Classifying and Browsing LCA studies: The New Functionalities of the LCA Resource Directory

Cement production is associated with a considerable environmental load, which needs to be fully understood before effective measures can be taken. The existing literature did not give detailed life cycle assessment (LCA) study of China and had limited potential for investigating how best available techniques (BATs) would provide a maximum benefit when they are applied in China. Japan was selected as a good example to achieve better environmental performance of cement production. We identified potentials for reducing emissions and saving energy and natural resources in Chinese cement industry through the comparative analysis. This paper follows the principal of Life Cycle Assessment and International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD). The functional units are “1 t of portland cement” and with 42.5 MPa of strength grade. The input (limestone, sandstone, ferrous tailings, coal, and electricity) and output (CO2 from limestone decomposition and coal combustion, NOx, PM, and SO2) of cement manufacturing were calculated by use of on-site measurements, calculation by estimated coefficients, and derivation by mass and heat balance principle. The direct (cement manufacturing) and indirect (electricity production) LCI are added to be total LCI results (cement production). The impact categories of global warming potential (GWP), acidification potential (AP), eutrophication potential (EP), photochemical oxidant formation potential (POCP), and human toxicity potential (HTP) are used to calculate environmental impact. Only in GWP of cement manufacturing China has advantage. Japanese cement industry shows remarkable superiorities in the environmental impacts of AP, POCP, HTP, and EP due to advanced technologies. SO2 emissions make the corresponding AP and HTP. PM emissions result in part of HTP. The NOx emissions are the major contributors of POCP, AP, EP, and HTP in China. China emits fewer CO2 emissions (2.09 %) in cement manufacturing than Japan but finally makes higher total GWP than Japan due to more GWP of electricity generation in power stations. The waste heat recovery technology can save electricity but bring more coal use and CO2 emissions. The alternative fuel and raw materials usage and denitration and de-dust technologies can relieve the environmental load. Using the functional unit with the strength grade, the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) results are affected. LCA study allows a clear understanding from the view of total environmental impact rather than by the gross domestic product (GDP) unit from an economic development perspective. In an LCA study, the power generation should be considered in the life cycle of cement production.

Considering the advantages and vast use of FRs in different sectors, there are serious concerns regarding negative impacts of FRs on the human health and the environment as we are exposed to FRs throughout our lives. Nonetheless, FRs are usually neglected in the studies on the environmental impacts of polymers with life cycle assessment (LCA). Firstly, this paper gives an overview over different FRs and the associated health and environmental concerns and policies. Afterwards, the LCA studies on FRs are systematically reviewed and discussed. This includes analyzing the LCA methodologies and data for different types of FRs and applications as well as the contribution of their different life cycle phases. The results of this review highlight the importance of preserving the interconnection between three domains of environmental impacts, human exposure and health concerns while considering the contribution of different life cycle phases. Furthermore, it brings insights into the pros and cons of current FR solutions, the existence of a “time lag” between production, use and end of life phases and the role LCA can play in technological development of FRs noting environmental and health concerns. The recommendations include considering fire occurrence as one of the end of life scenarios (fire-LCA), determining the optimum amount of FR with the minimum environmental and health impacts that can prevent fire occurrence and new approaches for the transition to a circular economy for FRs.

The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) as an environmental-impact assessment tool has received increasing attention over the years. Unlike the water footprint (WF) and carbon footprint (CF) assessments, whose focus is only on a single environmental aspect, the LCA systematically analyzes the different impacts along the entire life cycle, making possible the identification of potential environmental tradeoffs. In Korea, LCA has drawn much attention from both industry and academia since the mid-1990s. However, the level of Korean-related LCA studies with respect to different sectors in the last 20 years has not been analyzed. This study, therefore, sought to assess the status of environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies in South Korea. Specifically, the study focused on a bibliometric review of LCAs conducted in South Korea in the last 20 years and identified potential research gaps. Online searches of English-written articles published between 2000 and 2019 were conducted on Google, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, using eligible keywords. At the end of the search, about 91 LCA-related studies were discovered for South Korea within the study period. The majority of these studies focused on the construction (47%) and energy (30%) sectors, with fewer environmental studies on manufacturing (11%), transportation (9%), agriculture (2%), and information and communication (1%) industries. Based on publication trends, results show that LCA studies in South Korea have been on the rise in the past 20 years, even though the number of publications has not followed a constant pace. In comparison with the economic sectors of the country, reports show an inadequacy in the coverage of major industries of growing economic relevance, such as tourism, health, and agriculture, suggesting a need to increase and improve LCA-related studies in these sectors.

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.

SummaryEmissions derived from human digestion of food and subsequent excretion are very relevant from a life cycle perspective, and yet they are often omitted from food life cycle assessment (LCA) studies. This article offers a simple model to allocate and include these emissions in LCAs of specific foodstuffs. The model requires basic food composition values and calculates the mass and energy balance for carbon, water, nutrients (mainly nitrogen [N] and phosphorus [P]), and other inorganic substances through different excretion paths: breathing, feces, and urine. In addition to direct excretion, the model also allocates some auxiliary materials and energy related to toilet use, such as flushing and washing and drying hands. Wastewater composition is also an output of the model, enabling water treatment to be modeled in LCA studies. The sensitivity of the model to food composition is illustrated with different food products, and the relative importance of excretion in a product's life cycle is shown with an example of broccoli. The results show that this model is sensitive to food composition and thus useful for assessing the environmental consequences of shifts in diet. From a life cycle perspective, the results show that postconsumption nutrient emissions may dominate the impacts on eutrophication potential, and they illustrate how the carbon cycle is closed with the human emissions after food preparation and consumption.

Studies have shown that releases of nanoparticles may take place through the life cycle of products embedding nanomaterials, thus resulting in potential impacts on ecosystems and human health. While several life cycle assessment (LCA) studies have assessed such products, only a few of them have quantitatively addressed the toxic impacts caused by released nanoparticles, thus leading to potential biases in their conclusions. Here, we address this gap and aim to provide a framework for calculating characterization factors or comparative toxicity potentials (CTP) for nanoparticles and derive CTP values for TiO2 nanoparticles (TiO2-NP) for use in LCA. We adapted the USEtox 2.0 consensus model to integrate the SimpleBox4Nano fate model, and we populated the resulting model with TiO2-NP specific data. We thus calculated CTP values for TiO2 nanoparticles for air, water, and soil emission compartments for freshwater ecotoxicity and human toxicity, both cancer effects and noncancer effects. Our results appeared plausible after benchmarking with CTPs for other nanoparticles and substances present in the USEtox database, while large differences were observed with CTP values for TiO2 nanoparticles published in earlier studies. Assumptions, which were performed in those previous studies because of lack of data and knowledge at the time they were made, primarily explain such discrepancies. For future assessment of potential toxic impacts of TiO2 nanoparticles in LCA studies, we therefore recommend the use of our calculated CTP.

The purpose of this review article is to investigate the usefulness of different types of life cycle assessment (LCA) studies of electrified vehicles to provide robust and relevant stakeholder information. It presents synthesized conclusions based on 79 papers. Another objective is to search for explanations to divergence and “complexity” of results found by other overviewing papers in the research field, and to compile methodological learnings. The hypothesis was that such divergence could be explained by differences in goal and scope definitions of the reviewed LCA studies. The review has set special attention to the goal and scope formulation of all included studies. First, completeness and clarity have been assessed in view of the ISO standard’s (ISO 2006a, b) recommendation for goal definition. Secondly, studies have been categorized based on technical and methodological scope, and searched for coherent conclusions. Comprehensive goal formulation according to the ISO standard (ISO 2006a, b) is absent in most reviewed studies. Few give any account of the time scope, indicating the temporal validity of results and conclusions. Furthermore, most studies focus on today’s electric vehicle technology, which is under strong development. Consequently, there is a lack of future time perspective, e.g., to advances in material processing, manufacturing of parts, and changes in electricity production. Nevertheless, robust assessment conclusions may still be identified. Most obvious is that electricity production is the main cause of environmental impact for externally chargeable vehicles. If, and only if, the charging electricity has very low emissions of fossil carbon, electric vehicles can reach their full potential in mitigating global warming. Consequently, it is surprising that almost no studies make this stipulation a main conclusion and try to convey it as a clear message to relevant stakeholders. Also, obtaining resources can be observed as a key area for future research. In mining, leakage of toxic substances from mine tailings has been highlighted. Efficient recycling, which is often assumed in LCA studies of electrified vehicles, may reduce demand for virgin resources and production energy. However, its realization remains a future challenge. LCA studies with clearly stated purposes and time scope are key to stakeholder lessons and guidance. It is also necessary for quality assurance. LCA practitioners studying hybrid and electric vehicles are strongly recommended to provide comprehensive and clear goal and scope formulation in line with the ISO standard (ISO 2006a, b).

District heating (DH) is a proven heat generation and distribution technology that enhances energy efficiency and reduces carbon emissions at scale, making it a key component of sustainable energy strategies. Compared to traditional heat generation methods such as using onsite fossil-fuelled combustion boilers or electrically driven heating systems, DH offers superior environmental advantages, particularly when renewable energy and waste heat are deployed as primary fuel energy mix. To comprehensively evaluate the sustainability of DH, life cycle assessment (LCA) is widely adopted to determine environmental impacts across all life cycle stages, from material extraction to disposal. This systematic review identifies the absence of a unified, adaptable framework for LCA application in DH systems. To address this, the study proposes a structured multi-level framework, interpreting methodological diversity across component, facility, and network levels. Component-level studies offer insights into specific technologies and materials; facility-level assessments focus on operational performance and energy sources; network-level evaluations provide holistic system impacts. Aligning studies within these analytical levels enables fairer comparisons, supports cross-regional learning, and promotes methodological integration. Recurring challenges include inconsistent methodologies, varying system boundaries, and limited local data. Emerging technologies such as hybrid systems, smart grids, and energy storage remain underrepresented in LCA studies. Tools like SimaPro, GaBi, and OpenLCA are widely used, yet the rapid evolution of DH systems calls for more tailored applications. This review supports the development of standardised, yet flexible LCA practices and proposes a refined multi-level framework to guide comprehensive, context-specific evaluations. It emphasises the importance of validating approaches across diverse contexts and strengthening LCA’s contribution to the design of sustainable, low-carbon DH solutions for urban energy systems. Multi-level LCA approach categorises DH systems into component, facility, and network levels. Current LCA research on DH systems focuses on Europe, with gaps in Asia and the US. Tools like SimaPro, GaBi, and OpenLCA support detailed LCA analyses of district heating. LCA for DH systems faces challenges like data gaps, system boundaries, and variability. The proposed workflow enables tailored, actionable LCA assessments for diverse DH systems.

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a key technique to achieve green design. But it isn't applied widely because of its defects. In order to enhance the operability of LCA in green design, a LCA tool, named green product life cycle design (GPLCD) is described in this paper. The paper is divided into four sections: first, based on the analysis of the existing LCA method and the product design activities, the functional model of the LCA tool is built with IDEF0 methods. And then through analyzing the product and its life cycle activities, product's life cycle model is proposed and the functional unit class and process class are presented with object oriented design. Third, aimed to the problems of the data management of product's life cycle, product configuration management is integrated into GPLCD. Finally, a case on choosing material of impeller is given to testify how to use the LCA tool to support green design.

This article is based on the work of the SETAC-Europe LCA Working Group ‘Scenario Development in LCA’, which has started its work in April 1998. The goal of the Working Group is to focus on the use of scenarios in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). This article presents the results of the first phase of the Working Group. The previous definitions of scenarios include three common basic elements: the definition of alternative future circumstances, the path from the present to the future, and the inclusion of uncertainty in the concept. We define a scenario in LCA as “a description of a possible future situation relevant for specific LCA applications, based on specific assumptions about the future, and (when relevant) also including the presentation of the development from the present to the future.’ On the basis of the scenario definition we distinguish between two basic approaches for scenario development in LCA studies: What-if scenarios and Cornerstone scenarios. What-if scenarios are used to gain operational information and to compare two or more alternatives in a well-known situation with a short time horizon where the researcher is familiar with the decision problem and can set defined hypothesis on the basis of existing data. The Cornerstone scenario approach offers strategic information for long term planning, new ways of seeing the world, and also guidelines in the field of study. Results of a study using the Cornerstone scenario approach often serve as a basis for further, more specific research where the scenarios can be defined according to What-if scenarios. The frames of the scenarios are defined in the first phase of LCA, the goal and scope definition. Scenario development does, however, influence all of the following phases of LCA. The frames of the scenarios form the basis for modelling product systems and environmental impacts associated with products and services, which are not exactly known due to lacking information on parts of the life cycle.

Introduction: The rapid growth of the EV market and the associated surge in battery demand raise environmental concerns regarding battery production and disposal. While EVs have zero tailpipe emissions, battery production contributes significantly to their overall environmental burden. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a crucial tool for evaluating this impact, but inconsistencies in methodologies across different LCA studies hinder effective comparison and progress towards cleaner battery technologies. Objectives: The research aims to analyze numerous existing LCA studies on electric vehicle batteries using a standardized approach based on ISO 14040 guidelines. The goal is to ensure consistent comparisons and identify areas for environmental improvement throughout the battery life cycle. Methods: This review examines 20 relevant LCA studies on single battery models published between 2018 and 2023. It critically appraises these studies based on the ISO 14040 framework, focusing on the four key stages of LCA: defining objectives and scope, conducting inventory analysis, performing impact assessment, and interpreting the results. Results: The review found significant variability in methodologies, system boundaries (cradle-to-gate vs. cradle-to-grave), functional units, data sources (primary vs. secondary), and impact assessment methods used in the analyzed LCA studies. The production phase and the product use phase were identified as having the most significant environmental impacts. Global warming was the most frequently studied impact category. Conclusions: The inconsistency in LCA studies on EV batteries necessitates a more standardized approach. The author recommends using a cradle-to-grave system boundary, a consistent functional unit (like "kilometer traveled" or "kilowatt-hour of energy delivered over the battery's lifetime"), and a core set of nine relevant impact categories. Transparency in methodology, assumptions, and data quality is crucial for ensuring reliable and comparable results, ultimately informing efforts to improve the environmental performance of EV batteries.

A model for estimating life cycle environmental impacts of offshore wind electricity considering specific characteristics of wind farms

Purpose. This paper aims to systematically review and synthesise existing food packaging Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) research, focusing on applications, methodologies, and results to provide insights and recommendations for researchers, policymakers, and industry stakeholders to enhance the methodological relevance, sustainability, and environmental performance of food packaging solutions. Methodology. This study employed a systematic literature review approach, comprising the following steps: data collection and selection, coding and categorisation of data to comprehensively describe and compare the methodology, and synthesis of the results. The literature search was conducted in the Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and PubMed databases; the study selection was based on defined inclusion and exclusion criteria and followed a multi-stage screening process. The data comprise 88 peer-reviewed English-language journal papers published between 2000 and 2025; results were synthesised through qualitative analysis conducted in the RStudio environment. Results. An increase in LCA studies on food packaging is noted, which is intensifying against the backdrop of stricter regulatory requirements for plastics, packaging, and environmental assessment methods. Most often, such studies are based on data from European countries, with a prevalence of studies on food in general, as well as goods with a short shelf life, which draws attention to the functional aspects of packaging, namely its ability to extend shelf life and minimise waste. Concerning packaging materials, researchers are focusing on the assessment of new and biobased materials, as well as on the comparison of reusable and single-use packaging and recycling options, biomaterials, active, and smart packaging with traditional materials. From a methodological point of view, product-based functional units, packaging assessments using the cradle-to-grave method, and comparative LCAs are typically used. A synthesis of the reviewed cases facilitated the identification of the most common approach for conducting food packaging LCAs. Originality. The typical LCA methodology for food packaging in the European context is based on the application of ISO 14040 (in combination with ISO 14044), ReCiPe, environmental footprint, and product environmental footprint methods, utilising Ecoinvent databases and SimaPro software. An impact assessment based on midpoint indicators is carried out using a combination of 10 indicators, where the most frequent are the following: ozone depletion potential, marine eutrophication, global warming, climate change, freshwater eutrophication, ionising radiation, freshwater ecotoxicity, terrestrial acidification, acidification, and particulate matter formation. It is advisable to use comparative approaches based on the cradle-to-grave method, enabling a comprehensive impact assessment across all life cycle stages, supplemented by sensitivity and uncertainty analyses. Practical implications. The identified variability in assessment methodologies does not ensure the comparability of their results. Recommendations for conducting LCA should be specified in terms of requirements for disclosing information on methodological aspects of research and recommended sets of indicators. When making decisions on food packaging parameters, it is advisable for manufacturers to employ a multi-criteria approach, considering LCA results, functional properties, and economic aspects. At the policy level, decisions on restrictions (or incentives) for the use of certain types of packaging should consider the state of the secondary materials and waste management system, as well as its spatial configuration.

Within a product system of a life-cycle assessment (LCA), solid waste landfills should be treated as processes, because they are considered to be a part of the technical system. Hence, their inputs and outputs should be included in the life-cycle inventory analysis and evaluated within the life-cycle impact assessment. The aim of this paper is to discuss the consideration of emissions from solid waste landfills within the LCA framework and to investigate the uncertainties in existing modelling approaches. Based on this analysis the main limitations are discussed and recommendations for incorporating long-term emissions from landfills in LCA are made. It is emphasized that the lack of consideration of spatial and temporal characteristics of long-term emissions turns out to be an important source of uncertainty when modelling the environmental impact of landfills. For toxicity categories in particular, the life-cycle impact assessment might be the dominant source of uncertainty. However, in order to understand the reliability of LCA results with respect to landfill emissions, quantitative uncertainty should be routinely included in LCA studies and sources of uncertainty need to be thoroughly discussed.

Statistical properties of emission data in life cycle assessments