Search

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a tool to assess the environmental sustainabiliry of a product; it quantifies the environmental impact of a product's life cycle. In conventional LCAs, the boundaries of a product's life cycle are limited to the human/industrial system, the technosphere. Ecosystems, which provide resources to and take up emissions from the technosphere, are not included in those boundaries. However, similar to the technosphere, ecosystems also have an impact on their (surrounding) environment through their resource usage (e.g., nutrients) and emissions (e.g., CH4). We therefore propose a LCA framework to assess the impact of integrated Techno-Ecological Systems (TES), comprising relevant ecosystems and the technosphere. In our framework, ecosystems are accounted for in the same manner as technosphere compartments. Also, the remediating effect of uptake of pollutants, an ecosystem service, is considered. A case study was performed on a TES of sawn timber production encompassing wood growth in an intensively managed torest ecosystem and further industrial processing. Results show that the managed forest accounted for almost all resource usage and biodiversity loss through land occupation but also for a remediating effect on human health, mostly via capture of airborne fine particles. These findings illustrate the potential relevance of including ecosystems in the product's life cycle of a LCA, though further research is needed to better quantify the environmental impact of TES. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Globally, gas flaring caused 350 million tonnes of CO 2 emissions in 2018. In addition to climate change, this burning practice also has other negative consequences for humans (e.g., respiratory problems) and the environment. The aim of this paper is to quantify the impact of flaring on human health (at the global and country level) via the calculation of the number of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) caused by the combustion of associated gas. For this quantification, gas flaring emissions were linked with midpoint indicators (e.g., climate change) in life cycle assessment (LCA) for all selected countries. Regionalised characterisation factors (CFs) were applied in the impact assessment to allow for spatial differentiation. The global impact on human health caused by flaring was obtained by taking the sum for all countries. The results show that these flaring emissions globally cause 4.83 × 10 5 DALYs or 6.19 × 10 -5 DALYs/person on an annual basis. This amounts to 0.12% of the total DALYs related to air pollution (from PM 2.5 ) caused by all polluting sectors and 6.51% of the total DALYs related to climate change. To quantify these impacts, this study uses a country perspective rather than considering local characteristics. Thus, if more precise information at a more local level (e.g., city level) is sought, additional factors (e.g., meteorological conditions) should be taken into account. Finally, future research should also focus on the benefits of gas flaring reduction techniques to enable the selection of the most promising technologies for the elimination of gas flaring and its effects., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The transformation of ecosystems is known to be a major driver of biodiversity loss. Consequently, supporting tools such as life cycle assessment methods (LCA) include this aspect in the evaluation of a product's environmental performance. Such methods consist of quantifying input and output flows to assess their specific contributions to impact categories. Therefore, land occupation and transformation are considered as inputs to assess biodiversity impacts amongst others. However, the modelling of biodiversity impact in deep seafloor ecosystems is still lacking in LCA. Most of the LCA methods focus on terrestrial biodiversity and none of them can be transposed to benthic deep sea because of knowledge gaps. This manuscript proposes a LCA framework to assess biodiversity impacts in deep seafloor ecosystems. The framework builds upon the existing methods accounting for biodiversity impacts in terrestrial and coastal habitats. A two-step approach is proposed, assessing impacts on regional and on global biodiversity. While the evaluation of regional biodiversity impacts relies only on the benthic communities' response to disturbance, the global perspective considers ecosystem vulnerability and scarcity. Those provide additional perspective for the comparison of impacts occurring in different ecosystems. The framework is operationalised to a case study for deep-sea mining in the Clarion Clipperton Fractures Zone (CCZ). Through the large variety of data sources needed to run the impact evaluation modelling, the framework shows consistency and manages the existing limitations in the understanding of deep seafloor ecosystems, although limitations for its application in the CCZ were observed mainly due to the lack of finer scaled habitat maps and data on connectivity. With growing interest for commercial activities in the deep sea and hence, increased environmental research, this work is a first attempt for the implementation of LCA methods to deep-sea products., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

The increase in environmental problems in recent decades has required the evolution of the tools used to mitigate environmental impacts, such as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). The aim of the present study was to evaluate the use of LCA in Brazilian companies. Data collection involved a questionnaire administrated to companies addressing attitudes related to environmental management, enabling the following three classifications: (1) Does not use Life Cycle Thinking (LCT), (2) Uses LCT and (3) Uses LCA. The results were categorized and submitted to both descriptive and multivariate analyses. Most companies investigated do not yet use LCA. The main obstacles were difficulties involved in implementing LCA, the lack of an external demand, a lack of available background data and difficulty applying the results to the environmental improvement of products. In contrast, the main reasons that led companies to use LCA were the possibility of reducing environmental impact, achieving improvements in the production process, the creation of a differentiated product for the market and the improvement of environmental management. The findings underscore the need for greater governmental support with regard to environmental labeling (mainly type III) and greater dissemination of information on LCA within industries, since the lack of knowledge of the tool is perceived as one of the greatest obstacles. This research is pioneering in Brazil. Further studies should identify the evolution in LCA use in Brazilian companies, which should reflect an improvement in environmental management on the national level., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The establishment of rules to manage Health Care Waste (HCW) is a challenge for the public sector. Regulatory agencies must ensure the safety of waste management alternatives for two very different profiles of generators: (1) hospitals, which concentrate the production of HCW and (2) small establishments, such as clinics, pharmacies and other sources, that generate dispersed quantities of HCW and are scattered throughout the city. To assist in developing sector regulations for the small generators, we evaluated three management scenarios using decision-making tools. They consisted of a disinfection technique (microwave, autoclave and lime) followed by landfilling, where transportation was also included. The microwave, autoclave and lime techniques were tested at the laboratory to establish the operating parameters to ensure their efficiency in disinfection. Using a life cycle assessment (LCA) and cost analysis, the decision-making tools aimed to determine the technique with the best environmental performance. This consisted of evaluating the eco-efficiency of each scenario. Based on the life cycle assessment, microwaving had the lowest environmental impact (12.64 Pt) followed by autoclaving (48.46 Pt). The cost analyses indicated values of US$0.12 kg(-1) for the waste treated with microwaves, US$1.10 kg(-1) for the waste treated by the autoclave and US$1.53 kg(-1) for the waste treated with lime. The microwave disinfection presented the best eco-efficiency performance among those studied and provided a feasible alternative to subsidize the formulation of the policy for small generators of HCW., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)