Search

In this chapter, the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) phase will be addressed, which is fundamental in quantifying environmental impacts according to the goal and scope of each study, as we saw in Chap. 3: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)—Definition of Goals and Scope.

International audience; Substitution of fossil energy sources for bio-based ones will require development of efficient processes that can convert inedible and preferably low-value fractions that currently are not used into high-value products. It is desirable that such processes are developed so that both current logistics and infrastructure can be used. Bark, which is the outer layer of woody biomass, is currently burnt in a low-value process or left in the forests to decay and is therefore considered waste. In this work, birch (Betula pendula) bark was converted to hydrocarbons suitable for use in both road and aviation fuels in two efficient steps. Development of an efficient, recyclable, salt- and metal-free solvent-based system to solubilize birch bark under benign reaction conditions was a key outcome. The obtained gum was composed of organosolv lignin and suberin oligomers and was fully characterized. This gum had unique properties and could be directly processed in a conventional hydroprocessing unit set-up to afford hydrocarbons in the road and aviation fuel ranges. Life cycle assessment was applied to evaluate different scenarios for implementing this technology. When using bark generated as a forestry by-product and current infrastructure in a pulp mill, the process had a favorable low carbon dioxide footprint for biofuel generation.

Purpose: In Life Cycle Impact Assessment, atmospheric fate factors, soil exposure factors, and effect factors are combined to characterize potential impacts of acidifying substances in terrestrial environments. Due to the low availability of global data sets, effect factors (EFs) have been reported as the major contributors to statistical uncertainties of characterization factors and they are the focus of this study. We aim to develop spatially differentiated EFs taking Brazil as case and explore new methodological ways to derive them. Methods: EFs are calculated based on a comprehensive database reporting observations of approximately 30,000 plant species at biome and ecoregion levels. Species richness distributions as function of soil pH are developed and translated into potentially not occurring fraction (PNOF) of species, which can be equated to the more commonly used potentially disappeared fraction of species, to assess effects of changes in soil hydrogen ion concentration on terrestrial plant species. Potentially extinct fraction (PXF) of species is proposed as a complementary metric for LCIA models based on distributions of range-restricted species (species only occurring in one ecoregion of Brazil). Different approaches for determining EFs from the species richness distributions are evaluated. Area-weighted EFs are explored to determine potential effects when considering both acid and alkaline sides of species richness curves, thus integrating potentially positive effects of acidification on biodiversity. Results and discussion: Spatially differentiated EFs are provided for 6 biomes and 45 ecoregions composing Brazil. Comparisons with previous EFs demonstrate that data availability might significantly influence regression analyses, and the use of more representative data can lead to more consistent EFs. Moreover, consideration of the entire species richness curves yields positive and negative EFs. Adding acidifying substances onto specific soils in Brazilian ecoregions may therefore be associated with increased species richness if the pH approaches the optimum pH from the alkaline side of the curve. The meaningfulness of species richness as indicator of acidification stress is discussed based on this finding, as is the inclusion of the metric PXF, highlighting species whose loss could cause irreversible damages to the environment. Conclusions: We recommend the calculation of area-weighted EFs to be integrated into characterization models for terrestrial acidification, and we therefore advocate that similar work be done for other regions in the world than Brazil to enhance the consistency of the EFs and reduce their uncertainties. We additionally recommend that LCIA method developers further explore the application of PXF for other impact categories than acidification.

Soil pH has been used to indicate how changes in soil acidity can influence species loss. The correlation between soil pH and plant species richness has mainly been studied in North America and Europe, while there is a lack of studies exploring Tropical floras. Here, our aim was therefore to investigate the relationships between terrestrial plant species richness and soil pH for the large Brazilian flora, with spatial differentiation into biomes and ecoregions. Data of plant species occurrences and soil pH in Brazil were compiled from public databases into a geo-referenced inventory of 29,712 terrestrial plants species with a harmonized nomenclature. Based on the pH range, over which each species had been observed, the species richness for each unit of soil pH was determined and plotted as a function of pH for the 6 biomes and 47 ecoregions of Brazil. Lognormal distributions were found for entire Brazil (R2 = 0.999), the six biomes (R2 > 0.955) and for 40 out of 45 ecoregions, for which a sufficient number of observations was available (R2 of 0.830–1.000). Similar distribution patterns were observed when limiting the study scope to range-restricted species, i.e. species only occurring in a single ecoregion in Brazil. Species richness is an indicator of plant biodiversity and we recommend a combined use of species richness for all species and for range-restricted species to address the overall status of the terrestrial plant ecosystem as well as the potential loss of unique species within it, including endemic species. We additionally propose that the developed inventory and the observed sensitivity distributions serve as basis for life cycle impact assessment of terrestrial acidification.

The main aim of this research is to perform a sensitivity analysis of a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) case study to understand if the use of different Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) methods may lead to different conclusions by decision makers and stakeholders. A complete LCA was applied to non-load-bearing external climate walls for comparative purposes. The LCIA phase of the case study was performed using five different Impact Assessment Methods: EDIP 97/2003 (midpoint), CML 2001 (midpoint), Impact 2002+ (endpoint and midpoint), ReCiPe (endpoint and midpoint) and the ILCD recommended practices for LCIA (midpoint). The endpoint results were compared aggregately, and the midpoint categories concerning similar potential impacts were compared individually for the analysis of possible deviations. The observations and comparisons involved mostly the decision maker's point of view and not the differences among the characterization models. The endpoint LCIA showed that the only two methods which applied such an approach (Impact 2002+ and ReCiPe) provided different results and led to different conclusions. For midpoint LCIA, the results were completely consistent for the following impact categories: General Eutrophication, Aquatic and Freshwater Ecotoxicity, Ionizing Radiation, Particulate Matter Formation, and Resources Depletion. Global Warming, Terrestrial Ecotoxicity, Human Toxicity (except for the Non-carcinogens impact category) and Land Use (except for Natural Land Transformation) showed partially consistent results and pointed out to the same worst environmental alternative, but with a slightly different impact profile among the other alternatives. Ozone Layer depletion and Photochemical Oxidant Formation categories showed discrepant results and the impact profile differences between the older and newer methods were notable. Acidification, Terrestrial and Aquatic Eutrophication, Marine Ecotoxicity and Water Depletion showed substantially inconsistent results. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Sugarcane bagasse is one of the main agro-industrial residues which can be used to produce wood-based panels. However, more investigations related to its environmental performance assessment are needed, focusing on questions such as: Does it provide environmental benefits? What are its main environmental impacts? Could it substitute wood as raw material? Accordingly, this paper presents a life cycle assessment (LCA) study of particle board manufactured with sugarcane bagasse residues. The cradle-to-gate assessment of 1 m3 of particle board made with sugarcane bagasse (PSB) considered three main subsystems: bagasse generation, bagasse distribution, and PSB production. For the inventory of PSB, dataset from two previous LCA studies related to the conventional particle board production and the ethanol life cycle for the Brazilian context were used. The allocation criterion for the bagasse generation subsystem was 9.08 % (economic base). The potential environmental impact phase was assessed by applying the CML and USEtox methods. PSB was compared with the conventional particle board manufactured in Brazil by the categories of the CML and USETox, and including land use indicators. Finally, two scenarios were analyzed to evaluate the influence of the allocation criteria and the consumption of sugarcane bagasse. All hotspots identified by CML and USETox methods are mainly related to the PSB production subsystem (24–100 % of impacts) due to heavy fuel oil, electricity, and urea-formaldehyde resin supply chain. The bagasse generation subsystem was more relevant to the eutrophication category (75 % of impacts). The bagasse distribution subsystem was not relevant because the impacts on all categories were lower than 1 %. PSB can substitute the conventional particle board mainly because of its lower contribution to abiotic depletion and ecotoxicity. Regarding land use impacts, PSB showed lower values according to all indicators (38–40 % of all impacts), which is explained by the lower demand for land occupation in comparison to that of the traditional particle board. PSB can replace the traditional particle board due to its better environmental performance. The analysis of the economic allocation criterion was relevant only for the EP category, being important to reduce diesel and N-based fertilizers use during sugarcane cultivation. Regarding the influence of the sugarcane bagasse consumption, it is suggested that the sugarcane bagasse be mixed up to 75 % during particle board manufacturing so that good quality properties and environmental performance of panels can be provided.

Resumo Avaliação de Impacto do Ciclo de Vida (AICV) é a terceira fase da Avaliação do Ciclo de Vida (ACV) e tem como finalidade avaliar a significância ambiental dos resultados do inventário por meio de modelos e fatores de caracterização contidos nos métodos de AICV. Nesse contexto, este trabalho tem como objetivo identificar os principais métodos de AICV e descrever suas características. Por meio de uma revisão da literatura foram identificados 13 métodos de AICV, desenvolvidos majoritariamente em países da Europa e utilizados em todo o mundo, inclusive no Brasil. Dentre esses métodos foram reconhecidos aqueles que apresentam escopo de aplicação global, sendo recomendados para uso no Brasil. Cada método de AICV avalia as diferentes categorias de impacto por meio de uma série de modelos de caracterização, assim, concluiu-se ser necessário analisarem-se os procedimentos de cálculos utilizados por cada modelo, a fim de fornecer subsídios para aplicação desses métodos e modelos nas diferentes regiões do mundo. Abstract Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) is the third phase of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). It involves assessing the environmental significance of inventory results by using characterization models and factors contained in LCIA methods. This paper identifies the main LCIA methods and describes their characteristics. Through a literature review, 13 LCIA methods were identified. Most of them were developed in Europe and have been used throughout the world, including Brazil. Among these methods have been identified those with a global scope of application, being recommended for the use in Brazil. Each LCIA method evaluates different impact categories by means of a number of different characterization models, so it was concluded that there is a need to analyze the calculation procedures used by each model to provide support for the application of these methods and models in different regions of the world.

The quality of environmental impact statements is a major element for the effectiveness of EIA, prevailing checklists as the main methodological framework in quality reviews. Although most of the tools applied to assess the quality of EISs present similarities, it is necessary to consider their feasibility and utility to EIA processes, thus comparing the performance of different tools. The present paper aims to discuss the applicability and potential contributions of different quality review guidelines considering the main aspects of EIA in Brazil. Two different methods were used to review a EIS randomly selected in order to verify the similarity between obtained results. It was found that the methods conducted to similar conclusions related to the quality of the EIS, also contributing to better identify its deficiencies and positive aspects. The paper concludes for the great potential of quality review methods and tools in order to contribute with EIA objectives, reducing discrepancies between assessments and also being more time-effective. La revisión de la calidad de los estudios de impacto ambiental se ha identificado como un elemento importante del proceso de evaluación del desempeño de la Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental, con predominio de las listas de control adaptadas al contexto de la aplicación y la realidad local. Aunque la mayoría de las herramientas disponibles para presentar los criterios en común, Hay una necesidad de reflexionar sobre las perspectivas para su inclusión dentro de la EIA, especialmente mediante la comparación de los resultados obtenidos por aplicación de diferentes métodos. En este trabajo se discute la aplicabilidad y la contribución potencial de estas herramientas en el contexto de las licencias ambientales de Brasil. Para ello, dos herramientas distintas para la revisión de la calidad se aplicaron en un EIA seleccionados al azar, que mostró la similitud entre los resultados obtenidos. Los resultados se compararon con el producto de una revisión exhaustiva de la investigación realizada por un grupo de expertos para revisar las limitaciones y sesgos que puedan afectar a la consistencia de las calificaciones. Los resultados indican que los métodos permitidos a conclusiones similares acerca de la calidad de los estudios, lo que facilita la identificación de sus debilidades y fortalezas. Al final se llegó a la conclusión de que los métodos utilizados para evaluar la calidad de los estudios de impacto tienen un gran potencial para contribuir a la aplicación general de concesión de licencias y evaluación de impacto ambiental en el país en vista de la perspectiva de reducir la variabilidad de la información de interpretación y reducir el tiempo de análisis de EIA. A revisão da qualidade dos estudos de impacto ambiental tem sido apontada como um elemento importante da avaliação do desempenho do processo de Avaliação de Impacto Ambiental, com predomínio das listas de verificação, adaptadas ao contexto de aplicação e à realidade local. Embora a maioria das ferramentas disponíveis apresente critérios em comum, existe a necessidade de se refletir sobre as perspectivas de sua inserção no quadro da AIA, sobretudo por meio da comparação dos resultados obtidos com a aplicação de diferentes métodos. O presente trabalho objetiva discutir a aplicabilidade e a contribuição potencial de tais ferramentas no contexto do licenciamento ambiental brasileiro. Para tanto, duas ferramentas distintas para revisão da qualidade foram aplicadas em um EIA selecionado aleatoriamente, o que permitiu verificar a similaridade entre os resultados obtidos. Os resultados foram confrontados com o produto de uma revisão aprofundada do estudo realizada por um grupo de especialistas, para verificação de eventuais limitações e enviesamentos que pudessem afetar a consistência das avaliações. Os resultados encontrados indicam que os métodos permitiram conclusões semelhantes a respeito da qualidade dos estudos, facilitando a identificação de suas deficiências e aspectos positivos. Ao final conclui-se que os métodos empregados para a revisão da qualidade dos estudos de impacto têm grande potencial para contribuir com o quadro geral de aplicação do licenciamento e avaliação de impacto ambiental no país, tendo em vista a perspectiva de diminuir a variabilidade na interpretação das informações e reduzir tempo de análise dos EIAs.

This paper presents a Life Cycle Assessment comparison using CML (2001), EDIP (1997) and USETox (2008) methods for the impact assessment of urea formaldehyde resin (UF) used in the production of wood panels in Brazil. The impact results were focused just on toxicological categories like human toxicity and ecotoxicity. The main hotspots of UF resin were free formaldehyde air emissions to aquatic and terrestrial ecotoxicity and for human toxicity category, the results showed that emissions to air of nitrogen oxides from urea (raw material) are also very important and not just free formaldehyde air emissions like previously checked in literature.

To support the increased use of existing Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) methodologies across the world, new methodological elements have been developed towards spatially resolved impact assessment. Spatially resolved methods could better capture the differences of regional environmental conditions, which is an essential approach considering countries like Brazil, with high biodiversity. Previous studies have assessed the impacts of terrestrial acidification from the estimations of the potential losses of vascular plants species richness as a result of exposure to acidifying substances for 13 biomes, with 2409 species addressed for whole world. In this context this work aims to provide spatially-differentiated effect factors (EF) for terrestrial acidification in Brazil and support the development of spatially-differentiated characterization factors for Brazil. In order to maintain compatibility with existing LCIA methods the effect factors were developed using the framework adopted by LC-Impact and Impact World+ methods. Soil pH was used as an indicator of soil acidity to predict plant occurrences. From the number of plant species occuring at each 0.1 pH unit response relationships of species richness and soil pH were developed. The species richness in each ecoregion were transformed into an empirical potentially not occurring fraction, which is a zero-to-one measure used to represent the presence or absence of species. The set of data consists of 976345 records of plants occurrences in Brazil, represented by 33167 species, indicating that this is a comprehensive study. Maps of soil pH in Brazil were extracted at 1-km resolution and pH values were extracted for the depth range of 0-30cm. For each ecoregion, species richness was plotted against soil pH and the exposure-response curves for acidification described the behavior of plant species in a certain region when it is exposed to acidic conditions. From these curves it was possible to derive the effect factors for terrestrial acidification. The results of this work show that spatial differentiation is meaningful when it is possible to combine fine spatial resolutions and highly representative data and this approach can be applied for other impact categories and regions, and contribute to the development of spatial differentiated LCIA methodologies.