Models for waste life cycle assessment: Review of technical assumptions

Emmanuel Gentil, Anders Damgaard, Michael Zwicky Hauschild, G. Finnveden, O. Eriksson, S. Thorneloe, P.O. Kaplan, M. Barlaz, O. Muller, Y. Matsui, R. li, Thomas Højlund Christensen

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

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
JournalWaste Management
Volume30
Pages (from-to)2636-2648
ISSN0956-053X
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2010

Cite this

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. 2010 ; Vol. 30. pp. 2636-2648.
@article{1efd2f3d2fe347c1be368038ad737786,
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 = "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 H{\o}jlund}",
year = "2010",
doi = "10.1016/j.wasman.2010.06.004",
language = "English",
volume = "30",
pages = "2636--2648",
journal = "Waste Management",
issn = "0956-053X",
publisher = "Pergamon Press",

}

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.06.004

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.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

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

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

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

M3 - Journal article

VL - 30

SP - 2636

EP - 2648

JO - Waste Management

JF - Waste Management

SN - 0956-053X

ER -