NDLI: Comparison of Three Different LCIA Methods: EDIP97, CML2001 and Eco-indicator 99 : Does it matter which one you choose?

Please wait, while we are loading the content...

Multifunctional electronic media-traditional media : The Problem of an Adequate Functional Unit A case study of a printed newspaper, an internet newspaper and a TV broadcast

Application of life cycle assessment to the LCA case studies single superphosphate production

Application of data quality assessment methods to an LCA of electricity generation

Life cycle assessment through on-line database linked with various enterprise database systems

Theory and practical implementation of life cycle assessment : 13th SETAC-Europe Annual Meeting, 27 April-1 May 2003 in Hamburg, Germany

Significant leap forward for the Life Cycle Initiative at UN Sustainable Consumption and Production Expert Meeting in Marrakech and at SETAC Hamburg

Water Issues in Australia-An LCA Perspective : Summary of presentations made at the ALCAS LCA Roundtable held Wednesday 7th May 2003

Environmental Life Cycle Costs in the Australian Food Packaging Supply Chain

Book Reviews : Life-Cycle Impact Assessment: Striving towards Best Practice

The Econo-Environmental Return (EER) : A Link between Environmental Impacts and Economic Aspects in a Life Cycle Thinking Perspective

Comparison of Regional Energy Turnover with Global Food

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment : Volume 8, Issue 3, May 2003

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment : Volume 8, Issue 2, March 2003

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment : Volume 8, Issue 1, January 2003

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment : Volume 7

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment : Volume 6

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment : Volume 5

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment : Volume 4

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment : Volume 3

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment : Volume 2

Comparison of Three Different LCIA Methods: EDIP97, CML2001 and Eco-indicator 99 : Does it matter which one you choose?

Content Provider	Springer Nature Link
Author	Dreyer, Louise Camilla Niemann, Anne Louise Hauschild, Michael Z.
Copyright Year	2003
Abstract	A number of impact assessment methodologies are available to the LCA practitioner. They differ, and often there is not one obvious choice among them. The question therefore naturally arises: ‘Does it make any difference to my conclusions which method I choose?’ To investigate this issue, a comparison is performed of three frequently applied life cycle impact assessment methods.The three life cycle impact assessment methods EDIP97 [1], CML2001 [2] and Eco-indicator 99 [3] are compared on their performance through application to the same life cycle inventory from a study of a water-based UV-lacquer. EDIP97 and CML2001 are both midpoint approaches and hence quite similar in their scope and structure, and this allows a comparison during both characterisation and normalisation. The third impact assessment method Eco-indicator 99 is an endpoint method and different in scope and structure from the other two. A detailed comparison can not be done but a comparative analysis of the main contributors to the Eco-indicator 99 results and the weighted and aggregated EDIP97 results is performed.Following a translation into common units of the EDIP97 and CML2001 output, differences up to two orders of magnitude are found for some of the indicator results for the impact categories describing toxicity to humans and ecosystems, and there is little similarity in the patterns of major contributors among the two methods. For human toxicity the CML2001 score is dominated by contribution from metals while the EDIP97 score is caused by a solvent and nitrogen oxides. For aquatic ecotoxicity, metals are the main contributors for both methods but while it is vanadium for CML2001, it is strontium for EDIP97. After normalisation, the differences are reduced but still considerable. For the other impact categories, the two methods show only minor differences. The comparison of the main contributors to the Eco-indicator 99 results and the weighted and aggregated EDIP97 results identifies nitrogen oxides as the main contributor for both methods. It is, however, much more dominant for Eco-indicator 99 while the EDIP97 score represents important contributions from a number of different substances, and furthermore, the analysis reveals that the aggregated scores for the two methods come from different impacts. It is thus difficult to extend the findings for these two methods to other inventories.For EDIP97 and CML2001, it mainly matters which method is used if the chemical impacts on human health and ecosystem health are important for the study. For the other impact categories, the differences are minor for these two methodologies. For EDIP97 and Eco-indicator 99, the patterns of most important contributors to the weighted and aggregated impact scores are rather different, and considering the known differences in the underlying framework and models, the results of the two methods may well go in opposite directions for some inventories even if the conclusion is the same for the inventory studied in this paper.Particularly for the impact categories representing toxic impacts from chemicals, the study demonstrates the need for more a detailed analysis of the causes underlying the big differences revealed between the methods.
Starting Page	191
Ending Page	200
Page Count	10
File Format	PDF
ISSN	09483349
Journal	The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
Volume Number	8
Issue Number	4
e-ISSN	16147502
Language	English
Publisher	Ecomed
Publisher Date	2003-01-01
Publisher Place	Landsberg
Access Restriction	One Nation One Subscription (ONOS)
Subject Keyword	CML2001 (Life Cycle Assessment-An Operational Guide to the ISO Standards 2001) comparison criteria Eco-indicator 99 ecotoxicity EDIP97 (Environmental Design of Industrial Products) human toxicity life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) reference substances Environment Environmental Economics
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Article
Subject	Environmental Science

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

How does iso/dis 14042 on life cycle impact assessment accommodate current best available practice?

USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment

A life cycle method for assessment of a colliery’s eco-indicator

Return on environment : An objective indicator to validate life cycle assessments?

Why life cycle impact assessment is now described as an indicator system

IMPACT 2002+: A new life cycle impact assessment methodology

Operational integration of time dependent toxicity impact category in dynamic LCA

USEtox - The UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in Life Cycle Impact Assessment

Comparison between three different LCIA methods for aquatic ecotoxicity and a product environmental risk assessment : Insights from a Detergent Case Study within OMNIITOX

Comparison of Three Different LCIA Methods: EDIP97, CML2001 and Eco-indicator 99 : Does it matter which one you choose?

Similar Documents

How does iso/dis 14042 on life cycle impact assessment accommodate current best available practice?

USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment

A life cycle method for assessment of a colliery’s eco-indicator

Return on environment : An objective indicator to validate life cycle assessments?

Why life cycle impact assessment is now described as an indicator system

IMPACT 2002+: A new life cycle impact assessment methodology

Operational integration of time dependent toxicity impact category in dynamic LCA

USEtox - The UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in Life Cycle Impact Assessment

Comparison between three different LCIA methods for aquatic ecotoxicity and a product environmental risk assessment : Insights from a Detergent Case Study within OMNIITOX

Comparison of Three Different LCIA Methods: EDIP97, CML2001 and Eco-indicator 99 : Does it matter which one you choose?