Assessing Environmental Sustainability of Remediation Technologies in a Life Cycle Perspective is Not So Easy

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

266 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Integrating sustainability into remediation projects has attracted attention from remediation practitioners, and life cycle assessment (LCA) is becoming a popular tool to address the environmental dimension. The total number of studies has reached 31 since the first framework for LCA of site remediation was published in 1999,1 and has almost doubled compared to number of studies in two reviews published in 2010.2,3 However, our analysis shows an increasing frequency of examples with serious methodological problems (compared to requirements in ISO standards or authoritative guidelines). Figure 1 shows that numerous studies have no or an incomplete definition of the functional unit, omit an appropriate quantification of primary impacts, or fail to include all relevant secondary impact categories. We will illustrate how ignoring these methodological challenges can lead to a misleading conclusion about the environmental sustainability of remediation technologies.
Original languageEnglish
JournalEnvironmental Science & Technology (Washington)
Volume47
Issue number3
Pages (from-to)1182-1183
ISSN0013-936X
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2013

Cite this

@article{bb387609189f4f01b871a2c42e6626d0,
title = "Assessing Environmental Sustainability of Remediation Technologies in a Life Cycle Perspective is Not So Easy",
abstract = "Integrating sustainability into remediation projects has attracted attention from remediation practitioners, and life cycle assessment (LCA) is becoming a popular tool to address the environmental dimension. The total number of studies has reached 31 since the first framework for LCA of site remediation was published in 1999,1 and has almost doubled compared to number of studies in two reviews published in 2010.2,3 However, our analysis shows an increasing frequency of examples with serious methodological problems (compared to requirements in ISO standards or authoritative guidelines). Figure 1 shows that numerous studies have no or an incomplete definition of the functional unit, omit an appropriate quantification of primary impacts, or fail to include all relevant secondary impact categories. We will illustrate how ignoring these methodological challenges can lead to a misleading conclusion about the environmental sustainability of remediation technologies.",
author = "Mikolaj Owsianiak and Gitte Lemming and Hauschild, {Michael Zwicky} and Bjerg, {Poul L{\o}gstrup}",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1021/es305279t",
language = "English",
volume = "47",
pages = "1182--1183",
journal = "Environmental Science & Technology (Washington)",
issn = "0013-936X",
publisher = "American Chemical Society",
number = "3",

}

Assessing Environmental Sustainability of Remediation Technologies in a Life Cycle Perspective is Not So Easy. / Owsianiak, Mikolaj; Lemming, Gitte; Hauschild, Michael Zwicky; Bjerg, Poul Løgstrup.

In: Environmental Science & Technology (Washington), Vol. 47, No. 3, 2013, p. 1182-1183.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessing Environmental Sustainability of Remediation Technologies in a Life Cycle Perspective is Not So Easy

AU - Owsianiak, Mikolaj

AU - Lemming, Gitte

AU - Hauschild, Michael Zwicky

AU - Bjerg, Poul Løgstrup

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - Integrating sustainability into remediation projects has attracted attention from remediation practitioners, and life cycle assessment (LCA) is becoming a popular tool to address the environmental dimension. The total number of studies has reached 31 since the first framework for LCA of site remediation was published in 1999,1 and has almost doubled compared to number of studies in two reviews published in 2010.2,3 However, our analysis shows an increasing frequency of examples with serious methodological problems (compared to requirements in ISO standards or authoritative guidelines). Figure 1 shows that numerous studies have no or an incomplete definition of the functional unit, omit an appropriate quantification of primary impacts, or fail to include all relevant secondary impact categories. We will illustrate how ignoring these methodological challenges can lead to a misleading conclusion about the environmental sustainability of remediation technologies.

AB - Integrating sustainability into remediation projects has attracted attention from remediation practitioners, and life cycle assessment (LCA) is becoming a popular tool to address the environmental dimension. The total number of studies has reached 31 since the first framework for LCA of site remediation was published in 1999,1 and has almost doubled compared to number of studies in two reviews published in 2010.2,3 However, our analysis shows an increasing frequency of examples with serious methodological problems (compared to requirements in ISO standards or authoritative guidelines). Figure 1 shows that numerous studies have no or an incomplete definition of the functional unit, omit an appropriate quantification of primary impacts, or fail to include all relevant secondary impact categories. We will illustrate how ignoring these methodological challenges can lead to a misleading conclusion about the environmental sustainability of remediation technologies.

U2 - 10.1021/es305279t

DO - 10.1021/es305279t

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 23323720

VL - 47

SP - 1182

EP - 1183

JO - Environmental Science & Technology (Washington)

JF - Environmental Science & Technology (Washington)

SN - 0013-936X

IS - 3

ER -