure and toxicity factors for comparative assessment of toxic emissions in life cycle analysis: sensitivity to key chemical properties. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(8):710–727

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Saad R, Margni M, Koellner T, Wittstock B, Deschênes L (2011) Assessment of land use impacts on soil ecological functions: development of spatially differentiated characterization factors within a Canadian context. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(3):198–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seppälä J, Posch M, Johansson M, Hettelingh JP (2006) Country-dependent characterization factors for acidification and terrestrial eutrophication based on accumulated exceedance as an impact category indicator. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(6):403–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steen B (1999a) A systematic approach to environmental priority strategies in product development (EPS). Version 2000-general system characteristics; CPM report 1999:4, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden

  • Steen B (1999b) A systematic approach to environmental priority strategies in product development (EPS). Version 2000-models and data of the default method; CPM report 1999:5, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden

  • Struijs J, van Wijnen HJ, van Dijk A, Huijbregts MAJ (2009a) Ozone layer depletion. Chapter 4. In: Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts MAJ, De Schryver A, Struijs J, Van Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe 2008 A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Report I: Characterisation, first edition, 6 January 2009, http://www.lcia-recipe.net – accessed January 2012

  • Struijs J, Beusen A, van Jaarsveld H, Huijbregts MAJ (2009b) Aquatic eutrophication. Chapter 6. In: Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts MAJ, De Schryver A, Struijs J, Van Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe 2008 A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Report I: characterisation, first edition, 6 January 2009, http://www.lcia-recipe.net – accessed January 2012

  • Struijs J, van Dijk A, Slaper H, van Wijnen HJ, Velders GJM, Chaplin G, Huijbregts MAJ (2010) Spatial- and time-explicit human damage modeling of ozone depleting substances in life cycle impact assessment. Environ Sci Technol 44(1):204–209

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Struijs J, Beusen A, de Zwart D, Huijbregts M (2011) Characterization factors for inland water eutrophication at the damage level in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(1):59–64

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Toffoletto L, Bulle C, Godin J, Reid C, Deschênes L (2007) LUCAS—a new LCIA method used for a Canadian-specific context. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(2):93–102

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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). Int J Life Cycle Assess 4(2):66–74 and 4(3):167–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Udo de Haes HA, Finnveden G, Goedkoop M, Hauschild M, Hertwich E, Hofstetter P, Klöpffer W, Krewitt W, Lindeijer E, Jolliet O, Mueller-Wenk R, Olsen S, Pennington D, Potting J, Steen B (eds) (2002) Life cycle impact assessment: striving towards best practice. SETAC Press, Pensacola, ISBN 1-880611-54-6

  • Van Dijk A, Den Outer PN, Slaper H (2008) Climate and Ozone change Effects on Ultraviolet radiation and Risks (COEUR) using and validating earth observations; RIVM Report 61000 2001/2008; Bilthoven, The Netherlands, 2008

  • Van Zelm R, Huijbregts MAJ, Van Jaarsveld HA, Reinds GJ, De Zwart D, Struijs J, Van de Meent D (2007) Time horizon dependent characterization factors for acidification in life-cycle assessment based on forest plant species occurrence in Europe. Environ Sci Technol 41(3):922–927

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Zelm R, Huijbregts MAJ, Den Hollander HA, Van Jaarsveld HA, Sauter FJ, Struijs J, Van Wijnen HJ, Van de Meent D (2008) European characterization factors for human health damage of PM10 and ozone in life cycle impact assessment. Atmos Environ 42:441–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Zelm R, Schipper AM, Rombouts M, Snepvangers J, Huijbregts MAJ (2011) Implementing groundwater extraction in life cycle impact assessment: characterization factors based on plant species richness. Environ Sci Technol 45(2):629–635

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research was partly funded by the European Commission through a service contract (no. 383163) and by a research project under the seventh Framework Program on Environment (ENV.2008.3.3.2.1: PROSUITE—Sustainability Assessment of Technologies, grant agreement no. 227078).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark (DTU), Produktionstorvet, Building 426, 2800, Lyngby, Denmark

    Michael Z. Hauschild & Alexis Laurent

  2. PRé Consultants B.V., Printerweg 18, 3821 AD, Amersfoort, The Netherlands

    Mark Goedkoop & An De Schryver

  3. Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML), Department of Industrial Ecology, Faculty of Science, Universiteit Leiden, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Jeroen Guinée & Reinout Heijungs

  4. Department of Environmental Science, Radboud University Nijmegen, P.O. Box 9010, 6500 GL, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Mark Huijbregts

  5. Department of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA

    Olivier Jolliet

  6. Department of Mathematical and Industrial Engineering, CIRAIG, École Polytechnique de Montréal, 2900 Édouard-Montpetit, Montréal, Québec, H3C 3A7, Canada

    Manuele Margni

  7. Quantis International, Parc scientifique EPFL, Bât. D, CH-1015, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Olivier Jolliet, Manuele Margni & Sebastien Humbert

  8. Sustainability Assessment Unit, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, European Commission-Joint Research Centre, Via Enrico Fermi 2749, 21027, Ispra, VA, Italy

    Serenella Sala & Rana Pant

Authors
  1. Michael Z. Hauschild
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark Goedkoop
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jeroen Guinée
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Reinout Heijungs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mark Huijbregts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Olivier Jolliet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Manuele Margni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. An De Schryver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Sebastien Humbert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Alexis Laurent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Serenella Sala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Rana Pant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Z. Hauschild.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 134 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hauschild, M.Z., Goedkoop, M., Guinée, J. et al. Identifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18, 683–697 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0489-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0489-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation