Prospective life cycle assessment for sustainable synthesis design of organic/inorganic composites for water treatment

Barjoveanu, George; Teodosiu, Carmen; Bucătariu, Florin; Mihai, Marcela

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122672

Cited by 11 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the goal and scope phase, epistemic uncertainty results from modeling assumptions such as the following: the definition of the functional unit (Avadí et al., 2020; Barjoveanu et al., 2020b; Feiz et al., 2020) and system boundaries; the cut‐off and allocation rules; the choice of marginal suppliers between the attributional and consequential, static or dynamic approaches; and, indirect consequential effects. For example, the truncation of economic activities in the accounting of LCA input–output processes has been questioned in the literature as it would lead to an underestimation of environmental impacts (Jiang et al., 2014; Majeau‐Bettez et al., 2011).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A critical perspective on uncertainty appraisal and sensitivity analysis in life cycle assessment

Piano

Benini

2022

J of Industrial Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, we review approaches for uncertainty appraisal in the life cycle assessment literature. We cover the acknowledgment of stochastic and epistemic uncertainty in uncertainty and sensitivity analysis and knowledge quality assessment, respectively. Consistent with previous works, our findings indicate that uncertainty is only appraised in a few studies on life cycle assessment. Most of these contributions cover only one of the phases of life cycle assessment, mainly the life cycle inventory phase. Less attention has been devoted to the phases of goal and scope definition and life cycle impact assessment. Additionally, in most studies, uncertainty analysis and sensitivity analysis have been applied independently, as it is wrongly assumed they cover different uncertainty spaces. We also identify the scope for improvement in the appraisal of epistemic uncertainty and the correct definition of the probability distribution of the uncertain factors. We conclude by highlighting studies in which sensible practices have been adopted, identifying open challenges, and suggesting possible ways forward.

show abstract