Title | End-of-life modelling in life cycle assessment—material or product-centred perspective? |
---|---|
Publication Type | Articolo su Rivista peer-reviewed |
Year of Publication | 2016 |
Authors | Mengarelli, M., Neugebauer S., Finkbeiner M., Germani M., Buttol P., and Reale F. |
Journal | International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment |
Pagination | 1-14 |
ISSN | 09483349 |
Abstract | Purpose: End-of-life (EoL) modelling in life cycle assessment has already been broadly discussed within several studies. However, no consensus has been achieved on how to model recycling in LCA, even though several approaches have been developed. Within this paper, results arising from the application of two new EoL formulas, the product environmental footprint (PEF) and the multi-recycling-approach (MRA) ones, are compared and discussed. Both formulas consider multiple EoL scenarios such as recycling, incineration and landfill. Methods: The PEF formula has been developed within the PEF programme whose intent is to define a harmonized methodology to evaluate the environmental performance of products. The formula is based on a 50:50 allocation approach, as burdens and benefits associated with recycling are accounted for a 50% rate. The MRA formula has been developed to change focus from products to materials. Recycling cycles and material losses over time are considered with reference to material pools. Allocation between systems is no longer needed, as the actual number of potential life cycles for a certain material is included in the calculation. Both the approaches have been tested within two case studies. Results and discussion: Methodological differences could thereof be determined, as well as applicability concerns, due to the type of data required for each formula. As far as the environmental performance is concerned, impacts delivered by MRA are lower than those delivered by PEF for aluminium, while the opposite happens for plastic and rubber due to the higher share of energy recovery accounted in PEF formula. Stainless steel impacts are almost the same. Conclusions and recommendations: The application of the two formulas provides some inputs for the EoL dilemma in LCA. The use of a wider perspective, better reflecting material properties all over the material life cycle, is of substantial importance to properly represent recycling situations. In MRA, such properties are treated and less data are required compared to the PEF formula. On the contrary, the PEF model better accommodates the modelling of products whose materials, at end of life, can undertake the route of recycling or recovery (or landfill), depending on country-specific EoL management practices. However, its application requires more data. © 2016 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg |
Notes | cited By 0; Article in Press |
URL | https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85001052413&doi=10.1007%2fs11367-016-1237-z&partnerID=40&md5=92504fe130eaf9a5a084e216f83e08fa |
DOI | 10.1007/s11367-016-1237-z |
Citation Key | Mengarelli20161 |