Next Article in Journal / Special Issue
Mineral Resources: Reserves, Peak Production and the Future
Previous Article in Journal / Special Issue
Abiotic Raw-Materials in Life Cycle Impact Assessments: An Emerging Consensus across Disciplines
Article Menu

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Resources 2016, 5(1), 13;

Evaluation of Abiotic Resource LCIA Methods

Departamento de Engenharia Ambiental, Programa de Pós-graduação em Ciências Ambientais, Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (UDESC), Av. Luiz de Camões, 2090 Conta Dinheiro, Lages-SC 88.520-000, Brazil
Departamento de Ciências Agrárias e Ambientais, Programa de Pós-graduação em Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente, Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz (UESC), Rod. Ilhéus-Itabuna, km 16 s/n-Salobrinho-Ilhéus-BA 45.662-900, Brazil
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Mario Schmidt
Received: 9 December 2015 / Revised: 28 January 2016 / Accepted: 17 February 2016 / Published: 29 February 2016
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Consideration of Abiotic Natural Resources in Life Cycle Assessments)
Full-Text   |   PDF [2545 KB, uploaded 29 February 2016]   |  


In a life cycle assessment (LCA), the impacts on resources are evaluated at the area of protection (AoP) with the same name, through life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methods. There are different LCIA methods available in literature that assesses abiotic resources, and the goal of this study was to propose recommendations for that impact category. We evaluated 19 different LCIA methods, through two criteria (scientific robustness and scope), divided into three assessment levels, i.e., resource accounting methods (RAM), midpoint, and endpoint. In order to support the assessment, we applied some LCIA methods to a case study of ethylene production. For RAM, the most suitable LCIA method was CEENE (Cumulative Exergy Extraction from the Natural Environment) (but SED (Solar Energy Demand) and ICEC (Industrial Cumulative Exergy Consumption)/ECEC (Ecological Cumulative Exergy Consumption) may also be recommended), while the midpoint level was ADP (Abiotic Depletion Potential), and the endpoint level was both the Recipe Endpoint and EPS2000 (Environmental Priority Strategies). We could notice that the assessment for the AoP Resources is not yet well established in the LCA community, since new LCIA methods (with different approaches) and assessment frameworks are showing up, and this trend may continue in the future. View Full-Text
Keywords: abiotic; resource; life cycle assessment; LCA; life cycle impact assessment; LCIA; method; Brazil abiotic; resource; life cycle assessment; LCA; life cycle impact assessment; LCIA; method; Brazil

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Alvarenga, R.A.F.; Lins, I.O.; Almeida Neto, J.A. Evaluation of Abiotic Resource LCIA Methods. Resources 2016, 5, 13.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics



[Return to top]
Resources EISSN 2079-9276 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top