Search

Most plastics are today mechanically recycled (MR), whereas chemical recycling (CR) is an emerging technology. Substitutability of virgin material is vital for their environmental performance assessed through life cycle assessment (LCA). MR faces the reduction in the material's technical quality but also the potential market because legal safety requirements currently eliminate applications such as food packaging. This study presents a data-driven method for quantifying the overall substitutability (OS), composed of technical (TS) and market substitutability (MS). First, this is illustrated for six non-food contact material (non-FCM) applications and three hypothetical future FCM applications from mechanical recyclates, using mechanical property and market data. Then, OS results are used in a comparative LCA of MR and thermochemical recycling (TCR) of several plastic waste fractions in Belgium. For mechanical recyclates, TS results for the studied non-FCM and FCM applications were comparable, but OS results varied between 0.35 and 0.79 for non-FCM applications and between 0.78 and 1 for FCM applications, reflecting the lower MS results for the current situation. Out of nine application scenarios, MR obtained a worse resource consumption and terrestrial acidification impact than CR in six scenarios. MR maintained the lowest global warming impact for all scenarios. This study contributes to an improved understanding of the environmental benefits of MR and TCR. Inclusion of other criteria (e.g. processability, colour, odour) in the quantification of the overall substitutability for MR products should be further investigated, as well as the environmental performance of TCR at industrial scale.

© 2020, Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature. 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. Results and discussion: Four method categories have been identified and their underlying concepts are described based on existing literature: depletion methods, future efforts methods, thermodynamic accounting methods, and supply risk methods. While we consider depletion and future efforts methods more “traditional” life cycle impact assessment methods, thermodynamic accounting and supply risk methods are rather providing complementary information. Within each method category, differences between methods are discussed in detail, which allows for further sub-categorization and better understanding of what the methods actually assess. Conclusions: We provide a thorough review of existing life cycle impa

© 2020, The Author(s). 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 t