Analytical uncertainty propagation in life cycle inventory and impact assessment: application to an automobile front panel

Background, aim, and scopeUncertainty information is essential for the proper use of life cycle assessment (LCA) and environmental assessments in decision making. So far, parameter uncertainty propagation has mainly been studied using Monte Carlo techniques that are relatively computationally heavy to conduct, especially for the comparison of multiple scenarios, often limiting its use to research or to inventory only. Furthermore, Monte Carlo simulations do not automatically assess the sensitivity and contribution to overall uncertainty of individual parameters. The present paper aims to develop and apply to both inventory and impact assessment an explicit and transparent analytical approach to uncertainty. This approach applies Taylor series expansions to the uncertainty propagation of lognormally distributed parameters.Materials and methodsWe first apply the Taylor series expansion method to analyze the uncertainty propagation of a single scenario, in which case the squared geometric standard deviation of the final output is determined as a function of the model sensitivity to each input parameter and the squared geometric standard deviation of each parameter. We then extend this approach to the comparison of two or more LCA scenarios. Since in LCA it is crucial to account for both common inventory processes and common impact assessment characterization factors among the different scenarios, we further develop the approach to address this dependency. We provide a method to easily determine a range and a best estimate of (a) the squared geometric standard deviation on the ratio of the two scenario scores, “A/B”, and (b) the degree of confidence in the prediction that the impact of scenario A is lower than B (i.e., the probability that A/B<1). The approach is tested on an automobile case study and resulting probability distributions of climate change impacts are compared to classical Monte Carlo distributions.ResultsThe probability distributions obtained with the Taylor series expansion lead to results similar to the classical Monte Carlo distributions, while being substantially simpler; the Taylor series method tends to underestimate the 2.5% confidence limit by 1-11% and the 97.5% limit by less than 5%. The analytical Taylor series expansion easily provides the explicit contributions of each parameter to the overall uncertainty. For the steel front end panel, the factor contributing most to the climate change score uncertainty is the gasoline consumption (>75%). For the aluminum panel, the electricity and aluminum primary production, as well as the light oil consumption, are the dominant contributors to the uncertainty. The developed approach for scenario comparisons, differentiating between common and independent parameters, leads to results similar to those of a Monte Carlo analysis; for all tested cases, we obtained a good concordance between the Monte Carlo and the Taylor series expansion methods regarding the probability that one scenario is better than the other.DiscussionThe Taylor series expansion method addresses the crucial need of accounting for dependencies in LCA, both for common LCI processes and common LCIA characterization factors. The developed approach in Eq. 8, which differentiates between common and independent parameters, estimates the degree of confidence in the prediction that scenario A is better than B, yielding results similar to those found with Monte Carlo simulations.ConclusionsThe probability distributions obtained with the Taylor series expansion are virtually equivalent to those from a classical Monte Carlo simulation, while being significantly easier to obtain. An automobile case study on an aluminum front end panel demonstrated the feasibility of this method and illustrated its simultaneous and consistent application to both inventory and impact assessment. The explicit and innovative analytical approach, based on Taylor series expansions of lognormal distributions, provides the contribution to the uncertainty from each parameter and strongly reduces calculation time.

[1]  Hans-Jörg Althaus,et al.  The ecoinvent Database: Overview and Methodological Framework (7 pp) , 2005 .

[2]  Raphael Charles,et al.  Modelling pesticides residues , 2004 .

[3]  Ralph K. Rosenbaum Multimedia and Food Chain Modelling of Toxics for Comparative Risk and Life Cycle Impact Assessment , 2006 .

[4]  Vincent R. Gray Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis Summary for Policymakers , 2007 .

[5]  S. Shapiro,et al.  An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality (Complete Samples) , 1965 .

[6]  Olivier Jolliet,et al.  An implemented approach for estimating uncertainties for toxicological impact characterisation , 2004 .

[7]  M. Huijbregts,et al.  Evaluating uncertainty in environmental life-cycle assessment. A case study comparing two insulation options for a Dutch one-family dwelling. , 2003, Environmental science & technology.

[8]  R. Frischknecht,et al.  Representing Statistical Distributions for Uncertain Parameters in LCA. Relationships between mathematical forms, their representation in EcoSpold, and their representation in CMLCA (7 pp) , 2005 .

[9]  Steven B. Young,et al.  Applying environmental life-cycle analysis to materials , 1994 .

[10]  Reinout Heijungs,et al.  The computational structure of life cycle assessment , 2002 .

[11]  Bengt Steen,et al.  On uncertainty and sensitivity of LCA-based priority setting , 1997 .

[12]  Andreas Ciroth,et al.  Uncertainty calculation in life cycle assessments , 2004 .

[13]  Reinout Heijungs,et al.  Numerical Approaches to Life Cycle Interpretation - The case of the Ecoinvent’96 database (10 pp) , 2005 .

[14]  Edgar G. Hertwich,et al.  Parameter Uncertainty and Variability In Evaluative Fate and Exposure Models , 1999, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[15]  T E McKone,et al.  A Systematic Uncertainty Analysis of an Evaluative Fate and Exposure Model , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[16]  Matthew MacLeod,et al.  Evaluating and expressing the propagation of uncertainty in chemical fate and bioaccumulation models , 2002, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[17]  J. H. Pollard,et al.  A Handbook of Numerical and Statistical Techniques: With Examples Mainly from the Life Sciences , 1979 .

[18]  David Cebon,et al.  Materials Selection in Mechanical Design , 1992 .

[19]  Gerald Rebitzer,et al.  IMPACT 2002+: A new life cycle impact assessment methodology , 2003 .