Cited by 169Environmental Impact and SustainabilityChemistry and Chemical EngineeringAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact

Comparative Evaluation of Chemical Life Cycle Inventory Generation Methods and Implications for Life Cycle Assessment Results

Parvatker, Abhijeet G., Eckelman, Matthew J.·2019·ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering

Abstract

A life cycle assessment (LCA) practitioner is often faced with the problem of missing chemical life cycle inventory (LCI) data sets, as current databases cover only a small fraction of chemicals used in commerce. Here, we critically review eight different methods used by LCA practitioners to estimate missing chemical LCI data, including process simulation, engineering process calculations, molecular structure-based models, stoichiometric approaches, use of proxies, and omission. Each method is technically described with examples from the literature, description of advantages and disadvantages, and discussion of suitability depending on availability of data and expertise. Methods are then fully demonstrated and compared for accuracy against reported chemical industry data using case studies of styrene and its downstream product, acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS). Resulting LCI and life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) values are compared and discussed, with specific attention to method-specific exclusion of particular flows. Out of the four methods with which full LCIs can be generated, the advanced process-based methods give the most accurate life cycle GHG emission results for styrene and ABS, compared to plant data. Stoichiometric calculations, which are the most commonly used approach, underestimate the actual global warming results by 35–50%. Among the 18 impact categories of the ReCiPe LCIA method, results for the estimated LCI data were within 10% of the actual plant results for only 4–5 categories. Based on the critical review and demonstration results, we provide recommendations for appropriate use of LCI estimation methods in various LCA modeling situations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acssuschemeng.8b03656

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 49 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Parvatker, A. G., & Eckelman, M. J.
Affiliations
Northeastern University (US)
Corresponding author
Eckelman, Matthew J.
Venue
ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering
Published
2018-12-24
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
350-367
ISSN
2168-0485 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2905729412
Cited by
169
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 4
FWCI
4.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering (publishedVersion)
Funders
Division of Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport Systems (CBET-1454414)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Chemistry and Chemical Engineering
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
Keywords
process simulation, stoichiometric calculations, proxy data, omission, styrene, ABS, global warming potential, life cycle impact assessment, recipes

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review