Allocation in life cycle assessment of lignin

Abstract

Purpose Lignin extraction in pulp mills and biorefineries are emerging technologies. Lignin is always the product of a multioutput process. Assessing such processes using life cycle assessment (LCA) requires the environmental impacts to be divided between the co-products of the system, referred to as allocation. This article explores different allocation approaches for lignin and illustrates the influence of the choice of allocation approach on the climate impact in a case study. Method Ten different applicable allocation methods were found in literature and two more were developed. Lignin production in a Kraft pulp mill using the LignoBoost process for lignin extraction was selected as a study object for the case study, and due to limited data availability only climate impact was considered. A cradle-to-gate LCA was done for the study object, and all of the twelve allocation approaches were applied; for eight of the methods, factors that strongly influence the results were identified and varied. Finally, the results were put in the context of cradle-to-grave LCAs from literature for different possible uses of lignin to give an indication of how important the choice of allocation approach can be when assessing lignin as a substitute for other raw materials. Results and discussion Results show that all allocation approaches tested were applicable to the special case of lignin, but each one of them comes with inherent challenges. Factors that often have a large impact on the results are (1) market and price of different outputs; (2) what is seen as the main product or the driver of the system or system changes; (3) what the surrounding system looks like and hence what other products will be displaced by outputs. These factors can be particularly challenging in prospective studies as such studies are future-oriented and consider systems that do not yet exist. Finally, the results show that the choice of allocation could have a significant influence on the climate impact on the cradle-to-grave climate impact of the final product. Conclusions We recommend for LCAs of lignin-based technologies that allocation methods are very carefully selected based on the goal and scope of the study and that when relevant, several methods are applied and factors are varied within them in a sensitivity analysis. In particular, the driver(s) of the system's existence or of changes to it, sometimes reflected in market prices of outputs, should be carefully considered.

Reviewing ISO Compliant Multifunctionality Practices in Environmental Life Cycle Modeling

“…Another point of debate is the use of substitution for allocation (and not as a system expansion method). This type of allocation has been mentioned in the literature with different names, such as substitution-based allocation [9] and "proxy-based disaggregation" by substitution [35] and various versions of this method have been proposed (e.g., see Hermansson et al who applied two different versions of this method to assess Kraft lignin [64]). By many practitioners, this option is perceived as the attributional way of using substitution.…”

Multifunctional lignin-based nanocomposites and nanohybrids

“…per 1 kg of Kraft lignin has been achieved with a mass allocation approach. 495 Other works have provided similar values for dry Kraft lignin, with impacts in the range of 0.1 to 2.7 kg CO 2 eq. Cradle-to-gate Life Cycle Assessment of bio-adhesives for the wood panel industry.…”

Modeling life‐cycle inventory for multi‐product biorefinery: tracking environmental burdens and evaluation of uncertainty caused by allocation procedure

“…The other example of the first uncertainty class concerns LR that can be treated either as the product or as a waste stream of UP‐1. The so‐called ‘zero‐burden’ approach regarding lignin feedstock was used in several papers 28–30 . Following this approach, LR is treated as a waste stream with no upstream emissions allocated to it before the collection point.…”

“…Concerning this method, Hermansson et al . concluded that the results are highly sensitive to the choice of the relevant product 30 . However, while ISO 14044 defines waste as ‘substances or objects which the holder intends or is required to dispose of,’ treating LR as a waste can be considered somewhat arbitrary.…”