Purpose Assessing impacts of abiotic resource use has been a topic of persistent debate among life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) method developers and a source of confusion for life cycle assessment (LCA) practitioners considering the different interpretations of the safeguard subject for mineral resources and the resulting variety of LCIA methods to choose from. Based on the review and assessment of 27 existing LCIA methods, accomplished in the first part of this paper series (Sonderegger et al. 2020), this paper provides recommendations regarding the application-dependent use of existing methods and areas for future method development. Method Within the “global guidance for LCIA indicators and methods” project of the Life Cycle Initiative hosted by UN Environment, 62 members of the “task force mineral resources” representing different stakeholders discussed the strengths and limitations of existing LCIA methods and developed initial conclusions. These were used by a subgroup of eight members at the Pellston Workshop® held in Valencia, Spain, to derive recommendations on the application-dependent use and future development of impact assessment methods. Results and discussion First, the safeguard subject for mineral resources within the area of protection (AoP) natural resources was defined. Subsequently, seven key questions regarding the consequences of mineral resource use were formulated, grouped into “inside-out” related questions (i.e., current resource use leading to changes in opportunities for future users to use resources) and “outside-in” related questions (i.e., potential restrictions of resource availability for current resource users). Existing LCIA methods were assigned to these questions, and seven methods (ADPultimate reserves, SOPURR, LIME2endpoint, CEENE, ADPeconomic reserves, ESSENZ, and GeoPolRisk) are recommended for use in current LCA studies at different levels of recommendation. All 27 identified LCIA methods were tested on an LCA case study of an electric vehicle, and yielded divergent results due to their modeling of impact mechanisms that address different questions related to mineral resource use. Besides method-specific recommendations, we recommend that all methods increase the number of minerals covered, regularly update their characterization factors, and consider the inclusion of secondary resources and anthropogenic stocks. Furthermore, the concept of dissipative resource use should be defined and integrated in future method developments. Conclusion In an international consensus-finding process, the current challenges of assessing impacts of resource use in LCA have been addressed by defining the safeguard subject for mineral resources, formulating key questions related to this safeguard subject, recommending existing LCIA methods in relation to these questions, and highlighting areas for future method development.

No abstract

Purpose Multifunctionality in life-cycle assessment (LCA) is solved with allocation, for which many different procedures are available. Lack of sufficient guidance and difficulties to identify the correct allocation approach cause a large number of combinations of methods to exist in scientific literature. This paper reviews allocation procedures for recycling situations, with the aim to identify a systematic approach to apply allocation. Methods Assumptions and definitions for the most important terms related to multifunctionality and recycling in LCA are given. The most relevant allocation procedures are identified from literature. These procedures are expressed in mathematical formulas and schemes and arranged in a systematic framework based on the underlying objectives and assumptions of the procedures. Results and discussion If the LCA goal asks for an attributional approach, multifunctionality can be solved by applying system expansion-i.e. including the co-functions in the functional unit-or partitioning. The cut-off approach is a form of partitioning, attributing all the impacts to the functional unit. If the LCA goal asks for a consequential approach, substitution is applied, for which three methods are identified: the end-oflife recycling method and the waste mining method, which are combined in the 50/50 method. We propose to merge these methods in a new formula: the market price-based substitution method. The inclusion of economic values and maintaining a strict separation between attributional and consequential LCA are considered to increase realism and consistency of the LCA method.Conclusions and perspectives We identified the most pertinent allocation procedures-for recycling as well as coproduction and energy recovery-and expressed them in mathematical formulas and schemes. Based on the underlying objectives of the allocation procedures, we positioned them in a systematic and consistent framework, relating the procedures to the LCA goal definition and an attributional or consequential approach. We identified a new substitution method that replaces the three existing methods in consequential LCA. Further research should test the validity of the systematic framework and the market price-based substitution method by means of case studies.

Purpose The safeguard subject of the Area of Protection "natural Resources," particularly regarding mineral resources, has long been debated. Consequently, a variety of life cycle impact assessment methods based on different concepts are available. The Life Cycle Initiative, hosted by the UN Environment, established an expert task force on "Mineral Resources" to review existing methods (this article) and provide guidance for application-dependent use of the methods and recommendations for further methodological development (Berger et al. in Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2020). Methods Starting in 2017, the task force developed a white paper, which served as its main input to a SETAC Pellston Workshop® in June 2018, in which a sub-group of the task force members developed recommendations for assessing impacts of mineral resource use in LCA. This article, based mainly on the white paper and pre-workshop discussions, presents a thorough review of 27 different life cycle impact assessment methods for mineral resource use in the "natural resources" area of protection. The methods are categorized according to their basic impact mechanisms, described and compared, and assessed against a comprehensive set of criteria.

No abstract

Summary The diversity of raw materials used in modern products, compounded by the risk of supply disruptions—due to uneven geological distribution of resources, along with socioeconomic factors like production concentration and political (in)stability of raw material producing countries—has drawn attention to the subject of raw material “criticality.” In this article, we review the state of the art regarding the integration of criticality assessment, herein termed “product‐level supply risk assessment,” as a complement to environmental life cycle assessment. We describe and compare three methods explicitly developed for this purpose—Geopolitical Supply Risk (GeoPolRisk), Economic Scarcity Potential (ESP), and the Integrated Method to Assess Resource Efficiency (ESSENZ)—based on a set of criteria including considerations of data sources, uncertainties, and other contentious methodological aspects. We test the methods on a case study of a European‐manufactured electric vehicle, and conclude with guidance for appropriate application and interpretation, along with opportunities for further methodological development. Although the GeoPolRisk, ESP, and ESSENZ methods have several limitations, they can be useful for preliminary assessments of the potential impacts of raw material supply risks on a product system (i.e., “outside‐in” impacts) alongside the impacts of a product system on the environment (i.e., “inside‐out” impacts). Care is needed to not overlook critical raw materials used in small amounts but nonetheless important to product functionality. Further methodological development could address regional and firm‐level supply risks, multiple supply‐chain stages, and material recycling, while improving coverage of supply risk characterization factors.

No abstract

Biodegradable agricultural films made of poly(butylene adipate-co-terephthalate) (PBAT) are interesting alternatives to the most commonly used low-density polyethylene (LDPE) films. Photodegradation of both types of polymers can be prevented by the addition of UV stabilizers. To prevent leaching of the additives from the films, the stabilizers can be intercalated in layered double hydroxides (LDH). When LDHs are exfoliated in the polymer a nanocomposite is formed with improved material properties. An ex-ante cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment (LCA) is conducted on the application of nanoclays in agricultural mulching films. The PBAT/LDH nanocomposite is compared with PBAT and LDPE, both of which had been UV-stabilized with the conventionally used compound Irganox 1010. Being key ingredients of the nanocomposites we prepare an ex-ante cradle-to-factory gate LCA for different nanoclay compositions containing surfactants and the non-toxic UV stabilizer p-hydroxycinnamic acid intercalated in LDH sheets. Among the nanoclays, the lowest environmental impact is achieved by LDHs based on magnesium oxide/hydroxide and aluminum oxide/hydroxide, with the surfactant stearate as the intercalated anion. Our comparative analysis of mulching films shows that the lowest non-renewable energy use and greenhouse gas emissions are obtained by LDPE films, which are recycled and incinerated with energy recovery after the second life cycle. However, recycling and energy recovery are not always applied, which makes the biodegradable PBAT an interesting alternative. Further study on the UV stability, tensile strength and bio-based feedstock for PBAT indicates that PBAT containing LDH and p-hydroxycinnamic acid can be an environmentally friendly alternative to LDPE agricultural films containing the UV stabilizer Irganox 1010