Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Environmental impact evaluation of co-products: decision-aid tool for allocation in LCA

  • INPUT-OUTPUT AND HYBRID LCA
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

As sustainability has become an important asset for production systems, it is important to conduct life cycle assessment (LCA) studies. When conducting an LCA of products derived from a multi-product process, the common challenge of impact partitioning arises. This is referred to as the allocation problem. Many allocation methods have been introduced in the literature, leading to a variety of results depending on the choice of allocation method. The purpose of this paper is to provide LCA practitioners with an operational approach that helps them choose the allocation method when evaluating co-products.

Methods

The extensive literature review carried out in the study allows identification of the main allocation methods available to practitioners. A cross-analysis also points out a strong link between allocation choices and decision-makers’ objectives. A decision-aid tool is introduced and tested on two case studies involving co-products.

Results and discussion

The resulting decision-aid tool helps guide the allocation choice in the two case studies through multi-level reasoning. Depending on the objective of the LCA study and the co-product being analyzed, a multi-level decision tree proposes a set of recommended allocation methods. The first level consists in identifying the purpose of the study, after which yes-or-no questions start to guide the path toward the right allocation method. In the most complex cases, the LCA practitioner is presented with a table containing all the allocation methods defended by other LCA practitioners for specific industries and contexts. This decision-aid tool complements the guidelines presented by ISO 14044 2006.

Conclusion

The presented tool creates a strong correlation between the aims of the study and the allocation choice, thus allowing practitioners to both justify their choice and to discuss the results with alternative scenarios for sensitivity analysis.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ayer NW, Tyedmers PH, Pelletier NL, Sonesson U, Scholz A (2007) Co-product allocation in life cycle assessments of seafood production systems: review of problems and strategies. Int J LCA 12(7):480

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Azapagic A, Clift R (1999) Allocation of environmental burdens in co-product systems: product-related burdens (part 1). Int J LCA 4(6):357–369

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bartocci P, Fantozzi P, Fantozzi F (2017) Environmental impact of Sagrantino and Grechetto grapes cultivation for wine and vinegar production in central Italy. J Clean Prod 140:569–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beheshti Z, Chan YH, Nia HS, Hajihosseini F, Nazari R, Shaabani M (2012) Influence of apple cider vinegar on blood lipids. Life Sci J 9(4):2431–2440

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben Rejeb H (2008) Phases amont de l'innovation: proposition d'une démarche d'analyse de besoin et d'évaluation de l'acceptabilité d'un produit. PhD Dissertation, University of Lorraine France

  • Binici H, Aksogan O, Shah T (2005) Investigation of fiber reinforced mud brick as a building material. Constr Build Mater 19(4):313–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brankatschk G, Finkbeiner M (2014) Application of the cereal unit in a new allocation procedure for agricultural life cycle assessments. J Clean Prod 73:72–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cherubini F, Bird ND, Cowie A, Jungmeier G, Schlamadinger B, Woess-Gallasch S (2009) Energy- and greenhouse gas-based LCA of biofuel and bioenergy systems: key issues, ranges and recommendations. Resour Conserv Recycl 52(8):434–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cherubini F, Strømman AH, Ulgiati S (2011) Influence of allocation methods on the environmental performance of biorefinery products: a case study. Resour Conserv Recycl 55(11):1070–1077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christoforou E, Kylili A, Fokaides PA, Ioannou I (2006) Cradle to site life cycle assessment of adobe bricks. J Clean Prod 112:443–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalgaard R, Schmidt J, Halberg N, Christensen P, Thrane M, Pengue WA (2008) LCA of soybean meal. Int J LCA 13(3):240

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • De Oliveira MC, Sichieri R, Venturim Mozzer R (2008) A low-energy-dense diet adding fruit reduces weight and energy intake in women. Appetite 51(2):291–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EPD (Environmental Product Declaration) (2021) Construction products. Technical Report, EDP

  • Ekvall T, Tillman AM (1997) Open-loop recycling: criteria for allocation procedures. Int J LCA 2(3):155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esteban B, Baquero G, Puig R, Riba JR, Rius A (2011) Is it environmentally advantageous to use vegetable oil directly as biofuel instead of converting it to biodiesel? Biomass Bioenergy 35(3):1317–1328

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Flysjö A, Cederberg C, Henriksson M, Ledgard S (2011) How does co-product handling affect the carbon footprint of milk? case study of milk production in New Zeeland and Sweden. Int J LCA 16(5):420–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frischknecht R (2000) Allocation in life cycle inventory analysis for joint production. Int J LCA 5(2):85–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gnansounou E (2018) Coproducts performances in biorefineries: development of claiming-based allocation models for environmental policy. Bioresour Technol 254:31–39

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gnansounou E, Raman JK (2018) Environmental performances of coproducts. Application of claiming-based allocation models to straw and vetiver biorefineries in an Indian context. Bioresour Technol 262:203–211

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Heijungs R, Guinée JB (2007) Allocation and ‘what-if’ scenarios in life cycle assessment of waste management systems. Waste Manag 27(8):997–1005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horta Arduin R, Grimaud G, Martínez Leal J, Pompidou S, Charbuillet C, Laratte B, Alix T et al (2019) Influence of scope definition in recycling rate calculation for European e-waste extended producer responsibility. Waste Manag 84:256–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huppes G (1992) Allocating impacts of multiple economic processes in LCA. SETAC-Europe Life-cycle assessment. SETAC-Europe, Brussels, pp 57–70

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO 14041 (1998) Environmental management: life cycle assessment; Goal and scope definition and inventory analysis. 1998. ISO

  • ISO 14044 (2006) Environmental management: life cycle assessment; Principles and framework. 2006. ISO

  • Jolliet O, Saadé-Sbeih M, Crettaz P, Jolliet-Gavih N, Shaked S (2017) Analyse du cycle de vie : comprendre et réaliser un écobilan. Presses Polytechniques Romandes, Lausanne

    Google Scholar 

  • Jungmeier G, Werner F, Jarnehammar A, Hohenthal C, Richter K (2002) Allocation in LCA of wood-based products experiences of cost action E9. Int J LCA 7(6):369–375

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kodera K (2007) Analysis of allocation methods of bioethanol LCA. Dissertation, Faculty of Earth and Life Science of Amsterdam

  • Koltun P, Tharumarajah A, Ramakrishnan S (2005) An approach to treatment of recycling in LCA study, The fourth Australian LCA Conference, 23–25 February 2005. CSIRO Division of Manufacturing and Infrastructure Technology, Sydney, Australia

    Google Scholar 

  • Li X, Mupondwa E, Panigrahi S, Tabil L, Adapa P (2012) Life cycle assessment of densified wheat straw pellets in the Canadian prairies. Int J LCA 17(4):420–431

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie SG, Leinonen I, Kyriazakis I (2017) The need for co-product allocation in the life cycle assessment of agricultural systems—is “biophysical” allocation progress? Int J LCA 22(2):128–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen TLT, Hermansen JE (2010) System expansion for handling co-products in LCA of sugar cane bioenergy systems: GHG consequences of using molasses for ethanol production. Appl Energy 89(1):254–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons S, Allen MJ, Chuck CJ (2020) Coproducts of algae and yeast-derived single cell oils: a critical review of their role in improving biorefinery sustainability. Bioresour Technol 303:122862

  • Paulillo A, Striolo A, Lettieri P (2019) The environmental impacts and the carbon intensity of geothermal energy: a case study on the Hellisheiði plant. Environ Int 133: 105226

  • Ren KB, Kagi DA (1995) Upgrading the durability of mud bricks by impregnation. Build Environ 30(3):433–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandin G, Røyne F, Berlin J, Peters GM, Svanström M (2015) Allocation in LCAs of biorefinery products: implications for results and decision-making. J Clean Prod 93:213–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food (2005) Food principles and practices of crop rotation. Technical Report, Food Government of Saskatchewan

  • Serena A, Knudsen KB (2007) Chemical and physicochemical characterisation of co-products from the vegetable food and agro industries. Anim Feed Sci Technol 139:109–124

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schau EM, Fet AM (2007) LCA studies of food products as background for environmental product declarations. Int J LCA 13(3):255–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schrijvers DL, Loubet P, Sonnemann G (2016a) Developing a systematic framework for consistent allocation in LCA. Int J LCA 21:976–993

  • Schrijvers DL, Loubet P, Sonnemann G (2016b) Critical review of guidelines against a systematic framework with regard to consistency on allocation procedures for recycling in LCA. Int J LCA 21:994–1008

  • Schrijvers DL, Loubet P, Sonnemann G (2020) Archetypes of goal and scope definitions for consistent allocation in LCA. Sustainability 12(14):5587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stamp A, Althaus HJ, Wäger PA (2013) Limitations of applying life cycle assessment to complex co-product systems: the case of an integrated precious metals smelter-refinery. Resour Conserv Recycl 80:85–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svanes E, Vold M, Hanssen OJ (2011) Effect of different allocation methods on LCA results of products from wild-caught fish and on the use of such results. Int J LCA 16(6):512–521

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Thomassen MA, Dalgaard R, Heijungs R, De Boer I (2008) Attributional and consequential LCA of milk production. Int J LCA 13(4):339–349

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wang M, Lee H, Molburg J (2004) Allocation of energy use in petroleum refineries to petroleum products: implications for life-cycle energy use and emission inventory of petroleum transportation fuels. Int J LCA 9(1):34–44

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wardenaar T, Ruijven T, Beltran AM, Vad K, Guinée J, Heijungs R (2012) Differences between LCA for analysis and LCA for policy: a case study on the consequences of allocation choices in bio-energy policies. Int J LCA 17(8):1059–1067

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Weidema B (1993) Market aspects in product life cycle inventory methodology. J Clean Prod 1(3):161–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weidema B (2000) Avoiding co-product allocation in life-cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 4(3):11–33

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Weidema B (2003) Market information in life cycle assessment. Technical Report, Miljøstyrelsen

  • Winther U, Ziegler F, Hognes ES, Emanuelsson A, Sund V, Ellingsen H (2009) Carbon footprint and energy use of Norwegian seafood products. Technical Report, SINTEF Fisheries and Aquaculture

  • Wolf MA, Chomkhamsri K, Brandao M, Pant R, Ardente F, Pennington DW, Goralczyk M (2010) ILCD handbook-general guide on LCA-detailed guidance. Technical Report, Joint Research Centre European Commission

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, G-SCOP, 38000, Grenoble, France

    Walid Ijassi, Helmi Ben Rejeb & Peggy Zwolinski

Authors
  1. Walid Ijassi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Helmi Ben Rejeb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peggy Zwolinski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Walid Ijassi.

Additional information

Communicated by Serenella Sala.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ijassi, W., Ben Rejeb, H. & Zwolinski, P. Environmental impact evaluation of co-products: decision-aid tool for allocation in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26, 2199–2214 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01984-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01984-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation