Valorisation of Silk Textile Industry Wastewater for Sustainable Agriculture: Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Costing of Sericin Biostimulant Application in Lettuce Cultivation

Feeding a growing, increasingly affluent population while limiting environmental pressures of food production is a central challenge for society. Understanding the location and magnitude of food production is key to addressing this challenge because pressures vary substantially across food production types. Applying data and models from life cycle assessment with the methodologies for mapping cumulative environmental impacts of human activities (hereafter cumulative impact mapping) provides a powerful approach to spatially map the cumulative environmental pressure of food production in a way that is consistent and comprehensive across food types. However, these methodologies have yet to be combined. By synthesizing life cycle assessment and cumulative impact mapping methodologies, we provide guidance for comprehensively and cumulatively mapping the environmental pressures (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions, spatial occupancy, and freshwater use) associated with food production systems. This spatial approach enables quantification of current and potential future environmental pressures, which is needed for decision makers to create more sustainable food policies and practices.

The body of life cycle assessment (LCA) literature is vast and has grown over the last decade at a dauntingly rapid rate. Many LCAs have been published on the same or very similar technologies or products, in some cases leading to hundreds of publications. One result is the impression among decision makers that LCAs are inconclusive, owing to perceived and real variability in published estimates of life cycle impacts. Despite the extensive available literature and policy need formore conclusive assessments, only modest attempts have been made to synthesize previous research. A significant challenge to doing so are differences in characteristics of the considered technologies and inconsistencies in methodological choices (e.g., system boundaries, coproduct allocation, and impact assessment methods) among the studies that hamper easy comparisons and related decision support. An emerging trend is meta-analysis of a set of results from LCAs, which has the potential to clarify the impacts of a particular technology, process, product, or material and produce more robust and policy-relevant results. Meta-analysis in this context is defined here as an analysis of a set of published LCA results to estimate a single or multiple impacts for a single technology or a technology category, either in a statisticalmore » sense (e.g., following the practice in the biomedical sciences) or by quantitative adjustment of the underlying studies to make them more methodologically consistent. One example of the latter approach was published in Science by Farrell and colleagues (2006) clarifying the net energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of ethanol, in which adjustments included the addition of coproduct credit, the addition and subtraction of processes within the system boundary, and a reconciliation of differences in the definition of net energy metrics. Such adjustments therefore provide an even playing field on which all studies can be considered and at the same time specify the conditions of the playing field itself. Understanding the conditions under which a meta-analysis was conducted is important for proper interpretation of both the magnitude and variability in results. This special supplemental issue of the Journal of Industrial Ecology includes 12 high-quality metaanalyses and critical reviews of LCAs that advance understanding of the life cycle environmental impacts of different technologies, processes, products, and materials. Also published are three contributions on methodology and related discussions of the role of meta-analysis in LCA. The goal of this special supplemental issue is to contribute to the state of the science in LCA beyond the core practice of producing independent studies on specific products or technologies by highlighting the ability of meta-analysis of LCAs to advance understanding in areas of extensive existing literature. The inspiration for the issue came from a series of meta-analyses of life cycle GHG emissions from electricity generation technologies based on research from the LCA Harmonization Project of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), a laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, which also provided financial support for this special supplemental issue. (See the editorial from this special supplemental issue [Lifset 2012], which introduces this supplemental issue and discusses the origins, funding, peer review, and other aspects.) The first article on reporting considerations for meta-analyses/critical reviews for LCA is from Heath and Mann (2012), who describe the methods used and experience gained in NREL's LCA Harmonization Project, which produced six of the studies in this special supplemental issue. Their harmonization approach adapts key features of systematic review to identify and screen published LCAs followed by a meta-analytical procedure to adjust published estimates to ones based on a consistent set of methods and assumptions to allow interstudy comparisons and conclusions to be made. In a second study on methods, Zumsteg and colleagues (2012) propose a checklist for a standardized technique to assist in conducting and reporting systematic reviews of LCAs, including meta-analysis, that is based on a framework used in evidence-based medicine. Widespread use of such a checklist would facilitate planning successful reviews, improve the ability to identify systematic reviews in literature searches, ease the ability to update content in future reviews, and allow more transparency of methods to ease peer review and more appropriately generalize findings. Finally, Zamagni and colleagues (2012) propose an approach, inspired by a meta-analysis, for categorizing main methodological topics, reconciling diverging methodological developments, and identifying future research directions in LCA. Their procedure involves the carrying out of a literature review on articles selected according to predefined criteria.« less

Circular utilization of urban tree waste contributes to the mitigation of climate change and eutrophication

Production and consumption of goods entails generation of obvious and several unseen environmental externalities and burden. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) essentially includes a detailed analysis of the life cycle of a product or a process in relation to externalities generated [Yuracko and Morris, 2001]. One of the first terms used for such an exercise was Life Cycle Analysis . Recently, two terms viz., Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) , apart from Life Cycle Inventoiy (LCI) have also been in use. This analysis is aimed at assessing burdens created by the product or process on the environment. LCA normally centres on 1) determination of associated flows of energy and materials; 2) relating environmental impacts and stresses to various stages of production process and consumption of the product; and 3) identification of appropriate interventions to improve environmentally significant attributes. Efforts are currently focused on defining boundaries of analysis and harmonization of approaches for carrying out LCAs [Graedel and Allenby, 1995]. Whichever name is used to describe it, LCA is considered as a useful tool to potentially assist regulators formulate environmental legislation, help manufacturers analyze their processes and improve their products. Like most tools, it must be used with certain clarity of purpose. Life Cycle Analysis and Assessment is being expanded lately to lend support to the development of eco-labelling schemes, which are operating or planned in a number of countries around the world.

Despite the ever-growing body of life cycle assessment (LCA) literature on electricity generation technologies, inconsistent methods and assumptions hamper comparison across studies and pooling of published results. Synthesis of the body of previous research is necessary to generate robust results to assess and compare environmental performance of different energy technologies for the benefit of policy makers, managers, investors, and citizens. With funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory initiated the LCA Harmonization Project in an effort to rigorously leverage the numerous individual studies to develop collective insights. The goals of this project were to: (1) understand the range of published results of LCAs of electricity generation technologies, (2) reduce the variability in published results that stem from inconsistent methods and assumptions, and (3) clarify the central tendency of published estimates to make the collective results of LCAs available to decision makers in the near term. The LCA Harmonization Project's initial focus was evaluating life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electricity generation technologies. Six articles from this first phase of the project are presented in a special supplemental issue of the Journal of Industrial Ecology on Meta-Analysis of LCA: coal (Whitaker et al. 2012), concentratingmore » solar power (Burkhardt et al. 2012), crystalline silicon photovoltaics (PVs) (Hsu et al. 2012), thin-film PVs (Kim et al. 2012), nuclear (Warner and Heath 2012), and wind (Dolan and Heath 2012). Harmonization is a meta-analytical approach that addresses inconsistency in methods and assumptions of previously published life cycle impact estimates. It has been applied in a rigorous manner to estimates of life cycle GHG emissions from many categories of electricity generation technologies in articles that appear in this special supplemental supplemental issue, reducing the variability and clarifying the central tendency of those estimates in ways useful for decision makers and analysts. Each article took a slightly different approach, demonstrating the flexibility of the harmonization approach. Each article also discusses limitations of the current research, and the state of knowledge and of harmonization, pointing toward a path of extending and improving the meta-analysis of LCAs.« less

Industrial symbiosis network (ISN) facilitation tools seek to holistically evaluate the environmental and economic performance of ISNs through life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC). ISNs have many stakeholders with diverse interests in the LCA and LCC results thus requiring multi-level analysis. The objective of this review was to examine the state-of-the-art methodologies used in LCAs and LCCs of ISNs and understand how multi-level analysis can be conducted. The systematic literature review methodology was applied to develop a corpus of peer-reviewed LCA and LCC studies of ISNs published between 2010 and 2019 without any geographic boundary. Abstracts were reviewed to shortlist studies that conducted an LCA or LCC of an ISN with numerical results. LCA and LCC methodologies used in the shortlisted studies were collected and categorized. Each methodology was examined to understand how the foreground and background systems are represented, how waste-to-resource exchanges are analyzed, and how the results can be computed at the network, entity, and flow levels. The review yielded 42 LCA studies and 11 LCC studies of ISNs that used eight different methodologies. Process-based LCA was used in 71% of the LCA studies, whereas tiered hybrid LCA was used in 14% of the studies. Waste-to-resource exchanges in ISN scenarios were represented either through process analysis or as a black box. Fewer LCC studies that evaluate the economic performance of ISNs exist compared with LCA studies. Economic studies often evaluated financial feasibility, net present value, profitability, or payback period of specific waste-to-resource exchanges or the network overall. The insights derived from this review chart future areas of research in multi-level modeling and analysis of the life cycle environmental and economic performance of ISNs. To improve the model construction and analysis process, research should be explored in developing a methodology for constructing a single model that represents multiple entities linked together by waste-to-resource exchanges and can provide LCA and LCC results for different stakeholder perspectives. The lack of LCC studies of ISNs merits the need for more research in this area at both the network and entity levels to quantify potential economic trade-offs between stakeholders. Developing a methodology for unified LCA and LCC modeling and analysis of ISNs can help ISN facilitation tool developers conduct simultaneous life cycle environmental and economic analysis of the potential symbiosis connections identified and how they contribute to the overall network.

Charting the Future of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: A Special Issue

Context The European Commission (EC) recognised Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) as "the best framework for assessing the potential environmental impacts of products". It also identified "the need to improve data availability and quality worldwide by internationally cooperating on LCA data and methods". The life cycle approach is also part of the 2011 Communication on "A resource-efficient Europe – Flagship initiative under the Europe 2020 Strategy". To support these life cycle based EU policies, the EC has started the "European Platform on Life Cycle Assessment (EPCLA)"[1]services (e.g. consulting or research services), tools (e.g. LCA tools, ecodesign tools), databases (e.g. LCI databases) and the corresponding developers and providers. in 2005. This Platform is implemented and coordinated by the EC Directorate-General Joint Research Centre (JRC), Institute for Environment and Sustainability, in close collaboration with DG Environment. The Platform works on the basis of coherent and quality-assured life cycle data, methods, and studies. The LCA Resource Directory is one of the deliverables of the Platform. This application has been running since 2006 and it contains lists of Novelty The LCA Resource Directory has recently been further developed so that it can contain and organize LCA case studies and metadata on these studies. The new LCA Resource Directory will be launched during the Fall 2011. Methods The new functionalities of the LCA Resource Directory allow users (LCA expert and non-expert) to browse a database of LCA studies. Thanks to the searching tool, a user can sort the information available as metadata and identify relevant LCA studies according to his/her interests. Many of the fields of the template used to characterize LCA studies are based on the ISO 1404x series. Some fields of the template are mandatory (e.g. functional unit and system boundary) in order to assure that the information showed in the application fulfills most of the requirements of the ISO 14044 for reports to be disclosed to the public. Other fields of the template include: "Intended application(s)", "LCIA impact categories" and "Compliance". The LCA study has to be uploaded on the Directory. Moreover, a final verification step is performed by the web application administrator to ensure quality and consistency. The application is open worldwide (http://lca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/lcainfohub/directory.vm). Any research group, company, university, etc. is now able, after registration, to upload studies and give metadata on them using a template. DG JRC will be in charge of the maintenance of the application and will populate the Directory with the first set of studies during the Fall 2011. An open call to relevant research groups and institutions will be send in order to populate the Directory with registered users and studies. Conclusions With these new capabilities of the Resource Directory, the EPLCA makes progress in its aim of promoting life cycle thinking when making available to all kind of LCA practitioners a good quality database of LCA studies, together with a searching tool. [1] http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

Applied life cycle assessment (LCA) studies often lead to a comparison of rather few alternatives; we call this the “ad hoc LCA approach.” This can seem surprising since applied LCAs normally cover countless options for variations and derived potentials for improvements in a product life cycle. In this paper, we will suggest an alternative approach to the ad hoc approach, which more systematically addresses the many possible variations to identify the most promising. We call it the “structural LCA approach.” The goals of this paper are (1) to provide basic guidelines for the structural approach, including an easy expansion of the LCA space; (2) to show that the structural LCA approach can be used for different types of optimization in LCA; and (3) to improve the transparency of the LCA work. The structural approach is based on the methodology “design of experiments” (Montgomery 2005). Through a biodiesel well-to-wheel study, we demonstrate a generic approach of applying explanatory variables and corresponding impact categories within the LCA methodology. Explanatory variables are product system variables that can influence the environmental impacts from the system. Furthermore, using the structural approach enables two different possibilities for optimization: (1) single-objective optimization (SO) based on response surface methodology (Montgomery 2005) and (2) multiobjective optimization (MO) by the hypervolume estimation taboo search (HETS) method. HETS enables MO for more than two or three objectives. Using SO, the explanatory variable “use of residual straw from fields” is, by far, the explanatory variable that can contribute with the highest decrease of climate change potential. For the respiratory inorganics impact category, the most influencing explanatory variable is found to be the use of different alcohol types (bioethanol or petrochemical methanol) in biodiesel production. Using MO, we found the Pareto front based on 5 different life cycle pathways which are nondominated solutions out of 66 different analyzed solutions. Given that there is a fixed amount of resources available for the LCA practitioner, it becomes a prioritizing problem whether to apply the structural LCA approach or not. If the decision maker only has power to change a single explanatory variable, it might not be beneficial to apply the structural LCA approach. However, if the decision maker (such as decision makers at the societal level) has power to change more explanatory variables, then the structural LCA approach seems beneficial for quantifying and comparing the potentials for environmental improvement between the different explanatory variables in an LCA system and identifying the overall most promising product system configurations among the chosen PWs. The implementation of the structural LCA approach and the derived use of SO and MO have been successfully achieved and demonstrated in the present paper. In addition, it is demonstrated that the structural LCA approach can lead to more transparent LCAs since the potentially most important explanatory variables which are used to model the LCAs are explicitly presented through the structural LCA approach. The suggested structural approach is a new approach to LCA and it seems to be a promising approach for searching or screening product systems for environmental optimization potentials. In the presented case, the design has been a rather simple full factorial design. More complicated problems or designs, such as fractional designs, nested designs, split plot designs, and/or unbalanced data, in the context of LCA could be investigated further using the structural approach.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) has been introduced to Thai industries in 1997 as one of the ISO 14000 series. The concept of LCA is being gradually accepted. However, there are few formal LCA studies in Thailand so far due to a limited number of LCA experts and a lack of sufficient databases relevant to domestic conditions. The LCA activities in Thailand can be divided into 3 areas, which are (1) Workshops and seminars (2) Use of LCA studies in Ecolabelling and (3) Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) and LCA studies. The first LCI study was to develop LCI data for Thailand Electricity Grid Mixes. There are a few LCA thesis studies in some universities, but these studies used databases from commercial software programs. The study and use of LCA may increase in the future only if domestic background database will be provided by research institutes and the government, and if industry understands LCA methodology through periodical workshops and seminars. INTRODUCTION Life Cycle Assessment has been introduced to Thai industries in 1997 as one of the ISO 14000 series. The concept of LCA is being gradually accepted. However, there are few formal LCA studies in Thailand so far due to a limited number of LCA experts and a lack of sufficient databases relevant to domestic conditions. ACTIVITIES The LCA activities in Thailand can be divided into 3 areas including (1) Workshops and seminars (2) Use of LCA studies in Ecolabelling and (3) Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) and LCA studies. 1. Workshop and Seminar To introduce the LCA concept to Thai Industries, the Thailand Environment Institute (TEI), in cooperation with many organizations, organized LCA seminars/workshops in Thailand annually between 1997-2002. All seminars successfully gained attention from Thai industry and educational institutes. The Thailand LCA Forum (http://doi.eng.cmu.ac.th/Thailca) has been launched by TEI in January of 2002. 2. Use of LCA studies in Ecolabelling The Green Label project was initiated in October 1993 by the Thailand Business Council for Sustainable Development (TBCSD) in association with the Ministry of Industry. This project is supported by the Secretariat, which is formed by a partnership between the Thai Industrial Standards Institute (TISI) and TEI. The objectives of the project are to establish the product criteria and award certification to specific products that are shown to have less impact on the environment, when compared with other products serving the same function (not including foods, drinks, and pharmaceuticals). The project came about from the idea that the green label can stimulate market choice thus encouraging producers to improve the environmental quality of their products and services in response to consumer demand. Award of the Thai Green label is based on the product criteria developed by a technical subcommittee. The subcommittee consists of representatives from the scientific, business and environmental groups and others if appropriate and available. A new subcommittee is established for each selected product category. At present, there are 29 product categories that are eligible for the Thai Green Label, and up to the end of November 2001, 227 individual products have received the Green Label award. Being aware of the high cost involved and time consumed in developing product criteria through format LCA, the Thai Green Label scheme has decided that a full quantitative LCA is not applicable for setting criteria for all products, especially in developing countries. The development of award criteria for the scheme has followed different methodologies. It will take into account not only significant environmental impact during the life cycle of the products (Life Cycle Consideration: LCC), but also capability to meet proposed criteria with reasonable process modification and/or improvement. The availability of testing institutes and the ability to perform tests are considered carefully, while setting the criteria. Results from existing LCA studies have been used as a scientific tool in the Thai Green Label Scheme for the development of environmental criteria for a few product categories. 3. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) and LCA Studies

Purpose Infill materials play a pivotal role in determining buildings’ life cycle costing (LCC) and environmental impacts. International standards prescribe LCC and life cycle assessments (LCA) to assess materials’ economic and environmental sustainability. The existing methods of LCC and LCA are tedious and time-consuming, reducing their practical application. This study sought to integrate LCC and LCA with building information modeling (BIM) to develop a swift and efficient approach for evaluating the life cycle performance of infill materials. Design/methodology/approach The BIM model for a case study was prepared using Autodesk Revit®, and the study included four infill materials (lightweight aggregate concrete block (LECA), autoclaved cellular concrete (AAC), concrete masonry and bricks). LCC was conducted using Revit® and Autodesk Insight 360® to estimate costs incurred across different project phases. LCA was conducted using “One Click LCA®,” a BIM-based platform featuring a comprehensive material inventory. Carbon emissions, acidification, and eutrophication were chosen as environmental impact factors for LCA. Findings LECA was the preferred choice due to its lower cost and environmental impact. Its lifetime cost of $440,618 was 5.4% lower than bricks’, with 2.8% lower CO2 emissions than AAC’s, which were second-place options, respectively. LECA had 6.4 and 27% lower costs than concrete blocks, and AAC’s carbon emissions were 32 and 58% lower than concrete blocks and bricks, respectively. Originality/value BIM has been employed for life cycle analysis in existing literature, but its efficacy in evaluating the lifetime costs and environmental impacts of infill materials remains unexplored. The current study presents a BIM-based approach for conducting LCC and LCA of infill materials, facilitating informed decision-making during the planning phase and promoting sustainable construction practices.

Sustainability is an international issue with increasing concern and becomes a crucial driver for the industry in international competition. Sustainability encompasses the three dimensions: environment, society and economy. This paper presents the results from a sustainability assessment of a product. To prevent burden shifting, the whole life cycle of the products is necessary to be taken into account. For the environmental dimension, life cycle assessment (LCA) has been practiced for nearly 40 years and is the only one standardised by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (14040 and 14044). Life cycle approaches for the social and economic dimensions are currently under development. Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) is a complementary implementation of the three techniques: LCA (environmental), life cycle costing (LCC - economic) and social LCA (SLCA - social). This contribution applies the state-of-the-art LCSA on remanufacturing of alternators aiming at supporting managers and product developers in their decision-making to design product and plant. The alternator is the electricity generator in the automobile vehicle which produces the needed electricity. LCA and LCC are used to assess three different alternator design scenarios (namely conventional, lightweight and ultra-lightweight). The LCA and LCC results show that the conventional alternator is the most promising one. LCSA of three different locations (Germany, India and Sierra Leone) for setting the remanufacturing mini-factory, a worldwide applicable container, are investigated on all three different sustainability dimensions: LCA, LCC and SLCA. The location choice is determined by the SLCA and the design alternatives by the LCA and LCC. The case study results show that remanufacturing potentially causes about 12% of the emissions and costs compared to producing new parts. The conventional alternator with housing of iron cast performs better in LCA and LCC than the lightweight alternatives with aluminium housing. The optimal location of remanufacturing is dependent on where the used alternators are sourced and where the remanufactured alternators are going to be used. Important measures to improve the sustainability of the remanufacturing process in life cycle perspective are to confirm if the energy efficiency of the remanufactured part is better than the new part, as the use phase dominates from an environmental and economical point of view. The SLCA should be developed further, focusing on the suitable indicators and conducting further case studies including the whole life cycle.

It has been claimed that in order to assess the sustainability of products, a combination of the results from a life cycle assessment (LCA), social life cycle assessment (SLCA) and life cycle costing (LCC) is needed. Despite the frequent reference to this claim in the literature, very little explicit analysis of the claim has been made. The purpose of this article is to analyse this claim. An interpretation of the goals of sustainability, as outlined in the report Our Common Future (WCED 1987), which is the basis for most literature on sustainability assessment in the LCA community, is presented and detailed to a level enabling an analysis of the relation to the impact categories at midpoint level considered in life cycle (LC) methodologies. The interpretation of the definition of sustainability as outlined in Our Common Future (WCED 1987) suggests that the assessment of a product's sustainability is about addressing the extent to which product life cycles affect poverty levels among the current generation, as well as changes in the level of natural, human and produced and social capital available for the future population. It is shown that the extent to which product life cycles affect poverty to some extent is covered by impact categories included in existing SLCA approaches. It is also found that the extent to which product life cycles affect natural capital is well covered by LCA, and human capital is covered by both LCA and SLCA but in different ways. Produced capital is not to any large extent considered in any of the LC methodologies. Furthermore, because of the present level of knowledge about what creates and destroys social capital, it is difficult to assess how it relates to the LC methodologies. It is also found that the LCC is only relevant in the context of a life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) if focusing on the monetary gains or losses for the poor. Yet, this is an aspect which is already considered in several SLCA approaches. The current consensus that LCSA can be performed through combining the results from an SLCA, LCA and LCC is only partially supported in this article: The LCSA should include both an LCA and an SLCA, which should be expanded to better cover how product life cycles affect poverty and produced capital. The LCC may be included if it has as a focus to asses income gains for the poor.

Territorial Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): What exactly is it about? A proposal towards using a common terminology and a research agenda

<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">Lithium Ion (Li-ion) batteries have emerged as the dominant technology for electric mobility due to their performance, stability, and long cycle life. Nevertheless, there are emerging environmental and economic issues from Li-ion batteries related to depleting critical resources and their potential shortage. This paper focuses on developing the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Costing (LCC) of a generic Li-ion battery pack with a Nickel-Manganese-Cobalt (NMC) cathode chemistry, being the most used, and a capacity of 95 kWh as an average between different carmakers. The LCA and LCC include all the relevant phases of the life cycle of the product. The costs related to the LCC assessment have been taken as secondary data. Lastly, the same system boundary has been chosen both for the LCA and LCC. The results of the LCA and LCC show that the carbon footprint is 119.7 kgCO<sub>2eq</sub>/kWh while the economic impact is 147.3 €/kWh if Europe is assumed as the production, use and recycling location. The assumed location significantly affects the analysis, and a sensitivity analysis has been conducted on both the LCA and LCC considering four different locations for the battery pack life cycle.</div></div>