Models for waste life cycle assessment: Review of technical assumptions

Emmanuel C. Gentil, Anders Damgaard, Michael Hauschild, Göran Finnveden, Ola Eriksson, Susan Thorneloe, Pervin Ozge Kaplan, Morton Barlaz, Olivier Muller, Yasuhiro Matsui, Ryota Ii, Thomas H. Christensen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

146 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A number of waste life cycle assessment (LCA) models have been gradually developed since the early 1990s, in a number of countries, usually independently from each other. Large discrepancies in results have been observed among different waste LCA models, although it has also been shown that results from different LCA studies can be consistent. This paper is an attempt to identify, review and analyse methodologies and technical assumptions used in various parts of selected waste LCA models. Several criteria were identified, which could have significant impacts on the results, such as the functional unit, system boundaries, waste composition and energy modelling. The modelling assumptions of waste management processes, ranging from collection, transportation, intermediate facilities, recycling, thermal treatment, biological treatment, and landfilling, are obviously critical when comparing waste LCA models.This review infers that some of the differences in waste LCA models are inherent to the time they were developed. It is expected that models developed later, benefit from past modelling assumptions and knowledge and issues. Models developed in different countries furthermore rely on geographic specificities that have an impact on the results of waste LCA models. The review concludes that more effort should be employed to harmonise and validate non-geographic assumptions to strengthen waste LCA modelling.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2636-2648
Number of pages13
JournalWaste Management
Volume30
Issue number12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2010

Fingerprint

life cycle
modeling
waste management
recycling
methodology
energy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Waste Management and Disposal

Cite this

Gentil, E. C., Damgaard, A., Hauschild, M., Finnveden, G., Eriksson, O., Thorneloe, S., ... Christensen, T. H. (2010). Models for waste life cycle assessment: Review of technical assumptions. Waste Management, 30(12), 2636-2648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.06.004

Models for waste life cycle assessment : Review of technical assumptions. / Gentil, Emmanuel C.; Damgaard, Anders; Hauschild, Michael; Finnveden, Göran; Eriksson, Ola; Thorneloe, Susan; Kaplan, Pervin Ozge; Barlaz, Morton; Muller, Olivier; Matsui, Yasuhiro; Ii, Ryota; Christensen, Thomas H.

In: Waste Management, Vol. 30, No. 12, 12.2010, p. 2636-2648.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gentil, EC, Damgaard, A, Hauschild, M, Finnveden, G, Eriksson, O, Thorneloe, S, Kaplan, PO, Barlaz, M, Muller, O, Matsui, Y, Ii, R & Christensen, TH 2010, 'Models for waste life cycle assessment: Review of technical assumptions', Waste Management, vol. 30, no. 12, pp. 2636-2648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.06.004
Gentil EC, Damgaard A, Hauschild M, Finnveden G, Eriksson O, Thorneloe S et al. Models for waste life cycle assessment: Review of technical assumptions. Waste Management. 2010 Dec;30(12):2636-2648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.06.004
Gentil, Emmanuel C. ; Damgaard, Anders ; Hauschild, Michael ; Finnveden, Göran ; Eriksson, Ola ; Thorneloe, Susan ; Kaplan, Pervin Ozge ; Barlaz, Morton ; Muller, Olivier ; Matsui, Yasuhiro ; Ii, Ryota ; Christensen, Thomas H. / Models for waste life cycle assessment : Review of technical assumptions. In: Waste Management. 2010 ; Vol. 30, No. 12. pp. 2636-2648.
@article{f2917bc41b6d4d5e967e153506b77ea1,
title = "Models for waste life cycle assessment: Review of technical assumptions",
abstract = "A number of waste life cycle assessment (LCA) models have been gradually developed since the early 1990s, in a number of countries, usually independently from each other. Large discrepancies in results have been observed among different waste LCA models, although it has also been shown that results from different LCA studies can be consistent. This paper is an attempt to identify, review and analyse methodologies and technical assumptions used in various parts of selected waste LCA models. Several criteria were identified, which could have significant impacts on the results, such as the functional unit, system boundaries, waste composition and energy modelling. The modelling assumptions of waste management processes, ranging from collection, transportation, intermediate facilities, recycling, thermal treatment, biological treatment, and landfilling, are obviously critical when comparing waste LCA models.This review infers that some of the differences in waste LCA models are inherent to the time they were developed. It is expected that models developed later, benefit from past modelling assumptions and knowledge and issues. Models developed in different countries furthermore rely on geographic specificities that have an impact on the results of waste LCA models. The review concludes that more effort should be employed to harmonise and validate non-geographic assumptions to strengthen waste LCA modelling.",
author = "Gentil, {Emmanuel C.} and Anders Damgaard and Michael Hauschild and G{\"o}ran Finnveden and Ola Eriksson and Susan Thorneloe and Kaplan, {Pervin Ozge} and Morton Barlaz and Olivier Muller and Yasuhiro Matsui and Ryota Ii and Christensen, {Thomas H.}",
year = "2010",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1016/j.wasman.2010.06.004",
language = "English",
volume = "30",
pages = "2636--2648",
journal = "Waste Management",
issn = "0956-053X",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Models for waste life cycle assessment

T2 - Review of technical assumptions

AU - Gentil, Emmanuel C.

AU - Damgaard, Anders

AU - Hauschild, Michael

AU - Finnveden, Göran

AU - Eriksson, Ola

AU - Thorneloe, Susan

AU - Kaplan, Pervin Ozge

AU - Barlaz, Morton

AU - Muller, Olivier

AU - Matsui, Yasuhiro

AU - Ii, Ryota

AU - Christensen, Thomas H.

PY - 2010/12

Y1 - 2010/12

N2 - A number of waste life cycle assessment (LCA) models have been gradually developed since the early 1990s, in a number of countries, usually independently from each other. Large discrepancies in results have been observed among different waste LCA models, although it has also been shown that results from different LCA studies can be consistent. This paper is an attempt to identify, review and analyse methodologies and technical assumptions used in various parts of selected waste LCA models. Several criteria were identified, which could have significant impacts on the results, such as the functional unit, system boundaries, waste composition and energy modelling. The modelling assumptions of waste management processes, ranging from collection, transportation, intermediate facilities, recycling, thermal treatment, biological treatment, and landfilling, are obviously critical when comparing waste LCA models.This review infers that some of the differences in waste LCA models are inherent to the time they were developed. It is expected that models developed later, benefit from past modelling assumptions and knowledge and issues. Models developed in different countries furthermore rely on geographic specificities that have an impact on the results of waste LCA models. The review concludes that more effort should be employed to harmonise and validate non-geographic assumptions to strengthen waste LCA modelling.

AB - A number of waste life cycle assessment (LCA) models have been gradually developed since the early 1990s, in a number of countries, usually independently from each other. Large discrepancies in results have been observed among different waste LCA models, although it has also been shown that results from different LCA studies can be consistent. This paper is an attempt to identify, review and analyse methodologies and technical assumptions used in various parts of selected waste LCA models. Several criteria were identified, which could have significant impacts on the results, such as the functional unit, system boundaries, waste composition and energy modelling. The modelling assumptions of waste management processes, ranging from collection, transportation, intermediate facilities, recycling, thermal treatment, biological treatment, and landfilling, are obviously critical when comparing waste LCA models.This review infers that some of the differences in waste LCA models are inherent to the time they were developed. It is expected that models developed later, benefit from past modelling assumptions and knowledge and issues. Models developed in different countries furthermore rely on geographic specificities that have an impact on the results of waste LCA models. The review concludes that more effort should be employed to harmonise and validate non-geographic assumptions to strengthen waste LCA modelling.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77957656697&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77957656697&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.wasman.2010.06.004

DO - 10.1016/j.wasman.2010.06.004

M3 - Article

C2 - 20599370

AN - SCOPUS:77957656697

VL - 30

SP - 2636

EP - 2648

JO - Waste Management

JF - Waste Management

SN - 0956-053X

IS - 12

ER -