Suggestion of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methodology: Selection Criteria for Environmental Impact Categories

Rigon, Magali Rejane; Zortea, Rafael Batista; Moraes, Carlos Alberto Mendes; Modolo, Regina Célia Espinosa

doi:10.5772/intechopen.83454

Cited by 13 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some methods may not have significant differences among them and can provide similar results [84]. However, it is critical to recognize that there are likely to be uncertainties between alternative methods, especially when the outcomes may affect many levels of decision-making [85]. One of the most used impact assessment methods seems to be CML [85,86], which is also confirmed by this review, where this method was used in 21 studies to present the LCA results.…”

Section: Impact Assessment Methodssupporting

confidence: 63%

Carbon Footprint of Greenhouse Production in EU—How Close Are We to Green Deal Goals?

Ravani,

Georgiou,

Tselempi

et al. 2023

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sustainable greenhouse production has been brought to the forefront as one of the pillars in achieving the objectives set by the Green Deal strategy in 2020, for drastically decreasing net emissions from agriculture. The scope of this review was to capture the current situation regarding the sustainability of greenhouse production in the European Union and to present ways to decrease the carbon footprint. For this reason, a systematic search of studies was conducted, focusing on the investigation of the environmental assessment of conventional greenhouses in EU along with a bibliometric analysis to identify the relationships between the studies. In total, 52 papers were selected for an in-depth analysis that led to addressing the posed research questions. The study reveals that Spain and Italy were the most active countries in the literature for the calculation of the carbon footprint in greenhouses, the value of which showed a large variation per crop and per country and was significantly affected by the use of non-renewable energy sources. It was observed that practical solutions to reduce the carbon footprint of greenhouses have already been implemented and proposed, which indicates a positive inclination towards achieving the Green Deal objectives.

show abstract

Section: Impact Assessment Methodssupporting

confidence: 63%

Carbon Footprint of Greenhouse Production in EU—How Close Are We to Green Deal Goals?

Ravani,

Georgiou,

Tselempi

et al. 2023

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Various methods are designed for translating the life cycle inventory flows into environmental impact categories [52][53][54][55][56]. Because each method has specific characterization factors, the end results may vary based on the method selected [57].…”

Section: Life Cycle Impact Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lifecycle Assessment of Two Urban Water Treatment Plants of Pakistan

Jamil,

Pervez,

Sarwar

et al. 2023

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Water treatment technologies are striving to retain their ecological and economic viability despite the rising demand, conventional infrastructure, financial constraints, fluctuating climatic patterns, and highly stringent regulations. This study evaluates the lifecycle environmental impact of urban water treatment systems within the two densely populated South Asian municipalities of Islamabad and Rawalpindi, Pakistan. The scope of this study includes a process-based Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of the entire water treatment system, particularly the resources and materials consumed during the operation of the treatment plant. The individual and cumulative environmental impact was assessed based on the treatment system data and an in-depth lifecycle inventory analysis. Other than the direct emissions to the environment, the electricity used for service and distribution pumping, coagulant use for floc formation, chlorine gas used for disinfection, and caustic soda used for pH stabilization were the processes identified as the most significant sources of emissions to air and water. The water distribution consumed up to 98% of energy resources. The highest global warming impacts (from 0.3 to 0.6 kg CO2 eq./m3) were assessed as being from the coagulation and distribution processes due to extensive electricity consumption. Direct discharge of the wash and wastewater to the open environment contributed approximately 0.08% of kg-N and 0.002% of kg-P to the eutrophication potential. The outcome of this study resulted in a thorough lifecycle inventory development, including possible alternatives to enhance system sustainability. A definite gap was identified in intermittent sampling at the treatment systems. However, more stringent sampling including the emissions to air can provide a better sustainability score for each unit process.

show abstract

“…Since there were only a few inventories contributing to other impacts, they are not considered in this study. The six impact categories chosen for this study are mainly Global Warming Potential (GWP), Human Toxicity Potential (HTP), Acidification Potential (AP) Eutrophication Potential (EP), Freshwater Aquatic Ecotoxicity Potential (FAETP), and Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (POCP) (Rejane et al 2019). The emission from the incineration process may give negative values due to application of heat recovery systems (Jeswani et al 2016;Parkes et al 2015).…”

Section: Environmental Impact Categoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

COVID-19 Creating another problem? Sustainable solution for PPE disposal through LCA approach

Kumar

Azad

Gupta

et al. 2020

Environ Dev Sustain

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Amid COVID-19, there have been rampant increase in the use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) kits by frontline health and sanitation communities, to reduce the likelihoods of infections. The used PPE kits, potentially being infectious, pose a threat to human health, terrestrial, and marine ecosystems, if not scientifically handled and disposed. However, with stressed resources on treatment facilities and lack of training to the health and sanitation workers, it becomes vital to vet different options for PPE kits disposal, to promote environmentally sound management of waste. Given the various technology options available for treatment and disposal of COVID-19 patients waste, Life Cycle Assessment, i.e., cradle to grave analysis of PPE provides essential guidance in identifying the environmentally sound alternatives. In the present work, Life Cycle Assessment of PPE kits has been performed using GaBi version 8.7 under two disposal scenarios, namely landfill and incineration (both centralized and decentralized) for six environmental impact categories covering overall impacts on both terrestrial and marine ecosystems, which includes Global Warming Potential (GWP), Human Toxicity Potential (HTP), Eutrophication Potential (EP), Acidification Potential (AP), Freshwater Aquatic Ecotoxicity Potential (FAETP) and Photochemical Ozone Depletion Potential (POCP). Considering the inventories of PPE kits, disposal of PPE bodysuit has the maximum impact, followed by gloves and goggles, in terms of GWP. The use of metal strips in face-mask has shown the most significant HTP impact. The incineration process (centralized−3816 kg CO2 eq. and decentralized−3813 kg CO2 eq.) showed high GWP but significantly reduced impact w.r.t. AP, EP, FAETP, POCP and HTP, when compared to disposal in a landfill, resulting in the high overall impact of landfill disposal compared to incineration. The decentralized incineration has emerged as environmentally sound management option compared to centralized incinerator among all the impact categories, also the environmental impact by transportation is significant (2.76 kg CO2 eq.) and cannot be neglected for long-distance transportation. Present findings can help the regulatory authority to delineate action steps for safe disposal of PPE kits.

show abstract

Suggestion of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methodology: Selection Criteria for Environmental Impact Categories

Cited by 13 publications

References 24 publications

Carbon Footprint of Greenhouse Production in EU—How Close Are We to Green Deal Goals?

Carbon Footprint of Greenhouse Production in EU—How Close Are We to Green Deal Goals?

Lifecycle Assessment of Two Urban Water Treatment Plants of Pakistan

COVID-19 Creating another problem? Sustainable solution for PPE disposal through LCA approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About