What distribution function do life cycle inventories follow?
- 580 Downloads
Life cycle inventory (LCI) results are often assumed to follow a lognormal distribution, while a systematic study that identifies the distribution function that best describes LCIs has been lacking. This paper aims to find the distribution function that best describes LCIs using Ecoinvent v3.1 database using a statistical approach, called overlapping coefficient analysis.
Monte Carlo simulation is applied to characterize the distribution of aggregate LCIs. One thousand times of simulated LCI results are generated based on the unit process-level parametric uncertainty information, from each of which 1000 randomly chosen data points are extracted. The 1 million data points extracted undergo statistical analyses including Shapiro-Wilk normality test and the overlapping coefficient analysis. The overlapping coefficient is a measure used to determine the shared area between the distribution of the simulated LCI results and three possible distribution functions that can potentially be used to describe them including lognormal, gamma, and Weibull distributions.
Results and discussion
Shapiro-Wilk normality test for 1000 samples shows that average p value of log-transformed LCI results is 0.18 at 95 % confidence level, accepting the null hypothesis that LCI results are lognormally distributed. The overlapping coefficient analysis shows that lognormal distribution best describes the distribution of LCI results. The average of overlapping coefficient (OVL) for lognormal distribution is 95 %, while that for gamma and Weibull distributions are 92 and 86 %, respectively.
This study represents the first attempt to calculate the stochastic distributions of the aggregate LCIs covering the entire Ecoinvent 3.1 database. This study empirically shows that LCIs of Ecoinvent 3.1 database indeed follow a lognormal distribution. This finding can facilitate more efficient storage and use of uncertainty information in LCIs and can reduce the demand for computational power to run Monte Carlo simulation, which currently relies on unit process-level uncertainty data.
KeywordsEcoinvent 3.1 Life cycle inventory Lognormal distribution Monte Carlo simulation Probability distribution Uncertainty analysis
We are thankful to Guillaume Bourgault, Ecoinvent Project Manager, for providing data and assisting us to better understanding the database. His help and support is invaluable to the research. This publication was developed under Assistance Agreement No. 83557901 awarded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to University of California Santa Barbara. It has not been formally reviewed by EPA. The views expressed in this document are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Agency. EPA does not endorse any products or commercial services mentioned in this publication.
- Baker JW, Lepech MD (2009) Treatment of uncertainties in life cycle assessment. In: Proceedings of the 10th international congress on structural safety and reliability. Osaka, Japan, pp. 13–17Google Scholar
- Fava J (1994) Life-cycle assessment data quality: a conceptual framework: workshop reportGoogle Scholar
- Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Althaus HJ et al (2004) Overview and methodology. Final report Ecoinvent 2000 no. 1. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
- Gentle J (2013) Random number generation and Monte Carlo methods. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
- Heijungs R, Huijbregts M (2004) A review of approaches to treat uncertainty in LCAGoogle Scholar
- Heijungs R, Suh S (2002) The computational structure of life cycle assessment. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
- Hofstetter P (1998) Perspectives in life cycle impact assessment: a structured approach to combine models of the Technosphere, Ecosphere and Valuesphere. Kluwer Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar
- Holland DM, Fitz-Simons T (1982) Fitting statistical distributions to air quality data by the maximum likelihood method. Atmospheric Environ 1967 16:1071–1076Google Scholar
- Limpert E, Stahel WA, Abbt M (2001) Log-normal distributions across the sciences: keys and clues on the charms of statistics, and how mechanical models resembling gambling machines offer a link to a handy way to characterize log-normal distributions, which can provide deeper insight into variability and probability—normal or log-normal: that is the question. Bioscience 51:341–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Razali NM, Wah YB (2011) Power comparisons of shapiro-wilk, kolmogorov-smirnov, lilliefors and Anderson-darling tests. J Stat Model Anal 2:21–33Google Scholar
- Rosenbaum R, Pennington DW, Jolliet O (2004) An implemented approach for estimating uncertainties for toxicological impact characterisation. In: 2nd Biennial Meeting of the International Environmental Modelling and Software Society, iEMSsGoogle Scholar
- Singh A, Singh A, Engelhardt M (1997) The lognormal distribution in environmental applications. Technology Support Center Issue PaperGoogle Scholar
- Weidema BP, Bauer C, Hischier R et al. (2013) Overview and methodology: data quality guideline for the Ecoinvent database version 3. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle InventoriesGoogle Scholar