CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 779Environmental Impact and SustainabilitySustainability and Ecological Systems AnalysisExtraction and Separation Processes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 77 of the 79 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Life Cycle Assessment of Metals: A Scientific Synthesis

Open access
Nuss, Philip, Eckelman, Matthew J.·2014·PLoS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0101298PMC PMC4085040
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We have assembled extensive information on the cradle-to-gate environmental burdens of 63 metals in their major use forms, and illustrated the interconnectedness of metal production systems. Related cumulative energy use, global warming potential, human health implications and ecosystem damage are estimated by metal life cycle stage (i.e., mining, purification, and refining). For some elements, these are the first life cycle estimates of environmental impacts reported in the literature. We show that, if compared on a per kilogram basis, the platinum group metals and gold display the highest environmental burdens, while many of the major industrial metals (e.g., iron, manganese, titanium) are found at the lower end of the environmental impacts scale. If compared on the basis of their global annual production in 2008, iron and aluminum display the largest impacts, and thallium and tellurium the lowest. With the exception of a few metals, environmental impacts of the majority of elements are dominated by the purification and refining stages in which metals are transformed from a concentrate into their metallic form. Out of the 63 metals investigated, 42 metals are obtained as co-products in multi output processes. We test the sensitivity of varying allocation rationales, in which the environmental burden are allocated to the various metal and mineral products, on the overall results. Monte-Carlo simulation is applied to further investigate the stability of our results. This analysis is the most comprehensive life cycle comparison of metals to date and allows for the first time a complete bottom-up estimate of life cycle impacts of the metals and mining sector globally. We estimate global direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions in 2008 at 3.4 Gt CO2-eq per year and primary energy use at 49 EJ per year (9.5% of global use), and report the shares for all metals to both impact categories.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0101298

Cites

77 of 77 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Diagram of the cradle-to-gate production of the minerals and metals (starting with ores from the left) analyzed in this study, in order of atomic number. Nodes representing mineral and metal products and intermediates, and the edges (arrows) indicating the physical transformation of metals via industrial processes from one chemical form (material) into another. Nodes and edges in red color represent joint production and illustrate the interconnectedness of the metals production system. Although not a metal, helium is includes in the assessment as it is sometimes regarded as a critical element required for the cooling of nuclear power plants. The figure was created using Gephi v0.8.2 [113].
Figure 1 Diagram of the cradle-to-gate production of the minerals and metals (starting with ores from the left) analyzed in this study, in order of atomic number. Nodes representing mineral and metal products and intermediates, and the edges (arrows) indicating the physical transformation of metals via industrial processes from one chemical form (material) into another. Nodes and edges in red color represent joint production and illustrate the interconnectedness of the metals production system. Although not a metal, helium is includes in the assessment as it is sometimes regarded as a critical element required for the cooling of nuclear power plants. The figure was created using Gephi v0.8.2 [113].CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Periodic table of global warming potentials (GWPs). (A) The cradle-to-gate GWP per kilogram of each element (kg CO2-eq per kg) colored according to the color ramp above. GWPs shown are weighted by the 2008 supply mix for each element (see Table S38 in Supporting Information S1). (B) Illustration of the Pb-Zn system as an example of a joint production scheme (red color) from which Ge, Ag, Cd, In, Tl, and Bi are recovered as co- or by-products. (C) Uncertainty estimates (95% confidence interval) for the elements of the Pb-Zn system were derived using Monte-Carlo analysis.
Figure 2 Periodic table of global warming potentials (GWPs). (A) The cradle-to-gate GWP per kilogram of each element (kg CO2-eq per kg) colored according to the color ramp above. GWPs shown are weighted by the 2008 supply mix for each element (see Table S38 in Supporting Information S1). (B) Illustration of the Pb-Zn system as an example of a joint production scheme (red color) from which Ge, Ag, Cd, In, Tl, and Bi are recovered as co- or by-products. (C) Uncertainty estimates (95% confidence interval) for the elements of the Pb-Zn system were derived using Monte-Carlo analysis.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Periodic table of environmental impacts (colored according to the color ramp above). (A) Cradle-to-gate cumulative energy demand (CED) (MJ-eq/kg) per kilogram of each element. aCumulative energy demand for Th and U does not include non-renewable nuclear energy demand of U and Th in ground. (B) Cradle-to-gate terrestrial acidification (kg SO2-eq/kg). (C) Cradle-to-gate freshwater eutrophication (kg P-eq/kg). (D) Cradle-to-gate human toxicity (cancer and non-cancer) (CTUh/kg). Impacts to acidification and eutrophication were derived using the ReCiPe Midpoint method 1.08 H/H for the globe [106]. Human toxicity was calculated using the USETox v1.02. method with recommended and interim characterization factors [107].
Figure 3 Periodic table of environmental impacts (colored according to the color ramp above). (A) Cradle-to-gate cumulative energy demand (CED) (MJ-eq/kg) per kilogram of each element. aCumulative energy demand for Th and U does not include non-renewable nuclear energy demand of U and Th in ground. (B) Cradle-to-gate terrestrial acidification (kg SO2-eq/kg). (C) Cradle-to-gate freshwater eutrophication (kg P-eq/kg). (D) Cradle-to-gate human toxicity (cancer and non-cancer) (CTUh/kg). Impacts to acidification and eutrophication were derived using the ReCiPe Midpoint method 1.08 H/H for the globe [106]. Human toxicity was calculated using the USETox v1.02. method with recommended and interim characterization factors [107].CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Relative environmental implications by life cycle stage. Only materials for which data for more than one life cycle stage was available are shown. Due to the aggregated nature of many of the data sets, in some instances the figure includes cumulative contributions from two life cycle stages (see legend). aThe human health implications (DALY/kg) and ecosystem damage (species.yr/kg) were calculated using the World ReCiPe Endpoint (H) impact assessment method v1.08 [106]. They represent potential damages prior to normalization and weighting. *The relative breakdown of the environmental burden of Y2O3 production is similar to other rare earths (i.e., La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, and Lu), which are therefore not shown in this figure. ** The breakdown of the environmental burden of Ru production is similar to other platinum group metals (i.e., Rh, Pd, Os, Ir, and Pt) from primary ore, which are therefore not shown in this figure. FeCr = Ferrochromium. FeMn = Ferromanganese. FeNb = Ferroniobium. Elements in brackets indicate the host metal from which the metal is obtained as a co-product. SE = Sweden.
Figure 4 Relative environmental implications by life cycle stage. Only materials for which data for more than one life cycle stage was available are shown. Due to the aggregated nature of many of the data sets, in some instances the figure includes cumulative contributions from two life cycle stages (see legend). aThe human health implications (DALY/kg) and ecosystem damage (species.yr/kg) were calculated using the World ReCiPe Endpoint (H) impact assessment method v1.08 [106]. They represent potential damages prior to normalization and weighting. *The relative breakdown of the environmental burden of Y2O3 production is similar to other rare earths (i.e., La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, and Lu), which are therefore not shown in this figure. ** The breakdown of the environmental burden of Ru production is similar to other platinum group metals (i.e., Rh, Pd, Os, Ir, and Pt) from primary ore, which are therefore not shown in this figure. FeCr = Ferrochromium. FeMn = Ferromanganese. FeNb = Ferroniobium. Elements in brackets indicate the host metal from which the metal is obtained as a co-product. SE = Sweden.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Global annual environmental implications of metals production in 2008. Per-kilogram impacts were multiplied with their respective production figures for year 2008 from USGS Mineral Yearbooks [53]. The cradle-to-gate human health and ecosystem damage (Pt/yr) were derived using the ReCiPe Endpoint method 1.08 H/H for the globe [106].
Figure 5 Global annual environmental implications of metals production in 2008. Per-kilogram impacts were multiplied with their respective production figures for year 2008 from USGS Mineral Yearbooks [53]. The cradle-to-gate human health and ecosystem damage (Pt/yr) were derived using the ReCiPe Endpoint method 1.08 H/H for the globe [106].CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6 Breakdown of Global CO2 Emissions and Cumulative Energy Demand Per Metal in 2008.
Figure 6 Breakdown of Global CO2 Emissions and Cumulative Energy Demand Per Metal in 2008.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 7 Choice of allocation rationale and implications on metals environmental burdens.
Figure 7 Choice of allocation rationale and implications on metals environmental burdens.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 79 references

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Graedel TE, Allwood J, Birat J-P, Buchert M, Hagelüken C, <etal>et al</etal>.. (2011) What Do We Know About Metal Recycling Rates? J Ind Ecol <volume>15</volume>: : 355–366. Available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00342.x/abstract. Accessed 1 October 2012. · DOI
  2. Gupta CK (2004) Chemical Metallurgy. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA. Available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/3527602003.fmatter/summary. Accessed 24 July 2013. · DOI
  3. NRC (2008) Minerals, Critical Minerals, and the U.S. Economy..Washington, D.C: The National Academies Press. 264 p.
  4. Ashby MF, Miller A, Rutter F, Seymour C, Wegst UGK (2012) CES EduPack for Eco Design — A White Paper. Cambridge, UK: Granta Design Ltd.
  5. USBM (1985) Mineral Facts and Problems: 1985 Edition. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Bureau of Mines.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 779

Related

Metadata

Authors
Nuss, P., & Eckelman, M. J.
Affiliations
  • Yale University (US)
  • Northeastern University (US)
Corresponding author
Nuss, Philip
ORCID
Venue
PLoS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2014-07-07
Volume
9
Issue
7
Pages
e101298
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0101298
PMC
PMC4085040
OpenAlex
W2046102090
Cited by
777
References
79
Citations by year
2026: 121 · 2025: 116 · 2024: 89 · 2023: 75 · 2022: 80 · 2021: 85 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 42 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 5
FWCI
20.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Yale University
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Sustainability and Ecological Systems Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Metals and Alloys › Extraction and Separation Processes
Keywords
metals, life cycle assessment, environmental impact, mining, metal purification, metal refining, global warming potential, greenhouse gas emissions, human health effects, ecosystem damage, coproducts, platinum group metals, gold, iron, aluminum, thallium, tellurium, primary energy consumption
MeSH terms
Carbon Dioxide, Environmental Monitoring, Humans, Metals, Minerals, Ecosystem, Global Warming

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