Comparative evaluation of life cycle impact assessment methods with a South African case study

被引:22
|
作者
Brent, AC [1 ]
Hietkamp, S [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Pretoria, Sch Engn, Dept Engn & Technol Management, Chair Life Cycle Engn, ZA-0002 Pretoria, South Africa
来源
关键词
applications; life cycle assessment (LCA); life cycle engineering (LCE); life cycle impact analysis (LCIA); limitations; methods; problems; procedures; South Africa;
D O I
10.1065/lca.2002.11.101
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Goal and Background. LCIA procedures that have been used in the South Africa manufacturing industry include the CML, Ecopoints, EPS and Eco-indicators 95 and 99 procedures. The aim of this paper is to evaluate and compare the applicability of these European LCIA procedures within the South African context, using a case study. Methods. The five European methods have been evaluated based on the applicability of the respective classification, characterisation, normalization and weighting approaches for the South African situation. Impact categories have been grouped into air, water, land and mined abiotic resources for evaluation purposes. The evaluation and comparison is further based on a cradle-to-gate Screening Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) case study of the production of dyed two-fold wool yarn in South Africa. Results and Discussion. Where land is considered as a separate category (CML, Eco-indicator 99 and EPS), the case study highlights this inventory constituent as the most important. Similarly, water usage is shown as the second most important in one LCIA procedure (EPS) where it is taken into account. However, the impact assessment modelling for these categories may not be applicable for the variance in South African ecosystems. If land and water is excluded from the interpretation, air emissions, coal usage, ash disposal, pesticides and chrome emissions to water are the important constituents in the South African wool industry. Conclusions. In most cases impact categories and procedures defined in the LCIA methods for air pollution, human health and mined abiotic resources are applicable in South Africa. However, the relevance of the methods is reduced where categories are used that impact ecosystem quality, as ecosystems differ significantly between South Africa and the European continent. The methods are especially limited with respect to water and land resources. Normalisation and weighting procedures may also be difficult to adapt to South African conditions, due to the lack of background information and social, cultural and political differences. Recommendations and Outlook. Further research is underway to develop a framework for a South African LCIA procedure, which will be adapted from the available European procedures. The wool SLCA must be revisited to evaluate and compare the proposed framework with the existing LCIA procedures.
引用
收藏
页码:27 / 38
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparative evaluation of Life Cycle Impact assessment methods with a South African case study
    Alan C. Brent
    Sibbele Hietkamp
    [J]. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2003, 8 (1) : 27 - 38
  • [2] Comparative evaluation of life cycle impact assessment software tools through a wind turbine case study
    Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of la Rioja, Edificio Departamental, C/Luis de Ulloa, 20, 26004 Logroño, La Rioja, Spain
    不详
    [J]. Renew. Energy, (237-246):
  • [3] Comparative evaluation of life cycle impact assessment software tools through a wind turbine case study
    Martinez, E.
    Blanco, J.
    Jimenez, E.
    Saenz-Diez, J. C.
    Sanz, F.
    [J]. RENEWABLE ENERGY, 2015, 74 : 237 - 246
  • [4] Tradeoff Evaluation Improves Comparative Life Cycle Assessment: A Photovoltaic Case Study
    Prado-Lopez, Valentina
    Wender, Ben A.
    Seager, Thomas P.
    Laurin, Lise
    Chester, Mikhail
    Arslan, Erdem
    [J]. JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY, 2016, 20 (04) : 710 - 718
  • [5] Evaluation of Life Cycle Assessment Recycling Allocation Methods The Case Study of Aluminum
    Johnson, Jeremiah X.
    McMillan, Colin A.
    Keoleian, Gregory A.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY, 2013, 17 (05) : 700 - 711
  • [6] Environmental life cycle, carbon footprint and comparative economic assessment of rainwater harvesting systems in schools - a South African case study
    Maharaj, Praval
    Friedrich, Elena
    [J]. WATER SA, 2024, 50 (01) : 80 - 91
  • [7] Comparative Evaluation of Chemical Life Cycle Inventory Generation Methods and Implications for Life Cycle Assessment Results
    Parvatker, Abhijeet G.
    Eckelman, Matthew J.
    [J]. ACS SUSTAINABLE CHEMISTRY & ENGINEERING, 2019, 7 (01): : 350 - 367
  • [8] A streamlined life cycle assessment of a coal-fired power plant: the South African case study
    Dunmade, Israel
    Madushele, Nkosinathi
    Adedeji, Paul A.
    Akinlabi, Esther T.
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH, 2019, 26 (18) : 18484 - 18492
  • [9] A streamlined life cycle assessment of a coal-fired power plant: the South African case study
    Israel Dunmade
    Nkosinathi Madushele
    Paul A. Adedeji
    Esther T. Akinlabi
    [J]. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2019, 26 : 18484 - 18492
  • [10] Uncertainty in LCA case study due to allocation approaches and life cycle impact assessment methods
    Edivan Cherubini
    Davide Franco
    Guilherme Marcelo Zanghelini
    Sebastião Roberto Soares
    [J]. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2018, 23 : 2055 - 2070