scholarly journals Review of Environmental Assessment Case Studies Blending Elements of Risk Assessment and Life Cycle Assessment

2015 ◽  
Vol 49 (22) ◽  
pp. 13083-13093 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Harder ◽  
Hanna Holmquist ◽  
Sverker Molander ◽  
Magdalena Svanström ◽  
Gregory M. Peters
2014 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 979-997 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Petit-Boix ◽  
David Sanjuan-Delmás ◽  
Carles M. Gasol ◽  
Gara Villalba ◽  
María Eugenia Suárez-Ojeda ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 389-406 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Francesca Milazzo ◽  
Francesco Spina

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to quantify the human health impacts of soy-biodiesel production with the aim to discuss about its environmental sustainability. Design/methodology/approach – The integrated use of two current approaches, risk assessment (RA) and life cycle assessment (LCA), has allowed improvement of the potentialities of both in obtaining a more complete analysis. The implementation of a life cycle indicator for the assessment of the impacts on the human health, integrating the features of both approaches, is the main focus of this paper. Findings – It has been found that, although the biodiesel is a green fuel, it has some criticalities in its life cycle, which cannot be disregarded. In fact, even if biodiesel is essentially a clean fuel there are some phases, prior to the industrial phase, that can cause negative effects on human health and ecosystems. Practical implications – Results suggest some measures which can be adopted to substantially reduce human health impacts. Further alternative could be analysed in future to gain more insight about the use of biodiesel fuels. Originality/value – The estimation of the impacts of a process producing biodiesel has been made by using a novel approach. The novelty is associated with the calculation of the impacts on human health by using the transfer factors applied in RA. The use of such factors, properly modified in order to estimate the impacts on a wider scale than a site-dimension, allows defining a holistic approach, as LCA and RA are used as complete units but at the same time can be related to each other.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dyah Ika Rinawati ◽  
Alexander Ryota Keeley ◽  
Shutaro Takeda ◽  
Shunsuke Managi

Abstract This study conducted a systematic literature review of the technical aspects and methodological choices in life cycle assessment (LCA) studies of using hydrogen for road transport. More than 70 scientific papers published during 2000–2021 were reviewed, in which more than 350 case studies of use of hydrogen in the automotive sector were found. Only some studies used hybrid LCA and energetic input-output LCA, whereas most studies addressed attributional process-based LCA. A categorization based on the life cycle scope distinguished case studies that addressed the well-to-tank (WTT), well-to-wheel (WTW), and complete life cycle approaches. Furthermore, based on the hydrogen production process, these case studies were classified into four categories: thermochemical, electrochemical, thermal-electrochemical, and biochemical. Moreover, based on the hydrogen production site, the case studies were classified as centralized, on-site, and on-board. The fuel cell vehicle passenger car was the most commonly used vehicle. The functional unit for the WTT studies was mostly mass or energy, and vehicle distance for the WTW and complete life cycle studies. Global warming potential (GWP) and energy consumption were the most influential categories. Apart from the GREET (Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation) model and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for assessing the GWP, the Centrum voor Milieukunde Leiden method was most widely used in other impact categories. Most of the articles under review were comparative LCA studies on different hydrogen pathways and powertrains. The findings provide baseline data not only for large-scale applications, but also for improving the efficiency of hydrogen use in road transport.


2015 ◽  
pp. 383-419 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel A. Eisenberg ◽  
Khara D. Grieger ◽  
Danail R. Hristozov ◽  
Matthew E. Bates ◽  
Igor Linkov

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document