Models for waste life cycle assessment: Review of technical assumptions

Publication: Research - peer-reviewJournal article – Annual report year: 2010

Standard

Models for waste life cycle assessment: Review of technical assumptions. / Gentil, Emmanuel; Damgaard, Anders; Hauschild, Michael Zwicky; Finnveden, G.; Eriksson, O.; Thorneloe, S.; Kaplan, P.O.; Barlaz, M.; Muller, O.; Matsui, Y.; li, R.; Christensen, Thomas Højlund.

In: Waste Management, Vol. 30, 2010, p. 2636-2648.

Publication: Research - peer-reviewJournal article – Annual report year: 2010

Harvard

Gentil, E, Damgaard, A, Hauschild, MZ, Finnveden, G, Eriksson, O, Thorneloe, S, Kaplan, PO, Barlaz, M, Muller, O, Matsui, Y, li, R & Christensen, TH 2010, 'Models for waste life cycle assessment: Review of technical assumptions' Waste Management, vol 30, pp. 2636-2648., 10.1016/j.wasman.2010.06.004

APA

CBE

Gentil E, Damgaard A, Hauschild MZ, Finnveden G, Eriksson O, Thorneloe S, Kaplan PO, Barlaz M, Muller O, Matsui Y, li R, Christensen TH. 2010. Models for waste life cycle assessment: Review of technical assumptions. Waste Management. 30:2636-2648. Available from: 10.1016/j.wasman.2010.06.004

MLA

Vancouver

Author

Gentil, Emmanuel; Damgaard, Anders; Hauschild, Michael Zwicky; Finnveden, G.; Eriksson, O.; Thorneloe, S.; Kaplan, P.O.; Barlaz, M.; Muller, O.; Matsui, Y.; li, R.; Christensen, Thomas Højlund / Models for waste life cycle assessment: Review of technical assumptions.

In: Waste Management, Vol. 30, 2010, p. 2636-2648.

Publication: Research - peer-reviewJournal article – Annual report year: 2010

Bibtex

@article{1efd2f3d2fe347c1be368038ad737786,
title = "Models for waste life cycle assessment: Review of technical assumptions",
publisher = "Pergamon",
author = "Emmanuel Gentil and Anders Damgaard and Hauschild, {Michael Zwicky} and G. Finnveden and O. Eriksson and S. Thorneloe and P.O. Kaplan and M. Barlaz and O. Muller and Y. Matsui and R. li and Christensen, {Thomas Højlund}",
year = "2010",
doi = "10.1016/j.wasman.2010.06.004",
volume = "30",
pages = "2636--2648",
journal = "Waste Management",
issn = "0956-053X",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Models for waste life cycle assessment: Review of technical assumptions

A1 - Gentil,Emmanuel

A1 - Damgaard,Anders

A1 - Hauschild,Michael Zwicky

A1 - Finnveden,G.

A1 - Eriksson,O.

A1 - Thorneloe,S.

A1 - Kaplan,P.O.

A1 - Barlaz,M.

A1 - Muller,O.

A1 - Matsui,Y.

A1 - li,R.

A1 - Christensen,Thomas Højlund

AU - Gentil,Emmanuel

AU - Damgaard,Anders

AU - Hauschild,Michael Zwicky

AU - Finnveden,G.

AU - Eriksson,O.

AU - Thorneloe,S.

AU - Kaplan,P.O.

AU - Barlaz,M.

AU - Muller,O.

AU - Matsui,Y.

AU - li,R.

AU - Christensen,Thomas Højlund

PB - Pergamon

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

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.

U2 - 10.1016/j.wasman.2010.06.004

DO - 10.1016/j.wasman.2010.06.004

JO - Waste Management

JF - Waste Management

SN - 0956-053X

VL - 30

SP - 2636

EP - 2648

ER -