Impact distribution methods’ use in multifunctional Life Cycle Assessments: a systematic literature review

作者: Marcella Ruschi Mendes Saade , Maristela Gomes da Silva , Vanessa Gomes da Silva

DOI: 10.20396/PARC.V8I4.8650295

关键词:

摘要: Partitioning loads related to multifunctional processes, which generate more than one product or service (i.e. function), is a controversial issue within life cycle assessment (LCA). ISO 14044:2006 suggests hierarchic stepwise procedure. The first step avoid allocation whenever possible, through (i) subdividing the process into unitary sub-processes with specific function; (ii) expanding system boundaries include additional functions by-product(s). second determines that system’s inputs and outputs must be allocated based on fundamental physical relationship between products. When unable identify such relationship, flows partitioned as reflect other relations products, their economic value. This paper aims delineate scientific overview of impact distribution methods’ use LCA practice from 2006 2016. Authors performed systematic literature review documented choice frequency studies published in considered time frame. Results revealed lack consensus among practitioners. Most papers adopt avoided burden approach (equivalent expansion), while proposed 14044’s hierarchy (subdivision) was actually least used method. Our examination confirmed division problem typically solved by substantially diverging ISO’s theoretical framework, both an opportunity for reflection reformulation need.

参考文章(120)
Frank Werner, Hans-Jörg Althaus, Klaus Richter, Roland W. Scholz, Post-consumer waste wood in attributive product LCA The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. ,vol. 12, pp. 160- 172 ,(2007) , 10.1065/LCA2006.05.249
E.K. Anastasiou, A. Liapis, I. Papayianni, Comparative life cycle assessment of concrete road pavements using industrial by-products as alternative materials Resources Conservation and Recycling. ,vol. 101, pp. 1- 8 ,(2015) , 10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2015.05.009
David R. Shonnard, Bethany Klemetsrud, Julio Sacramento-Rivero, Freddy Navarro-Pineda, Jorge Hilbert, Robert Handler, Nydia Suppen, Richard P. Donovan, A Review of Environmental Life Cycle Assessments of Liquid Transportation Biofuels in the Pan American Region Environmental Management. ,vol. 56, pp. 1356- 1376 ,(2015) , 10.1007/S00267-015-0543-8
Lisa Marie Gruber, Christian Peter Brandstetter, Ulrike Bos, Jan Paul Lindner, Stefan Albrecht, LCA study of unconsumed food and the influence of consumer behavior International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. ,vol. 21, pp. 773- 784 ,(2016) , 10.1007/S11367-015-0933-4
Miguel F. Astudillo, Gunnar Thalwitz, Fritz Vollrath, Modern analysis of an ancient integrated farming arrangement: life cycle assessment of a mulberry dyke and pond system International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. ,vol. 20, pp. 1387- 1398 ,(2015) , 10.1007/S11367-015-0950-3
John Reap, Felipe Roman, Scott Duncan, Bert Bras, A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. ,vol. 13, pp. 290- 300 ,(2008) , 10.1007/S11367-008-0008-X
Pascal Lesage, Tomas Ekvall, Louise Deschênes, Réjean Samoson, Environmental assessment of brownfield rehabilitation using two different life cycle inventory models The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. ,vol. 12, pp. 391- 398 ,(2007) , 10.1065/LCA2006.10.279.1
Harnoor Dhaliwal, Martin Browne, William Flanagan, Lise Laurin, Melissa Hamilton, A life cycle assessment of packaging options for contrast media delivery: comparing polymer bottle vs. glass bottle International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. ,vol. 19, pp. 1965- 1973 ,(2014) , 10.1007/S11367-014-0795-1
Jim M. Bier, Casparus J. R. Verbeek, Mark C. Lay, An eco-profile of thermoplastic protein derived from blood meal Part 1: allocation issues International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. ,vol. 17, pp. 208- 219 ,(2012) , 10.1007/S11367-011-0349-8
Dongyan Mu, Thomas Seager, P Suresh Rao, Fu Zhao, None, Comparative life cycle assessment of lignocellulosic ethanol production: biochemical versus thermochemical conversion. Environmental Management. ,vol. 46, pp. 565- 578 ,(2010) , 10.1007/S00267-010-9494-2