Verification of the results of environmental life cycle assessment of bulky waste management technologies using sensitivity analysis

Samson-Bręk, Izabela; Gabryszewska, Marta

doi:10.2478/oszn-2023-0018

Abstract

The calculation aimed to verify the life cycle assessment (LCA) results of the bulky waste management technology by using sensitivity analysis. Different sensitivity analyses for LCA were carried out to point out which of the tested methods gave the most reliable LCA results. The main factor that helped to find the best-fitted method was CO₂ emissions. The LCA analyses were performed by IOŚ-PIB using SimaPro software based on the technology data obtained during the Urbanrec project. The sensitivity analysis was conducted twofold: the LCA analysis was carried out for different time horizons in the frame of the ReCiPe method egalitarian (E), individual (I), and hierarchic (H). In the second step, the LCA results for the ReCiPe method were compared with the LCA results for methods: CML-IA, Impact 2002+, and the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GGP). The results of the LCA for all endpoints are sensitive to changes in the time horizon, which is reflected in the change in impact assessment methods used in calculations. The biggest differences are visible between the egalitarian and individual perspectives. In the second case of the sensitivity analysis, differences in results between the individual analytical methods used for LCAs can be observed. The obtained results show a high sensitivity of LCA results from the adopted time horizon, as well as moderate sensitivity of the carbon footprint depending on the method of analysis used.

References

BIGANZOLI L., RIGAMONTI L., GROSSO M. 2018. 25th CIRP Life Cycle Engineering (LCE) Conference. 30 April – 2 May 2018. Copenhagen. Denmark Intermediate bulk containers re-use in the circular economy: an LCA evaluation. Procedia CIRP 69. 827–832.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
CAMPOLONGO F., CARIBONI J., SALTELLI A. 2007. An effective screening design for sensitivity analysis of large models. Environ Model Softw. 22, 1509–1518.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
CELLURA M., LONGOA S., MISTRETTA M. 2011. Sensitivity analysis to quantify uncertainty in Life Cycle Assessment: The case study of an Italian tile. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15, 4697–4705.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
DEKKER E., ZIJP M.C., VAN DE KAMP M.E., TEMME E.H.M, VAN ZELM R. 2020. A taste of the new ReCiPe for life cycle assessment: consequences of the updated impact assessment method on food product LCAs. Int J Life Cycle Assess 25, 2315–2324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01653-3.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
DERWENT R.G., JENKIN M.E., SAUNDERS S.M. 1996. Photochemical ozone creation potentials for a large number of reactive hydrocarbons under European conditions. Atmospheric Environment 30, 2: 181–199.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
EUROPEAN COMMISSION. 2020. Communication from the commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability Towards a Toxic-Free Environment, COM(2020) 667 final, Brussels.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
EUROPEAN COMMISSION. 2022. Proposal for a Regulation of the Euopean Parliamant and of the Council establishing a framework for setting ecodesign requirements for sustainable products and repealing Directive 2009/125/EC, COM(2022) 142 final 2022/0095 (COD), Brussels.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
EUROPEAN COMMISSION. 2023. Communication from the commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and Committee of the Regions. A green deal industrial plan for the net-zero age, COM(2023) 62 final, Brussel.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
FAVA J.A. 1991. Technical framework for life-cycle assessment. Washington: SETAC and SETAC Foundation for Environmental Education.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
FENG H., ZHAO J., HOLLBERG A, HABERT G. 2023. Where to focus? Developing a LCA impact category selection tool for manufacturers of building materials. Journal of Cleaner Production 405: 136936. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136936.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
GHG PROTOCO. http://www.ghgprotocol.org/ for the latest version of the standard (accessed 20 Octobrt 2023).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
GRADIN K.T., ÅSTRÖM A.H. 2020. Comparative life cycle assessment of car disc brake systems—case study results and method discussion about comparative. LCAs. Int J of LCA 25: 350–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01704-9.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
GROEN E.A., HEIJUNGS R., BOKKERS E.A.M., de Boer I.J.M. 2014. Sensitivity analysis in life cycle assessment, proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/28341726.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
GRZESIK K., USARZ M. 2016. A life cycle assessment of the municipal waste management system in Tarnów. Geometrics and environmental engineering 10, 2. http://dx.doi.org/10.7494/geom.2016.10.2.29.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
HEIJUNGS R. 2002. The use of matrix perturbation theory for addressing sensitivity and uncertainty issues in LCA. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on ecobalance - practical tools and thoughtful principles for sustainability. Tsukaba, Japan. Tokyo: the society of non-traditional technology; 77–80.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
HEIJUNGS R., HUIJBREGTS M.A. 2004. A review of approaches to treat uncertainty in LCA. In: iEMSs 2004 International Congress “Complexity and integrated resources management.”
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
HEIJUNGS R., SUH S., KLEIJN R. 2005. Numerical approaches to life cycle interpretation – the case of the ecoinvent ‘96 database. Int J of LCA 10: 103–112.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
HUIJBREGTS M.A.J. 1998. Application of uncertainty and variability in LCA. Part I. A general framework for the analysis of uncertainty and variability in life cycle assessment. Int J of LCA 3, 5: 273–80.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
HUIJBREGTS M.A.J., BREEDVELD L., HUPPES G., KONING A., OERS L., SUH S. 2003. LCA normalisation data for the Netherlands (1997/1998), Western Europe (1995) and the World (1990 and 1995). Normalisation figures for environmental life-cycle assessment: The Netherlands (1997/1998), Western Europe (1995) and the world (1990 and 1995). Journal of Cleaner Production: 737–748.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
HUIJBREGTS M.A.J, STEINMANN Z.J.N, ELSHOUT P.M.F, STAM G., VERONES F., VIERA M., ZIJP M., HOLLANDER A., VAN ZELM R. 2017. ReCiPe2016: a harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22, 138–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1246-y.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
KONING A., SCHOWANEK D., DEWAELE J., WEISBROD A., GUINEE J. 2010. Uncertainties in a carbon footprint model for detergents; quantifying the confidence in a comparative result. Int J of LCA 15: 79–89.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
KORONEOS C.J., NANAKI E.A. 2012. Integrated solid waste management and energy production - a life cycle assessment approach: the case study of the city of Thessaloniki. Journal of Cleaner Production 27: 141–150.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
KOWALSKI Z., KULCZYCKA J., GÓRALCZK M. 2007. Ekologiczna ocena cyklu życia procesów wytwórczych (LCA). PWN. Warszawa.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
MUTEL C., DE BAAN L., HELLWEG S. 2013. Two-step sensitivity testing of parameterized and regionalized life cycle assessments: methodology and case study. Environ Sci Technol. 47: 5660–5667.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
SALTELLI A., ANNONI P., AZZINI I., CAMPOLONGO F., RATTO M., TARANTOLA S. 2010. 2010. Variance based sensitivity analysis of model output. Design and estimator for the total sensitivity index. Comput Phys Commun 181: 259–270.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
SALTELLI A., RATTO M., ANDRES T., CAMPOLONGO F., CARIBONI J., GATELLI D., SAISANA M., TARANTOLA S. 2008. Global sensitivity analysis: the primer. John Wiley & Sons.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
SAMSON-BRĘK I., GABRYSZEWSKA M., WRZOSEK J., GWOREK B. 2019. Life cycle assessment as a tool to implement sustainable development in the bioeconomy and circular economy. IntechOpen. DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.84664.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
SOBOL' I.M. 2001. Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their Monte Carlo estimates. Math Comput in Simul. 55: 271–280.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
UNFCCC (UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE). Global Warming Potentials (IPCC Second Assessment Report). https://unfccc.int/process/transparency-and-reporting/greenhouse-gas-data/greenhouse-gas-data-unfccc/global-warming-potentials (accessed 7 November 2023).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
URBANREC. 2019. https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/documents/downloadPublic?document-Ids=080166e5ca036579&appId=PPGMS (accessed 7 November 2023).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
WEI W., LARREY LASSALLE P., FAURE T., DUMOULIN N., ROUX P., MATHIAS J.D. 2015. How to conduct a proper sensitivity analysis in life cycle assessment: taking into account correlations within LCI data and interactions within the LCA calculation model. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49: 377−385. DOI: dx.doi.org/10.1021/es502128k.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
WMO (WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ORGANIZATION). 2021. Arctic ozone depletion reached record level. https://public.wmo.int/en/media/news/record-breaking-2020-ozone-hole-closes. (accessed 16 October 2023).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Verification of the results of environmental life cycle assessment of bulky waste management technologies using sensitivity analysis

Abstract

Paradigm

My account