A life-cycle assessment (LCA, also known as life-cycle analysis, ecobalance, and cradle-tograve analysis) is a technique to assess environmental impacts

associated with all the stages of a product's life from-cradle-to-grave (i.e., from raw material extraction through materials processing, manufacture, distribution, use, repair and maintenance, and disposal or recycling). LCAs can help avoid a narrow outlook on environmental concerns by:

Compiling an inventory of relevant energy and material inputs and environmental releases; Evaluating the potential impacts associated with identified inputs and releases; Interpreting the results to help you make a more informed decision. (Wikipedia contributors 2012)

Cradle-to-cradle is a specific kind of cradle-to-grave assessment, where the end-of-life disposal step for the product is a recycling process. It is a method used to minimize the environmental impact of products by employing sustainable production, operation, and disposal practices and aims to incorporate social responsibility into product development. From the recycling process originate new, identical products (e.g., asphalt pavement from discarded asphalt pavement, glass bottles from collected glass bottles), or different products (e.g., glass wool insulation from collected glass bottles). Allocation of burden for products in open loop production systems presents considerable challenges for LCA. Various methods, such as the avoided burden approach have been proposed to deal with the issues involved.

Enhancing disassembly and recycling planning using life-cycle analysis

The environmental impact of these products results from interrelated decisions made at various life-cycle stages. Alting first addressed recycling and environmental problems specifically within the life cycle design (LCD) concept [also known as the life-cycle analysis (LCA), or environmentally conscious design and manufacturing (ECD&M)]. LCA is an effective means of identifying environmental burdens during each phase of the whole product life cycle, which can reduce the environmental impact, such as global warming, and ozone problems. The LCA emphasizes that products must be produced, distributed, used and disposed of or recycled without harming the environment in any phase. However, most products have previously considered the disassembly, recycling and environmental impact analysis separately. Thus, the

aim of this study is to develop a full modeling technique that can provide effective and efficient disassembly analysis and recycling strategies to meet the requirements of current developments in recycling. Both LCA and ECD&M emphasize the urgency of starting to recycle EOL products, because recycling turns waste into useful products by reusing whole parts or subassemblies. For instance, electronic materials (gallium, germanium, silicon, and indium) can be profitably recycled because of their high production cost. Many industrial processes have been presented for extracting these valuable elements from components on PCBs (Roy 1991). Two engineering technical problems, disassembly planning and recycling analysis, are inevitably confronted when systematically recycling these EOL products [7]. Disassembly planning and recycling strategies are two closely related tasks in recycling EOL products. Disassembly of used products is known to be needed to make recycling economically and environmentally viable in reprocessing technology, because most complex products cannot be recycled directly. Therefore, products must be disassembled, or dismantled into separate components or materials, to be recycled as secondary materials (Kuo 2006). The most significant challenge within the LCA framework is the assessment of the impact associated with environmental releases during the manufacturing, transport, usage and disposal of products. Impact analysis is a vast subject concerning the environmental health, or safety effect upon humans and ecosystems (e.g., land use restriction and resource depletion). The assessment of impacts is problematic because knowledge of complex physical and chemical phenomena is fairly poor. Impact analysis has in the past focused on risk analysis. Risk is the possibility of an adverse outcome associated with an event or activity [17]. Indexing and scoring are the most common methods of impact analysis. Indexing and scoring are evaluated by subjective judgment to derive a numerical rating. These scores are rarely physically meaningful in an absolute sense, but can be adopted to distinguish between the relative environmental impact of alternative methods. Although these methods are very useful, they have often been faulted for inaccuracy and failure to account for important site properties

Disassembly of used products is well understood to be needed to make recycling economically and environmentally viable in the current state of the art of reprocessing technology, because most complex products cannot be recycled directly. This study presents a graph-based heuristic method to perform disassembly analysis for rollerskate products. A disassembly tree is generated based on modularity analysis (disassembly oriented) and disassembly precedence analysis. By examining the disassembly tree, designers can evaluate how easily a designed product can be disassembled, and can then make changes to group components with similar life cycle and similar material type into the same disassembly module. Finally, the proposed disassembly model provides the environmental impact indication and design support for newly designed products. The disassembly model supports the designer early in the design cycle to allow determining the probable effects of prospective design decisions before adverse environmental impacts occur. The information needed in this disassembly model can be found in the proposed database and database management systems which are the first to fully incorporate the product structure, impact on the environmental life cycle, environmental material, and cost into the disassembly and recycling process.(Kuo 2006) It was seen that LCA is typically restricted to environmental aspects, and that it does so in a simplified way. However, as we start from the position that SA covers more dimensions or aspects than LCA, we first note that an SA is broader than an LCA. Thus, in order to move from LCA to SA, we need to broaden the scope of LCA. Adding the social and economic dimension to environmental LCA will do so. This does not necessarily mean that an SA will yield more results, more indicators, and more numbers. For instance, the broader LCA might produce results in the form of an eco-efficiency indicator. Such an indicator includes economic and environmental information, but in a combined way. Starting from the other side: an LCA is life cycle based, but an SA need not be. Sustainability indicators for countries in most cases reflect what is going on in that country in a certain year. They tend to ignore what is imported from or exported to abroad, and they in general do not account for future emissions due to today's production. Likewise, sustainability reports from companies typically focus on the company's practice as such, and do not or only partially address the supply chain or the consumer and post-consumer aspects of their products(Heijungs, Huppes, and Guine 2010).

Thus, the central concept is life cycle assessment for sustainability. This means that the focus is on what might be called life cycle sustainability analysis (LCSA; (Klpffer and Heinrich 2009)): LCA with a broader focus of indicators; SA with a broader system boundary.

Life cycle design metrics for energy generation technologies

The assessment of life cycle environmental impacts for energy generation and other technologies is described by the International Standards Organizations (ISOs) Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) standards (in the ISO14040 series [2]). In the ISO LCA process, material and energy use and waste are estimated for each life cycle process and for the system as a whole (e.g., how much energy is consumed and carbon dioxide is emitted by processes throughout the life cycle). From this energy and materials inventory, the contribution of the life cycle to a variety of environmental impacts is estimated (e.g., how much do the life cycle air emissions contribute to global climate change). As technologies move from the laboratory to wide-scale use, knowing the potential life cycle contribution to environmental impacts provides valuable insights into the evaluation of design variants, in the comparison to other energy generation technologies, and in meeting corporate, community, and national goals. In addition to protocol standardization, LCA practice has substantially changed since the early 1990s. Practitioners have developed sophisticated software tools and extensive database systems to assist in the preparation of inventory analyses and impact assessments and to interpret the results. However, the use of many of these databases and software tools requires a relatively high level of training and a relatively detailed engineering knowledge of industrial process data and modeling, chemical fate and transport modeling, and eco system and human response. Further,many have been created using proprietary and unpublished computational structures and restrict the publication of the data supporting the assessmentmaking a detailed review of assumptions and comparative assertions impossible. Finally, many of these databases and software tools have been developed to describe a very wide variety of technologies and often lack the ability to model a specic technology. As a result, preparing

technology-specic LCA models can be time consuming, making such assessments unattractive for use in rapid design cycles. The development of a LCA-based method for rapid results is not new. Example existing methods include Prs Eco-Indicators [3] and Arizona State Universitys Okala Impact Factors [4], both intended to be applicable to a wide variety of technologies. Also, the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technologys BEES (Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability [5]1) tools provide LCA results specically applicable to buildings and to bioproducts. Although each of these tools is able to produce results in a rapid timeframe, all have been developed using SimaPro, a LCA software and data system with restrictions on data publication (the software must be purchased to review and repeat and the LCA results). Further, both the Pr Eco-Indicators and the Okala Impact Factors use a pre-determined valuation scheme. This means that user cannot consider their own priorities among life cycle environmental impacts (i.e., they cannot specify the relative importance among design goals such as how much more or less important climate change is when compared to smog formation). Thus, the primary objective of this work is to provide a method to assist in the rapid preparation of LCAs that is (1) sensitive to a wide variety of design parameters specic to energy generation technologies (including variations in system hardware materials and congurations, in transportation options, in assembly energy use, in operating performance and consumables, and in fuels and fuel production scenarios, as well as in comparison to a variety of conventional systems); (2) based on highly peer reviewed and publicly available LCA data that provide results suitable for both internal decision-making and external communications (with the version described here focusing on U.S. manufacturing and operation); and (3) allows the environmental impact weighting scheme to be specied. A second objective is to demonstrate the use of the LCA method in comparing baseline and alternative designs, and in the comparison of emerging systems to conventional options (Cooper et al. 2009).

Sensitivity analysis to quantify uncertainty in Life Cycle Assessment

LCA supported decisions may be misleading, because the results of a LCA study can be affected by different sources of uncertainty (Ardente et al. 2005; Beccali et al. 2010), mainly related to methodological choices, initial assumptions made on the allocation rules and system boundaries definition, and quality of the available data (Sugiyama et al. 2005). Essentially, uncertainty derives from missing knowledge on the exact value of a quantity (Bjrklund 2002). In detail, the following type of uncertainty distinguishes. Parameter uncertainty, due to imprecise, incomplete, outdated, or missing values of data needed in the inventory analysis or in the impact analysis. Models uncertainty, often due to the adoption of linear models to describe the relationships among environmental phenomena and of aggregate data regarding spatial and temporal features. Uncertainty due to unavoidable methodological choices in LCA, such as allocation methods, functional unit, system boundaries, cut-off rules, data collection methods.

Spatial variability across location and temporal variability over a short and long time scales in the Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) and Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) parameters.

Variability between sources in LCI (e.g. variation in comparable technical processes) and between objects of the assessment in LCIA (e.g. human characteristics).

A significant source of uncertainty is the use of secondary input data. Thus, indicators of data quality are needed to express their representativeness, significance and reliability (Bjrklund 2002). In order to reduce the uncertainty due to secondary input data, local databases containing site-specific data and related data quality indicators should be realized. This requires an effort by local firms, that should be willing to furnish primary data related to

their productive processes; by policy makers, that should stimulate the local producers to carry out LCA studies of their products; and by LCA experts, that should assess the energy and environmental performances of local products and implement these in specific databases, following a specific data format. Furthermore, to correctly support the LCA practitioners to reducing uncertainty due to other subjective choices and to perform LCA studies in accord to specific methodological choices and conventions, beginning from the results of experiences and projects already made, the scientific community needs to define harmonized and standardized rules related to the modelling of a product system, the allocation phase, the system boundaries, the impact assessment methods, the quality requirements for data used in the studies, and all other elements that can be source of uncertainty
(Cellura, Longo, and Mistretta 2011)

Models in LCA

Research trends in life cycle development Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) also sometimes called as Life Cycle Engineering (LCE) provides engineering methodologies and tools for life cycle development. For example, Jeswiet (Jeswiet 2001) advocates that LCE comprises all research areas where the environmental concerns pertain to design engineering and production engineering. Herrmann et al. (Herrmann, Bergmann, and Halubek) surveyed state-of-the-art LCE strategies. They identified the importance of an integration of all the life cycle phases from the product development phase to the end-of-life phase, and clarified research topics on life cycle management, including closed-loop supply chain management. Walther et al. (Walther et al. 2010) analyzed the current situation under the WEEE directive and discussed the potential of reuse and needs for the design of a regional

network. This also indicates the importance of planning life cycle flow in life cycle development. Many researchers identified the importance of strategies required to integrate product design and life cycle processes in life cycle engineering (Ometto, Gueler, and Pigosso 2008) and (Tchertchian, Millet, and El Korchi 2010). They mainly focused on the end-oflife strategy to close the material loop and design methods for realizing the end-of-life strategy (Zwolinski and Brissaud 2008).

Ardente, Fulvio, Giorgio Beccali, Maurizio Cellura, and Valerio Lo Brano. 2005. Life Cycle Assessment of a Solar Thermal Collector: Sensitivity Analysis, Energy and Environmental Balances. Renewable Energy 30 (2) (February): 109130. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2004.05.006. Beccali, Marco, Maurizio Cellura, Maria Iudicello, and Marina Mistretta. 2010. Life Cycle Assessment of Italian Citrus-based Products. Sensitivity Analysis and Improvement Scenarios. Journal of Environmental Management 91 (7) (July): 14151428. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.02.028. Bjrklund, A.E. 2002. Survey of Approaches to Improve Reliability in LCA. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 7 (2): 6472. Cellura, Maurizio, Sonia Longo, and Marina Mistretta. 2011. Sensitivity Analysis to Quantify Uncertainty in Life Cycle Assessment: The Case Study of an Italian Tile. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15 (9) (December): 46974705. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.082. Cooper, Joyce, Seung-Jin Lee, John Elter, Jeff Boussu, and Sarah Boman. 2009. Life Cycle Design Metrics for Energy Generation Technologies: Method, Data, and Case Study. Journal of Power Sources 186 (1) (January 1): 138157. doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2008.09.067. Heijungs, Reinout, Gjalt Huppes, and Jeroen B. Guine. 2010. Life Cycle Assessment and Sustainability Analysis of Products, Materials and Technologies. Toward a Scientific Framework for Sustainability Life Cycle Analysis. Polymer Degradation and Stability 95 (3) (March): 422428. doi:10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2009.11.010. Herrmann, C., L. Bergmann, and P. Halubek. Life Cycle Engineering State of the Art and Research Perspectives. Jeswiet, Jack. 2001. What Is Life Cycle Engineering? In Int. Seminar on Life Cycle Engineering, 916. Klpffer, Walter, and Almut Heinrich. 2009. Our Plans and Expectations for the 14th Volume 2009 of Int J Life Cycle Assess. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 14 (1): 17. doi:10.1007/s11367-008-0051-7. Kuo, Tsai C. 2006. Enhancing Disassembly and Recycling Planning Using Life-cycle Analysis. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 22 (56) (October): 420428. doi:10.1016/j.rcim.2005.11.014. Ometto, A., A. Gueler, and D. Pigosso. 2008. A Proposal for a Framework for Life Cycle Engineering. In Proc. of 15th CIPR Int. Conf. on Life Cycle Engineering, 355359.

Roy, R. 1991. End-of-life Electronic Equipment Waste, Technical Report. Center for the Exploitation of Science and Technology (CEST). Sugiyama, H., Y. Fukushima, M. Hirao, S. Hellweg, and K. Hungerbhler. 2005. Using Standard Statistics to Consider Uncertainty in Industry-based Life Cycle Inventory Databases. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 10 (6): 399405. Tchertchian, N., D. Millet, and A. El Korchi. 2010. A Method Helping to Define Eco-innovative Systems (Product Architecture + Reverse Supply Chain Structure + Use Cycles Scenario). In Proc. of 17th CIRP Int. Conf. on Life Cycle Engineering, 284289. Walther, G., J. Steinborn, T. Spengler, T. Luger, and C. Herrmann. 2010. Implementation of the WEEEdirective Economic Effects and Improvement Potentials for Reuse and Recycling in Germany. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 47: 58. Wikipedia contributors. 2012. Life-cycle Assessment. Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lifecycle_assessment&oldid=499570075. Zwolinski, P., and D. Brissaud. 2008. Remanufacturing Strategies to Support Product Design and Redesign. Journal of Engineering Design 19 (4): 321335.