ReCiPe2016: a harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level

Huijbregts, Mark A. J.; Steinmann, Zoran J. N.; Elshout, Pieter M. F.; Stam, Gea; Verones, Francesca; Vieira, Marisa; Mc, Zijp; Hollander, Anne; Zelm, Rosalie van

doi:10.1007/s11367-016-1246-y

Cited by 2,503 publications

(1,605 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

1,315

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The model ReCiPe 2016 [12] including 17 midpoint and 3 endpoint impact categories was used in this study to evaluate the environmental impacts of H 2 production processes. A detailed description of the methodology is provided by Huijbregts et al [12].…”

Section: Impact Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A detailed description of the methodology is provided by Huijbregts et al [12]. The following midpoint environmental impact categories were considered: global warming potential (GWP), stratospheric ozone depletion (ODP), ionizing radiation (IRP), photochemical oxidant formation: human health (HOFP), photochemical oxidant formation: ecosystem quality (EOFP), human toxicity potential: cancer (HTPc), human toxicity potential: non-cancer (HTPnc), terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (TETP), freshwater ecotoxicity potential (FETP), marine ecotoxicity potential (METP), freshwater eutrophication potential (FEP), fine particulate matter formation (PMFP), terrestrial acidification (TAP), Land use (LOP), water consumption potential (WCP), mineral resource scarcity (SOP), and fossil resource scarcity (FFP).…”

Section: Impact Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this study, a hierarchist perspective (without any weighting) was used since it is based on the most common policy principles with regard to time-frame (100-year timeframe is the most frequently used) and referenced to in the ISO standards on LCA [45]. The default ReCiPe 2016 characterization factors used to build the environmental profile for each H 2 production pathway were retrieved from [46].…”

Section: Midpoint Environmental Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…While this assessment was done on average end-point characterization factors, with respect to life cycle perspective for each country, the outlook is even more consequential. Furthermore, the choice of cultural perspective that are using different time horizons might have a significant influence on the results [12]. Hence, proper assessment of end-point impact will require an appraisal using site-specific characterization factors.…”

Section: Endpoint Environmental Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Life Cycle Assessment and Water Footprint of Hydrogen Production Methods: From Conventional to Emerging Technologies

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A common sustainability issue, arising in production systems, is the efficient use of resources for providing goods or services. With the increased interest in a hydrogen (H 2 ) economy, the life-cycle environmental performance of H 2 production has special significance for assisting in identifying opportunities to improve environmental performance and to guide challenging decisions and select between technology paths. Life cycle impact assessment methods are rapidly evolving to analyze multiple environmental impacts of the production of products or processes. This study marks the first step in developing process-based streamlined life cycle analysis (LCA) of several H 2 production pathways combining life cycle impacts at the midpoint (17 problem-oriented) and endpoint (3 damage-oriented) levels using the state-of-the-art impact assessment method ReCiPe 2016. Steam reforming of natural gas, coal gasification, water electrolysis via proton exchange membrane fuel cell (PEM), solid oxide electrolyzer cell (SOEC), biomass gasification and reforming, and dark fermentation of lignocellulosic biomass were analyzed. An innovative aspect is developed in this study is an analysis of water consumption associated with H 2 production pathways by life-cycle stage to provide a better understanding of the life cycle water-related impacts on human health and natural environment. For water-related scope, Water scarcity footprint (WSF) quantified using Available WAter REmaining (AWARE) method was applied as a stand-alone indicator. The paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of each production pathway, identify the drivers of environmental impact, quantify midpoint environmental impact and its influence on the endpoint environmental performance. The findings of this study could serve as a useful theoretical reference and practical basis to decision-makers of potential environmental impacts of H 2 production systems.

show abstract

Section: Impact Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Impact Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Midpoint Environmental Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Endpoint Environmental Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Life Cycle Assessment and Water Footprint of Hydrogen Production Methods: From Conventional to Emerging Technologies

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Parts of the marine eutrophication CFs for LC-IMPACT have been published, and they indicate considerable global variability in endpoint CFs (Cosme and Hauschild 2016;Cosme and Hauschild 2017;Cosme et al 2015). The recently published ReCiPe 2017 methodology does not provide a characterisation model for marine eutrophication, due to lack of endpoint model (Huijbregts et al 2016). Some other studies have focused on deriving CFs for a specific area, such as Finland (Seppälä et al 2004);Brittany, France (Basset-Mens et al 2006) and Galicia, Spain (Gallego et al 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatially differentiated midpoint indicator for marine eutrophication of waterborne emissions in Sweden

Henryson

Hansson

Sundberg

2017

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose In life cycle assessment (LCA), eutrophication is commonly assessed using site-generic characterisation factors, despite being a site-dependent environmental impact. The purpose of this study was to improve the environmental relevance of marine eutrophication impact assessment in LCA, particularly regarding the impact assessment of waterborne nutrient emissions from Swedish agriculture. Methods Characterisation factors were derived using sitedependent data on nutrient transport for all agricultural soils in Sweden, divided into 968 catchment areas, and considering the Baltic Sea, the receiving marine compartment, as both nitrogen-and phosphorus-limited. These new characterisation factors were then applied to waterborne nutrient emissions from typical grass ley and spring barley cultivation in all catchments.Results and discussion The site-dependent marine eutrophication characterisation factors obtained for nutrient leaching from soils varied between 0.056 and 0.986 kg N eq /kg N and between 0 and 7.23 kg N eq /kg P among sites in Sweden. On applying the new characterisation factors to spring barley and grass ley cultivation at different sites in Sweden, the total marine eutrophication impact from waterborne nutrient emissions for these crops varied by up to two orders of magnitude between sites. This variation shows that site plays an important role in determining the actual impact of an emission, which means that site-dependent impact assessment could provide valuable information to life cycle assessments and increase the relevance of LCA as a tool for assessment of product-related eutrophication impacts. Conclusions Characterisation factors for marine eutrophication impact assessment at high spatial resolution, considering both the site-dependent fate of eutrophying compounds and specific nutrient limitations in the recipient waterbody, were developed for waterborne nutrient emissions from agriculture in Sweden. Application of the characterisation factors revealed variations in calculated impacts between sites in Sweden, highlighting the importance of spatial differentiation of characterisation modelling within the scale of the impact.

show abstract

Waste, 9. Evaluation Methods

Simon¹,

Quicker²

2019

Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ReCiPe2016: a harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level

Cited by 2,503 publications

References 47 publications

Life Cycle Assessment and Water Footprint of Hydrogen Production Methods: From Conventional to Emerging Technologies

Life Cycle Assessment and Water Footprint of Hydrogen Production Methods: From Conventional to Emerging Technologies

Spatially differentiated midpoint indicator for marine eutrophication of waterborne emissions in Sweden

Waste, 9. Evaluation Methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About