scholarly journals Review and expert survey of allocation methods used in life cycle assessment of milk and beef

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Venla Kyttä ◽  
Marja Roitto ◽  
Aleksi Astaptsev ◽  
Merja Saarinen ◽  
Hanna L. Tuomisto
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Raw Material ◽  
Body Parts ◽  
Economic Allocation ◽  
Allocation Method ◽  
Lca Practitioners ◽  
By Products ◽  
Allocation Methods

Abstract Purpose Beef and dairy production systems produce several by-products, such as fertilizers, bioenergy, hides, and pet foods, among which the environmental impacts arising from production should be allocated. The choice of allocation method therefore inevitably affects the results of life cycle assessment (LCA) for milk and beef. The aims of this study were to map out the different allocation methods used in dairy and beef LCA studies and to clarify the rationale for selecting a certain method. Methods A literature review was conducted to identify the different allocation methods used in LCA studies of milk and beef production and the products using beef by-products as a raw material. The justifications for the use of different methods in the studies were also collected. To map out the perspectives of LCA practitioners and further clarify the reasoning behind the use of certain allocation methods, a mixed method survey with quantitative questions and qualitative explanatory fields was sent to the authors included in the literature review. Results and discussion The literature review showed that the most commonly used allocation method between milk and meat was biophysical allocation, which is also the recommended method in LCA guidelines of milk production. Economic allocation was the second most common method, although the rationale for using economic allocation was weak. By-products, such as inedible body parts, were not considered in milk studies and were taken into account in only a small number of beef studies. This might be because most of the studies have cradle-to-farm gate system boundaries. According to the survey, a significantly higher share of LCA practitioners would allocate impacts also to these by-products. Conclusions The allocation is usually done between milk and meat, and other by-products are not taken into account. Since these materials are an unavoidable part of production and there are numerous uses for them, these outputs should be recognized as products and also taken into consideration in LCA studies.

Use of the life-cycle assessment (LCA) toolbox for an environmental evaluation of production processes

2000 ◽  
Vol 72 (7) ◽  
pp. 1247-1252 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monika Herrchen ◽  
Werner Klein
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Raw Material ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
Environmental Evaluation ◽  
Central Production ◽  
Pros And Cons ◽  
Chemical Products ◽  
By Products

Green chemistry not only emphasizes the central production process of the "green" chemical, but it ultimately requires a life-cycle conceptual approach for each chemical product. A life-cycle conceptual approach comprises the consideration of all stages along the life cycle of a chemical (i.e., raw material extraction, pre-production, production, use, recycling, and disposal) as well as the consideration of environmental impacts caused by by-products and auxiliaries (such as solvents and additives, but also technical facilities which have to be provided to produce the green chemical). A significant improvement in the evaluation of green chemical products can be approached by the complementary use of the methodologies of life-cycle assessment (LCA) and risk assessment. The use and combination of both methodologies can be performed by a separate use of the instruments (depending on the scope, definition, and application of LCA), an iterative use of LCA and risk assessment, or a complete integration of both instruments. Pros and cons of these approaches are discussed.

scholarly journals Life-Cycle Assessment of Carbon Footprint of Bike-Share and Bus Systems in Campus Transit

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 158
Author(s):  
Sishen Wang ◽  
Hao Wang ◽  
Pengyu Xie ◽  
Xiaodan Chen
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Energy Consumption ◽  
Carbon Footprint ◽  
Co2 Emission ◽  
Raw Material ◽  
Transit System ◽  
Two Systems ◽  
Bus System ◽  
Bike Share

Low-carbon transport system is desired for sustainable cities. The study aims to compare carbon footprint of two transportation modes in campus transit, bus and bike-share systems, using life-cycle assessment (LCA). A case study was conducted for the four-campus (College Ave, Cook/Douglass, Busch, Livingston) transit system at Rutgers University (New Brunswick, NJ). The life-cycle of two systems were disaggregated into four stages, namely, raw material acquisition and manufacture, transportation, operation and maintenance, and end-of-life. Three uncertain factors—fossil fuel type, number of bikes provided, and bus ridership—were set as variables for sensitivity analysis. Normalization method was used in two impact categories to analyze and compare environmental impacts. The results show that the majority of CO2 emission and energy consumption comes from the raw material stage (extraction and upstream production) of the bike-share system and the operation stage of the campus bus system. The CO2 emission and energy consumption of the current campus bus system are 46 and 13 times of that of the proposed bike-share system, respectively. Three uncertain factors can influence the results: (1) biodiesel can significantly reduce CO2 emission and energy consumption of the current campus bus system; (2) the increased number of bikes increases CO2 emission of the bike-share system; (3) the increase of bus ridership may result in similar impact between two systems. Finally, an alternative hybrid transit system is proposed that uses campus buses to connect four campuses and creates a bike-share system to satisfy travel demands within each campus. The hybrid system reaches the most environmentally friendly state when 70% passenger-miles provided by campus bus and 30% by bike-share system. Further research is needed to consider the uncertainty of biking behavior and travel choice in LCA. Applicable recommendations include increasing ridership of campus buses and building a bike-share in campus to support the current campus bus system. Other strategies such as increasing parking fees and improving biking environment can also be implemented to reduce automobile usage and encourage biking behavior.

Techno-economic evaluation and life-cycle assessment of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate) production within a biorefinery concept using sunflower-based biodiesel industry by-products

2021 ◽  
Vol 326 ◽  
pp. 124711
Author(s):  
Vasiliki Kachrimanidou ◽  
Sofia Maria Ioannidou ◽  
Dimitrios Ladakis ◽  
Harris Papapostolou ◽  
Nikolaos Kopsahelis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
By Products ◽  
Biodiesel Industry

scholarly journals Methodology for the quantification of concrete sustainability

2018 ◽  
Vol 174 ◽  
pp. 01006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Břetislav Teplý ◽  
Tomáš Vymazal ◽  
Pavla Rovnaníková
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Environmental Impact ◽  
Service Life ◽  
Circular Economy ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Raw Material ◽  
Load Bearing Capacity ◽  
Sustainability Management

Efficient sustainability management requires the use of tools which allow material, technological and construction variants to be quantified, measured or compared. These tools can be used as a powerful marketing aid and as support for the transition to “circular economy”. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) procedures are also used, aside from other approaches. LCA is a method that evaluates the life cycle of a structure from the point of view of its impact on the environment. Consideration is given also to energy and raw material costs, as well as to environmental impact throughout the life cycle - e.g. due to emissions. The paper focuses on the quantification of sustainability connected with the use of various types of concrete with regard to their resistance to degradation. Sustainability coefficients are determined using information regarding service life and "eco-costs". The aim is to propose a suitable methodology which can simplify decision-making in the design and choice of concrete mixes from a wider perspective, i.e. not only with regard to load-bearing capacity or durability.

Research on Life Cycle Assessment of Plastic Pipeline System

2016 ◽  
Vol 847 ◽  
pp. 366-373
Author(s):  
Chun Zhi Zhao ◽  
Meng Chi Huang ◽  
Yi Liu ◽  
Li Ping Ma
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Water Supply ◽  
Greenhouse Effect ◽  
Environmental Influence ◽  
Green Building ◽  
Renewable Resource ◽  
Resource Consumption ◽  
Raw Material ◽  
Pipeline System

Plastic pipe is a kind of new pipeline material and its output has been increasing in recent years. It is still mainly used for water supply and drainage of buildings and municipal utility industry as well as for safe drinking in rural areas, about half of all plastic pipelines are used for buildings, and the proportion of these pipelines used in other fields is also increasing. Plastic pipeline system's influence on the environment within its life cycle is the focus of researches in recent years. Based on life cycle assessment (LCA), this paper assesses the common water supply and drainage pipelines (PPR, PE and PVC-U) for buildings for resource and energy consumption, non-renewable resource consumption (ADP) of pollution gas emission, greenhouse effect (GWP), acidification effect (AP) and eutrophication (EP) and inhalable inorganics (RI) generated in the process of life cycle from raw material exploitation to produce production and other environmental influence closely related to the national energy conservation and emission reduction policy. The result shows that the influence indexes of non-renewable resource consumption for functional unit of PPR pipe, PE pipe and PVC-U pipe are 2.22×10-5 Kg antimony eq./ kg, 1.51×10-5 Kg antimony eq./ kg, 6.82×10-6 Kg antimony eq./ kg; those of acidification effect are 1.92×10-2kg SO2 eq./ kg, 1.96×10-2g SO2 eq./ kg, 3.90×10-2kg SO2 eq./ kg; those of eutrophication are 2.39×10-3kg PO43-eq./ kg, 2.36×10-3kg PO43-eq./ kg, 3.40×10-3kg PO43-eq./ kg; those of inhalable inorganics are 6.46×10-3 kg PM2.5 eq./ kg, 6.30×10-3 kg PM2.5 eq./ kg, 1.91×10-2 kg PM2.5 eq./ kg; those of greenhouse effect are 3.72kg CO2 eq./ kg, 3.60kg CO2 eq./ kg, 7.93kg CO2 eq./ kg. This result shows that the environmental influence of PPR, PE and PVC-U pipes mainly depends on the raw materials required for producing pipes, so the key of plastic pipeline greening is to reduce the consumption of virgin resin. This investigation creates a database about plastic pipeline's influence on environment within its full life cycle for the purpose of laying a foundation for calculating intrinsic energy in a building, promoting selection of green building material, facilitating the realization of green building objective, and improving the knowledge of developer, constructor and user to potential influence of the pipeline system within its life cycle.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document