nach oben

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

Erschienen in:

18.11.2016 | UNCERTAINTIES IN LCA

What distribution function do life cycle inventories follow?

Erschienen in: The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment | Ausgabe 7/2017

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Purpose

Life cycle inventory (LCI) results are often assumed to follow a lognormal distribution, while a systematic study that identifies the distribution function that best describes LCIs has been lacking. This paper aims to find the distribution function that best describes LCIs using Ecoinvent v3.1 database using a statistical approach, called overlapping coefficient analysis.

Methods

Monte Carlo simulation is applied to characterize the distribution of aggregate LCIs. One thousand times of simulated LCI results are generated based on the unit process-level parametric uncertainty information, from each of which 1000 randomly chosen data points are extracted. The 1 million data points extracted undergo statistical analyses including Shapiro-Wilk normality test and the overlapping coefficient analysis. The overlapping coefficient is a measure used to determine the shared area between the distribution of the simulated LCI results and three possible distribution functions that can potentially be used to describe them including lognormal, gamma, and Weibull distributions.

Results and discussion

Shapiro-Wilk normality test for 1000 samples shows that average p value of log-transformed LCI results is 0.18 at 95 % confidence level, accepting the null hypothesis that LCI results are lognormally distributed. The overlapping coefficient analysis shows that lognormal distribution best describes the distribution of LCI results. The average of overlapping coefficient (OVL) for lognormal distribution is 95 %, while that for gamma and Weibull distributions are 92 and 86 %, respectively.

Conclusions

This study represents the first attempt to calculate the stochastic distributions of the aggregate LCIs covering the entire Ecoinvent 3.1 database. This study empirically shows that LCIs of Ecoinvent 3.1 database indeed follow a lognormal distribution. This finding can facilitate more efficient storage and use of uncertainty information in LCIs and can reduce the demand for computational power to run Monte Carlo simulation, which currently relies on unit process-level uncertainty data.

Vorheriger Artikel Methods for global sensitivity analysis in life cycle assessment

Nächster Artikel Identifying marginal supplying countries of wood products via trade network analysis

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Baker JW, Lepech MD (2009) Treatment of uncertainties in life cycle assessment. In: Proceedings of the 10th international congress on structural safety and reliability. Osaka, Japan, pp. 13–17

Basson L, Petrie JG (2007) An integrated approach for the consideration of uncertainty in decision making supported by life cycle assessment. Environ Model Softw 22:167–176CrossRef

Björklund AE (2002) Survey of approaches to improve reliability in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7:64–72CrossRef

Cellura M, Longo S, Mistretta M (2011) Sensitivity analysis to quantify uncertainty in life cycle assessment: the case study of an Italian tile. Renew Sust Energ Rev 15:4697–4705CrossRef

Ciroth A, Srocka M (2008) How to obtain a precise and representative estimate for parameters in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:265–277CrossRef

Ciroth A, Fleischer G, Steinbach J (2004) Uncertainty calculation in life cycle assessments. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9:216–226CrossRef

Ciroth A, Muller S, Weidema B, Lesage P (2016) Empirically based uncertainty factors for the pedigree matrix in Ecoinvent. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:1338–1348CrossRef

Clavreul J, Guyonnet D (2013) Stochastic and epistemic uncertainty propagation in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1393–1403CrossRef

Clavreul J, Guyonnet D, Christensen TH (2012) Quantifying uncertainty in LCA-modelling of waste management systems. Waste Manag 32:2482–2495CrossRef

Clavreul J, Guyonnet D, Tonini D, Christensen TH (2013) Stochastic and epistemic uncertainty propagation in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1393–1403CrossRef

Cucurachi S, Heijungs R (2014) Characterisation factors for life cycle impact assessment of sound emissions. Sci Total Environ 468:280–291CrossRef

Dennis B, Patil GP (1984) The gamma distribution and weighted multimodal gamma distributions as models of population abundance. Math Biosci 68:187–212CrossRef

Fava J (1994) Life-cycle assessment data quality: a conceptual framework: workshop report

Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T et al (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manag 91:1–21CrossRef

Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Althaus HJ et al (2004) Overview and methodology. Final report Ecoinvent 2000 no. 1. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland

Gavankar S, Suh S (2014) Fusion of conflicting information for improving representativeness of data used in LCAs. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:480–490CrossRef

Geisler G, Hellweg S, Hungerbühler K (2004) Uncertainty analysis in life cycle assessment (LCA): case study on plant-protection products and implications for decision making. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10:184–192CrossRef

Gentle J (2013) Random number generation and Monte Carlo methods. Springer Science & Business Media

Heijungs R (1996) Identification of key issues for further investigation in improving the reliability of life-cycle assessments. J Clean Prod 4:159–166CrossRef

Heijungs R, Frischknecht R (2004) Representing statistical distributions for uncertain parameters in LCA. Relationships between mathematical forms, their representation in EcoSpold, and their representation in CMLCA (7 pp). Int J Life Cycle Assess 10:248–254CrossRef

Heijungs R, Huijbregts M (2004) A review of approaches to treat uncertainty in LCA

Heijungs R, Kleijn R (2001) Numerical approaches towards life cycle interpretation five examples. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6:141–148CrossRef

Heijungs R, Lenzen M (2014) Error propagation methods for LCA—a comparison. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1445–1461CrossRef

Heijungs R, Suh S (2002) The computational structure of life cycle assessment. Springer Science & Business Media

Hertwich EG, Hammitt JK (2001) A decision-analytic framework for impact assessment part I: LCA and decision analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6:5–12CrossRef

Hofstetter P (1998) Perspectives in life cycle impact assessment: a structured approach to combine models of the Technosphere, Ecosphere and Valuesphere. Kluwer Academic Publishers

Holland DM, Fitz-Simons T (1982) Fitting statistical distributions to air quality data by the maximum likelihood method. Atmospheric Environ 1967 16:1071–1076

Hong J, Shaked S, Rosenbaum RK, Jolliet O (2010) Analytical uncertainty propagation in life cycle inventory and impact assessment: application to an automobile front panel. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:499–510CrossRef

Huijbregts MA (1998) Application of uncertainty and variability in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3(5):273–280CrossRef

Huijbregts MA (2002) Uncertainty and variability in environmental life-cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7(3):173–173CrossRef

Huijbregts MA, Gilijamse W, Ragas AM, Reijnders L (2003) Evaluating uncertainty in environmental life-cycle assessment. A case study comparing two insulation options for a Dutch one-family dwelling. Environ Sci Technol 37:2600–2608CrossRef

Hung M-L, Ma H (2009) Quantifying system uncertainty of life cycle assessment based on Monte Carlo simulation. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:19–27CrossRef

Imbeault-Tétreault H, Jolliet O, Deschênes L, Rosenbaum RK (2013) Analytical propagation of uncertainty in life cycle assessment using matrix formulation. J Ind Ecol 17:485–492CrossRef

Jung J, von der Assen N, Bardow A (2013) Sensitivity coefficient-based uncertainty analysis for multi-functionality in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:661–676CrossRef

Laner D, Rechberger H, Astrup T (2014) Systematic evaluation of uncertainty in material flow analysis. J Ind Ecol 18:859–870CrossRef

Limpert E, Stahel WA, Abbt M (2001) Log-normal distributions across the sciences: keys and clues on the charms of statistics, and how mechanical models resembling gambling machines offer a link to a handy way to characterize log-normal distributions, which can provide deeper insight into variability and probability—normal or log-normal: that is the question. Bioscience 51:341–352CrossRef

Lloyd SM, Ries R (2008) Characterizing, propagating, and analyzing uncertainty in life-cycle assessment: a survey of quantitative approaches. J Ind Ecol 11:161–179CrossRef

Maurice B, Frischknecht R, Coelho-Schwirtz V, Hungerbühler K (2000) Uncertainty analysis in life cycle inventory. Application to the production of electricity with French coal power plants. J Clean Prod 8:95–108CrossRef

McCleese DL, LaPuma PT (2002) Using Monte Carlo simulation in life cycle assessment for electric and internal combustion vehicles. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7:230–236CrossRef

Muller S, Lesage P, Ciroth A et al (2016) The application of the pedigree approach to the distributions foreseen in Ecoinvent v3. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:1327–1337CrossRef

Noshadravan A, Wildnauer M, Gregory J, Kirchain R (2013) Comparative pavement life cycle assessment with parameter uncertainty. Transp Res Part Transp Environ 25:131–138CrossRef

Razali NM, Wah YB (2011) Power comparisons of shapiro-wilk, kolmogorov-smirnov, lilliefors and Anderson-darling tests. J Stat Model Anal 2:21–33

Ridout MS, Linkie M (2009) Estimating overlap of daily activity patterns from camera trap data. J Agric Biol Environ Stat 14:322–337CrossRef

Rosenbaum R, Pennington DW, Jolliet O (2004) An implemented approach for estimating uncertainties for toxicological impact characterisation. In: 2nd Biennial Meeting of the International Environmental Modelling and Software Society, iEMSs

Ross S, Evans D, Webber M (2002) How LCA studies deal with uncertainty. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7:47–52CrossRef

Singh A, Singh A, Engelhardt M (1997) The lognormal distribution in environmental applications. Technology Support Center Issue Paper

Sonnemann GW, Schuhmacher M, Castells F (2003) Uncertainty assessment by a Monte Carlo simulation in a life cycle inventory of electricity produced by a waste incinerator. J Clean Prod 11:279–292CrossRef

Sugiyama H, Fukushima Y, Hirao M et al (2005) Using standard statistics to consider uncertainty in industry-based life cycle inventory databases. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10:399–405CrossRef

Weidema BP, Wesnaes MS (1996) Data quality management for life cycle inventories—an example of using data quality indicators. J Clean Prod 4:167–174CrossRef

Weidema BP, Bauer C, Hischier R et al. (2013) Overview and methodology: data quality guideline for the Ecoinvent database version 3. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories

Yazici B, Yolacan S (2007) A comparison of various tests of normality. J Stat Comput Simul 77:175–183CrossRef

Titel: What distribution function do life cycle inventories follow?
Publikationsdatum: 18.11.2016
Erschienen in: The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment / Ausgabe 7/2017
Print ISSN: 0948-3349
Elektronische ISSN: 1614-7502
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1224-4

Springer Professional

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results and discussion

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 7/2017

SETAC Europe Young Scientist LCA Award 2017 for Eléonore Loiseau

Identifying marginal supplying countries of wood products via trade network analysis

Life cycle assessment of integrated seawater agriculture in the Arabian (Persian) Gulf as a potential food and aviation biofuel resource

Life cycle environmental assessment of industrial hazardous waste incineration and landfilling in China

EcoBalance 2016-responsible value chains for sustainability (October 3-6, 2016, Kyoto, Japan)

A framework for including enhanced exposure to naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) in LCA