springer - biobased products and life cycle assessment in the … · 2020. 9. 7. · 2016 &...

REVIEW

Biobased Products and Life Cycle Assessment in the Contextof Circular Economy and Sustainability

Shikha Dahiya1,2 & Ranaprathap Katakojwala1,2 & Seeram Ramakrishna3 & S. Venkata Mohan1,2

Received: 30 June 2020 /Revised: 9 August 2020 /Accepted: 11 August 2020# Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

AbstractBiobased products (biobasedmaterials, bioenergy/biofuels, and biobased chemicals) are the futuristic replacement of fossil-basedchemicals and considerably the best way of transiting towards a low-carbon economy (LCE) and which also can simultaneouslymitigate the global challenges associated with the depletion of abiotic resources and climate change. Endurance with the biobasedproducts is leading to the development of a biobased economy (BBE). Assessment of environmental sustainability achieved by theproduction of biobased products is important to understand their decarbonization potential, and all associated impacts with their lifecycle and can be measured with life cycle assessment (LCA) tool. Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) combines LCAwithlife cycle costing (LCC) and social life cycle assessment (sLCA). The framework of this paper is thus designed to provide an insightinto biobased products with an overview of LCA as critical tools to measure sustainability. LCAmethodology and its importance indetermining sustainability for biobased products with associated limitations and probable solutions are also discussed. Circulareconomy (CE) integrating cradle-to-cradle (C2C) approach is also discussed as a promising endeavor to achieve LCE.

Keywords ISO Standard 14040 . ISO/TC 323 . Sustainable development goals (SDG) . Bioeconomy . Biorefinery . Low-carbonproducts . Industrial ecology

Introduction

Biobased products are defined as “the products that are de-rived from plants and other renewable agricultural, marine,and forestry materials and provide an alternative to conven-tional petroleum-derived products” (USDA 2020). Biobasedproducts are either complete or partial derivatives of biologi-cal origin (excluding the fossils), and can be broadly classifiedinto three: (a) biobased materials, (b) bioenergy/biofuels, and

(c) biochemicals (Table 1). The basic feedstocks for the pro-duction of these products is either the biomass (lignin-cellu-losic), biogenic waste, or gaseous emissions (CO2, CO, CH4,etc.), and utilizing these feedstocks efficiently in biorefinerysystems will play a significant role (Venkata Mohan et al.2016 & 2019; Badgujar and Bhanage 2018; Ubando et al.2020). Biobased products are considered to be sustainabledue to its functional advantage of replacing the fossil-basedproducts and thus, are gaining tremendous importance in theglobal economy. CAGR for biobased products is expected tobe 12.6% between 2018 and 2025 (Market Analysis Report2020). Biobased products are encouraged in the current junc-ture for their reduced emissions and environmental soundness.In general, sustainability when measured revolves around theproduct, its production, processing, handling, utilization, anddevelopment (Muralikrishna and Manickam 2017). Toachieve sustainability, broadly two solutions can be consid-ered (a) sustainable utilization of resources i.e., shifting from alinear economy (fossil-based) to a biobased economy (BBE)/bioeconomy (BE) and low-carbon economy (LCE) and (b)shifting from linear fossil-based economy (LE) to a circulareconomy (CE). Implementing a BBE reduces dependency onthe fossil-based raw materials and thus address associated

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article(https://doi.org/10.1007/s42824-020-00007-x) contains supplementarymaterial, which is available to authorized users.

* S. Venkata [email protected]; [email protected]

1 Bioengineering and Environmental Science Lab, Department ofEnergy and Environmental Engineering, CSIR-Indian Institute ofChemical Technology (CSIR-IICT), Hyderabad 500 007, India

2 Academy of Scientific & Innovative Research (AcSIR), CSIR-IndianInstitute of Chemical Technology (CSIR-IICT) Campus,Hyderabad 500 007, India

3 National University of Singapore, 21 Lower Kent Ridge Road,Singapore 119077, Singapore

https://doi.org/10.1007/s42824-020-00007-x

/ Published online: 7 September 2020

Materials Circular Economy (2020) 2: 7

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s42824-020-00007-x&domain=pdf

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5564-4135

https://doi.org/10.1007/s42824-020-00007-x

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

climatic and environmental issues, which eventually leads to-wards decarbonization platform supporting sustainability(Carus 2017; Venkata Mohan et al . 2016, 2018;Kulshreshtha et al. 2011). BBE is often considered as a sus-tainable solution but not always found to be climate-friendly(Carus 2017). The biobased products production should offeras a resource-intensive and resource-efficient platform.However, associated processes other than cradle-to-graveanalysis such as direct/indirect land use can lead to additionalgreenhouse gas (GHG) emiss ions (Carus 2017) .Understanding and measuring GHG emissions can help inthe reduction and management of these emissions in turnheading towards the development of a LCE.

LCE, a term first published in 2003 in the white paper titled“Our energy future - creating a low carbon economy,” ofBritish Department for Trade and Industry, generally refersto an economy that causes low levels of GHG emissions(Suttie et al. 2017; Chen and Wang 2017). The rigorous envi-ronmental regulations and protection in USA and Europe are

driving green product development, and their market is ex-pected to amalgamate the CE and BE, especially in Europe(Market Report 2020). CE is the sustainable solution of pres-ent LE model of “take-make-dispose” which is way far fromthe sustainability agenda where protecting ecological servicesand efficient resource utilization are the main priorities. CE isintended to achieve sustainability primarily due to its cyclicindustrial metabolism of both its biological and technical nu-trients. CE and its standardization is also represented as apromising endeavor to achieve sustainability. Thus, to effi-ciently and effectively reduce or measure all possible emis-sions, sustainability measurement is now becoming an emerg-ing priority. Sustainability in any product generation or anyimportant process execution with its development is measuredby life cycle assessment (LCA) (Ness et al. 2007; Singh et al.2009). LCA provides an overview of all possible impactsassociated with the products and also covers the globalwarming potential (GWP) as a matrix further facilitating indeveloping an LCE associated with BBE and CE. In this

Table 1 List of commercializedbiobased products Biobased chemicals Biobased materials Biobased energy

Methanol

Formic acid

Ethylene oxide

Mono-ethylene glycol (MEG)

Acetic acid

Propanol

Iso proponol

1,2-Propanediol

1,3-Propanediol

Acetone

Epichlorohydrin

Lactic acid

Malonic acid

n-Butanol

iso-Butanol

1,4-Butanediol

Ethyl acetate

Crotonaldehyde

Succinic acid

Ethyl lactate

Levulinic acid

Xylitol

Furfural

Itaconic acid

Sorbitol

2,5-Furan-dicarboxylic acid

Lysine

Citric acid

Ethylene (from ethanol)

Propylene

Polylactic acid

Polyhydroxy alkanoates (PHA)

Acrylic acid derivatives

Tetrahydrofuran (THF)

Isoprene

Methyl methacrylate

Adipic acid (Nylon 6,6)

Natural rubber

Cellulosic fibers

Nanocellulose

Biocomposites

Bioadhesives

Bioethanol

Biohydrogen

Biomethane

Biohythane

Syn-gas

H-CNG

Propane

Boidiesel

7 of 28 Mater Circ Econ (2020) 2: 7

context, the present communication is designed to provideinsight into the biobased products with their LCA and associ-ated limitations with probable solutions. Overview of LCA ascritical tool to measure sustainability is discussed with a spe-cial emphasis on biobased products in the context of CE.

Biobased Products—Positioning with CircularEconomy and Bioeconomy

CE as discussed considers both the biological and technicalnutrient cycles. Although, practically, the clear difference be-tween the biological and technical cycles is still unclear, Forexample, the spectrum of products constituted from biomate-rials, like wood or abiotic materials from metals, there is adescription that biological materials are entitled to enter onlyin the biological cycle (biocycles). However, a strong possi-bility of entering these bioproducts/biomaterials in technicalloops as well cannot be ignored (Corrado and Sala 2018). Aborder perspective focused on the biotic component of aneconomy generally known as “Bioeconomy” (BE). TheOrganization for Economic Co-operation and Development(OECD) defined BE “as a world where biotechnology con-tributes to a significant share of economic output” (OECD2009) while, European Commission (EC) defined, “BE isthe production of renewable biological resources and the con-version of these resources and waste streams into value-added products, such as food, feed, biobased products andbioenergy” (European Commission 2012). BE is known toadd value to CE by producing, converting, and utilizing natu-ral resources (EESC 2020).

Processing and consumption of the entire extent of renew-able and natural resources are considered under the scope ofBBE (EU Publications, Bio-Based Economy in Europe 2011).For differentiation, generation of biomass/feedstock is dealtwith BE while the food and feed sector, biobased products,biomaterials, biorefineries, bioenergy, or biofuel productionentirely or partly utilize the biobased feedstock dealt byBBE (Kardung and Wesseler 2019). Additionally, LCE ismeant to address climate change, and “carbon” here generallyrefers to carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions which are the majorcontributors to climate change (Suttie et al. 2017; Katakojwalaand Venkata Mohan 2020b). The utilization of renewable re-sources is a key aspect of LCE. The CE, LCE, BE, and BBEall comes under the scope of green economy (GE) (Fig. 1). GEis considered to be an umbrella concept with the simplestunderstanding as an economy that is of low carbon, re-source-efficient, and socially inclusive (Kardung et al.2019). The embodied energy of a product during its life cyclealso influences its sustainability. BE intends to have low-carbon materials/chemical/fuels/energy as its prime focus istowards achieving sustainability in the framework ofdecarbonization. Therefore, low-carbon material/chemical/

fuels/energy needs attribution for biobased products with ap-propriate tolls. The exploitation of biorefinery systems andbiogenic wastes as feedstocks will play a key role in develop-ing biobased CE (Venkata Mohan et al. 2016 & 2018; Dahiyaet al. 2018).

Biobased Products—Overview

The biobased products (chemicals, material, and energy/fuels)are either exclusive or partial derivatives of the resources ofbiological origin (except fossils) which are emerging as a sus-tainable alternate with lower environmental footprints to theexisting fossil-based trade-offs. Various biobased productsthat have potential opportunities and have grabbed the indus-trial attention based on the reports (Stichnothe et al. 2020;Biosc 2020) are depicted in Table 1.

Biobased Materials

Bioplastics The plastic market explosion is owned to theirincredible use as a substitute to metals in automobile, electri-cal, construction, and electronics sectors. Typically, theseplastics are derived/produced from unsustainable petrochem-ical products. Thus, there is an emerging concern and demandfor the production and utilization of eco-friendly plastics viz.biobased plastics and biodegradable plastics to support sus-t a inab le deve lopment ( Iwa ta 2015) . Po ly lac t i cacid/polylactide (PLA) is one of the most used bioplasticwhich are analogous to conventional plastics like polyethyl-ene, polypropylene, and polyethylene terephthalate

Fig. 1 Venn diagram depicting various economies in green economy(adapted from Kardung and Wesseler 2019)

of 28 7Mater Circ Econ (2020) 2: 7

(Bioplastics News 2020). PLA is generally produced in twoconsecutive steps which are (a) formation of lactic acidthrough fermentation of plant starch such as corn, wheat, cas-sava, sugarcane, and sugar beet pulp, followed by (b) self-condensation polymerization of lactic acid or lactide ring-opening polymerization (Nagarajan et al. 2016). PLA is flex-ible plastic in terms of its degradability, as the compositionalvariance and the quality which make it either readily degrad-able in a short period or last for several years. PLA has goodstructural stability with high transparency and used in the foodindus t ry for sens i t ive food produc t packaging .Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) also belong to aliphatic poly-esters that are produced by several bacteria and archaea ascytoplasmic accumulation under particular nutrients andgrowth conditions (Venkata Mohan and Reddy 2013;Amulya et al. 2014a, b). Polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) is alsoa biodegradable and biocompatible plastic, which has exten-sive application range of industrial, medical, and agriculturalapplications (Muhammadi et al. 2015). However, the com-mercial production of PHA/PHB is limited with several fac-tors such as specific medium conditions, nature of pure cul-tures, and downstream process which reflects in the OPEX.

Cellulose Fibers Cellulose is a natural polymer of high molec-ular weight, containing elongated D-glucose units with β-1,4-glycosidic linking bond, and acts as the organizational back-bone in plants (Ferreira et al. 2018). Cellulose fibers on com-bined with polymers or plastics result in the formation ofbiocomposites and fiber-reinforced plastics (FRP). The cellu-lose fibers act as fillers in FRP and biocomposites; they providedimensional stability, void volume, absorptive capacity, tensilestrength, and reduce elastic modulus. In addition, celluloseholds considerable applications in the pharma sector in the formof lubricants, disintegrates, diluents, coatings, and binders.Recently, depolymerized forms of cellulose such as microcrys-talline cellulose (MCC) and nanocellulose (NC) are cominginto prominence due to their unique properties and applications(Katakojwala et al. 2019). MCC is “purified, partiallydepolymerized cellulose” prepared through the acid-catalyzedtreatment of cellulosic pulp of plants (Katakojwala and VenkataMohan 2020a). MCC has exceptional particle size (5–50 μm),thermal stability, and tensile strength, which depends on reac-tion conditions in the production. MCC is used as an excipient,binder, and adsorbent in the pharma industry (Zhang et al.2020). It is also used as anticaking agents, stabilizers, fat sub-stitutes, additive, and emulsifiers in the food industry.MCC canbe employed as gelling agents, stabilizers, and suspendingagents in the beverage industry. Among all the cellulose deriv-atives, nanocrystalline cellulose (NCC) has received much at-tention in recent years and emerged as a sustainable and assur-ing nanomaterial, due to its unique properties, namely, specificsurface area, low density, thermal stability, high elastic modu-lus, and optical transparency (Ferreira et al. 2018). NCC holds

various potential applications as engineering and functionalmaterial in paper, paints, biomedical devices, electronic sen-sors, packaging, etc.

Biobased Composites The combination of two or more ma-terials of diverse physical and chemical properties resultsin the formation of a composite that eventually has betterproperties than the materials with which it was made so.The composites possess improved strength and stiffness;thus, they can be employed in different applications. Thebiobased composites hold decent applications in the auto-mobile sector, the construction industry, and electronicscasings (Reddy et al. 2016). As discussed earlier, cellu-losic fibers are used for making fiber-reinforced plastics.The earliest biobased composites suffer from various lim-itations in their processing and expenditure, which de-layed their entry into the market. The emerging trend to-wards the production and use of bioplastics, biobasedresins, and fibrous materials for composite preparationresulted in significant improvement in the quality and ap-plicability of biobased composites (Innovative Industry2020). Diverse biobased materials are used to producebiobased composites, viz., wood decks, sound-absorbingwooden materials, the interior of bathrooms, windowframes, consumer applications, decorative trim, automo-tive panels, and industrial applications.

Bioadhesives Usually, bioadhesives are the naturally avail-able polymeric compounds that serve as adhesives. Someof the materials such as gums that are produced frombiogenic sugars and the synthetic material intended tobind to the biological tissue are also considered asbioadhesives. The conventional glues are bioadhesives,majorly made up of proteins (gelatine) and carbohydrates(starch). The bioadhesives comprehend various terminol-ogies such as natural adhesives, biocompatible adhesives,biological adhesives, bioinspired adhesives, and biomi-metic adhesives (Suárez 2011). The difference betweenthose adhesives and the examples for the adhesives aredepicted in Table 2. By virtue of adverse environmental,health, and safety issues corresponding to the perilouscomponents, volatile organic compound (VOC) emissionscost, and complications in recycling/reusing the adhe-sives, the synthetic adhesives industries have not beenencouraged. The bioadhesives are attaining commercialattention as they show biocompatibility and thus holdgood applications in the biomedical domain (Mathiaset al. 2016). The global market scope of bioadhesives isexpected to increase from USD 5.6 billion to USD 9.1billion in a span of 5 years (2019–2024), at a CAGR of10.0% due to the upsurge of their utility in the paper,packaging, construction, woodworking, and medical in-dustries (Market Analysis Report 2020).


Biobased Chemicals

Biobased chemicals are general chemical products that areexclusively or partially derived from materials of biologicalorigin (lignin-cellulosic biomass, cultivated crops, algae, ma-rine fauna, and biological/organic waste) (EU Science Hub2020). Several industries are commercializing n-butanol, iso-butanol, and 1,4-butanediol production. n-Butanol is pro-duced as a fermentative co-product along with acetone andethanol (Biddy et al. 2016). 1,4-Butanediol is a multifacetedchemical intermediate used in polymer production andstarting material in agricultural and pharmaceutical sectors.Levulinic acid produced from C6-carbohydrates (starch andcellulose) of lignocellulosic biomass holds two reactive func-tional groups (ketone and carboxylic acid) that admits severalof chemical conversions and produce a broad spectrum ofcompounds (Biosc 2020). Hydrogenation/reduction of C5-sugars like xylose and arabinose yields xylitol and arabitol,respectively. Xylitol serves as a natural sweetener and with40% fewer calories than the sugar. Black liquor from paperand pulping plants and hydrolysates from various pretreat-ment processes are also being used to produce xylitol even-tually reducing the environmental impacts (Subroto andHayati 2020). Metabolic pathway alteration is being usedto produce methanol, acetone, n-propanol, isopropanol,1,2-propanediol, ethanol, and glycerol in consolidatedbioprocessing system from lignocellulosic-carbohydrates(Mcbride et al. 2018).

Volatile Fatty Acids Conventionally, the volatile fatty acids(VFAs) are synthesized chemically through oxidation ofpetroleum-based hydrocarbon compounds, which are energyconsuming and causes adverse effects on the environment.Biological production of these VFAs is becoming the need

of the moment. Acidogenesis is possibly an evolving technol-ogy for translating the biomass/organic waste to low-carbonbiohydrogen (H2) and VFAs (C2–C5), i.e., acetic acid(CH3COOH), propionic acid (C2H5COOH), butyric acid(C3H7COOH), and valeric acid (C4H9COOH) (Dahiya et al.2015). The most advantageous property of acidogenesiswhich makes it suitable to be placed in BBE is the utilizationof spectrum of complex biodegradable wastes generated fromvarious sources, towards the production of these acids (Dahiyaand Mohan 2019; Sarkar et al. 2016). These short-chain car-boxylic acids have huge market potential and act as platformchemicals in existing chemical and biotech industries. Theenormous industrial importance of these acids has made themplaced in the important chemicals list prepared by the USDepartment of Energy (DOE) (Sarkar et al. 2016).Chemically, these can act as the building blocks for com-pounds including alcohols, aldehydes, ketones, esters, olefins(Venkata Mohan et al. 2016).

Biosolvents Production of bio-origin solvents such asbioethanol and biobutanol is progressing as an innovative ap-proach to meet their demand (Walker et al. 2013). The world-wide bioethanol market is expected to rise to USD 64.8 billionby 2025 with CAGR of 14.0% (Markets and Markets 2020).Globally, a huge demand for utilization of fuel blends for theexisting engines is rising to control GHG emissions, in whichbioethanol is playing a key role (Cheban and Dibrova 2020).Ethanol and gasoline blends such as E10, E15, and E85 areprevailing in present times. Various biomass feedstocks couldserve as starting material for the fermentation to produce dif-ferent generation ethanol, i.e., from the first generation to thefourth generation. There is particular attention for biobutanolproduction owing to its ability to directly replace gasoline.Few bacterial strains belong to Clostridiaceae family are able

Table 2 Classification of bioadhesives according to characteristics (Adapted from Suárez 2011)

Bioadhesive type Natural adhesives Biocompatible adhesives Biological adhesives Bioinspiredadhesives

Biomimeticadhesives

Characteristic/feature Derived eitherpartly or solelyfrom biobasedcomponents andapplicable insynthetictechnology

Natural or artificial adhesive whichinterrelates with biotic tissues andfluids

Secretions of theorganisms (Fish;arthropods;holothurians; mollusks;insects; worms; bacteria;fungi; algae;amphibians; andspiders)

Syntheticadhesivesconfigured byinspiring thebiologicalfunctionsconcepts, andmechanisms

Manmade andconfigured toimitate theframeworkandmechanism ofnaturaladhesion

Examples Natural rubber andgums; starch;dextrin; cellulosederivatives;animal/fishglues; soybean;bitumen

Fibrin glues; cyanoacrylates; GRF(gelatine-resorcinol--formaldehyde); chitosanadhesives

Polysaccharide adhesiveviscousexopolysaccharide(PAVE);dihydrosyphenylalanine(DOPA); tyrosinase;hydrogels

Bacterialinspired—PAVE adhesive;gecko-inspiredadhesives

Mussel-mimeticpolymer;gecko-mimeticsilicone pillars


to produce biobutanol consuming reducing sugars that arederived from biomass hydrolysis (Huang et al. 2015).

Succinic Acid The US DOE has recognized succinic acid(C4H6O4), a dicarboxylic acid as one of the top 12 platformchemicals that are intended for marketable production throughbiological approaches. Succinic acid is used as starting mate-rial for a diverse fine chemical production, namely, adipicacid, 1,4-butanediol, c-butyrolactone, tetrahydrofuran, n-methyl pyrrolidone, and a few biodegradable linear aliphaticesters such as polybutylene succinate (PBS) (Amulya andVenkata Mohan 2019). The production of succinic acidthrough biological routes is an emerging interest.Optimization of process parameters such as carbohydrate con-centration, agitation, nitrogen source, pH, buffering agents,temperature, CO2 supplement, and electron donors may influ-ence on the succinic acid productivity (Jiang et al. 2017).

Bioenergy/Biofuels

Adopting renewable energy along with energy-efficient strat-egies offers a significant reduction in the global gas emission.Energy recuperation with biological pathways offers opportu-nities to minimize the fossil-based amenities together with thereduced environmental impacts.

Biogas Methane (CH4) is biologically produced as the finalproduct in the anaerobic digestion/fermentation usingbiogenic/organic feedstock, viz., sewage, municipal waste,biomass, manure, plant, and crop waste. For effective appli-cation of biogas as fuel, it needs to be refined and upgraded tominimize CO2, H2S, and moisture (de Jong et al. 2012).Acidogenesis is the second and crucial step of anaerobic di-gestion of organic compounds (biomass) which results in hy-drogen (H2) production (Venkata Mohan et al. 2008; Sarkaret al. 2016). H2 has the highest calorific value of nearly34,000 kcal/kg and considered as the clean fuel as it doesnot emit GHG on combustion and supports the “Hydrogeneconomy.” Methane is generally used in chemical industryand automobiles in the form of compressed natural gas(CNG) which is a better fuel compared with petrol and diesel.However, to meet the demand and minimize GHG emissions,methane needs to be refined. Hythane, a blend of H2 and CH4,is drawing attention in recent years as an efficient fuel for theautomobile industry (Liu et al. 2013; Pasupuleti and VenkataMohan 2015). The chemical composition of biohythane in-cluded < 15% H2 with major methane fraction (Sarkar andVenkata Mohan 2017) which accounts for H-CNGapplications.

BiodieselUtilization of futuristic and substitute fuels for dieselengines is becoming prominent in the current times to con-serve the crude oil reserves and cut down the CO2 emissions.

Biodiesel is a sustainable and clean biobased energy, since it isproduced from catalytical transesterification of vegetable oils,animal fats, yeast, or microalgal oil with methanol. The ad-vantages of biodiesel include its parallelism to diesel fuel,renewability, non-toxic nature, and low emission profiles(Abbaszaadeh et al. 2012). Carbon neutral fuels from oleagi-nous biocatalyst by utilizing waste feedstock as carbonsources are gaining prominence in the context of CE(Sreeharsha and Venkata Mohan 2020). Oleaginous yeastsand fungal species can effectively use biogenic waste as theenergy source for the accumulation of lipids. These oleagi-nous fungi can harness carbon from glycerol, used oils, agri-cultural wastes (rice husk, wheat straw, sugarcane bagasse),and waste liquor of corncob processing to produce lipids(Subhash and Venkata Mohan 2011). Microalgae cultivationis one of the potential routes that is capable of producing lipidsthat can be synthesized to biodiesel with desired property bytransesterification. The flexibility of algal cultivation bothwith inorganic and organic carbon through an autotrophic orheterotrophic or mixotrophic mode of cultivations admits itspotential role in BE (Devi and Venkata Mohan 2012).

Life Cycle Assessment

Life cycle assessment (LCA) aids in assessing and measuringthe environmental impact of product / process / servicethrough evaluation of its complete life cycle or lifetime by adefined analytical protocol starting from extraction, produc-tion, process development, consumption, and disposal(Curran 2016). Specifically, LCA will analyze a product or aprocess by assessing its impact on the environment and thusaids the industrial sector to restructure their technologies/processes to cut the corresponding environmental impacts(Brusseau 2019). In contrast to environmental impact assess-ment (EIA) which focuses only on the consequences of pro-posed developmental actions, LCA concentrates on extendingstandard assessment precincts and providing wider scope tothe environmental assessment as a whole (Židoniene andKruopiene 2015). The framework of LCA was designed bythe International Standards Organization (ISO) with referenceto the ISO Standard 14040 with four distinct methodologicalsteps, namely, (a) goal and scope definition, (b) inventoryanalysis, (c) impact assessment, and (d) interpretation (ISOStandard 14040; Brusseau 2019) as detailed in Fig. 2 andTable 3. The LCA approach is quite flexible and specific tothe purpose of the analysis. The application of LCA resultsaccording to the LCA methodology will be custom-designedand implemented. The following stage-wise integration needswith key factors to be considered and clearly outlined for anauthentic LCA (Muthu 2014; ISO Standard 14040; Jollietet al. 2015). Important definitions related to LCA are shownin Table 4.


Table 4 Important definitions inlife cycle assessment Terms Definitions Reference

Attributionalapproach

Here, the modeling system of inputs and outputs are ascribed bylinking and/or segregating the unit processes of any productsystem to the basic functional unit through an established rule.

LCI 2020

Consequentialapproach

This system modeling approach involves inclusion of linkedactivities of a product system by expecting to change as a resultof change in demand for functional unit.

LCI 2020

Cut-off criteria This indicates the amount of material or energy flow or the level ofenvironmental relevance in association with unit processes orproduct system to be excluded from a study

ISO Standard14040

Raw data The extractions from various data sources, like bookkeeping of aplant, national statistics, or journal literature is used as data forunit process inventory modeling to deliver at the end

LCI 2020

Reference flow It is the measurement of outputs from processes in a given systemrequired to perform the task of the functional unit

ISO Standard14040

System boundary It is a set of parameters enumerating the particular unit processes ofa product system

ISO Standard14040

Inventory dataset A set of specific input and output data pertaining to a process(unit/consolidated process)

ISO Standard14040

Life cycle inventory(LCI):

The phase of LCA, where the data is collected, modeled, and resultsare made.

UNEP/SETAC2009

Carbon footprint Carbon foot print of a product/process is defined as the total amountof greenhouse gases (CO2 equivalents) and CO2 released into theenvironment as a result of natural and anthropogenic activities.

ISO Standard14067

Direct land-usechanges (DLUC)

It refers to the direct transitions/effects pertaining to agriculturalland use, namely, the emissions, soil quality and productivities.

De Lucia 2015

Indirect land-usechanges (ILUC)

It refers to the changes related to use of forest or non-agriculturalland which converted to an agricultural land for production ofspecific commercial crop. It may lead to environmental impactssuch as eutrophication and water scarcity.

De Lucia 2015

Bioeconomy A set of specific input and output data pertaining to a process(unit/consolidated process)

EuropeanCommission2012

Table 3 Methodology forperforming life cycle assessment Steps Factors

1 Goal and scope Definition of the system boundaries

Variation of life cycle (cradle-cradle, cradle-gate, cradle-wheel, gate-gate, etc.)

Fixing the functional unit for the study

Allocation to be followed

2 Inventory analysis Selecting and separating primary and secondary sources of data

Data and data quality’s requirements

Kind of assumptions employed or to be employed

Value choices and optional elements

Cut-off criteria to be employed

3 Impact assessment Selection of impact categories and classification

Characterization and the optional steps

Normalization (optional)

Weighing (Optional)

LCA methodology to be implemented

4 Interpretation Critical Review of results and Interpretation

Uncertainty analysis

Preparation of final report


Goal and Scope

Goal and scope deal with the conceptualization, understand-ing, clarifying, and thinking about the possible measures to betaken during the performing of LCA. The goal and scope stageis often underestimated but it is one of the critical stages ofLCA methodology where the exact LCA approach isresoluted (Curran 2017). The scope of the study with a spe-cific goal reasoning and the intended applications is a criticalstep. This phase is the principal component of LCA method-ology that consists of several key elements such as systemboundary, functional unit, allocation, and cut-off criteriawhich can substantially alter the outcomes of the study. Thesystem boundary is defined as the limit of the intended studyin determining the exact scope considered for analysis, and thematerial flows and the unit operations involved (ISO Standard14040). LCA is performed with a particular system boundaryand the system defines the variant of LCA to be performed(Supplementary Table 1). Alternatively, it can be said that aparticular variant of LCA decides the system boundary to bekept during the goal and scope phase of an LCA. Additionally,the scope of LCA can be extended by using particular variantsat various stages or processes of a product. These variants inLCA have different objectives and aim towards the evaluationof sustainability (Table 5).

The functional unit is significant in terms of goal and scopephase, which outlined as “the measure that permits perfor-mance quantification of the product system and acts as thereference for all the input and output material/energy flows”.Setting appropriate system boundaries and the functional unitcan only result in reliable comparative environmental impactsof the studied systems. Allocation is no more than assigning

the input or output flows of a product process/system amongconsidered product and/or other multi-product systems; there-fore, the quantity of energy and resources (material) that turnup into respective product is a very significant criterion, whendiverse products from single process are analyzed and thateventually leads to the uncertainties. Due to a lack of specificdata, some trustworthy assumptions are needed to be takeninto account, which also may result in some limitations. Cut-off criteria provision needs to be made by the practitioner toexclude some amount of energy flow or material or the levelof environmental significance related to the unit processes orproduct system from the studied system; thus, the impactsbelow the cut-off score would not be accounted in the resultsof the study (Life Cycle Initiative 2020).

Inventory Analysis

This phase deals with the collection of essential data to reachthe goals of the specified study (ISO Standard 14040). The lifecycle inventory (LCI) analysis includes quantification of theprocess and presentation of the combined process flow chartconcerning functional sources. Energy and raw material flowthrough the system and emissions (to air, water, and soil)needs to be calculated for the entire life cycle of the productor process (Torabi and Ahmadi 2020). The system understudy may be split into several sub-systems and unit processesto make the analysis job easier. The measured emissions, en-ergy constraints, flow of materials, etc. of each procedure aredocumented. This data is may be revised with the goal andscope, to portray the entire life cycle of a product or process(Hellweg and i Canals 2014).

Impact Assessment

This phase involves the grouping of all emissions and re-sources according to various impact categories and convertingthem to common impact units and making them comparable.This stage is generally referred as life cycle impact assessment(LCIA) (Hellweg and i Canals 2014). According to ISO14044: 2006, LCIA is typically performed through four steps,in which two are mandatory and the other two are optionalsteps, wherein the mandatory steps are (i) selection of impactcategories and classification, (ii) characterization and the op-tional steps include (iii) normalization, and (iv) weighing(Table 3). Selection of impact categories and classificationare the important tasks in LCA, in which various categoriesof environmental impacts that fit to the study are considered,and the elementary flows from the inventory are allotted basedon the compound’s respective influence on various environ-mental issues.

Characterization is also a crucial step of LCIA, where theimpact from individual emission/element is calculated as pertheir specific activity with the environment and quantitatively

Goal and Scope Defini�on

Inventory Analysis

Impact Assessment

Interpreta�on

Fig. 2 Life cycle assessment process (ISO Standard 14044)


expressed in the equivalents of a reference compound. Forexample, the eutrophication impact category is expressed inkg PO4 (phosphate) equivalents for each raw material (Kayoet al. 2014; JRC European Commission 2010). Individual

characterized impact values are connected to common refer-ence in the normalization step that includes comparing the sizeof one component contribute to the total contribution to theproblem throughout the annum. For example, a process results

Table 5 Important LCA variations employed for evaluation

LCA variants Details

Cradle-to-grave Boundary covers the source or resource extraction (cradle) for the product creation throughout its use phase and toend of disposal phase (grave).

Examination of all upstream and downstream processes and emissions from the surroundings.Assessment will assist in widening a holistic view of a product/process but sometimes may be complicated to assess

precisely

Cradle-to-gate Boundary covers the source or resource extraction (cradle) of the product factory gate (gate) before reaching thecustomers

Assessment starts from extraction of resource, transportation, refining of the resource, its processing, and theproduction of the product until leaves the gate (Hidayatno et al. 2011) without considering usage and disposal

Mainly makes the basis of environmental product declarations (EPD) normally termed business-to-business EDPs(Cao 2017)

Gate-to-gate System boundary is set only to processing and linked with the production channel, which includes raw materials,transportation, disposal, recycling, etc.

Mainly focuses on relationship of the inventory to the already available information (Jiménez-González et al. 2000)The environmental impact parameters are relatively less considered in this approach (Muhamad et al. 2012;

Kopsahelis et al. 2018)

Well-to-wheel Involves analysis of all the stages in process developmentEstimates emissions from processes through all the life cycle stages till recovery process (Rahman et al. 2015)Provides methodology and policy-neutral technology to comprehend implications and issues with each technological

pathway by taking into account the performance with regard to emissions reduction and enhancement of energyefficiency (Wheel to Wheel 2016)

Cradle-to-cradle or closed-loopproduction

Cradle-to-grave assessment when the disposal phase is incorporated with recycling processImplies to minimize the environmental impacts towards sustainabilityThis method employs sustainable production, operation, and disposal practices and reduces environmental impact

thereby aiming to incorporate social responsibilityEmploys sustainable production, operation, and disposal practices and promotes social responsibilityIncorporates sustainability as all products and its components are recycled and not considered as wasteDesigned to keep materials continuously circulate as nutrients in the closed-loop cycles (Sherratt 2013)

Economic input–output (EIO)LCA

Uses information from industry transactions–purchase of raw materials by one industry from another and directemissions of the factories to evaluate total emissions throughout the system

Estimates all the energy sources, materials and processes necessary for and emissions resulting from economicactivities

Comprehensive for the whole economy and thus the process diagram includes information and links from all thesectors (Henderickson et al. 1998)

Ecologically based LCA Focal point of all the above variant of LCAs is emissions and resources consumption and does not focus on theecosystem and natural resources management

The main scope is sustainability of ecosystem and ecology, both in terms of goods and services and the engineeringaspect

Comprises of provision, regulation and support of ecosystem at the input level to any life cycle at the economic scale(Singh and Bakshi 2009)

Provide insight about the relative use of resources and their lossGives a detailed analysis of indices: efficiency, renewability and returns on the investment on the basis of aggregate

indicators (Bakshi 2010)

Exergy-based LCA Exergy is the amount of functional work extracted from a system in a way that it comes back to equilibrium state withits environment in a reversible manner (Salehi et al. 2018)

Employed in industries engineers, environmental engineers and other related domains experts to assess the energyefficiently, with a reduced impact on the environment

Studied through the application of exergy analysis in environmental and resource analysisA sophisticated decision-making tool to formulate sustainability (Salehi et al. 2018)Exergo-environmental analysis tool helps in quantification of depletion of natural resources (Rocco and Colombo

2016; Salehi et al. 2018)


in a ton of pollutants and the worldwide production of thatparticular pollutant is 10 million tons, then the normalizedvalue of the process is 10 millionth of a year, i.e., 10−7 yearsor 3.2 seconds. Weighing is another optional step, whereranking/weighting is made for various impact categories thatindicate the relative impact of the system/study. The results ofthe use of resources like energy, electricity, and emissionsreleased are enumerated and listed into different categoriesof impact, followed by considering its importance. Based onindicators, the system is examined through an environmentalperspective. It also provides information for the final phase,i.e., interpretation.

Various LCIA methodologies were developed to facilitatein better assessing the impacts of a product/process (Table 6).Some of those methods are described in the following:

CML Method The Centre of Environmental Science of LeidenUniversity, Netherlands, provided an “operational guide to theISO standards” in 2001, which explains the procedure forperforming LCA for a process/product/project according tothe guidelines of ISO standards along with some modifica-tions and upgradations (Guinée et al. 2001). The guide intro-duced a set of impact categories and characterization methods,as well as factors for a wide range of substances (resourcesfrom nature and emissions to nature) for impact assessmentstep. The midpoint categories of CML methodology includevarious climatic, ecosystem, health, resource depletion con-siderations (Table 6). Various kinds of modeling aspects aredeliberated, and adoptions are made in a mutually dependablemode that corresponds to handling of time, space, non-linear-ities, economic, social, and technological mechanisms(Guinée and Lindeijer 2002). The data uncertainties arediscussed in the method; however, they are not quantified.The normalization factors for CML 2001 are available forthe Netherlands, the European Union, and the World. Theinterrelations of midpoints with the endpoints are explainedbut not quantitatively modeled.

TRACI Method “Tool for Reduction and Assessment ofChemicals and Other Environmental Impacts” (TRACI) wasdeveloped by USEPA (EPA 2020). Themajor objective of theTRACI method is to support the impact assessment processfor LCA, sustainability metric calculations, process design,industrial ecology, and pollution control. This methodologywas specifically designed for the USA using the data and inputparameters of US locations for various impact categories(EPA 2020). The characterization step is modeled as acause-effect chain approach by considering the impact cate-gories at the midpoint level. New impact categories, the hu-man health cancer, and non-cancer were specially included inthis method, and they are robustly incorporated according tothe assumptions made for the US conditions (Bare 2011).Human health aspects, ecosystems quality, and resources

and artificial environment are stated in the impact categoryselection step; nonetheless, they are not quantified. The nor-malization factors are available for the USA, and weighting isnot suggested in the methodology. The main limitation of thisLCIA methodology is its location specificity (data specific tothe USA), and it may not apply to other parts of the globe.

ReCiPe Method ReCiPe LCA methodology was designed anddeveloped by various institutions from the Netherlands, name-ly, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment(RIVM), Institute of Environmental Sciences of theUniversity of Leiden (CML), PRé Consultants, RadboudUniversiteit Nijmegen, and CE Delft in 2008. The ReCiPemethod is designed as the hybrid of well-known LCIA meth-odologies, viz., CML and Eco-Indicator 99, through combin-ing the midpoint indicators from CML method and the end-point indicators from Eco-Indicator 99 methodology (RIVM2020). As this method is very extensive, was not published asa single publication; nevertheless, various impact categoriesmentioned in this method were published in several peer-reviewed magazines. There are two typical ways to acquirethe characterization factors, i.e., at the midpoint level and theendpoint level. This method calculates 18 midpoint indicatorsalong with 3 endpoint indicators, wherein the midpoint cate-gory indicators include specific environmental problems suchas ozone depletion, terrestrial acidification, depletion of min-eral resources, ionizing radiation, agricultural land occupa-tion, freshwater eutrophication, marine eutrophication, humantoxicity, terrestrial ecotoxicity, freshwater ecotoxicity, photo-chemical oxidant formation, particulate matter formation, cli-mate change, marine ecotoxicity, urban land occupation, nat-ural land transformation, depletion of fossil fuel resources,and depletion of freshwater resources (De Schryver et al.2009). The endpoint categories are indicated with the com-bined impact of midpoint categories and represented as humanhealth (disability-adjusted life years; DALY), ecosystem qual-ity (biodiversity in PDF.m2 yr; potentially disappeared frac-tion of species per m2 area per year), and resources (surpluscost). In 2016, the ReCiPe methodology was revised meticu-lously and updated in a consistent framework by the RIVMand Radboud University Nijmegen. All the midpoint and end-point characterization factors are calculated according to areliable environmental cause-effect approach, excluding theland-use and resources. The conversion of the midpoint cate-gories to endpoint categories will rationalize the interpretationof the LCIA results. Nevertheless, this particular step mayresult in an increment of uncertainty in the LCA results.

Impact 2002+ Method IMPACT 2002+ LCIA methodologywas initially designed and established by the SwissFederal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL),Switzerland. While later on the IMPACT Modeling teamis maintaining and updating the methodology. It relates all


kinds of LCI results of elementary flows along with dif-ferent interferences through 14 midpoint and 4 endpoint/damage categories. The midpoint categories are majorlyconsidered from Eco-Indicator 99 and CML 2001methods, which include components of health (carcino-gens, non-carcinogens, respiratory inorganics, respiratoryorganics), climate change (global warming, ionizing

radiation, ozone layer depletion), ecological damage(aquatic ecotoxicity, terrestrial ecotoxicity, terrestrialacid/nitrification), and natural resources exhaustion (landoccupation, non-renewable energy, mineral extraction)(Jolliet et al. 2004). Each midpoint category score is re-ported in terms of reference compound equivalents andcorrelated to the four endpoint/damage categories such

Table 6 Overview of LCAmethodologies Method Developers Orientation level Considered (midpoint/endpoint)

impact categories

CML The Centre of EnvironmentalScience of Leiden University,Netherlands (Guinèe et al. 2001)

Midpoint level Abiotic depletion; global warming;acidification; eutrophication;ozone layer depletion; freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity; marineaquatic ecotoxicity; humantoxicity; terrestrial ecotoxicity;photochemical oxidation

TRACI The U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) (EPA 2020)

Midpoint level Ozone depletion; global warming;acidification; eutrophication;smog formation; human healthcancer; human healthnon-cancer; human health criteriapollutants; ecotoxicity; fossil fueldepletion; land use and water use

ReCiPe Netherlands National Institute forPublic Health and theEnvironment (RIVM), Instituteof Environmental Sciences of theUniversity of Leiden (CML),PRé Consultants, RadboudUniversiteit Nijmegen and CEDelft (RIVM 2020)

Midpoint/endpointlevel

Midpoint categories: climatechange; ozone depletion;terrestrial acidification;freshwater eutrophication;marine eutrophication; humantoxicity; photochemical oxidantformation; particulate matterformation; terrestrial ecotoxicity;freshwater ecotoxicity; marineecotoxicity; ionizing radiation;agricultural land occupation;urban land occupation; naturalland transformation; depletion offossil fuel resources; depletion ofmineral resources; depletion offreshwater resources.

Endpoint categories: human health(DALY); ecosystem quality(PDF.m2 yr); resources (MJ;surplus cost)

IMPACT The Swiss Federal Institute ofTechnology Lausanne (EPFL),Switzerland (Jolliet et al. 2004)

Midpoint/endpointlevel

Midpoint categories: carcinogens;non-carcinogens; respiratoryinorganic; ionizing radiation;ozone layer depletion; respiratoryorganics; aquatic ecotoxicity;terrestrial ecotoxicity; terrestrialacid/nutrification; landoccupation; global warming;non-renewable energy; mineralextraction

Endpoint categories: human health(DALY); ecosystem quality(PDF.m2 yr); climate change (kgCO2 eq); resources (MJ surpluscost)


as ecosystem quality, resources, climate change, and hu-man health. Notions and assumptions are established forthe relative evaluation of ecotoxicity and human toxicitymidpoint categories (Rosenbaum et al. 2008). The impor-tant factors like severities, dose intake fractions, and dose-response slope factors are considered for human healthdamage factors. The normalization step will be performedeither at the midpoint or at the endpoint/damage level.The transmission of pollutants into human food can beaccessed from agricultural and livestock production levelsonly, but not from the consumption surveys. The midpointcategories corresponding to health aspects are calculatedbased on average responses instead of conventional as-sumptions (JRC European Commission 2010).

Interpretation and Improvement Assessment Interpretationis defined as a phase of LCA in which the findings ofeither the inventory analysis or the impact assessment,or both, are evaluated with the defined goal and scopeto reach conclusions and recommendations (ISO Standard14040). This phase involves the analysis and alignment ofresults according to the goals and scope phase. The wholecycle is assessed, limitations are addressed consecutively,and any improvements are incorporated. According toISO 14040: 2006, the interpretation phase ought to in-clude the following aspects (ISO Standard 14040;Hernandez et al. 2019).

1. Identification. Structuring of the results from interpreta-tion phases in determining the significant issues, accord-ing to the goal and scope of the study.

2. Evaluation. The evaluation of the study according to thecomprehensiveness, sensitivity, and consistency checks.Establishing and enhancing the reliability with the confi-dence of the results and the presentation of the resultsshould be clear and understandable.

3. Conclusions, limitations, and recommendations. The out-put from the analysis will be provided in the form ofconclusions, limitations, and recommendations.

An LCA is a repeated process where the stages are iterateduntil the systems are better understood or optimized. Goal andscope define the pros and cons of the study, inventory consistsof the data requirements and the elements necessary for un-dertaking the study, impact assessment implies the quantifica-tion and description of the impact of the study on the environ-ment, and improvement involves the basis for assessment ofany changes required to complete the cycle and come to avalid conclusion (DEAT 2004). On the whole, the LCAproves to be a valuable data set in analyzing environmentalconditions of product and process systems which are manda-tory in decision-making towards sustainable development(DEAT 2004).

Circular Economy–Cradle-to-Cradle Approach

The LE model being practiced for the last 200 years ismainly characterized by resource depletion, fluctuatingmarket prices of resources, interdependence, waste man-agement, and its disposal, environmental and climatechange issues, etc. Shifting from LE into the CE modelis essential for overall sustainability. Adapting a cradle-to-cradle (C2C) approach deliberates transition to CE ina way and is supposed to play a major role in sustain-ability. CE concept is emerging as the most promisingstrategy to incorporate the environmental well-being, so-cietal benefits, and economic aspects through systemsthinking approach, wherein the materials (waste/output)of a system will be considered as starting material/inputfor another by closing the loops by keeping the materialin use (MacArthur 2020).

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation, EC, and variousprominent organizations believed that CE strategies onsocial, economic, and environmental dimensions can di-rectly benefit economies. The Ellen McArthur foundationadvocating the CE concept and proposed a famous “but-terfly” model that differentiates between technical and bi-ological cycles (Fig. 3). In the technical cycle, reuse, re-pair, remanufacture, or recycling strategies are used torecover and restore products, components, and materials.In biological cycles, consumption happens only whereprocesses like biological processes are used as feedbackin biologically based materials into the system to regen-erate the natural systems (Venkata Mohan et al. 2019;2020). Three guiding principles for CE were proposed,namely, (a) design out waste and pollution, (b) keep prod-ucts and materials in use, and (c) regenerate natural sys-tems (McArthur 2013) (Fig. 4).

The CE approach promotes effective resource recov-ery with parallel dwindle in environmental burdens andalso functions as a perspective that urges the businesssector, government, and policymakers in decision-mak-ing. Besides, CE also manifests the links, streams, andresponses among the systems. The three basic principlesof the CE concept includes primarily the protection ofenvironmental resources, controlled utility, and equilib-rium in renewable resource flows (Haupt and Zschokke2017). Secondly, the optimization in resource acquisi-tion via circulating materials at various phases of thesystem, and thirdly, the reduction of detrimental exter-nal factors and eradication of toxic substances from thesystem. The features that support sustainability such asredefining products and services, use of renewable orrecyclable, or biodegradable resources are taken intoconsideration in the CE concept (Venkata Mohan et al.2019).


LCA in Fortifying the Circular Economy

Life Cycle Thinking

Life cycle thinking (LCT) is being a critical part and can belayered (Ashby 2016) to solve a complex problem (Fig. 5).Here, the starting point is the bottom layer which defines theproblem while the second layer is formed by the context of aproblem like the surrounded circumstances or why or how theproblem has arisen. The third layer deals with a systematic,

value-dependent research of the factual information of theproblem and its context where facts are assembled and noimplications are sought. If the problem is not solved at layerthree, for a value-based assessment, resolvable by debates,discussions, and compromise which recognize the diverseviews on the problem, then it moves to layer four. The finallayer of reflection decides on the conclusions on strategy, anyaction is drawn from the debate, possible solutions, or leavingthe involved parties dissatisfied with the solutions or findingthe way to reduce dissatisfaction (Ashby 2016). LCA has

SHARE

MAINTAIN/PROLONG

REUSE/REDISTRIBUTE

RECYCLE

RENEWABLES

SERVICE PROVIDER

USER

PRODUCT MANUFACTURER

PARTS MANUFACTURER

REFURBISH/REMANUFACTURE

EXTRACTION OFBIOCHEMICAL FEEDSTOCK

REGENERATION BIOSPHERE

FARMING/COLLECTION

BIOECHEMICALFEEDSTOCK

CASCADES

CONSUMER

COLLECTIONCOLLECTION

BIOGAS

RENEWABLES FLOW MANAGEMENT STOCK MANAGEMENT

FINITE MATERIALS

REGENERATE SUBSTITUTE MATERIALS VISTUALISE RESTORE

Minimise Systema�c Leakage And Nega�ve Externali�es

PRINCIPLE 1

PRINCIPLE 2

PRINCIPLE 3

Fig. 3 Butterfly model of circular economy (adapted from Ellen Macarthur Foundation 2017)

Define the problem

Consider the context

Research the facts

Debate implica�ons

Reflect on policy

Fig. 5 Layering approach of Life cycle thinking (adapted from Ashby2016)

Keep Products and Material in use

Design Out waste and Pollu�on

Regenerate Natural Systems

CIRCULAR ECONOMY PRINCIPLES

Fig. 4 Principles of circular economy (adapted from Ellen MacarthurFoundation 2017)


broad application prospects in CE (Chen and Huang 2019).The CE also roots in industrial ecology as an integral part isbeing implemented with the C2C approach (Braungart et al.2007; Dieterle et al. 2018).

C2C as an innovative framework is employed for the de-signing of products towards the achievement of environmentalsustainability (Dieterle et al. 2018). This eventually necessi-tates the requirement of new innovations and technologies thatcan lead to closing the loop and can aid in the decoupling ofeconomic growth from the consumption of natural resources(Dieterle et al. 2018). With integrated methodology, LCAquantifies the impacts of the CE components and economicparadigms to complement the CE (McArthur 2013). LCAdoes not always lead to environmental benefits, sometimeseven more negative consequences were observed when theclosing loop approach of the CE model was employed(TóthSzita 2017). In conventional LCA methodology, thelandfilling is considered as the end-of-life of a product, andthe recycling/reuse of the material accounts for the avoidedburden of the system (Haupt and Zschokke 2017).Nevertheless, CE considers the recycled material as thestarting material of another system which leads to complica-tions in setting the functional unit and system boundary for thestudy. There should be two functional units considered, name-ly, product 1 (primary product) and product 2 (a product de-rived from recycled material), and those two products are uti-lized at different periods (Laurin 2020). Various stages of thelife cycle of the products and the LCA approaches that aretaken into considerations are depicted in Fig. 6. In LCA ap-proach 1, life cycle stages include raw material extraction,manufacturing, transport, the utility of product 1, and disposal.Some of the disposed components are subjected to recycle/reuse and employed in the manufacture of product 2, fromwhere its life cycle starts. The remaining stages of product 2are the same as depicted in Fig. 6. The sensitive and pivotalthing is firming the functional unit for product 2, which incor-porates all the impacts of products 1 and 2, wherein LCAapproach 2, the life cycle of product 1 starts with raw materialextraction followed by the manufacture, transport, use, andended up with landfilling disposal. The landfill acts as thesource of raw material for producing product 2, in which theimpacts of the product 1 life cycle will not come into account,since the life cycle of product 2 starts from raw material ex-traction from landfill. Thus, before the application of LCA tothe CE model, the environmental, social, and economic im-pacts of the proposed work are comprehensively taken intoaccount and that needs to be relatively beneficial over thelinear/open-chain model (Laurin 2020). C2C approach maynot necessarily favorable from an LCA professional’s pointof view concerning the reduction of environmental impactsand the establishment of sustainability (Dieterle et al. 2018).LCA results need to be construed in concerning C2C by tak-ing the closed loops of material flows into account and

without overlooking conceivable trade-offs throughout the lifecycle of a product/process (Katakojwala and Venkata Mohan2020b). For better alignment of C2C/CE thinking with LCAmethodology, a new approach called life cycle gap analysis(LCG-A) was proposed that precisely categorizes and esti-mates the theoretic circularity gaps corresponding to theweighted environmental impacts of product/process life cycleregarding system losses (Dieterle et al. 2018). The LCA andPSS (Product Service System) integration is also suggestedfrom a microperspective in the context of CE (Chen andHuang 2019).

Complementing Methodology

One of the renowned LCA practitioners, PRé Sustainabilityintroduces a methodology for complementing CE with thehelp of the LCA framework, which includes the test of as-sumptions, identification of limitations in the CE model, andsetting up of objectives to improve CE (PRé Sustainability2020). Fig. 7 depicts the LCA methodology forcomplementing the CE. Sometimes, the reality can be implau-sible; hence, proper assumptions need to be considered. Pin-pointing the limitations is an important step that positivelyleads to rethinking for alternative and trustworthy assump-tions. The LCA results will provide appropriate intuition andpriorities which leads to defining specific key performanceindicators (KPIs) that support CE modeling (PRéSustainability 2020). Continuous monitoring of progress orvariations and feedback help in the maintenance of synergybetween LCA and CE.

ISO—Circular Economy

CE importance is now known to the entire globe; nonetheless,there is no agreed global vision for an organization how tocomplete the circle. CE standardization is a new need.Internationally, ISO/TC 323, Spain Circular 2030, and BS8001:2017 are the CE standardizations more often used(Ávila-Gutiérrez et al. 2019). To build a global standard forCE, an ISO technical committee named ISO/TC 323: circulareconomy was formed in 2019 (ISO News 2019). The scope ofISO/TC 323 is the standardization in the field of CE to max-imize the contribution of CE in sustainable development bydeveloping frameworks, providing guidance, supportingtools, and requirements for activities implementation of in-volved organizations. ISO/TC 323: circular economy ex-cludes the CE aspects already covered by existing committees(ISO/TC 323 2020). ISO/TC 323 has the responsibility ofpreparing ISO/WD 59004: circular economy—frameworkand principles for implementation; ISO/WD 59010: circulareconomy—guidelines on business models and value chains;ISO/WD 5902: circular economy—measuring circularityframework; and ISO/CD TR 59031: circular economy—


performance-based approach-analysis of cases studies whichall now are in draft stage (ISO/TC 323 2020). The draft meth-odology of phases to measure circularity involved in ISO59020 is depicted in Fig. 8 which shows the methodology

for CE evaluation has been adapted from LCA but it variesfrom the phases in terms of the inclusion of inventory focusedon circularity aspects, and impact has been replaced by thetotal circularity valuation. Additionally, the focus has beengiven using complementary methods like LCA, social lifecycle assessment (sLCA), and mass flow analysis (MFA),aligning with sustainable development goals (SDGs). The in-terpretation phase will provide the results of circularity mea-surements which will have direct application in policy set-tings, value chain design, business model valuation, productand system design, and measuring material circularity.

ISO—Mass Balance

ISO/TC 323 committee is keen to include a mass balanceapproach in ISO for CE, as it is considered to accelerate thetransition of linear to the CE.

It is understood that the ISO standard for mass balance willstrongly impact varied stakeholders for example:

& With industries where, if mass balance will be implement-ed, there will be no performance losses and efficient use ofexisting assets and technologies

& With government where, the mass balance will facilitate afaster transition towards CE with potential less CO2

emissions

ResourceExtraction Manufacturing Transport Product - 1

Product - 2 Transport Manufacturing

Recycling/Reuse

LCA Approach - 1

ResourceExtraction Manufacturing Transport Product - 1

Product - 2 Transport Manufacturing

Landfilling

Extraction from LandfillLCA Approach - 2

Fig. 6 LCA approaches considered for complementing circular economy models

Product Circular model

Testing the Assumptions

Rethink and Reframe the

model

Deciding priorities for upgradation

Defining specific Key Performance

Indicators

Progress monitoring and

feedback

Fig. 7 LCA methodology for complementing circular economy models


& The mass balance will help certification bodies and audi-tors towards harmonization among diverse standards

& With NGOs, brand owners, or consumers, mass balancewill help in a higher value chain transparency and highercredibility.

MacArthur Foundation recently provided a mass bal-ance principle in its white paper titled “Enabling ACircular Economy for Chemicals with The MassBalance Approach” which emphasized an industry inbecoming better to get material back into the circularmaterial loops what was once produced (CE100 WhitePaper 2019). It is mentioned that if the inner loops of

the circular material loop are inefficient in recycling,then mechanical recycling can be exploited to bringthe materials back in use. The example of plasticrecycling is depicted in Fig. 9, which shows that plasticcan be recycled by mechanical recycle or chemicalrecycling. The introduction of the chemical recyclingof plastic is important as there are limitations in collec-tion systems and mechanical recycling leading to only9% plastic being recycled worldwide. Thus, for movingtowards a resource-efficient circular model by loopingused plastics back into the production system, chemicalprocess inclusion can be worth exploring (CE100 WhitePaper 2019).

SERVICE

REFURBISH

PARTSHARVESTING

RECYCLE

EXTRACTINGRAW MATERIAL

PRODUCTION

DISTRIBUTION

RETAIL

USER

UNRECYCLABLEWASTE

POLYMERMOLECULES

MONOMERMOLECULES

MOLECULARFRAGMENTSPLASTIC

ATMOSPHERECO2

ENERGY OUT FROM INCINERATION

CO2 FIXATION BY PHOTOSYNTHESIS POWERED BY SOLAR ENERGY

POLYMERLOOP

MONOMERLOOP

MOLECULAR LOOP

ENERGY IN FOR CIRCULAR LOOPS

BIOMASS

MECHANICAL RECYCLING

CHEMICAL RECYCLING

THERMALRECOVERY

(not part of a circular economy)

Fig. 9 Mass balance approach aligned with ISO/TC 323 CE program and recycling of plastic as an example (based on CE 100 White Paper, 2019)

Goal and Scope

Defini�on

Circularity Aspect

Inventory

Total circularity valua�on

Interpreta�on

Applica�one.g. Policy se�ng, value

chain design, business model valua�on,

product design, material circularity,

system design

Complementary methods, e.g. LCA, SLCA, MFA, SDG’s,

etc.

Framework for measuring and assessing circularityFig. 8 Draft methodology forISO/WD 59020 (adapted fromISO/WD 59020)


Circularity Metrics

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation, EC, and other organi-zations believed that CE strategies on social, economic,and environmental dimensions can directly benefit econ-omies. Though the lack of a reliable and consistent mea-surement framework in implementing CE is still the keychallenge; thus, it can be addressed by using a singlecircularity metric for the global economy (CGRi 2020).CGRi, in its “Measuring and Mapping Circularity” report,attempted to provide a meaningful circularity metric thatwould measure the amount of recirculated materials as afraction of the total material inputs into the global econo-my in a specific year. Ellen MacArthur Foundation haslaunched a digi tal circulari ty measurement toolCirculytics, in January 2020 (Circulytics 2020). This dig-ital tool supports any company for its transition towardsthe CE and can help in revealing the extent of circularitybeing achieved by a company during its entire operations.Circulytics measures not only product and material flowbut its entire circularity; it helps in decision-making andstrategic development, highlights the improvement areasand demonstrates strengths, provides investors and cus-tomers optional transparency regarding CE adoption ofthe company, and finally, delivers an unrivaled clarityregarding company’s CE performance, thus, facilitatingthe opening of new opportunities for the generation ofbrand value with the reliable and main stakeholders(Circulytics 2020).

Industrial Symbiosis

Industrial symbiosis (IS) is an integrated mechanism in whichthe wastes/by-products generated in an industry/industrialprocess turn out to be the starting materials for another indus-trial process, which is analogous to the CE framework(Baldassarre et al. 2019; Venkata Mohan et al. 2019). Theindustrial economy (IE) enables the creation of a CE witheffective and sustainable utilization of materials in theproduct/process chains and helps to minimize the loads onthe environment (Cecchin et al. 2020; Kerdlap et al. 2020).IS replicates the functions of ecosystems with networkingstructure, having interlinks between all the components andoffers circulation of materials and energy inside the systemwith minimum losses as waste (European Commission2020). These efforts result in reduced ecological footprintssince the demand for pristine raw material must be curtailedto a greater extent and the waste disposal is also considerablyminimized (European Commission 2020).

With its methodological advantages, the LCA tool facili-tates environmental performance assessment of a symbioticsystem and endorses a quantifiable analysis of spin-off/by-product sharing and symbiosis networks (Mattila et al. 2012;

Zhang et al. 2017). This provides an appropriate rationale inselecting the symbiotic system with minimal impacts andevaluating the sustainable symbiosis paths (Chiavetta et al.2017). Based on the LCT approach, the main environmentalburdens of the resource can be identified and arrive at thepossible benefits by the implementation of IS paths (Cutaiaet al. 2020). Also, LCA identifies the interventional opportu-nities by the evaluation of the possible alternatives and limitsand therefore provides new impetus during the design phase(Chiavetta et al. 2017). LCA can be performed on the possiblesymbiosis paths relative to the conventional waste manage-ment practices, and that will help in identifying critical andbeneficial elements of the symbiotic approaches (Cutaia et al.2020). Additionally, a synergy will be established among part-ners of IS where they can co-invest in joint projects withmutual benefits and common facilities at the industries suchas manpower, wastewater treatment plants which ultimatelyresults in overall economic profits, and development of eachpartner industry apart from environmental sustainability. TheIS offers commercial value to the waste material and tangen-tially favors both environmental and economic reserves andtherefore facilitates the development of circular businessmodels (Cecchin et al. 2020).

Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment

Combining the environmental, economic, and social im-plications of the entire life cycle, i.e., “cradle-to-grave” ofproducts, their use and waste management is consideredto perform under life cycle sustainability assessment(LCSA). To support the development of a holistic lifecycle sustainability assessment (LCSA), a frameworkwas given by The United Nations EnvironmentProgramme (UNEP) and Society of EnvironmentalToxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), under its LifeCycle Initiative (UNEP/SETAC 2011). In this framework,the LCSA is referred as “the evaluation of all environ-mental, social and economic negative impacts and bene-fits in decision-making processes towards more sustain-able products throughout their life cycle” For LCSA,LCA (SETAC/ISO LCA), LCA-type environmental lifecycle costing (LCC), and social or societal LCA (sLCA)are the three pillars that are projected under the triplebottom line model (Kloepffer 2008). This definition in-cludes economic and social aspects to the LCA andbroadens ISO LCA (Guinée 2016). Combinedly throughLCA, LCC, and sLCA, LCSA is attempted although it hasdiverse levels of methodological development (Sala et al.2013). LCSA thus typically adopts a life cycle approachincluding environmental, economic, and social techniqueswhich are described in the below sections:


Life Cycle Assessment

LCA is explained in detail in the “Life Cycle Assessment”section.

Life Cycle Costing

LCSA’s economic pillar is generally based on economic met-rics that are meant to align with the LCA of LCSA whereverpossible for which accepted the approach of LCC. LCC is theprosperity/profitability aspect of sustainability and summa-rizes all the costs in a product’s life cycle which are directlyassumed by one or more participants in the product system(Petrillo et al. 2016). The LCCmethodology was proposed bySwarr and co-workers (2011). It follows the similar systemboundaries like LCA but only includes monetary inputs andoutputs despite environmental flows unlike LCA. LCC isaligned with ISO 14044/1440 (Stamford 2020). Thus, it canbe clearly understood that the data inventory is being preparedfor the cost of all the inputs and outputs allied with a specificproduct for which LCC is to be performed. SETAC approachconsiders all economic costs incurred by the factors in anyproduct or process life cycle, to sum up as LCC. LCC canbe expressed to its key stages which are as represented(Stamford 2020):

LCC = CC +CFO +CVO+CW+CE + CTwhere LCC represents total life cycle cost, CC is capital

cost, CFO is fixed operating costs, CVO is variable operatingcosts, CW is the cost of waste management (includingrecycling), CE is the cost of end-of-life disposal, and CT rep-resents the cost of transport between stages. LCC is generallyassociated with LCA but it differs from not only by terminol-ogy but also by its content. Its relevance is questioned inLCSA (Sala et al. 2013) based on (a) LCC generally fails totake into account of broad/global perspective intrinsic to sus-tainability as it only focuses on costs for the individual and (b)LCC fails to project varied capitals related to sustainability asit only addresses the monetary cost. It was also highlightedthat synergies among the LCA and other methods for LCCcannot facilitate by combining different environmental andeconomic analysis. Sala and co-workers (2013) proposed aformalized computational structure for environmental LCC.

Social Life Cycle Assessment

Social life cycle assessment (sLCA) is the most recent andleast-developed LCA among all other dimensions of LCSA.The guidelines on sLCA have been established by UNEP(UNEP/SETAC 2009) and to make it consistent with LCAand LCA, it was meant to align with ISO 14040/14044(Stamford 2020). According to UNEP, it is referred to as, “amethod that can be used to assess the social and sociologicalaspects of products, their actual and potential positive as well

as negative impacts along the life cycle (sLCA-LCI 2020).”This is a factual and prospective impact evaluation techniqueaiming to examine the social and socioeconomic characteris-tics of the respective product and its constructive and negativeimpacts on their life cycle. sLCA facilitates in estimating thesocial benefits by effects of the stakeholders at local, national,and global levels. Degree of societal values and the extent towhich life’s goals can be achieved is measured by the majorityof social indicators (Petrillo et al. 2016). Similar to LCA,sLCA also has four phases of goal and scope definition, in-ventory analysis, impact assessment, and interpretationphases. On contrary to environmental LCA, stakeholder in-volvement is also included in all the four stages, and also,higher level sensitivity to changing geographical locations isincluded for each stage (Fauzi et al. 2019). Additionally, incontrast to LCC and LCA, sLCA has still had inadequacy onsufficient indicators or standardized methods. Stakeholder in-volvement is highly crucial in sLCA methodology; thus, theindicators meant or developed for the evaluation are phasedaccordingly to the important stakeholders, as there are directlyaffected by the life cycle (Popovic and Kraslawski 2015).

Sustainable Development Goals Coupledwith LCA

Implementing the advantages of life cycle impact frame-works to SDGs is becoming important for augmenting thesustainability analysis methods (Life cycle Initiative2020). The life cycle impact frameworks are not onlypertinent to evaluate the environmental implications of aproduct but also amenities, organizations, and the terri-tories. The performance assessments permit comparabilitywith references like planetary boundaries or policy targets(Teh et al. 2020). LCIA outline also considers the inclu-sion of the social impacts, which could satisfactorily ad-dress the SDGs. The recent advances in socioeconomicLCA with social and economic indicator quantificationover the supply chain are considered to be more signifi-cant to the SDGs (PRé Sustainability 2020). The integra-tion of the SDGs to the LCIA framework may result in theinclusion of new and specific business-related indicatorsalong with the existing government- and policy-relatedindicators to support the SDG targets. Recently, PRéSustainability and 2.0 LCA have initiated a UNEP LifeCycle Init iat ive project called “Linking the UNSustainable Development Goals to life cycle impact path-way frameworks” to couple the designed approach of theSDGs with the holistic approach of life cycle thinking(PRé Sustainability 2020). The project has establishedtwo complementary approaches to aid the business sectorin measuring their performance on the correspondingSDGs. Both approaches strive to relate the SDGs to


LCIA by creating impact pathways that connect the SDGsto company performance with the help of assessments,indicators, and targets following scientific findings. Oneapproach begins from the prevailing LCA framework inthe business activity, and it will have the respective SDGsas the endpoint. Other approach proceeds in the oppositedirection, i.e., from a single endpoint of sustainable well-being, tracking the impacts back to the SDGs and thebusiness operations. LCA framework directly supportsthe majority of the SDGs such as good health and well-being (SDG-3), clean water and sanitation (SDG-6), af-fordable and clean energy (SDG-7), sustainable cities andcommunities (SDG-11), responsible consumption andproduction (SDG-12), climate action (SDG-13), life be-low water (SDG-14), and life on land (SDG-15) (Fig. 10).

ISO Standards Associated with LCA

International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is aworldwide federation that works for preparing theInternational Standards. For LCA, ISO previously releasedseveral standard documents which were as follows:

& Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and Framework: ISO14040: 1997

& Life Cycle Inventory Analysis: ISO 14041: 1998& Life Cycle Impact Assessment: ISO 14042: 2000& Life Cycle Interpretation: ISO 14043: 2000

Presently, these ISO are withdrawn and revised by ISO14040: 2006 and ISO 14044: 2006; thus, presently these are

the main ISO standard for LCA. As per ISO, the proposedapplication of LCA or LCI results is only considered duringthe process of defining the goal and scope, although the ap-plication is kept outside the scope of these InternationalStandards (ISO Standard 14044). Other relevant ISO stan-dards related to LCA and other environmental sustainabilityanalyses are provided in Table 7.

LCA Application for Biobased Products

As the biobased product is generally derived from renewableresources/feedstock; thus, it cannot be considered the wholeprocess of production always sustainable. LCA helps inaccessing environmental sustainability by systematically ac-counting all the materials and energy inputs along with all out-puts at every stage of the product life cycle and concludes in thequantification of associated impacts (Katakojwala and VenkataMohan 2020b). LCA also assists in qualifying a product forenvironmental product declarations (EPDs) and can assistpolicymakers to choose and prepare specific policies. Forperforming LCA of biobased product, the following stagesneed to be considered (Dunn 2019).

a) Feedstock production. Includes various agriculture activ-ities such as cultivation, fertilizer and pesticide production(organic/synthetic), crop harvesting, waste/residual bio-mass generation, respective emissions (to air, water, andsoil), soil-carbon dynamics to depict the quality of theland use, yields of biomass/feedstock, direct and indirectland use, and associated changes like crop displacement.

b) Transportation and distribution of feedstock. Includes thedistance from farm to biorefinery/production facility,mode of transportation, biomass moisture content, mate-rial losses, and qualitative changes in feedstock during thetransportation, energy efficiency of transportation, andthe respective payloads.

c) Feedstock processing and conversion. This stage includesvarious steps for conversion of the biomass to the targetedproduct(s) through chemical/thermo-chemical/biological/hybrid routes which involve pre-processing of feedstocks,pretreatment, energy and chemical inputs, (bio)catalystused, process optimization, by-product/co-product forma-tion, product separation (purification), and storage.

d) Transportation and distribution of product. This phasemajorly takes into the considerations of distance frommanufacturing site to the market or distribution center,mode of transportation, material losses and qualitativechanges in feedstock during the transportation, energyefficiency of transportation, and the respective payloads.

e) Product utility and its fate. This phase considers the im-plications of the product utility such as the demand in themarket, durability (short/long-lived), temporary carbon

Life Cycle Assessment supporting

Sustainable Development Goals

Fig. 10 Sustainable development goals (SDGs) directly associated to lifecycle assessment and circular economy approaches


storage, mode of disposal, the biodegradability of theproduct, and immediate-/long-term emissions.

The key features of LCA methodology to be considered forbiobased products are listed below (ISO Standard 14040: 1997):

Table 7 ISO Standards related to life cycle assessment, environmental declarations, claims, and circular economy

ISO Standard Description Reference

ISO 14040:2006 This details the principles and framework for LCA which includesGoal and scope of LCALife cycle inventory analysis (LCI) phaseLife cycle impact assessment (LCIA) phaseLife cycle interpretation phaseReview and reporting of the LCA resultsLCA limitationsRelationship among different LCA phasesConditions for use of value choices and optional elements.

ISO Standard 14040

ISO 14044:2006 This standard document is meant to specify the requirements andprovides standard guidelines for LCA which includes

Definition of the goal and scope of the LCALCI phaseLCIA phaseLife cycle interpretation phaseReview and reporting of the LCA resultsLCA limitationsRelationship among different LCA phasesConditions for use of value choices and optional elements.

ISO Standard 14044

ISO 14045:2012 This standard document is meant for eco-efficiency assessment anddescribe the principles, requirements and guidelines which includes

Definition of goal and scope of the eco-efficiency assessmentEnvironmental assessmentProduct-system-value assessmentQuantification of eco-efficiencyInterpretation (including quality assurance)ReportingCritical review of the eco-efficiency assessment

ISO Standard 14045

ISO 14046:2014 Specifies principles, requirements and guidelines related to water footprintassessment of products, processes, and organizations based on LCA as astand-alone assessment. The result provides a single value or profile ofimpact indicator from the water footprint assessment

ISO Standard 14046

ISO 14067:2018 Specify principles, requirements and guidelines for the quantification andreporting of the carbon footprint of a product (CFP), in consistent withISO 14040 and ISO 14044 for LCA and addresses the climate changesingle impact category

ISO Standard 14067

ISO/TR 14047:2012 Examples to demonstrate LCA current practice according to ISO 14044:2006.The example reflects the key elements of the LCIA phase.

ISO Standard 14047

ISO/TS 14048:2002 Technical Specification under ISO/TS 14048:2002 - data documentation format,its requirements and structure. This format is to be used for obvious andunambiguous documentation and exchange of LCA and LCI data.

ISO/TS Standard 14048

ISO/TR 14049:2012 Carrying out LCI practices which helps in satisfying few provisions of ISO 14044:2006 ISO/TR Standard 14049

ISO standard for environmental declarations and claims

ISO 14020 Principles or basis of developing ISO guidelines and standards on environmentalclaims and declarations

ISO Standard 14020

ISO 14021 Provides the Guidance on the terminology, symbols, and testing and verificationmethods that should be used for self-declaration of the environmental aspectsof products and services

ISO Standard 14021

ISO 14024 Guiding principles and procedures for third-party environmental labeling certificationprograms

ISO Standard 14024

ISO 14025 Guidance and procedures on as specialized form of third-party environmental labelingcertification using quantified product information labels

ISO Standard 14025

ISO for circular economy

ISO/TC 323 Circular economy ISO Standard 323


& All the environmental aspects from raw material acquire-ment to final disposal (end-of-life) should be systematical-ly and adequately addressed

& Goal and scope definition may lead to variation in thedetail and time frame depth of an LCA study to a largeextent; thus, one should be specific in defining the goaland scope of the considered study

& The key aspects of LCA framework, viz. the scope, as-sumptions, system boundary and functional unit setting,description of data quality, cut-off criteria, methodologies,and output should be germane

& Employing widely acknowledged and reliable datasources are recommended for a viable LCA output

& The LCA of biobased products should consider each im-pact category, and the significant aspects like environmen-tal burden shifting need not be overlooked

& The statistical approaches like sensitivity and uncertaintyanalysis are required to account for quality LCA study

A couple of examples of environmental sustainability as-sessment studies on biobased products using LCA by us aredepicted below.

Microcrystalline Cellulose Production fromSCB—Process Optimization

Sugarcane bagasse (SCB) is the chief and copiously offeredresidual waste resulted from sugar processing units which aremostly aimed for production of co-generation of electricity(Katakojwala et al. 2019). Nevertheless, its chemical compo-sition offers the choice to act as a good starting material forseveral value-added products such as fermentation deriva-tives, paper production, xylitol, cellulosic and lignin deriva-tives, additives, and fillers for composite materials. Amongthem, microcrystalline cellulose (MCC), moderatelydepolymerized cellulose is becoming prominent, because ofits multifaceted properties that grasp considerable applicationsin the pharmaceutical sector. Three different procedures forMCC production, namely, MCC1, MCC2, and MCC3, werestudied with distinct chemicals and reaction conditions(Katakojwala and Venkata Mohan 2020a). Environmentalsustainability analysis was performed by employing theLCA tool to measure and figure out the specific impact ofeach method. The system boundary was outlined as per thegate-to-gate LCA approach which includes processing of ba-gasse followed by its pretreatment, extraction of cellulose, andproduction of MCC. One kilogram of the product, i.e., MCCfrom eachmethod, was considered as the functional unit of thestudy. The impact assessment analysis was performed withCML-IA baseline V3.05/World 2000 method available withSimaPro 8.5.2.0 software to study, evaluate, and compare theeffect of specified MCC production methods on various envi-ronmental impact categories (Fig. 11a).

CML-IA baseline method includes various impact catego-ries as stated in the “Biogas” section. MCC1 method hasshown the maximum influence over entire impact categoriesexcluding the abiotic depletion.MCC2 displayedmore impacton abiotic depletion, because of the utilization of H2SO4 inthe pretreatment step, which has comparatively more influ-ence on the impact category than HNO3 used in MCC1 meth-od. Apart from electricity, the chemicals such as sodium hy-droxide, sodium hypochlorite, and hydrogen peroxide that areused in delignification, bleaching, and depolymerizationsteps, respectively, have shown a considerable impact onozone depletion. Among the inputs of the system, raw mate-rial, SCB, and the deionized water used in the reactionsdisplayed significantly less impact on the impact categoriesdue to their eco-friendly nature. Significant impact on marine,freshwater aquatic and terrestrial ecotoxicity was noticed in allthe three MCC production methods, in which the contributoris the electricity used in every unit operation. The consump-tion of chemicals has minimal influence compared with elec-tricity contribution. MCC3 method represented relativelyminimal impact on several impact categories since the powerconsumption was less compared with MCC1 and MCC2methods. MCC3 method exhibited fairly less impact inconcerning the global warming potential (27% lower thanMCC2). Sankey is distinct flow diagrams that quantitativelyrepresent the share of the respective input parameter/processsteps on the overall process. As depicted in Sankey diagramsof MCC3 method (Fig. 11b), the share of each input and thespecific process stage was represented with the arrows (morethe width more the contribution). More than 95% of the globalwarming impact was disbursed by the electricity which wasthe main energy input at each step of the process. LCA helpedthe investigators to detect the hotspots of the studywhich has asignificant impact on the environment and thus promotes thesustainable production of MCC from SCB.

Biopropionic Acid Production-Process SustainabilityAnalysis

LCA was performed for propionic acid production byacidogenic fermentation at the lab scale using SimaPro8.5.2.0 (Dahiya et al. 2020). The system boundary ofgate-to-gate was considered excluding the separation ofacids. One kilogram of propionic acid production is de-fined as the functional unit. Ecoinvent v3.5 database(2018) was used for direct inputs and outputs along withCML-IA baseline V3.05/World 2000 and IMPACT 2002+methods. The highest impact was observed with marineaquatic ecotoxicity (1341 kg 1,4-DB eq.) while the leastwith ozone layer depletion (2.43E−08 kg CFC-11 eq.)(Fig. 12). After normalization, the maximum contributionwas noticed with abiotic depletion (fossil fuels) followedby global warming, human toxicity, marine aquatic


toxicity, photochemical oxidation, acidification, and eu-trophication (Fig. 12a). This can be justified, as the elec-tricity utilized for the process is obtained from fossilfeedstock-dependant electricity grid, thus has impacts as-sociated with the electricity production can directly beascribed to pollutants emissions. Further, the anaerobicprocess contributed majorly for the abiotic depletion with94.42%, but the quantitative values for this contributionwere observed to be negligible (5.06E−06 kg Sb eq.).Additionally, it also contributed to terrestrial ecotoxicity(90.43%) which can be brought down by using strategieslike reusing of water, nominal water usages, and fermen-tation outlet treatment. Further, the IMPACT 2002+ meth-od employed to the production process also illustratednominal environmental impacts where the highest was

observed with human health damage indicator (endpoint)while the ecosystem quality (Fig. 12b). The biologicalproduction via acidogenic fermentation was thus observedto be sustainable with the help of LCA.

Challenges with LCA Application

The most important assets of any LCA methodology isits ability and capability to address various environmen-tal issues simultaneously avoiding the shifting of burdenwithin various environmental impacts (Lindqvist et al.2019). The main challenges of the LCA methodologiesare listed below (McKone et al. 2011; Cristóbal et al.

Fig. 11 a Comparative impactanalysis of using CML-IAbaseline 2000 method on MCCproduction methods. b Sankeydiagram of MCC3 processemploying IPCC GWP 100aimpact assessment method(Katakojwala and VenkataMohan 2020a)


2016; Nicolaidis Lindqvist et al. 2019; D’amato et al.2020)

& Selecting the system boundaries is critical. For a compre-hensive analysis to support circular bioeconomy (CBE)cradle-to-cradle (C2C) is generally recommended. Thepractitioner needs to have expertise in CE models andbiorefinery concepts, so that the allocations, boundaryand functional unit settings, and assumptions are appro-priately included in the study.

& All the economic, social, environmental aspects in theframework of sustainability are appropriately accountedfor without overlooking any.

& Feedstock nature, composition, and availability influencethe decision-making to minimize the burdens. The feed-stock is dependent on the environment and surroundingsystems. Biomass production dependent on soil quality,water availability, growth, nutrients available, etc.Considering all these parameters and making an inventoryis quite challenging. In the case of waste feedstock, theheterogeneity of the waste generation and its compositionposes a major challenge in data acquisition and inventoryanalysis.

& Indirect land-use change (ILUC) works on assumptionand this hypothesis is uncertain thus, can possess geo-graphic variability in LCA study. ILUC induce

Fig. 12 Impact category forbiological propionic acidproduction using a CML-IAbaseline V3.05/2000 and bIMPACT 2002+ baseline method(Dahiya et al. 2020)


deforestation or may shift the current cultivation practiceswhich directly influence climate change. ILUC also re-sults in environmental burden shifting with impacts oneutrophication, water scarcity, and food security whicheventually affects human health.

& The mass and energy balances need to be criticallyaccounted since the biorefinery systems will have variousby-products, emissions, and energy losses at each stage ofthe life cycle, and thus, inventory is the major task.

& The biobased systems are closely connected and found tobe in constant interactions, as a forest with atmosphere,agriculture systems with hydrological systems, fisherieswith freshwater or river system, biogenic wastes with theorigin/source, algal cultivation with the type of water usedfor its cultivation, etc. Finding and introducing these syn-ergies in LCA is a challenge and important specifically inISO context.

& A comprehensive LCA considering all impact categoriesis always recommended but brings in the major challenge.The importance of each impact category needs to be un-derstood thoroughly. Lack of knowledge and poor repre-sentation of a few impact factors influence the credibilityof the LCA performed. The impact categories availablewith a chosen impact assessment should not be narroweddown as it affects the completeness of the study regardingcomparability with other studies and the interpretation.

& Themethodology choices and adaptation should be coher-ent when two different studies are compared (biobased vs.fossil-based products). The studies with two different as-sumptions, i.e., allocation and substitution, cannot becompared. The validity of LCA results remains with as-sumptions of a study which are mainly found with severaluncertainties.

& The inconsistencies and limitations in LCA methodologycan directly influence the understanding of environmentalinsinuation which influences the policy and environmen-tal management practices.

& Transparency needs to be implemented while reportingLCA data and results by the following standard and prac-ticed guidelines for reporting results by including inven-tory data.

Conclusions and Future Perspective

Biobased products have a significant position in attaining sus-tainability by lessening environmental impacts associatedwith the fossil-based products and simultanoeuly supportingBE. CE offers interventional solutions in addressing the prob-lems associated with the LE. Standardization and measure-ment of CE are the prime focus of fraternity involved in de-veloping sustainable economy keeping industrial ecology as

an integral part. Replacing the cradle-to-grave approach by theC2C can effectively boost the resource recovery. LCA is animportant and emerging tool to assess the sustainability of aproduct or process. LCA and LCSA also have scope and po-tential for measuring the sustainability of biobased products.However, LCA has challenges in its practice and methodolo-gy which influence the overall application, assessment, andoutput. Altogether, the present study accentuated the impor-tance of springing up circularity concept through resource-efficient biobased material exploitation to facilitate the sus-tainable future. Still, the sustainability position of biobasedproducts in CE needs to be studied and rigorously implement-ed. The production of biobased products under the scope ofCE, measuring sustainability by overcoming limitations andchallenges, integrating industrial metabolism, and adaptingC2C approach can promise to introduce new sustainable prod-ucts in the market leading to a green sustainable economy.Additionally, the best “end of life” for these biobased productsneeds to be identified for maximum reduction of associatedGHG emissions for positioning them at a better place in theglobal economy.

Acknowledgments SVM greatly acknowledges the Department ofBiotechnology (DBT), Government of India, for providing TATAInnovative Fellowship (BT/HRD/35/01/02/2018). SD and RK acknowl-edge CSIR, India, and UGC, India, respectively, for providing researchfellowship. The authors would like to thank the Director, CSIR-IICT, forhis encouragement (IICT manuscript No. IICT/Pubs./2020/169).

References

Abbaszaadeh A, Ghobadian B, Omidkhah MR, Najafi G (2012) Currentbiodiesel production technologies: a comparative review. EnergyConvers Manag 63:138–148

AmulyaK, VenkataMohan S (2019) Fixation of CO2, electron donor andredox microenvironment regulate succinic acid production inCitrobacter amalonaticus. Sci Total Environ 695:133838

Amulya K, Reddy MV, Mohan SV (2014a) Acidogenic spent wash val-orization through polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) synthesis coupledwith fermentative biohydrogen production. BioresourTechnol 158:336–342

Amulya K, Jukuri S, Venkata Mohan S (2014b) Sustainable multistageprocess for enhanced productivity of bioplastics from waste reme-diation through aerobic dynamic feeding strategy: process integra-tion for up-scaling. Bioresour Technol 188:231–239

Ashby MF (2016) Chapter 3. Assessing sustainable development: thesteps in materials and sustainable development. Butterworth-Heinemann

Ávila-Gutiérrez MJ, Martín-Gómez A, Aguayo-González F, Córdoba-Roldán A (2019) Standardization framework for sustainability fromcircular economy 4.0. Sustainability 11(22):6490

Badgujar KC, Bhanage BM (2018) Dedicated and waste feedstocks forbiorefinery: an approach to develop a sustainable society. In: WasteBiorefinery. Elsevier, pp 3–38

Bakshi BR (2010) Accounting for ecosystem services in life cycle assess-ment, Part II : toward an ecologically based LCA 44, 2624–2631

Baldassarre B, Schepers M, Bocken N, Cuppen E, Korevaar G,Calabretta G (2019) Industrial Symbiosis: towards a design process


for eco-industrial clusters by integrating Circular Economy andIndustrial Ecology perspectives. J Clean Prod 216:446–460

Bare J (2011) TRACI 2.0: the tool for the reduction and assessment ofchemical and other environmental impacts 2.0. Clean TechnEnviron Policy 13:687–696

Biddy MJ, Scarlata C and Kinchin C (2016) Chemicals from biomass: amarket assessment of bioproducts with near-term potential (No.NREL/TP-5100-65509) . Nat ional Renewable EnergyLab.(NREL), Golden, CO (United States)

Bioplastics News (2020) https://bioplasticsnews.com/polylactic-acid-or-polylactide-pla/. Accessed on 01 Jun 2020

Biosc (2020) https://www.biosc.de/lw_resource/datapool/systemfiles/elements/ files/5a3d53e0-eb5f-11e9-b1c5-dead53a91d31/current/document/Top20_biobasierte _Produkte.pdf. Accessed on 06Aug 2020

Braungart M, McDonough W, Bollinger A (2007) Cradle-to-cradle de-sign: creating healthy emissions - a strategy for eco-effective productandsystem design. J Clean Prod 15:1337–1348

Brusseau ML (2019) Sustainable development and other solutions topollution and global change. In: Environmental and pollution sci-ence. Academic Press, pp 585–603

Cao C (2017) Sustainability and life assessment of high strength naturalfibre composites in construction. In: Advanced high strength naturalfibre composites in construction. Woodhead Publishing, pp 529–544

Carus M (2017) Bio-based economy and climate change—importantlinks, pitfalls, and opportunities. Ind Biotechnol 13(2):41–51.https://doi.org/10.1089/ind.2017.29073.mca

CE100 White Paper (2019) Enabling a circular economy for chemicalswith the mass balance approach: a white paper from co. project massbalance. https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org /assets/downloads/ Mass-Balance-White-Paper.pdf. Accessed on 22nd

Jun 2020Cecchin A, Salomone R, Deutz P, Raggi A, Cutaia L (2020) Relating

industrial symbiosis and circular economy to the sustainable devel-opment debate. In: Salomone R, Cecchin A, Deutz P, Raggi A,Cutaia L (eds) Industrial symbiosis for the circular economy.Strategies for Sustainability. Springer

CGRi (2020) Circularity gap reporting initiative, measuring and mappingcircularity, technical methodology document, https://www.circularity-gap.world/methodology. Accessed on 30th May 2020

Cheban I, Dibrova A (2020) Development of liquid biofuel market: im-pact assessment of the new support system in Ukraine. J Int Stud13(1)

Chen Z, Huang L (2019) Application review of LCA (Life CycleAssessment) in circular economy: from the perspective of PSS(Product Service System). Procedia CIRP 83:210–217

Chen H, Wang L (2017) Chapter 9 - Coproducts generated from biomassconversion processes, in Technologies for biochemical conversionof biomass, Academic Press, 219–264, ISBN 9780128024171,https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-802417-1.00009-0

Chiavetta C, Fantin V, Cascone C (2017) L’Economia Circolare nelsettore agroalimentare e il Life Cycle Assessment come strumentoa supporto: il progetto FOOD CROSSING DISTRICT, USER-PG64-003, June 2017

Circulytics (2020) https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/resources/apply/ circulytics-measuring-circularity. Accessed 20 Jun 2020

Corrado S, Sala S (2018) Bio-economy contribution to circular economy.In: Designing sustainable technologies, products and policies.Springer, Cham, pp. 49–59

Cristóbal J, Matos CT, Aurambout JP, Manfredi S, Kavalov B (2016)Environmental sustainability assessment of bioeconomy valuechains. Biomass Bioenergy 89:159–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.02.002

Curran MA (2016) Life-cycle assessment, Editor(s): Brian Fath,Encyclopedia of ecology (second edition), Elsevier pages 359-366,

ISBN 9780444641304, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.09700-1

Curran MA (2017) Overview of goal and scope definition in life cycleassessment. In Goal and scope definition in life cycle assessment(pp. 1–62). Springer, Dordrecht

Cutaia L, Beltrani T, Fantin V, Mancuso E, Sbaffoni S, La Monica M(2020) Resources audit as an effective tool for the implementation ofindustrial symbiosis paths for the transition towards circular econo-my. In: Industrial Symbiosis for the Circular Economy. Springer,Cham, pp 43–56

D’amato D, Gaio M, Semenzin E (2020) A review of LCA assessmentsof forest-based bioeconomy products and processes under an eco-system services perspective. Sci Total Environ 706:135859

Dahiya S, Lakshminarayanan S, Venkata Mohan S (2020) Steeringacidogenesis towards selective propionic acid production using co-factors and evaluating environmental sustainability. ChemicalEngineering Journal, p 122135

Dahiya S, Mohan SV (2019) Selective control of volatile fatty acidsproduction from food waste by regulating biosystem buffering: acomprehensive study. Chem Eng J 357:787–801

Dahiya S, Sarkar O, Swamy YV, Venkata Mohan S (2015) Acidogenicfermentation of food waste for volatile fatty acid production alongwith cogeneration of biohydrogen. BioresourTechnol 182:103–113

Dahiya S, Kumar AN, Sravan JS, Chatterjee S, Sarkar O, Mohan SV(2018) Food waste biorefinery: sustainable strategy for circularbioeconomy. Bioresour Technol 248:2–12

de Jong E, Higson A, Walsh P, Wellisch M (2012) Bio-based chemicalsvalue added products from biorefineries. IEA Bioenergy, Task42Biorefinery, 34

De Lucia C (2015) Sustainability assessment of gasification processes forsynthetic liquid fuel production. Gasification Synth Fuel Prod:73–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-85709-802-3.00004-7

De Schryver AM, Brakkee KW, Goedkoop MJ, Huijbregts MAJ (2009)Characterization factors for global warming in life cycle assessmentbased on damages to humans and ecosystems. Environ Sci Technol43:1689–1695

DEAT (2004) Life cycle assessment, integrated environmental manage-ment, information series 9, Department of Environmental Affairsand Tourism (DEAT), Pretoria

Devi MP, Venkata Mohan S (2012) CO2 supplementation to domesticwastewater enhances microalgae lipid accumulation undermixotrophic microenvironment: effect of sparging period and inter-val. Bioresour Technol 112:116–123

Dieterle M, Schäfer P, Viere T (2018) Life cycle gaps: interpreting LCAresults with a circular economymindset. Procedia CIRP 69:764–768

Dunn JB (2019) Biofuel and bioproduct environmental sustainabilityanalysis. Curr Opin Biotechnol 57:88–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2019.02.008

EESC (2020) https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/news-media/news/bioeconomyessentialeconomic-factor-and-prerequisite-achieve-sdgs. Accessed 15 June 2020

E l l e n M a c a r t h u r F o u n d a t i o n ( 2 0 1 7 ) h t t p s : / / www .ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/explore/the-circular-economy-in-detail. Accessed 22 Jun 2020

EPA (2020) http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/std/sab/traci/. Accessed05 Jun 2020

EU Publications, Bio-Based Economy in Europe (2011) State of play andfuture potential. Part 2, Summary of the Position Papers Received inResponse to the European Commission's Public On-lineConsultation, https://doi.org/10.2777/67596

EUScience Hub (2020) https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/science-update/future-bio-based-chemicals-eu-bioeconomy. Accessed on 06 Aug 2020

European Commission (2012) Innovating for sustainable growth: abioeconomy for Europe; COM (2012) final. EuropeanCommission, Brussels, Belgium


https://bioplasticsnews.com/polylacticcidr-lylactide-a/

https://bioplasticsnews.com/polylacticcidr-lylactide-a/

https://www.biosc.de/lw_resource/datapool/systemfiles/elements/

https://www.biosc.de/lw_resource/datapool/systemfiles/elements/

https://doi.org/10.1089/ind.2017.29073.mca

https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org

https://www.circularityap.world/methodology

https://www.circularityap.world/methodology

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-802417-1.00009-0

https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/resources/apply/

https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/resources/apply/

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.02.002

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.02.002

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.09700-1

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.09700-1

https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-85709-802-3.00004-7

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2019.02.008

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2019.02.008

https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/newsedia/news/bioeconomyessentialeconomicactornd-rerequisitechieve-dgs



https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/explore/theircularconomynetail



http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/std/sab/traci/

https://doi.org/10.2777/67596

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/science-pdate/futureioasedhemicalsuioeconomy

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/science-pdate/futureioasedhemicalsuioeconomy

European Commission (2020) https://ec.europa.eu/environment/eu ropeang reencap i t a l /wp-con t en t / up loads /2018 /05 /IndustrialSymbiosis.pdf. Accessed on 30th May 2020

Fauzi RT, Lavoie P, Sorelli L, Heidari MD, Amor B (2019) Exploring thecurrent challenges and opportunities of life cycle sustainability as-sessment. Sustainability. 11(3):636

Ferreira FV, Mariano M, Rabelo SC, Gouveia RF, Lona LMF (2018)Isolation and surface modification of cellulose nanocrystals fromsugarcane bagasse waste: from a micro-to a nano-scale view. ApplSurf Sci 436:1113–1122

Guinée J (2016) Life cycle sustainability assessment: what is it and whatare its challenges?. In Taking stock of industrial ecology (pp. 45–68). Springer, Cham

Guinée JB, Lindeijer E (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment: oper-ational guide to the ISO standards (Vol. 7). Springer Science &Business Media

Guinée JB, GorréeM,Heijungs R, HuppesG, Kleijn R, deKoningA, vanOers L, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Suh S, Udo de Haes HA, de Bruijn H(2001) Life cycle assessment: an operational guide to the ISO stan-dards. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment(VROM) and Centre of Environmental Science (CML), Den Haagand Leiden, Netherlands

Haupt M, Zschokke M (2017) How can LCA support the circular econ-omy?—63rd discussion forum on life cycle assessment, Zurich,Switzerland, November 30, 2016. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22(5):832–837

Hellweg S, i Canals LM (2014) Emerging approaches, challenges andopportunities in life cycle assessment. Science. 344(6188):1109–1113

Henderickson C, Lave L, Arpad Horvath SJ (1998) Economic input-output models for environmental life-cycle assessment. ForeignPolicy Anal 32:184–191

Hernandez P, Oregi X, Longo S, & Cellura M. (2019) Life-cycle assess-ment of buildings. Handbook of Energy Efficiency in Buildings,207–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-812817-6.00010-3

Hidayatno A, Zagloel T, Purwanto W, Carissa C, Anggraini L (2011)Cradle to gate simple life cycle assessment of biodiesel productionin Indonesia. Makara J Technol 15(1):9–16

Huang H, Singh V, Qureshi N (2015) Butanol production from FW: anovel process for producing sustainable energy and reducing envi-ronmental pollution. Biotechnol Biofuels 8:147

Innovative industry (2020) http://www.innovativeindustry.net/types-of-bioplastic. Accessed on 01 Jun 2020

ISO News (2019) https://www.iso.org/news/ref2402.html. Accessed on22nd Jun 2020

ISO Standard 14020. Environmental labels and declarations — generalprinciples. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:14020:ed-2:v1:en (Accessed on 26th May 2020)

ISO Standard 14021. Environmental labels and declarations — self-declared environmental claims (Type II environmental labelling).https://www.iso.org/obp/ui /#iso:std:iso:14021:ed-2:v1:en(Accessed on 26th May 2020)

ISO Standard 14024. Environmental labels and declarations — type Ienvironmental labelling — principles and procedures. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:14024:ed-2:v1:en (Accessed on26th May 2020)

ISO Standard 14025. Environmental labels and declarations — type IIIenvironmental declarations — principles and procedures. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso: 14025:ed-1:v1:en (Accessed on26th May 2020)

ISO Standard 14040. Environmental management — life cycle assess-ment— principles and framework. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:14040:ed-2:v1:en (Accessed on 26th May 2020)

ISO Standard 14044. Environmental management — life cycle assess-ment — requirements and guidelines. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:14044:ed-1:v1:en (Accessed on 26th May 2020)

ISO Standard 14045. Environmental management — eco-efficiency as-sessment of product systems— principles, requirements and guide-lines. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso: 14045:ed-1:v2:en(Accessed on 26th May 2020)

ISO Standard 14047. Environmental management — life cycle assess-ment— illustrative examples on how to apply ISO 14044 to impactassessment situations. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:tr:14047:ed-2:v1:en (Accessed on 26th May 2020)

ISO Standard 14067. Greenhouse gases — carbon footprint of products— requirements and guidelines for quantification and communica-tion. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:ts:14067:ed-1:v1:en(Accessed on 26th May 2020)

ISO Standard 59020. Circular economy — measuring circularity frame-work. https://www.iso.org/standard/80650.html (Accessed on 22nd

June 2020)ISO/TC 323. Circular economy. https://www.iso.org/committee/

7203984.html (Accessed on 26th May 2020)ISO/TR 14049. Environmental management — life cycle assessment —

illustrative examples on how to apply ISO 14044 to goal and scopedefinition and inventory analysis. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:tr:14049:ed-2:v1:en (Accessed on 26th May 2020)

ISO/TS 14048. Environmental management — life cycle assessment —data documentation format. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:ts:14048:ed-1:v1:en (Accessed on 26th May 2020)

Iwata T (2015) Biodegradable and bio-based polymers: future prospectsof eco-friendly plastics. Angew Chem Int Ed 54:3210–3215

Jiang M, Ma J, Wu M, Liu R, Liang L, Xin F, Zhang W, Jia H, Dong W(2017) Progress of succinic acid production from renewable re-sources: metabolic and fermentative strategies. Bioresour Technol245:1710–1717

Jiménez-González C, Kim S, Overcash MR (2000) Methodology fordeveloping gate-to-gate life cycle inventory information. Int J LifeCycle Assess 5:153–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978615

Jolliet O, Müller-Wenk R, Bare J, Brent A, Goedkoop M, Heijungs R,Itsubo N, Peña C, Pennington D, Potting J, Rebitzer G (2004) TheLCIA midpoint-damage framework of the UNEP/SETAC life cycleinitiative. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9:394

Jolliet O, Saadé-Sbeih M, Shaked S, Jolliet A, Crettaz P (2015)Environmental life cycle assessment, vol 2015. CRC Press

JRC European Commission (2010) Analysing of existing environmentalimpact assessment methodologies for use in life cycle assessment.Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability,ILCD handbook

KardungM,Wesseler J (2019) EU bio-based economy strategy. In: DriesL, Heijman W, Jongeneel R, Purnhagen K, Wesseler J (eds) EUbioeconomy economics and policies, Palgrave advances inbioeconomy: economics and policies, vol II. Palgrave, Cham, pp277–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28642-2_15

Kardung M, Costenoble O, Dammer L, Delahaye R, Lovrić M, vanLeeuwen M, M’Barek R, van Meijl H, Piotrowski S, Ronzon T,Verhoog D, Verkerk H, Vrachioli M, Wesseler J, and Xinqi ZhuB (2019) Framework for measuring the size and development of thebioeconomy. BioMonitor Deliverable 1 (1). Available at: www.biomonitor.eu. Accessed on 26th May 2020

Katakojwala R, Venkata Mohan S (2020a) Microcrystalline celluloseproduction from sugarcane bagasse: sustainable process develop-ment and life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 249:119342

Katakojwala R, Venkata Mohan S (2020b) Acritical view on the envi-ronmental sustainability of biorefinery systems. Curr Opin GreenSustain

Katakojwala R, Kumar AN, Chakraborty D, Mohan SV (2019)Valorization of sugarcane waste: prospects of a biorefinery. InIndustrial and municipal sludge (47-60). Butterworth-Heinemann.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815907-1.00003-9

Kayo C, Tojo S, Iwaoka M, Matsumoto T (2014) Evaluation of biomassproduction and utilization systems. Res Approaches Sustain


https://ec.europa.eu/environment/europeangreencapital/wpontent/uploads/2018/05/IndustrialSymbiosis.pdf



https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-812817-6.00010-3

http://www.innovativeindustry.net/typesfioplastic

http://www.innovativeindustry.net/typesfioplastic

https://www.iso.org/news/ref2402.html

https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:14020:ed-v1:en


https://www.iso.org/obp/ui



https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:







https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:tr:14047:ed-v1:en


https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:ts:14067:ed-v1:en

https://www.iso.org/standard/80650.html

https://www.iso.org/committee/7203984.html

https://www.iso.org/committee/7203984.html





https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978615

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28642-2_15

http://www.biomonitor.eu

http://www.biomonitor.eu

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815907-1.00003-9

Biomass Syst:309–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-404609-2.00014-3

Kerdlap P, Low JSC, Tan DZL, Yeo Z, Ramakrishna S (2020) M3-IS-LCA: a methodology for multi-level life cycle environmental per-formance evaluation of industrial symbiosis networks. ResourConserv Recycl 161:104963

Kloepffer W (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. Int JLife Cycle Assess 13(2):89–95

Kopsahelis A, Kourmentza C, Zafiri C, Kornaros M (2018) Gate-to-gatelife cycle assessment of biosurfactants and bioplasticizers produc-tion via biotechnological exploitation of fats and waste oils. J ChemTechnol Biotechnol 93:2833–2841. https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.5633

Kulshreshtha S, McConkey B, Liu T, Dyer J, Verge X and Desjardins R(2011) Bio-based economy-sustainable use of agricultural re-sources. Environmental impacts of biofuels, edited by M.Bernardes, pp.137-160

Laurin L (2020). https://www.earthshiftglobal.com/blog/life-cycle-assessment-lca-for-circular-economy-sustainability. Accessed on01 Jun 2020

LCI (2020) https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/resources/life-cycle-terminology-2/ Accessed on 5th May 2020

Life cycle Initiative (2020) https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/. Accessedon 06 Aug 2020

Liu Z, Zhang C, Lu Y,Wu X,Wang L, Wang L, Han B, Xing XH (2013)States and challenges for high-value biohythane production fromwaste biomass by dark fermentation technology. BioresourTechnol135:292–303

MacArthur (2020). https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/concept. Accessed on 30th May 2020

Market Analysis Report (2020) https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/bio-based-platform-chemicals market? Accessedon 06th Aug 2020

Market report (2020) Bio based platform chemicals market estimates andforecasts to 2030. V1.1 ©Grand View Research, Inc., USA. AllRights Reserved

Markets and Markets (2020) https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/bioethanol-market-131222570.html. Accessed on15 Jun 2020

Mathias JD, Grédiac M and Michaud P (2016) Bio-based adhesives. InBiopolymers and biotech admixtures for eco-efficient constructionmaterials (pp. 369-385). Woodhead publishing

Mattila T, Lehtoranta S, Sokka L, Melanen M, Nissinen A (2012)Methodological aspects of applying life cycle assessment to indus-trial symbioses. J Ind Ecol 16:51–60

McArthur FE (2013) Towards the circular economy Vol. 1: an economicand business rationale for an accelerated transition. Ellen McArthur

Mcbride JE, Rajgarhia V, ShawAJ IV, Tripathi SA, Brevnova E, CaiazzaN, Van Dijken JP, Froehlich AC, Sillers WR, Flatt JH, LallemandHungary Liquidity Management LLC (2018) Production ofpropanols, alcohols, and polyols in consolidated bioprocessing or-ganisms. US Patent 9:957,530

McKone TE, Nazaroff WW, Berck P, Auffhammer M, Lipman T, TornMS, Masanet E, Lobscheid A, Santero N, Mishra U, Barrett A et al(2011) Grand challenges for life-cycle assessment of biofuels.Environ Sci Technol 45(5):1751–1756

Muhamad H, Sahid IB, Surif S, Ai TY, May CY (2012) A gate-to-gatecase study of the life cycle assessment of an oil palm seedling. TropLife Sci Res 23:15–23

Muhammad i S , A f z a l M , Hameed S ( 2015 ) Bac t e r i a lpolyhydroxyalkanoates-eco-friendly next generation plastic: pro-duction, biocompatibility, biodegradation, physical properties andapplications. Green Chem Lett Rev 8(3–4):56–77

Muralikrishna IV, Manickam V (2017) Life cycle assessment. EnvironManag:57–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-811989-1.00005-1

Muthu SS (2014) Estimating the overall environmental impact of textileprocessing: life cycle assessment (LCA) of textile products.Assessing the environmental impact of textiles and the clothingsupply chain, 105–131. https://doi.org/10.1533/9781782421122.105

Nagarajan V, Mohanty AK, Misra M (2016) Perspective on polylacticacid (PLA) based sustainable materials for durable applications:focus on toughness and heat resistance. ACS Sustain Chem Eng4(6):2899–2916

Ness B, Urbel-Piirsalu E, Anderberg S, Olsson L (2007) Categorisingtools for sustainability assessment. Ecol Econ 60(3):498–508

Nicolaidis Lindqvist A, Broberg S, Tufvesson L, Khalil S, Prade T (2019)Bio-based production systems: why environmental assessmentneeds to include supporting systems. Sustainability. 11(17):4678

OECD (2009) The bioeconomy to 2030: designing a policy agenda.OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264056886-en

Pasupuleti SB, Venkata Mohan S (2015) Single-stage fermentation pro-cess for high-value biohythane production with the treatment ofdistillery spent-wash. Bioresour Technol 189:177–185

Petrillo A, De Felice F, Jannelli E, Autorino C,MinutilloM, Lavadera AL(2016) Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle cost (LCC) anal-ysis model for a stand-alone hybrid renewable energy system.Renew Energy 95:337–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.04.027

Popovic T, Kraslawski A (2015) Chapter 24- Social sustainability ofcomplex systems. In Computer aided chemical engineering. Vol.36, pp. 605-614. Elsevier

PRé Sustainability (2020) https://simapro.com/2015/circular-economy-and-life-cycle-assessment/. Accessed on 02nd Jun 2020

Rahman MM, Canter C, Kumar A (2015) Well-to-wheel life cycle as-sessment of transportation fuels derived from different NorthAmerican conventional crudes. Appl Energy 156:159–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.07.004

Reddy TRK, Kim HJ, Park JW (2016) Renewable biocomposite proper-ties and their applications. Composites from renewable and sustain-able materials 177

RIVM (2020) https://www.rivm.nl/en/life-cycle-assessment-lca/recipe.Accessed on 05th Jun 2020

Rocco MV, Colombo E (2016) Exergy life cycle assessment of a waste-to-energy plant. Energy Procedia 104:562–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2016.12.095

Rosenbaum RK, Bachmann TM, Gold LS, Huijbregts MA, Jolliet O,Juraske R, Koehler A, Larsen HF, MacLeod M, Margni M,McKone TE (2008) USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model:recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and fresh-water ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life CycleAssess 13:532–546

Sala S, Farioli F, Zamagni A (2013) Life cycle sustainability assessmentin the context of sustainability science progress (part 2). Int J LifeCycle Assess 18(9):1686–1697

Salehi N, Mahmoudi M, Bazargan A, Mckay G(2018) Exergy and lifecycle-based analysis 1057–1078. Handbook of environmental ma-terials Management. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58538-3_84-2

Sarkar O, Venkata Mohan S (2017) Pre-aeration of food waste to aug-ment acidogenic process at higher organic load: valorizingbiohydrogen, volatile fatty acids and biohythane. BioresourTechnol 242:68–76

Sarkar O, Kumar AN, Dahiya S, Krishna KV, Dileep Y, Venkata MohanS (2016) Regulation of acidogenic metabolism towards enhancedshort chain fatty acids biosynthesis from waste: metagenomic pro-filing. RSC Adv 6:18641–18653

Sherratt A (2013) Cradle to cradle. In: Idowu SO, Capaldi N, Zu L, GuptaAD (eds) Encyclopedia of corporate social responsibility. Springer,Berlin


https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-404609-2.00014-3

https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-404609-2.00014-3

https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.5633

https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.5633

https://www.earthshiftglobal.com/blog/lifeyclessessmentcaorircularconomy-ustainability

https://www.earthshiftglobal.com/blog/lifeyclessessmentcaorircularconomy-ustainability

https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/resources/lifeycle-erminology-

https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/resources/lifeycle-erminology-

https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/

https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circularconomy/concept

https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circularconomy/concept

https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industrynalysis/bioased-atformhemicals

https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industrynalysis/bioased-atformhemicals

https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-eports/bioethanolarkethtml

https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-eports/bioethanolarkethtml

https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-811989-1.00005-1

https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-811989-1.00005-1

https://doi.org/10.1533/9781782421122.105

https://doi.org/10.1533/9781782421122.105

https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264056886-en

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.04.027

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.04.027

https://simapro.com/2015/circularconomyndifeyclessessment/

https://simapro.com/2015/circularconomyndifeyclessessment/

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.07.004

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.07.004

https://www.rivm.nl/en/lifeyclessessmentca/recipe

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2016.12.095

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2016.12.095

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58538-3_84-2

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58538-3_84-2

Singh S, Bakshi BR (2009) Eco-lca, A.M., n.d. Eco-LCA: a tool forquantifying the role of ecological resources in LCA 1–6

Singh RK, Murty HR, Gupta SK, Dikshit AK (2009) An overview ofsustainability assessment methodologies. Ecol Indic 9(2):189–212

sLCA-LCI (2020) https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/starting-life-cycle-thinking/life-cycle-approaches/social-lca. Accessed on 15th

Jun 2020Sreeharsha RV, Venkata Mohan S (2020) Obscure yet promising oleag-

inous yeasts for fuel and chemical production. Trends Biotechnol38(8):873–887

Stamford L (2020) Life cycle sustainability assessment in the energysector. Biofuels More Sustain Future:115–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-815581-3.00005-1

Stichnothe Heinz and Bell Geoff and Jørgensen Henning and BariIsabelle and Haveren Jacco and Lindorfer Johannes and KeplerJohannes and de Jong Ed (2020) Bio-based chemicals a 2020 updatebio-based chemicals a 2020 update with input from: (pdf version)Published by IEA Bioenergy

Suárez JC (2011) Bioadhesives. In Handbook of adhesion technologySubhash GV, Venkata Mohan S (2011) Biodiesel production from iso-

lated oleaginous fungi Aspergillus sp. using corncob waste liquor asa substrate. BioresourTechnol 102:9286–9290

Subroto E, Hayati F (2020) Chemical and biotechnological methods forthe production of xylitol: a review. Int J 8(6)

Suttie E, Hill C, Sandin G, Kutnar A, Ganne-Chédeville C, Lowres F andDias AC (2017) Environmental assessment of bio-based buildingmaterials. In Performance of bio-based building materials (pp.547-591). Woodhead Publishing

Teh D, Khan T, Corbitt B, Ong CE (2020) Sustainability strategy andblockchain-enabled life cycle assessment: a focus on materials in-dustry. Environment Systems and Decisions 2:1–8

Torabi F, Ahmadi P (2020) Chapter 1 - Battery technologies in simulationof battery systems fundamentals and applications, 1–54. AcademicPress

TóthSzita K (2017) The application of life cycle assessment in circulareconomy. Hung Agric Eng 31:5–9

Ubando AT, Felix CB, Chen WH (2020) Biorefineries in circularbioeconomy: a comprehensive review. Bioresour Technol 299:122585

UNEP/SETAC (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of aproduct. United Nations

UNEP/SETAC (2011) Ciroth A, Finkbeier M, Hildenbrand J, KlöpfferW, Mazijn B, Prakash S, Sonnemann G, Traverso M, Ugaya CM,

Valdivia S, Vickery-Niederman G. Towards a live cycle sustainabil-ity assessment: making informed choices on products.UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/servlets/purl/ 215391 43. Accessed on 26th May 2020

USDA (2020) https://www.biopreferred.gov/BioPreferred/faces/Welcome.xhtml. Accessed on 12thJun 2020

Venkata Mohan S, Reddy MV (2013) Optimization of critical factors toenhance polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) synthesis by mixed cultureusing Taguchi design of experimental methodology. BioresourTechnol 128:409–416

Venkata Mohan S, Babu VL, Sarma P (2008) Effect of various pretreat-ment methods on anaerobic mixed microflora to enhancebiohydrogen production utilizing dairy wastewater as substrate.BioresourTechnol 99:59–67

Venkata Mohan S, Nikhil GN, Chiranjeevi P, Reddy CN, Rohit MV,Kumar AN, Sarkar O (2016) Waste biorefinery models towardssustainable circular bioeconomy: critical review and future perspec-tives. Bioresour Technol 215:2–12

Venkata Mohan S, Chiranjeevi P, Dahiya S, Kumar N (2018) Wastederived bioeconomy in India: a perspective. New Biotechnol40(A):60–69

Venkata Mohan S, Dahiya S, Amulya K, Katakojwala R, Vanitha TK(2019) Can circular bioeconomy be fueled by waste biorefineries—acloser look. Bioresour Technol Rep 7:100277

Venkata S,Mohan K, Amulya J, AnnieModestra (2020) Urban biocycles– Closing metabolic loops for resilient and regenerative ecosystem:A perspective. Bioresourc Technol 306:123098

Walker K, Vadlani P, Madl R (2013) Ethanol fermentation from foodprocessing waste. Environ Prog Sustain Energy 32:1280–1283

Wheel to Wheel (2016) https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/jec/activities/wtw.Accessed on 5th Jun 2020

Zhang Y, Duan S, Li J, Shao S, Wang W, Zhang S (2017) Life cycleassessment of industrial symbiosis in Songmudao chemical indus-trial park, Dalian, China. J Clean Prod 158:192–199

Zhang M, Suo Z, Peng X, Gan N, Zhao L, Tang P, Wei X, Li H (2020)Microcrystalline cellulose as an effective crystal growth inhibitor forthe ternary Ibrutinib formulation. Carbohydr Polym 229:115476

Židoniene S, Kruopiene J (2015) Life cycle assessment in environmentalimpact assessments of industrial projects: towards the improvement.J Clean Prod 106:533–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.081


https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/startingifeycle-hinking/lifeyclepproaches/socialca

https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/startingifeycle-hinking/lifeyclepproaches/socialca

https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-815581-3.00005-1

https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-815581-3.00005-1

https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/servlets/purl/

https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/servlets/purl/

https://www.biopreferred.gov/BioPreferred/faces/Welcome.xhtml

https://www.biopreferred.gov/BioPreferred/faces/Welcome.xhtml

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/jec/activities/wtw

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.081

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.081

springer - biobased products and life cycle assessment in the … · 2020. 9. 7. · 2016 &...

Documents