1 s2.0 S0098135423003745 Main

Computers and Chemical Engineering 180 (2024) 108504
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Computers and Chemical Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compchemeng
A process systems engineering view of environmental impact assessment in

renewable and sustainable energy production: Status and perspectives
Carina L. Gargalo a, Haoshui Yu b, Nikolaus Vollmer a, Ahmad Arabkoohsar c, Krist V. Gernaey a,
Gürkan Sin a, *
a
Process and Systems Engineering Center (PROSYS), Department of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Building 228A, Kgs.
Lyngby 2800, Denmark
b
Department of Chemistry and Bioscience, Aalborg University, Niels Bohrs Vej 8A, Esbjerg 6700, Denmark
c
Department of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: With the increasing concern for climate change, renewable and sustainable energy production has attracted
Renewable and sustainable energy systems considerable attention from the scientific community, industrial practitioners, and policy and decision-makers.
Environmental impact assessment There are many technological alternatives for each sub-category of complex sustainable energy systems. Life
Process systems engineering
cycle assessment (LCA) can be an effective tool to compare the environmental impacts of each pathway and
Life cycle assessment
Sustainability
identify the most promising alternatives from an environmental impact perspective. This contribution first re
views the environmental assessment methods and tools developed over the years. Secondly, a comprehensive
review of the contribution of the PSE community to the environmental impact analysis of renewable energy
systems is performed. It is observed that while LCA is the preferred method, these studies differed widely con
cerning the choice of impact assessment method used, the level of details shared concerning the underlying LCA
calculations, and whether or not sensitivity and uncertainty analyses were carried out, among many others. This
makes the comparison of results from different studies difficult and often impossible. It is clear that the PSE
community, with its emphasis on systems thinking and holistic approaches, plays a critical role in the design,
integration, and operation of complex sustainable energy systems. However, the thorough calculations necessary
to ensure a robust and transparent LCA analysis require a shared methodology and a detailed description of the
rules. Such explicit, systematic, and transparent methods will set the bar for a minimum requirement for thor
ough LCA calculations, ensuring fair comparison and discussions of different technical solutions developed in the
wider PSE community for sustainable renewables.
1. Introduction concepts. The commonality of renewable energy sources is that they can
naturally renew themselves at a pace that enables us to meet our own
Industrial activities’ direct and indirect dependence on bulk and energy needs (Pinto et al., 2019).
specialty chemicals, services, and energy impacts the environment. Renewable energy includes hydro, biomass, geothermal, wind, solar,
Hence, there is a shared vision of the need for a sustainable production tidal, etc. (Qazi et al., 2019). On the other hand, sustainable energy is a
and consumption at all scales. Among the societal challenges, solving broader concept that is related to sustainability. The most well-known
climate change is one of the most critical challenges of the 21st century. and accepted definition of sustainability is “ the development that
The energy supply is the key sector responsible for greenhouse gas meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
emissions (Azhar Khan et al., 2014). The political and public support for future generations to meet their own needs” (Mahdi, 1987). Sustainable
addressing climate change will continue to drive the energy supply in a energy comes from sources that can fulfill our current energy needs
more sustainable direction. without jeopardizing future generations’ energy needs or the climate
The breakthroughs in renewable energy technologies in the past (Mahdi, 1987). This concept also involves collection and distribution
decades have increased the momentum towards adopting these new during the energy production process, where the energy should be
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (G. Sin).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2023.108504
Received 30 January 2022; Received in revised form 30 October 2023; Accepted 10 November 2023
Available online 11 November 2023
0098-1354/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
C.L. Gargalo et al. Computers and Chemical Engineering 180 (2024) 108504
competently obtained and distributed to be sustainable. in Section 3. Section 4 discusses current practices, challenges and per
The concepts “renewable energy” and “sustainable energy” are spectives in environmental impact assessment and PSE. Finally, con
usually used interchangeably among practitioners and industry experts clusions and a few take-home messages are given in Section 5.
(Wigley, 2021). However, it is necessary to distinguish between
renewable and sustainable energy under some circumstances. There are 2. Principles and methodologies for environmental assessment
overlapping characteristics between both concepts, where many
renewable energy sources are also sustainable. However, these two As mentioned above, industrial activities have led to spiking climate
terms do not represent exactly the same. Enhancing the sustainability of change, among other significant environmental impacts. The conse
fossil fuels and renewables has the potential to bring significant envi quent environmental awareness has triggered the development of
ronmental benefits (Wigley, 2021). environmental assessment methodologies to proactively assess and act
In this work, the sustainable renewable energy systems term is used to reduce manufacturing’s environmental burden (Jacquemin et al.,
to emphasize renewable energy that is also deemed sustainable. The 2012). Several methods, tools, and frameworks have been developed
most promising and popular types of renewable energy, such as, solar, and built upon over the years to quantify environmental impact (Čuček
wind, and hydropower, are generally considered sustainable. There are et al., 2015; Jeswani et al., 2010). Of note is that sustainability systems
many technologies and pathways for the utilization of renewable re thinking has started not only to be an academic exercise but has also
sources. Increasing the contribution of renewable energy to the power reached industries and services (McAloone and Hauschild, 2020).
grid is often seen as an efficient way to reduce the environmental bur One of the first examples of environmental assessment procedures
dens of energy supply. However, renewable energy sources differ in mentioned in the literature is the development of principles and
their overall environmental impacts from a life cycle perspective. guidelines, such as the 12 Green Chemistry principles (Anastas and
Although renewable energy sources are the future of the energy supply, Warner, 2000), to steer towards more environmentally friendly designs.
there is still a need to investigate the environmental impacts of each This was quickly followed by (Anastas and Zimmerman, 2003) which
renewable energy source and make the optimal portfolio decision in the proposed the 12 principles of green engineering. Both strategies are part
energy mix considering environmental impacts. of the first efforts to transition from reactive to preventive environ
It is important to highlight that even though these technologies are mental impact control at the source. Later, Telenko et al. (2008) pro
considered sustainable by their proponents, It is only by providing a vided a methodology comprising 6 principles and 67 guidelines after
rigorous assessment and benchmarking of their environmental impacts thoroughly reviewing the published checklists, principles, and guide
that the sustainability of technologies can be assessed. Among other lines. Recently, Zimmerman et al. (2020) have updated the green
challenges, the environmental burden often shifts across scales, disci chemistry principles to include resource usage and profitability, among
plines, and processes in the value chain (Bakshi, 2019). others. Besides, these additions also highlight the great potential of
The design and optimization of such sustainable energy systems are driving towards zero-waste production by maximizing function and
complex tasks, as they are, in fact, the result of a multi-criteria and minimizing material use. In fact, the E-factor (lower E factor = less
multi-objective decision-making process. It is vital to clearly and waste) is one of the most well-known and accepted green metrics used to
transparently consider different criteria before claiming overall sus compare different designs for producing the same product (Chang et al.,
tainability, respecting the Triple Bottom Line concept (TBL). TBL is a 2021; Sheldon, 2017).
business framework that encourages companies to prioritize people, The Eco-indicator 99, developed first by (Ministry of Housing,
planet, and profit, recognizing the interdependence of these three ele Spatial Planning and the Environment, 2000), was one of the first at
ments for long-term sustainable success. tempts to include sustainability as a post-hoc analysis. However, as
Environmental footprint is being increasingly integrated into the indicated in the original publication, this indicator has several draw
decision-making process for new processes and technology develop backs, such as the fact that there is no "clear-cut objective to define
ment. Many methodologies have been developed and implemented over sustainable target levels" (Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the
the years to quantify the environmental impact and, hence, environ Environment, 2000).
mental sustainability, and Life Cycle Assessment is the methodology that Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) is a design tool for retrofit
is by far the most frequently applied and agreed upon (Bakshi, 2019; ting/improving current processes. It assesses environmental risk due to a
Čuček et al., 2015). specific activity and/or exposure and then generates a plan to minimize
PSE tools are the right fit to provide a systematic way to evaluate the harmful effects (Burgess and Brennan, 2001; Olsen et al., 2001). More
entire value chain and devise solutions that will, among others, strive over, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) targets predicting and
towards minimizing environmental impact and burden shifting. Several analyzing the environmental outcomes of human activities before they
PSE methods and techniques have been developed to support decision- even start (Morgan, 1999); it provides qualitative and quantitative in
making and hence achieve technically feasible and sustainable engi formation based on checklists regarding environmental and
neering designs as well as optimal supply chain solutions from a socio-economic concerns (Burgess and Brennan, 2001). Even though it
potentially large number of alternatives (Yang et al., 2017). Neverthe enables reducing environmental impact and identifying potential ben
less, the systematic and transparent integration of LCA into PSE for the efits, it is highly project-specific.
design and optimization of such systems is still not optimal. Another method that has gained some standing for assessing energy
Therefore, the goal of this work is four-fold: (i) to provide a summary efficiency of chemical processes and embodies a more in-depth analysis
of current sustainable renewable energy systems; (ii) to give an overview is the cumulative exergy analysis method (Bösch et al., 2007). Exergy
of the environmental impact assessment methodologies developed over allows quantifying the potential impact of a material or energy stream
the years; (iii) to offer a comprehensive review of the integration of on the environment. Rosen and Dincer (1999) have shown that as the
environmental impact assessment in PSE studies for the design and exergy efficiency of the process increases, environmental impact drops,
optimization of complex energy systems; and finally, (iv) to discuss and and potentially sustainability rises. This has motivated further devel
present our opinion and perspectives, based on solid research, on cur opment of exergy-based methods, such as the cumulative exergy
rent approaches and challenges in integrating environmental impact demand/exergy energy footprint analysis method (CExD) (Rosen and
assessment faced by the PSE community today. Dincer, 1999) and the water exergy footprint method (Caudill et al.,
The remainder of this manuscript is structured as follows. In Section 2010; Čuček et al., 2015).
2, the principles and methodologies for environmental assessments are Eco-efficiency is another approach that has gained some traction. It
briefly introduced. The role of PSE in this field is highlighted, and the is a management strategy that implies doing more with fewer resources
influential studies from the PSE community are compared and discussed and focusing on creating less waste and pollution (Bengtsson, 2004).
2
Although a common definition has yet to be reached, a standard sole product, (ii) compare processing alternatives for the manufacture of
description is that eco-efficiency is a sustainability indicator that in interchangeable products/processes, (iii) compare possible options to
tegrates economic and environmental performances. deliver the same function, and (iv) identify environmental hotspots in
The Waste Reduction Algorithm (WAR), formally introduced in 1999 the life cycle and provide suggestions for improvement (Guillén-Gosál
by Young and Cabezas (1999) and Cabezas et al. (1999), is one of the bez et al., 2019; Hellweg and Milà i Canals, 2014).
most generally acknowledged model-based gate-to-gate methodologies To summarize, the key differences between these three approaches is
that reveals the environmental performance of a production process at in the scope of the assessment: (i) cradle-to-gate, focuses solely on the
the early stage of design. Potential environmental impact (PEI) is manufacturing process; (ii) cradle-to-grave, considers the whole life
applied to estimate the average environmental impact of eight impact cycle including disposal, and (iii) cradle-to-cradle, is the strategy
categories (Young et al., 2000). WAR has been the quantitative basis of applied to design products with a circular approach.
many other environmental assessment methods developed over the Noteworthy is that the wider scope of LCA such as cradle-to-cradle
years, such as the one recently presented in the study of Heidrich et al. helps avoid the above-mentioned burden- and problem-shifting, for
(2019). example, from one region to another, from one stream to another
There are also other model-based gate-to-gate methodologies, such stream, and among life cycle stages (Čuček et al., 2015; Finnveden et al.,
as the Green Degree method (GD) and GREENSCOPE, proposed by 2009).
Zhang et al. (2008) and Ruiz-Mercado et al. (2014), respectively. GD As detailed in Fig. 1, the LCA methodology is divided into four steps:
leads to estimating one aggregated indicator to quantify a system’s goal and scope definition, life cycle inventory analysis (LCI), life cycle
environmental performance, either it being a product, mixture, or unit. impact assessment (LCIA), and interpretation. The goal and scope defi
This indicator is calculated based on 9 established impact categories and nition depicts all the critical aspects of the LCA study; it describes the
the use of simulation tools. GREENSCOPE was proposed to evaluate the application and reasons behind the study, the target audience, the
sustainability of a reaction or process by assessing relevant metrics functional unit, the reference flow, and the system boundaries (Life Cycle
among the 140 inbuilt indicators and following a hierarchical strategy to Assessment - Theory and Practice, 2018). The choice of the functional unit
support decision-making (Smith et al., 2015). significantly impacts the study results and conclusions as it is the basis
There has been significant interest and discussion on the benefits and for fruitful comparisons. The LCI is the data collection step where all
drawbacks of using composite indexes (aggregated indicators) that inputs and outputs of the system are identified and quantified (inventory
combine several assessment methods. Benefits could be related to the of energy and raw material inputs, products, co-products, wastes,
potential simplification of result interpretation. However, it is rather emissions to air, discharges to water, etc.) (ISO standards). If data from
difficult to draw detailed conclusions due to conflicting objectives in the measurements or literature is unavailable, generic LCI data from data
decision-making progress (Kalbar et al., 2017; Kumar et al., 2017). They bases is usually used (Life Cycle Assessment - Theory and Practice,
combine and/or merge different methods to decrease the complexity of 2018). Examples of these databases are Ecoinvent (Frischknecht et al.,
interpretation, leading to a more challenging interpretation of results 2003), GaBi professional (Schuller et al., 2013), and GREET (Woertz
(Laso et al., 2022). et al., 2014). Of note is that the representativeness/accuracy of the data
Although choosing greenhouse gasses as a single metric is a wide can potentially vary among the different databases (Bueno et al., 2016;
spread approach (see discussion in Section 4), this leads to loss of and/or Koj et al., 2019). Once the inventory task is complete, the LCIA step is
misleading information and potential burden-shifting to other resources performed, where the inventory (input and output elementary flow) is
or emission streams (Bakshi, 2019; Čuček et al., 2015; Finnveden et al., categorized and assigned to different impact categories. This is imme
2009). Thus, when efforts are put into transitioning to more sustainable diately followed by the characterization stage, where the potential im
systems it is fundamental to consider the entire life cycle of the systems pacts are modeled by employing conversion factors to arrive at a
under study, including all moving system parts such as processes, ac quantified indicator for the impact category. The mentioned conversion
tivities, and supply chains, in order to minimize the issue mentioned factors depend on the LCIA method chosen; CML, ReCiPe, and TRACI
above (Čuček et al., 2015). LCA is the natural next step (Čuček et al., are, among others, three of the most often used LCIA methods (Koj et al.,
2015; Pozo et al., 2012). First introduced in the late 1960s and early 2019). Among other distinctions, the LCIA methods differ in terms of
1970s, LCA has become a generally accepted systematic methodology being estimated at mid- or end-point level, location/region, time hori
that aims at thoroughly quantifying the environmental burdens related zon/temporal, and characterization model. Hence, the selection of LCIA
to systems over their life cycle in terms of emissions, health impacts, and is highly impactful and must be stated clearly in the study (Rosenbaum,
resource consumption (Čuček et al., 2015; Guillén-Gosálbez et al., 2017). Interpretation is the last stage of the LCA, where concerns and
2019). Guinée et al. (2011) give a comprehensive history of the intro hotspots are identified, along with consistency, sensitivity analysis,
duction of LCA and its evolution. Its structure and methodological ele conclusions, and recommendations drawn based on the LCIA results.
ments are described in detail in the ISO 14,040 [37] and ISO 14,044 Nevertheless, there are still some challenges and limitations to be
standards (ISO 14044, 2006). overcome; a summary of these is as follows.
In LCA, different approaches can be used to estimate the potential
environmental impact of a product or system during its life cycle; the (i) While there are designated standards and guidelines to conduct
three common strategies are cradle-to-gate, cradle-to-grave, and cradle- LCAs (e.g., ISO 14,040 and ISO 14,044), the lack of a systematic
to-cradle. Of note is that ISO 14,040 and ISO 14,044 are key standards, approach can result in the unreliable application of these stan
guidelines that provide support regarding the arsenal of choice of dards. In particular, LCA application implies making assumptions
appropriate methodologies and recommend comprehensiveness and and choices at different stages, such as impact assessment models,
consistency. system boundaries, and allocation methods. This lack of stan
Ideally, the application of LCA seeks to cover all activities from a dardization leads to difficulties in comparing and interpreting
"cradle-to-cradle" perspective, also known as closed-loop analysis LCA results across different studies due to the subjectivity and
(Čuček et al., 2015; Glavič and Lukman, 2007). The second preferred variability in the choices made during the LCA study.
option is "cradle-to-grave", the open-loop approach (Čuček et al., 2015; (ii) LCA frequently depends on simplifications and assumptions to
Sustainable Industrial Design and Waste Management, 2007). This en handle complexity and/or data gaps. These simplifications can
tails the design and development, raw material acquisition, production, neglect important elements and introduce uncertainties. Further,
distribution, use, maintenance, and end-of-life activities. It can serve essential to note is that the choice of impact assessment methods
numerous goals and be applied at different product life cycle stages. For and models affects the results, and no single impact method alone
example, LCA can be used to (i) evaluate the environmental impact of a can grasp the full complexity of environmental interactions.
3
Fig. 1. The four steps of LCA. Inspired by (Čuček et al., 2015; Rebitzer et al., 2004).
(iii) Specifying the system boundaries determines the scope of Of note is that the LCA community continuously works to address
assessment, which is another variable/limitation across LCA these challenges by enhancing data collection, increasing transparency,
studies. Deciding on which life cycle stages to include and and advancing/improving methodologies. However, despite these lim
exclude and the limits of the supply chain can significantly itations, LCA remains the methodology of choice for assessing the
impact the results. Different boundary alternatives can lead to environmental impacts of products and systems and supporting
inconsistent findings and make it difficult to compare and analyze informed decision-making toward sustainability. Therefore, adopting a
different studies. systematic and standardized approach to LCA is important to
(iv) In addition to the previous point, LCA frequently employs overcome these limitations, which should account for reliable data,
simplified models to describe complex processes and systems, as transparent methodologies, and comprehensive assessments considering
it is not viable to include all the complexities of real-world pro the full life cycle impacts and suitable sustainability dimensions.
cesses. Regardless, the lack of a systematic approach for doing so Another interesting recent line of research is the integration of LCA
may lead to oversimplification or dismissal of essential elements, with Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). Under this framework, LCA
which can then impact and influence the accuracy and reliability estimates the environmental impacts of the systems, and DEA assesses
of the study. Securing its quality and reliability can be difficult their efficiency, providing suitable benchmarks and goals for the less
even when data is available. Data may come from diverse sources efficient ones. The main aim of LCA+DEA is to include both environ
with different methodologies, accuracy levels, and mental and economic factors in the eco-efficiency estimation
representativeness. (Vásquez-Ibarra et al., 2020). Applications of said methodology can be
(v) LCA relies heavily on a range of input data (inventory, environ found in Hong and Mwakalonge (2020), Martín-Gamboa et al. (2017),
mental impacts, etc.) throughout the entire life cycle of a system, Rebolledo-Leiva et al. (2017), Vázquez-Rowe et al. (2010), (2011).
product or process. Yet, data availability is, more often than not, Finally, although the LCA methodology has not been developed
limited and/or incomplete, which requires appropriate within the PSE discipline, they undoubtedly have the systems approach
modeling/simulation to estimate the needed data (generation of in common (Guillén-Gosálbez et al., 2019). LCA has been increasingly
so-called secondary data), particularly for emerging technologies integrated into the PSE studies and community by coupling LCA with
or niche products. Collecting relevant data for all product life process optimization under the life cycle optimization framework (LCO),
cycle stages can be challenging. Data may be proprietary or un first introduced by Azapagic and Clift (1999). Thence, LCA has found
available, notably for emerging technologies or geographical re many applications in multiple domains. The typical approach is to
gions. These challenges lead to uncertainties, inaccuracies, and benchmark a limited number of scenarios, considering their life cycle
assumptions in the assessment, which consequently impacts the impact to identify hotspots and develop solutions/ recommendations for
quality of LCA results. Data gaps and inconsistencies raise un improvements (Guillén-Gosálbez et al., 2019; Hellweg and Milà i Ca
certainties and bias in the LCA. nals, 2014). Examples of such efforts are given in Table 1, Section 3. The
(vi) Performing a comprehensive LCA is resource-intensive, clear relationship between LCA and the PSE field, along with, among
demanding considerable resources, such as time and expert others, the challenges mentioned above, the benefits, and drawbacks,
knowledge. With a systematic approach, allocating resources are further discussed and elaborated upon in Section 4.
effectively may be more accessible, prioritizing data collection or
ensuring consistency across different assessments. This can lead 3. Overview of the role of process systems engineering in
to incomplete or rushed analyses that capture only some of the renewable and sustainable energy systems
life cycle impacts.
Sustainable energy system design is built on multi-criteria and multi-
4
C.L. Gargalo et al.
Table 1
List of PSE publications reviewed limited to: (i) 2009 – 2020 (for obtaining a representative sample), (ii) performing environmental impact assessment, and (iii) complex renewable energy systems highlighted in Fig. 2.
GA= Genetic Algorithm; EA= environmental assessment; NA = Not Applicable. MINFP= mixed-integer nonlinear fractional programming problem. LNG= liquefied natural gas; CED= cumulative energy demand; Fobj =
objective function.
Refs. Energy Modeling 3 Pillars of Environmental Metrics used / How is EA System LCA
production approach sustainability assessment approach reported included in the boundaries Life cycle Reports LCA SA, UA,
system assessment study impact decisions in Software scenario
addressed? assessment all LCA 4 used? analysis?
method (LCIA) steps?
(Zamboni et al., corn-based MILP, multi- no LCA GHG included in/as the well-to- not mentioned no no no
2009) bioethanol objective Fobj wheel
(Alvarado-Morales bioethanol modeling and no SustainPro energy and water post simulation gate-to-gate - (NA) - (NA) - (NA) - (NA)
et al., 2009) simulation with cost
proii +
scenarios
(Elia et al., 2011) hybrid MILP no GREET model GHG post optimization well-to- not mentioned no no no
coal, biomass, step wheel (gate-
and natural gas to to-gate
liquid (CBGTL) indirectly
mentioned)
(Santibañez-Aguilar production of LP no eco-indicator-99 single score eco- included in/as the cradle-to- Eco-indicator- no no no
et al., 2011) ethanol, multi-objective, indicator-99 and Fobj grave 99
hydrogen and e-constraint GWP
biodiesel
(Mele et al., 2011) production of MILP no LCA GWP and Eco- included in/as the cradle-to- CML and eco- yes, in detail no no
sugar and multi-objective, indicator 99 Fobj gate indicator99
bioethanol e-constraint
(You and Wang, biomass-to- MILP no LCA GHG post optimization cradle-to- IPCC3 yes, no economic,
5
2011) liquids supply multi-objective, step grave minimalist empirical

chains e-constraint
(Gerber et al., 2011) combined fuel MILP, multi- no LCA report several included in/as the cradle-to- eco-indicator yes, in detail no no
and electricity objectve metrics estimated Fobj gate 99 and
production from using the impact ecoscarcity06
lignocellulosic assessment
biomass methods
(Modahl et al., electricity from a scenarios (data no LCA GWP, AP, EP, analysis of the cradle-to- ReCiPe, yes SimaPro yes, process
2012) fossil gas power comes from POCP, CED different gate EPS2000, design
plant with CO2 other sources) - scenarios + IMPACT 2002+ scenarios
capture, transport not an comparison of
and storage optimization methods
study

(Gerber and cogeneration of MILP, multi- no LCA GWP or Eco- included in/as the cradle-to- IPCC3 and Eco- yes no no
Maréchal, 2012) electricity and objectve indicator 99 Fobj grave indicator 99
district heating
(You et al., 2012) biofuel supply MILP no LCA GHG included in/as the cradle-to- IPCC yes no no
chain multi-objective, Fobj grave
e-constraint
(Pérez-Fortes et al., electricity MILP, multi- yes LCA IMPACT2002+ included in/as the cradle-to- IMPACT2002+ no no no
2012) generation objectve Fobj gate
(Čuček et al., 2012) biomass to energy MINLP, multi- no LCA GHG included in/as the cradle-to- no no no no
objectve, multi- (Carbon Fobj (e- grave
crireria Footprint1) constraint)
optimization
(Kostin et al., 2012) bioethanol/ MILP no LCA GWP100, EI99, five not Eco-indicator no no no
sugars supply multi-objective, DHH, DEQ, and environmental mentioned 99
chain e-constraint DR. objectives are
simultaneously
(continued on next page)
C.L. Gargalo et al.
Table 1 (continued )
optimized along
with the net
present value
(Bamufleh et al., co-generation combination of yes not mentioned GHG included in/as the not no no no no
2013) systems GA and LP, Fobj mentioned
multi-objective
(Baliban et al., natural gas to MINLP no not mentioned GHG post calculation not not mentioned no no no
2013) liquids mentioned
(Yue et al., 2013) hydrocarbon MILP and no LCA GWP or Eco- included in/as the cradle-to- not mentioned yes, but as no no
biofuels MILFP, multi- indicator 99 Fobj gate steps of their
objective, e- framework. So
constraint no details are
given
regarding the
LCA itself
(Wang et al., 2013) hydrocarbon MINLP no LCA GWP or Eco- included in/as the gate-to-gate IPCC3 and Eco- no no no
biofuels via multi-objective, indicator 99 Fobj indicator 99
gasification e-constraint
(Gebreslassie et al., algal-based NLP, bi-criteria, no LCA GWP included in/as the cradle-to- IPCC3 yes, no no
2013) hydrocarbon e-constraint Fobj gate minimalist
biofuel
production and
carbon
6
sequestration
from power plant
flue gas
(Gebreslassie et al., hydrocarbon MINLP, bi- no LCA GWP and Eco- included in/as the gate-to-gate IPCC3 and Eco- yes no no
2013) biorefinery via criteria, e- indicator 99 Fobj indicator 99
fast pyrolisis, constraint,
hydrotreating heurisitic
and solution
hydrocracking
(Santibañez-Aguilar bioethanol and MILP yes eco-indicator-99 single score eco- included in/as the not eco-indicator- no no no
et al., 2014) other bioproducts multi-objective, indicator-99 Fobj mentioned 99
multi-period

e-constraint
(Jakobsen et al., (i) integrated iCCS: modular no hybrid LCA (use of GHG analysis of not not mentioned no no yes, chain/
2014) gasification simulation of Ecoinvent and IO scenarios (not an mentioned process
combined cycle, CCS chain Carnegie Mellon optimization design
(ii) coal fired configurations databases) study) scenarios
power plant, (iii) (Aspen Plus and
use of CO2 for oil Aspen Hysis)
recovery
(Hanes and Bakshi, corn bioethanol NLP, multi- no LCA CO2 emissions included in/as the cradle-to- GREET model no no no
2015) objective Fobj grave1
(Yue et al., 2016) bioethanol supply MILP, multi- no hybrid LCA GWP included in/as the cradle-to- https://ghgprot no no yes
chain objective, Fobj grave1 ocol.or
multi-period g/calculation-t
e-constraint ools
(continued on next page)
C.L. Gargalo et al.
Table 1 (continued )
(He and You, 2016) shale gas process design, no LCA energy-water- post analysis cradle-to- not mentioned no no no
processing modeling, and carbon nexus gate
integration (HJH, water
footprint, energy
consumption)
(Ghosh and Bakshi, corn ethanol and NLP, multi- no hybrid LCA CO2 emissions included in/as the cradle-to- not mentioned no no no
2017) DDGS as by- objective, e- Fobj grave1
products constraint
(Boyaghchi and solar-geothermal multi-objective no exergoenvironmenal total product included in/as the cradle-to- eco-indicator- no no no
Chavoshi, 2017) driven combined optimization analysis (combo environemental Fobj grave 99
cooling, heating MILP and exergy-based analysis impact (indirectly)
and power NSGA-II and LCA)
(CCHP) cycle method
integrated with
flat plat collectors
(Gong and You, algal diesel MINLP, multi- no LCA 11 metrics included in/as the cradle-to- IPCC yes no no
2017) production objective normalized into Fobj grave
one metric
(Gong and You, shale gas process no LCA GWP included in/as the cradle-to- IPCC no no SA
2018) processing simulation + water footprint Fobj gate (economics)
multi-objective
MINLP
(Yang and You, shale gas modeling and no LCA ReCiPe metrics analysis of gate-to-gate ReCiPe no no scenarios
7
2018) processing and hysys scenarios endpoint and SA (impact

methanol simulation of midpoint of distances)
manufacturing both processes
(Wheeler et al., sugar to multi-attribute no LCA2 11 metrics included in/as the not Eco-indicator no2 no no
2018) bioethanol decision making normalilzed into Fobj with mentioned2 99
one objective normalizing
function weights
(Wu et al., 2018) microalgae to single objective no LCA GHG included in/as the well-to-tank not mentioned no no no
biofuels optimization Fobj
(Álvarez del lignocellulosic MINLP, multi- yes eco-efficiency Socio-eco- included in/as the gate-to-gate NA NA NA no
Castillo-Romo biomass to objctive, e- efficiency Fobj
et al., 2018) biofuels and cobstraint +

bioproducts Aspen Plus
simulation
(Pérez-López et al., oil from not an no LCA GHG, NA cradle-to- TRACI yes, no yes
2018) microalgae optimization Euthrophication gate1 minimalist
study and CED
(Liu and Bakshi, corn ethanol not an no adapted LCA net CO2 emissions NA cradle-to- TRACI yes no no
2019) optimization grave
study – post
calculation
(Tian and You, hybrid energy MINFP, multi- no LCA GWP post optimization not IPCC 2013 no no yes
2019) system for heat period step mentioned (impact of
and coling input
parameter)
(Blanco et al., 2020) power to not an no LCA 18 categories NA cradle-to- ReCiPe yes no no
methane optimization grave midpoint
study – post
calculation
objective decision-making procedures. During these procedures, PSE

traditionally contributes to developing technically feasible engineering
design, synthesis, control, and supply chain solutions. As such, the PSE
discipline is well suited to integrate the LCA methodology and
contribute to improving the sustainability of these processes. For
example, in the future, we expect that a variety of energy production
technologies will make up the large energy supply networks. In that
situation, the environmental impacts of complex sustainable energy
systems heavily depend on the extent of systems integration and opti
mization. Here, there is a natural role for PSE, with its systems approach
mindset and toolset, to work jointly with LCA to contribute to sustain
ability by design.
Indeed, for complex sustainable energy systems design, the funda
mental question to address is which technologies to adopt, which
product to manufacture, and the sequence of operations needed to
obtain the maximum profit and lowest environmental and social im
pacts. Process synthesis, integration, intensification, and optimization
methods and tools from the PSE discipline can be applied to answer this
question. A systematic methodology to design, analyze, and improve the
process is a helpful first step in the evaluation of the environmental
impacts of the energy production system. The PSE community has
conducted many studies exploring this contribution to literature, which
we review below.
To gather a holistic view of the studies, we performed a compre
hensive literature search with the keyword PSE combined with other
terms used in relation to renewable energy systems. The search results
are illustrated in Fig. 2.
Environmental assessment, as highlighted in Fig. 1, primarily by
applying LCA, has gradually become more important in the PSE com
munity. As also demonstrated in Fig. 2, the research interest in renew
able energy and power-to-X systems has increased tremendously,
especially in the last decade. Although there are many works in the field,
the goal of this work is not to present an all-encompassing literature
review. Hence, a representative sample of the body of work performed in
the last two decades regarding the mentioned energy systems, which
includes environmental assessment in the PSE study, is collected and
benchmarked in Table 1.
As mentioned in Section 2, several methods have been used in the
PSE community over the years to analyze the environmental impact of
energy systems. For example, eco-efficiency (Álvarez del Castillo-Romo
et al., 2018) looks at a normalized quantity representing the system’s
environmental impact. Similarly, as observed in Table 1, Eco-indicator
99 is a quite common method, especially in older studies. This can
actually represent two different aspects, where it can be used as (i) a
single indicator (not LCA) (Gebreslassie et al., 2013); and (ii) as an LCA
method in the Life Cycle Impact Assessment stage (Wheeler et al., 2018).
Nonetheless, it can be observed in Table 1 that LCA has gradually
it refers to another paper(s) for assumptions and calculations.
become the approach of choice in the PSE community. This is a welcome

development, as the LCA is the most commonly accepted methodology
for quantifying the environmental dimension of sustainability. Howev
er, there are some important limitations to be mentioned, as will be
highlighted below.
Although most of these studies focus only on using one single impact
IPCC 100-year global warming potentials.
category, the distribution is as follows: (i) 41.7% (15 out of 36 studies)

mainly focus on the mid-point CO2 eq. category of impact; (ii) 30.6% (11
out of 36 studies) use an aggregated indicator (typically end-point and
the Eco-indicator 99) in the context of process and supply chain opti
mization, as in Santibañez-Aguilar et al. (2014) and Wheeler et al.
not mentioned directly.
(2018); and, (iii) 27.7% (10 out of 36 studies) use several indicators but,
like in Wheeler et al. (2018), the indicators are included in the form of
scenario testing. Furthermore, only 22.2% (8 out of 38 studies) per
formed sensitivity and uncertainty analysis. Of note is that Modahl et al.
(2012) is, in fact, the only study out of 36 studies analyzed that uses
professional LCA software (instead of, for example, including the cal
culations in the optimization problem). There is no explicit explanation
in the reviewed studies as to why such specialist software is not
1
2
3
8
Fig. 2. Publications that fit the keyword combinations presented. Data from Web of Science, accessed on November 22, 2022.
employed. The underlying reasons could be, among others: (i) SimaPro objectives is crucial, but relying on aggregated metrics can oversimplify
is a license-based software, and its application requires resources as well the dominance structure (Capitanescu et al., 2018). When using LCA,
as training, which may not be accessible to all research groups; (ii) a relying solely on aggregated metrics can oversimplify the dominance
matter of priority and scoping of the research: it may be that there are structure. These metrics combine various impact categories into a single
resources yet a comprehensive environmental impact assessment and score, which can hide the trade-offs between different environmental
analysis of impact categories were not deemed the main focus and hence goals. This may result in suboptimal or even deceptive outcomes when
use of a specialist LCA software was not prioritized; and, (iii) it may be using LCA to support decision-making (Lesage et al., 2018). Addition
that integration of comprehensive LCA analysis with optimization ally, aggregated metrics assume that all impact categories are equally
problems (such as mathematical programming applied for supply chain important, which is not always true. Different stakeholders may priori
analysis, process synthesis, and design, etc.) is perceived computation tize environmental impacts differently, and these differences can be
ally too complex to solve. Irrespective of the underlying reasons, the overlooked when relying on aggregated metrics (Lesage et al., 2018).
current and future environmental impact assessment needs to perform a Preserving the dominance structure in LCA optimization problems can
proper and systematic LCA analysis, ideally through an interdisciplinary lead to a better and more precise understanding of the environmental
collaboration with the LCA community. impacts of different solutions, supporting informed and sustainable
Important to note is that approx. 64 % do not report all decisions decision-making (Capitanescu et al., 2018; Rehnstrom, 2003).
made when performing the LCA study. This is critical for reproducibility All in all, this might lead to an unfair comparison and inaccurate
and fair comparison among studies of similar or equivalent systems. conclusions when benchmarking these studies. This is escalated by the
As mentioned previously, there are several impact categories calcu fact that there is a general lack of standardized and systematic de
lated in the LCIA to provide a comprehensive environmental impact scriptions of methodological assumptions as well as declared decisions
assessment: not only climate change but also ozone depletion, fresh in all four LCA steps (Cherubini et al., 2018; Heijungs and Dekker, 2022)
water ecotoxicity, human toxicity, and water depletion, to name a few .
mid-point categories from the ReCiPe database. We believe that the In contrast, Gerber et al. (2011) and Gong and You (2018) are studies
common approach of reducing the impact categories obtained in LCIA to that more explicitly describe the methodological decisions taken when
a few “representative” categories is very reductive, as previously applying LCA. More details regarding the methodology used for the
mentioned, and commonly leads to less informed decisions and under- environmental impact assessments can be found in some review papers
the-hood burden shifting (Bakshi, 2019; Czyrnek-Delêtre et al., 2017). such as Thonemann (2020) and Koj et al. (2019).
The burden shifting applies not only to transfer among categories of Lastly, particularly of note is that, of all studies reviewed in Table 1,
impact but also to social and economic metrics. The next section dis four studies (11% - 4 out of 36) perform a more holistic approach by
cusses these issues, challenges, and perspectives in more detail. taking into account the three aspects of sustainability (economic, social,
A significant portion of the optimization studies, mainly based on and environmental).
MINLP and MILP methods, within energy systems and beyond, defend
that they perform life cycle optimization by including the chosen LCA 4. Current practices, challenges, and future perspectives on
metric in the objective function through multi-objective optimization environmental impact assessment in the PSE community
(Yue et al., 2016). However, as mentioned above, this is not represen
tative. By using an aggregated metric, the dominance structure of the In the search for sustainable production and consumption, chemical
optimization problem can be altered, and thus, potentially feasible so engineering strives to identify sustainable solutions for energy systems
lutions could be left outside the analysis (Kostin et al., 2012). The and all applications where the triple bottom line paradigm is simulta
dominance structure of an optimization problem refers to how a solution neously respected. This commitment to pursue alternatives which are
is preferred based on the problem’s objectives. In Life Cycle Assessment (more) sustainable requires advanced decision-support strategies and
(LCA), considering multiple environmental impact categories or tools in order to keep the economic viability, interest, and
9
competitiveness of the proposed solutions (Guillén-Gosálbez et al., (2013) and Sala and Goralczyk (2013).
2019). As a subfield of chemical engineering, the PSE discipline, with its The limits or thresholds of diverse Earth system processes and
broad scope and systems thinking, developed new computer-aided environmental parameters define a safe operating space for humanity
methods and tools to contribute to sustainable process design prob are called planetary boundaries. These boundaries represent the global
lems and challenges (Bakshi, 2019; Bakshi, 2003; Grossmann and Har limits within which human activities can operate without causing irre
junkoski, 2019; Guillén-Gosálbez et al., 2019; Klatt and Marquardt, versible or catastrophic transformations to the Earth’s systems (Bjørn
2009). Over the years, many sustainability metrics and indicators have et al., 2020). Within this global framework, LCA can be used to evaluate
been developed that cover one, two or the three dimensions of sus the performance of the mentioned systems/products concerning the
tainability (Bakshi, 2019; Martins et al., 2007; Thonemann, 2020). planetary boundaries, considering the impact of those categories linked
As demonstrated in Section 3, a traditional approach to integrate to the boundaries. Of note is that although both planetary and
sustainability into PSE studies has been to minimize water and energy system-specific boundaries are concerned with environmental impacts,
consumption, mainly portrayed by the greenhouse gasses and water use they differ on scale level and specificity. Planetary boundaries address a
indicators. Even though this might presumably lower environmental global framework to evaluate the sustainability of human actions/ac
impact, it potentially leads to loss of information by: (i) neglecting a tivities on the planet. In contrast, system-specific boundaries focus on
range of other environmental impacts (e.g., human health, ecosystems, impacts within a particular life cycle assessment study. This new
resources); (ii) omitting burdens beyond the production stage; and, (iii) initiative helps provide a context for interpreting the LCA results within
shifting burdens to other emission flows and resources (Bakshi, 2019; safe planetary limits (Ryberg, 2021). However, much work is needed in
Guillén-Gosálbez et al., 2019). LCA emerged as an effective method to the broader sustainability assessment community and with relevant
overcome these challenges (Bakshi, 2019; Guillén-Gosálbez et al., 2019) stakeholders, agreeing on principles and methods for defining safe limits
since it shares the systems thinking with PSE and it ideally includes all for the planet in different impact categories for various sectors.
phases of the process’ or product’s value chain (Bakshi, 2019; Sustainability assessment problems are encumbered by several
Guillén-Gosálbez et al., 2019). As previously mentioned, Azapagic and sources of uncertainty, which are related to the LCA calculations
Clift (Azapagic and Clift, 1999) first introduced the Life Cycle Optimi themselves (Guillén-Gosálbez and Grossmann, 2009). LCA is accompa
zation framework (LCO), where optimization was coupled with LCA nied by uncertainty sources regarding the inventory data and the dam
through multi-objective optimization (MOO) to minimize life cycle im age factors that need to be analyzed and mended if possible (Gargalo
pacts and economic costs. As detailed in Section 4, this framework has et al., 2016; Huijbregts, 1998; Santos et al., 2022). A crucial/outstand
been broadly applied since it was first introduced and has evolved and ing contributing factor to the propagation of uncertainty and difficulty
improved over the years. However, noteworthy is that it is seldom in comparing different LCA studies is that different LCIA methods can be
possible to fairly compare different studies even though they refer to the selected (Chen et al., 2021; Heijungs and Dekker, 2022; Landis and
same product or process. There is an overall lack of transparency and Theis, 2008; Owsianiak et al., 2014). Often, they do not lead to exactly
clarity concerning the decisions taken in Step 1 of LCA, such as func the same value (e.g., ReCiPe, ILCD, CML, IMPACT2000+) since different
tional unit, time horizon, geo-location, boundaries of analysis, and a mathematical models are employed to estimate the indicators
priori assumptions. (mid-point and end-point methods) (Bueno et al., 2016; Müller et al.,
A great majority of the PSE studies published over the years (Section 2020). Noteworthy is that some of these impact assessment methods are
3), while applying the LCO framework, only include one or a couple of also outdated (Verones et al., 2020). A detailed review of uncertainty
environmental impact indicators as representative metrics of the whole propagation due to using different LCIA methods is given in Chen et al.
system. This is not a one-size-fits-all solution, and it is rather important (2021) and Heijungs and Dekker (2022). Hence, for the sake of
when analyzing energy systems: inferring that a particular design is a robustness, we recommended justifying the approach/methods used for
sustainable solution based on a very limited list of indicators does not the LCIA method by doing a benchmarking (does the interpretation and
provide a robust evaluation. To use these findings in a higher-level de sustainability picture differ when using different LCIA methods?).
cision making (e.g., go forward with a decision to invest in a technology) As an example, we will illustrate our point using an example study of
could potentially be misleading. environmental impact assessment of a pharmaceutical compound A
As a future perspective for integrating environmental impact (production scale analysis) (Wernet et al., 2010). This study assessed the
assessment into PSE, we need a clear alignment and standardization of impact assessment of pharmaceutical compound A using different
the LCA methodology used to account for the environmental dimension methods and databases (CED, GWP, Eco-indicator99, TRACI, LCA with
of sustainability. As a minimum requirement, an LCA study must be ReCiPe, and Impact2002+). Here, the study aimed to compare the
applied with care, critical thinking, and understanding. The scope environmental impact of pharmaceutical product A against the sus
should be broadened far beyond the production boundaries (gate to tainability impact of bulk chemicals using different methods. In
gate) in order to understand the complex relationships and exchanges conclusion, the study found that the sustainability metrics are two or
among subsystems and, hence, the implications of different decisions on ders of magnitude higher for producing pharmaceutical compounds
the environment and economy. This should provide thorough insights versus bulk chemicals, which is consistent among different methods (Eco
needed to generate knowledge that must be integrated into the early indicator, ES2006, LCA recipe, Impact2002+, etc.). However, as the
stages of process and product development and decision-making to results clearly show, one cannot directly compare the results among
reduce impact across scales (Guillén-Gosálbez et al., 2019). different methods as each method uses different expert rankings to
Regarding impact categories selected and used for assessment, the aggregate the results (especially for end-point indicators). For instance,
studies need to move beyond reporting only CO2 and acknowledge other IMPACT2002+ and ReCiPe, as different LCIA methods, use different
relevant impact categories such as mineral resource depletion, human/ units and nomenclature as well as aggregation. As a result, while ReCiPe
marine/freshwater ecotoxicity, and water depletion. The latter is gives a score of 7 points/kg of A as the overall LCA score, Impact2002+
becoming highly relevant for some renewable energy production sys gives a score of 6.7E-3 points/kg A. Clearly, these two databases cannot
tems such as wind, solar, and electrolysis technology in Power-to-X (PtX) be compared against each other, and only a relative comparison can be
concepts. Likewise, of note is that environmental impacts from persis made to compare different products using the same method (e.g.,
tent compounds (e.g., mercury) are not limited to regional scales. They Product A versus Product B comparison using ReCiPe is possible).
can be spotted in ecosystems far from perceived human activities (Bjørn, A second example is from the work of Vollmer (2022). The latter
2015). Another point to consider in moving forward with a standardized study aims to perform the environmental impact assessment of the
approach is to define planetary boundaries. This has first been proposed production of xylitol from renewable feedstock (such as lignocellulosic
by Rockström et al. (2009), and it is also discussed in Persson et al. wood chips), which is a frequently studied process (Vollmer, 2022).
10
When using renewable energy (such as wind energy), the global establishing a strong relationship between PSE and environmental
warming potential in CO2 equivalents is relatively low, as the xylitol assessment strategies (LCA in particular, due to the mentioned similar
biorefinery just releases biogenic CO2. However, freshwater and marine ities). This relationship must be conveyed in the form of a systematic,
ecotoxicity impacts are rather high, as well as the human carcinogenic standardized, and transparent framework in order for the studies to be
potential. The first two can be associated with the biorefinery’s energy comparable and usable for practical purposes. This will lead to signifi
demand since it is presumed that the energy is used from wind power. cant advances in accounting for ecosystems and supporting industrial
The windmills need copper for the generators, typically obtained using activities while minimizing environmental burden.
toxic chemicals that can potentially damage freshwater and marine life
if not disposed of carefully and correctly. Indeed, this is a clear example 5. Conclusions
of the importance of properly identifying the relevant impact categories
and reporting them. As the review shown in Table 1 illustrates, most There are many complex renewable and sustainable energy systems.
studies only focused on one impact category and miss the opportunity to A significant research effort has been dedicated to environmental
identify other relevant categories. assessment, primarily based on LCA. The open literature has short
Obtaining data for the complex life cycle activities of the systems comings in terms of transparency, reproducibility, etc. The critical role
under study (from “cradle to grave”) and the uncertainty it carries is a of PSE is highlighted, and influential studies from the community are
significant challenge. Software and databases have been developed over reviewed. The application of PSE tools for the synthesis, design, and
the past two decades to simplify this task; however, most of the available optimization can further enhance the benefits of renewable and sus
databases are based upon regional facility-level data that result from the tainable energy systems.
combination of multiple manufacturing processes (Bakshi, 2019). Ef The challenges, perspectives, and potential guidelines collected and
forts should be applied to avoid the use of this secondary data and gather presented in this article are based on experience and a comprehensive
primary data for emerging technologies and individual processes literature review. To successfully integrate LCA into PSE studies, the
through, for example, process models (Bakshi, 2019; Geisler et al., 2004; following recommendations are made to overcome the above-discussed
Jiménez-González et al., 2000; Li et al., 2018; Yao and Masanet, 2018), challenges. These suggestions aim to become the best practice and
data reconciliation (Ilagan and Tan, 2011; Yi and Bakshi, 2007), and require careful consideration and implementation. They are as follows.
extended input-output models (Yang et al., 2017). Nonetheless, when
using these techniques, system boundaries are still seen as incomplete, (i) Define the objectives and boundaries of the LCA study as clearly
especially when new products are included (Guillén-Gosálbez et al., as possible at the beginning. This entails specifying the following:
2019; Majeau-Bettez et al., 2011) show that unaccounted processes may functional unit, system boundaries, and pertinent life cycle pha
be up to 80% of the total flows. To overcome this, integrated hybrid LCA ses that are to be included. Of note is that it is paramount to
has been investigated; an example is given by Gao and You (2018). In clearly define the scope in order to avoid data gaps and
tegrated hybrid LCA combines process-based and input-output data to inconsistencies.
assess environmental impacts, avoiding truncation and double counting. (ii) Define suitable system boundaries in agreement with the scope
Another recent trend is the potential use of AI and ML algorithms to of the analysis, and ensure these are exhaustive; include upstream
build surrogate models for different unit operations for optimization processes (e.g., raw material acquisition) and downstream pro
problems, as exemplified in Gonzalez-Garay and Guillen-Gosalbez cesses (e.g., waste management and disposal). This is crucial in
(2018). Besides, the uncertainty in the inventory could and should also order to avoid the problem of burden shifting by considering the
be included in optimization studies in the form of stochastic program entire life cycle of the product/process/system.
ming or robust optimization. Stochastic programming is particularly (iii) Accurate and reliable data is crucial for an LCA study. Ensure that
useful for decision-making under uncertainty since it can accommodate the data used for the inventory analysis (e.g., mass and energy
several time points, optimizing the expected objective function value inputs, emissions) is high-quality, updated, and representa
over all uncertainty realizations (Birge, 1997; Guillén-Gosálbez et al., tive. Well-known databases such as coinvent are good sources of
2019). A good example is given by Gao and You (2017). Robust opti data, and the use of secondary data (such as modeling and
mization is of simpler implementation since it does not require prior and simulation) needs to be clearly mentioned.
accurate information of probability distributions of uncertain parame (iv) Temporal and geographical variations in the data and impact
ters. An example is given by Calvo-Serrano et al. (2019) for the design of assessment are essential to consider since the environmental
a biomass processing network for the production of fuels, electricity, and impact of a product/process might change with time and across
chemicals. Nevertheless, these approaches are computationally expen different locations. Thus, using site- and time-specific data and
sive, and that requires a natural need for more efficient algorithms to characterization factors is a way to reduce the associated
solve complex large-scale problems (Guillén-Gosálbez et al., 2019). uncertainty.
Targeting to solve this, combining machine learning and big data is (v) When conducting Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies, it’s com
gaining ground (Ning and You, 2019). For example, Gao et al. (2019) mon to encounter data uncertainties. To address this issue, a
use this new strategy for the energy supply chain LCO under uncertainty. few strategies can be implemented, such as data estimation ap
LCA has demonstrated its usefulness towards the assessment of a proaches, proxies, and expert judgment based on past experi
better environmental performance of given alternative technologies/ ences. Additionally, performing sensitivity and uncertainty
products over the years. As such, LCA is considered valuable to reduce analyses is beneficial as it allows for the identification of
the burden/impact per function of a system/product under study. On the important data gaps and the assessment of result robustness.
other hand, since the population and consumption profiles continue to This analysis also evaluates the sensitivity of results to critical
rise at an increasing pace, there is a growing need and call for verifying input parameters, assumptions, and hypotheses. Overall, this
this premise. In other words, there is actually a need to develop strate process helps to identify the most significant and impactful fac
gies to assess whether the current technologies are indeed “sufficiently tors, such as technology and energy mix choices, ensuring the
good to contribute to a sustainable lifestyle” and not just “relatively trustworthiness of the conclusions.
better than the alternatives” (Hauschild, 2015; Ryberg, 2021). (vi) When a process/product/system has multiple co-products, or
In summary, many new technologies are being developed, pursuing system expansion is required, one needs to apply allocation. It is
sustainable production and consumption, here illustrated in the area of crucial to appropriately select the allocation methods that
renewable energies. However, to avoid unexpected and unobserved best align with the study’s purposes and avoid allocation methods
environmental impacts as seen in the past, future efforts need to focus on that can lead to the misinterpretation of the results.
11
(vii) There must be transparent and thorough reporting of the LCA Azhar Khan, M., Zahir Khan, M., Zaman, K., Naz, L., 2014. Global estimates of energy
consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 29,
study, including methodology, data sources, assumptions, and
336–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.091.
limitations. This facilitates others to understand and assess the Bakshi, B.R., 2003. The quest for sustainability: challenges for process systems
study’s validity and enables a trustworthy comparison with other engineering. AIChE J. 49 (6), 1350–1358. https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.690490602.
studies. For the sake of transparency, these need to be disclosed in Bakshi, B.R., 2019. Toward sustainable chemical engineering: the role of process systems
engineering. Annu. Rev. Chem. Biomol. Eng. 10 (1), 265–288. https://doi.org/
scientific publications as supplementary material. 10.1146/annurev-chembioeng-060718-030332.
(viii) Adopting a holistic approach considering multiple environ Baliban, R.C., Elia, J.A., Floudas, C.A., 2013. Novel natural gas to liquids processes:
mental indicators is necessary. This ensures a comprehensive process synthesis and global optimization strategies. AlChE J. 59 (2), 505–531.
https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.13996.
understanding of the environmental performance and impacts of Bamufleh, H.S., Ponce-Ortega, J.M., El-Halwagi, M.M., 2013. Multi-objective
a system, process, or product. optimization of process cogeneration systems with economic, environmental, and
social tradeoffs. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 15 (1), 185–197. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10098-012-0497-y.
By enforcing these suggestions and recommendations, the reliability Bengtsson, S. (2004). The BASF Eco-Efficiency Analysis method—Applied on environmental
and quality of LCA studies in PSE are improved, along with the under impact data from an LCA study of two colorants. June.
standing of the environmental impacts of processes and products. Birge, J.R., 1997. Introduction to Stochastic Programming. Springer.
Bjørn, A. (2015). Better, but good enough? Indicators for absolute environmental
In summary, we call for a shared systematic and transparent meth sustainability in a life cycle perspective–DTU Findit [PhD Thesis, Technical
odology where detailed LCA calculations are performed and reported in University of Denmark]. https://findit.dtu.dk/en/catalog/5672ea221fb7ae3
a consistent and robust framework such that results from different b76000091?single_revert=%2Fen%2Fcatalog%3Fq%3DBetter%252C%2Bbut%
2BGood%2BEnough%253F%2BIndicators%2Bfor%2BAbsolute%2BEnvironmental%
studies can be fairly compared and discussed.
2BSustainability%2Bin%2Ba%2BLife%2BCycle%2BPerspective%26show_single%
3Doff%26utf8%3D%25E2%259C%2593.
CRediT authorship contribution statement Bjørn, A., Sim, S., King, H., Patouillard, L., Margni, M., Hauschild, M.Z., Ryberg, M.,
2020. Life cycle assessment applying planetary and regional boundaries to the
process level: a model case study. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 25 (11), 2241–2254.
Carina L. Gargalo: Conceptualization, Visualization, Data curation, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01823-8.
Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. Blanco, H., Codina, V., Laurent, A., Nijs, W., Maréchal, F., Faaij, A., 2020. Life cycle
assessment integration into energy system models: an application for Power-to-
Haoshui Yu: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing,
Methane in the EU. Appl. Energy 259, 114160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Writing – original draft. Nikolaus Vollmer: Data curation, Formal apenergy.2019.114160.
analysis, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. Ahmad Bösch, M.E., Hellweg, S., Huijbregts, M.A.J., Frischknecht, R., 2007. Applying
Arabkoohsar: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review & cumulative exergy demand (CExD) indicators to the ecoinvent database. Int. J. Life
Cycle Assess. 12 (3), 181–190. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.11.282.
editing. Krist V. Gernaey: Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing. Boyaghchi, F.A., Chavoshi, M., 2017. Multi-criteria optimization of a micro solar-
Gürkan Sin: Conceptualization, Visualization, Formal analysis, Writing geothermal CCHP system applying water/CuO nanofluid based on exergy,
– review & editing. exergoeconomic and exergoenvironmental concepts. Appl. Therm. Eng. 112,
660–675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.10.139.
Bueno, C., Hauschild, M.Z., Rossignolo, J.A., Ometto, A.R., Mendes, N.C., 2016.
Sensitivity analysis of the use of life cycle impact assessment methods: a case study
Declaration of Competing Interest
on building materials. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 2208–2220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2015.10.006.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial Burgess, A.A., Brennan, D.J., 2001. Application of life cycle assessment to chemical
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence processes. Chem. Eng. Sci. 56 (8), 2589–2604. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-2509
(00)00511-X.
the work reported in this paper. Cabezas, H., Bare, J.C., Mallick, S.K., 1999. Pollution prevention with chemical process
simulators: the generalized waste reduction (WAR) algorithm–full version. Comput.
Data availability Chem. Eng. 23 (4–5), 623–634.
Calvo-Serrano, R., Guo, M., Pozo, C., Galán-Martín, Á., Guillén-Gosálbez, G., 2019.
Biomass conversion into fuels, chemicals, or electricity? A network-based life cycle
No data was used for the research described in the article. optimization approach applied to the European Union. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 7
(12), 10570–10582. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b01115.
Capitanescu, F., Marvuglia, A., Benetto, E., 2018. A synthesis of optimization approaches
for LCA-integrated industrial process modeling: application to potable water
Acknowledgments production plants. In: Benetto, E., Gericke, K., Guiton, M. (Eds.), Designing
Sustainable Technologies, Products and Policies. Springer International Publishing,
pp. 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66981-6_3.
The Authors would like to acknowledge the: (i) Novo Nordisk Caudill, R.J., Olapiriyakul, S., Seale, B., 2010. An exergy footprint metric normalized to
Foundation in the frame of the ‘Accelerated Innovation in US exergy consumption per capita. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International
Manufacturing Biologics’ (AIMBio) project (Grant number Symposium on Sustainable Systems and Technology, pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/
10.1109/ISSST.2010.5507746.
NNF19SA0035474); (ii) European Union in the frame of the Calimero Chang, F., Zhang, X., Zhan, G., Duan, Y., Zhang, S., 2021. Review of methods for
Project (Grant number Project 101060546); and (iii) Novo Nordisk sustainability assessment of chemical engineering processes. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 60
Foundation in the frame of the ‘Real-time sustainability analysis for (1), 52–66. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.0c04720.
Chen, X., Matthews, H.S., Griffin, W.M., 2021. Uncertainty caused by life cycle impact
Industry 4.0′ (Sustain4.0) project (Grant number NNF22OC0080136).
assessment methods: case studies in process-based LCI databases. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 172, 105678 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105678.
References Cherubini, E., Franco, D., Zanghelini, G.M., Soares, S.R., 2018. Uncertainty in LCA case
study due to allocation approaches and life cycle impact assessment methods. Int. J.
Life Cycle Assess. 23 (10), 2055–2070. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1432-
Alvarado-Morales, M., Terra, J., Gernaey, K.V., Woodley, J.M., Gani, R., 2009.
6.
Biorefining: computer aided tools for sustainable design and analysis of bioethanol
Čuček, L., Klemeš, J.J., Kravanja, Z., 2015. Overview of environmental footprints.
production. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 87 (9), 1171–1183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Assessing and Measuring Environmental Impact and Sustainability. Elsevier,
cherd.2009.07.006.
pp. 131–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-799968-5.00005-1.
Álvarez del Castillo-Romo, A., Morales-Rodriguez, R., Román-Martínez, A., 2018.
Čuček, L., Varbanov, P.S., Klemeš, J.J., Kravanja, Z., 2012. Total footprints-based multi-
Multiobjective optimization for the socio-eco-efficient conversion of lignocellulosic
criteria optimisation of regional biomass energy supply chains. Energy 44 (1),
biomass to biofuels and bioproducts. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 20 (3),
135–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.01.040.
603–620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-018-1490-x.
Czyrnek-Delêtre, M.M., Smyth, B.M., Murphy, J.D., 2017. Beyond carbon and energy: the
Anastas, P.T., Warner, J.C., 2000. Green Chemistry: Theory and Practice. Oxford
challenge in setting guidelines for life cycle assessment of biofuel systems. Renew.
University Press.
Energy 105, 436–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.11.043.
Anastas, P.T., Zimmerman, J.B., 2003. Peer reviewed: design through the 12 principles of
Elia, J.A., Baliban, R.C., Xiao, X., Floudas, C.A., 2011. Optimal energy supply network
green engineering. Environ. Sci. Technol. 37 (5), 94A–101A. https://doi.org/
determination and life cycle analysis for hybrid coal, biomass, and natural gas to
10.1021/es032373g.
liquid (CBGTL) plants using carbon-based hydrogen production. Comput. Chem.
Azapagic, A., & Clift, R. (1999). The application of life cycle assessment to process
Eng. 35 (8), 1399–1430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2011.01.019.
optimisation. 23, 1509–1526.
12
Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M.Z., Ekvall, T., Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S., Hong, J.D., Mwakalonge, J.L., 2020. Biofuel logistics network scheme design with
Koehler, A., Pennington, D., Suh, S., 2009. Recent developments in Life cycle combined data envelopment analysis approach. Energy 209, 118342. https://doi.
assessment. J. Environ. Manag. 91 (1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118342.
jenvman.2009.06.018. Huijbregts, M.A.J., 1998. Application of uncertainty and variability in LCA. Int. J. Life
Frischknecht et al. (2003). Ecoinvent Database. https://www.ecoinvent.org/. Cycle Assess. 3 (5), 273.
Gao, J., Ning, C., You, F., 2019. Data-driven distributionally robust optimization of shale Ilagan, E.R., Tan, R.R., 2011. Simultaneous allocation and data reconciliation procedure
gas supply chains under uncertainty. AlChE J. 65 (3), 947–963. https://doi.org/ in life cycle inventory analysis using fuzzy mathematical programming. Asia-Pac. J.
10.1002/aic.16488. Chem. Eng. 6 (5), 794–800. https://doi.org/10.1002/apj.465.
Gao, J., You, F., 2017. Modeling framework and computational algorithm for hedging ISO 14044. (2006). Environmental Management e Life Cycle Assessment e Principles and
against uncertainty in sustainable supply chain design using functional-unit-based Framework.
life cycle optimization. Comput. Chem. Eng. 107, 221–236. https://doi.org/ Jacquemin, L., Pontalier, P.Y., Sablayrolles, C., 2012. Life cycle assessment (LCA) applied
10.1016/j.compchemeng.2017.05.021. to the process industry: a review. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 17 (8), 1028–1041.
Gao, J., You, F., 2018. Integrated hybrid life cycle assessment and optimization of shale https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0432-9.
gas. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 6 (2), 1803–1824. https://doi.org/10.1021/ Jakobsen, J.P., Roussanaly, S., Brunsvold, A., Anantharaman, R., 2014. A tool for
acssuschemeng.7b03198. integrated multi-criteria assessment of the CCS value chain. Energy Procedia 63,
Gargalo, C.L., Cheali, P., Posada, J.A., Carvalho, A., Gernaey, K.V., Sin, G., 2016. 7290–7297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.765.
Assessing the environmental sustainability of early stage design for bioprocesses Jeswani, H.K., Azapagic, A., Schepelmann, P., Ritthoff, M., 2010. Options for broadening
under uncertainties: an analysis of glycerol bioconversion. J. Clean. Prod. 139, and deepening the LCA approaches. J. Clean. Prod. 18 (2), 120–127. https://doi.org/
1245–1260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.156. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.09.023.
Gebreslassie, B.H., Slivinsky, M., Wang, B., You, F., 2013a. Life cycle optimization for Jiménez-González, C., Kim, S., Overcash, M.R., 2000. Methodology for developing gate-
sustainable design and operations of hydrocarbon biorefinery via fast pyrolysis, to-gate Life cycle inventory information. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 5 (3), 153–159.
hydrotreating and hydrocracking. Comput. Chem. Eng. 50, 71–91. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978615.
10.1016/j.compchemeng.2012.10.013. Kalbar, P.P., Birkved, M., Nygaard, S.E., Hauschild, M., 2017. Weighting and aggregation
Gebreslassie, B.H., Waymire, R., You, F., 2013b. Sustainable design and synthesis of in life cycle assessment: do present aggregated single scores provide correct decision
algae-based biorefinery for simultaneous hydrocarbon biofuel production and support?: Do single scores provide correct decision support? J. Ind. Ecol. 21 (6),
carbon sequestration. AlChE J. 59 (5), 1599–1621. https://doi.org/10.1002/ 1591–1600. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12520.
aic.14075. Klatt, K.U., Marquardt, W., 2009. Perspectives for process systems engineering–personal
Geisler, G., Hofstetter, T.B., Hungerbühler, K., 2004. Production of fine and speciality views from academia and industry. Comput. Chem. Eng. 33 (3), 536–550. https://
chemicals: procedure for the estimation of LCIs. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 9 (2), doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2008.09.002.
101–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978569. Koj, J.C., Wulf, C., Zapp, P., 2019. Environmental impacts of power-to-X systems–a
Gerber, L., Gassner, M., Maréchal, F., 2011. Systematic integration of LCA in process review of technological and methodological choices in life cycle assessments. Renew.
systems design: application to combined fuel and electricity production from Sustain. Energy Rev. 112, 865–879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.06.029.
lignocellulosic biomass. Comput. Chem. Eng. 35 (7), 1265–1280. https://doi.org/ Kostin, A., Guillén-Gosálbez, G., Mele, F.D., Jiménez, L., 2012. Identifying key life cycle
10.1016/j.compchemeng.2010.11.012. assessment metrics in the multiobjective design of bioethanol supply chains using a
Gerber, L., Maréchal, F., 2012. Environomic optimal configurations of geothermal energy rigorous mixed-integer linear programming approach. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 51 (14),
conversion systems: application to the future construction of Enhanced Geothermal 5282–5291. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie2027074.
Systems in Switzerland. Energy 45 (1), 908–923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Kumar, A., Sah, B., Singh, A.R., Deng, Y., He, X., Kumar, P., Bansal, R.C., 2017. A review
energy.2012.06.068. of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy
Ghosh, T., Bakshi, B.R., 2017. Process to planet approach to sustainable process design: development. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 69, 596–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
multiple objectives and byproducts. Theor. Found. Chem. Eng. 51 (6), 936–948. rser.2016.11.191.
https://doi.org/10.1134/S0040579517060045. Landis, A.E., Theis, T.L., 2008. Comparison of life cycle impact assessment tools in the
Glavič, P., Lukman, R., 2007. Review of sustainability terms and their definitions. case of biofuels. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Electronics
J. Clean. Prod. 15 (18), 1875–1885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.12.006. and the Environment, pp. 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISEE.2008.4562869.
Gong, J., You, F., 2017. Consequential life cycle optimization: general conceptual Laso, J., Cristóbal, J., Margallo, M., Aldaco, R., Vázquez-Rowe, I., 2022. Chapter 8–The
framework and application to algal renewable diesel production. ACS Sustain. Chem. combined use of life cycle assessment and data envelopment analysis to analyse the
Eng. 5 (7), 5887–5911. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b00631. environmental efficiency of multi-unit systems. In: Teodosiu, C., Fiore, S.,
Gong, J., You, F., 2018. A new superstructure optimization paradigm for process Hospido, A. (Eds.), Assessing Progress Towards Sustainability. Elsevier, pp. 137–160.
synthesis with product distribution optimization: application to an integrated shale https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-85851-9.00008-0.
gas processing and chemical manufacturing process. AlChE J. 64 (1), 123–143. Lesage, P., Mutel, C., Schenker, U., Margni, M., 2018. Uncertainty analysis in LCA using
https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.15882. precalculated aggregated datasets. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 23 (11), 2248–2265.
Gonzalez-Garay, A., Guillen-Gosalbez, G., 2018. SUSCAPE: a framework for the optimal https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1444-x.
design of SUStainable ChemicAl ProcEsses incorporating data envelopment analysis. Li, S., Feliachi, Y., Agbleze, S., Ruiz-Mercado, G.J., Smith, R.L., Meyer, D.E., Gonzalez, M.
Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 137, 246–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2018.07.009. A., Lima, F.V., 2018. A process systems framework for rapid generation of life cycle
Grossmann, I.E., Harjunkoski, I., 2019. Process systems engineering: academic and inventories for pollution control and sustainability evaluation. Clean Technol.
industrial perspectives. Comput. Chem. Eng. 126, 474–484. https://doi.org/ Environ. Policy 20 (7), 1543–1561. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-018-1530-6.
10.1016/j.compchemeng.2019.04.028. Liu, X., Bakshi, B.R., 2019. Ecosystem services in life cycle assessment while encouraging
Guillén-Gosálbez, G., Grossmann, I.E., 2009. Optimal design and planning of sustainable techno-ecological synergies. J. Ind. Ecol. 23 (2), 347–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/
chemical supply chains under uncertainty. AlChE J. 55 (1), 99–121. https://doi.org/ jiec.12755.
10.1002/aic.11662. Mahdi, M.S., 1987. Our Common Future (book). Int. J. Environ. Stud. 30 (2–3), 233.
Guillén-Gosálbez, G., You, F., Galán-Martín, Á., Pozo, C., Grossmann, I.E., 2019. Process Majeau-Bettez, G., Strømman, A.H., Hertwich, E.G., 2011. Evaluation of process- and
systems engineering thinking and tools applied to sustainability problems: current input–output-based life cycle inventory data with regard to truncation and
landscape and future opportunities. Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng. 26, 170–179. https:// aggregation issues. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (23), 10170–10177. https://doi.org/
doi.org/10.1016/j.coche.2019.11.002. 10.1021/es201308x.
Guinée, J.B., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Zamagni, A., Masoni, P., Buonamici, R., Ekvall, T., Martín-Gamboa, M., Iribarren, D., García-Gusano, D., Dufour, J., 2017. A review of life-
Rydberg, T., 2011. Life cycle assessment: past, present, and future. Environ. Sci. cycle approaches coupled with data envelopment analysis within multi-criteria
Technol. 45 (1), 90–96. https://doi.org/10.1021/es101316v. decision analysis for sustainability assessment of energy systems. J. Clean. Prod. 150,
Hanes, R.J., Bakshi, B.R., 2015. Sustainable process design by the process to planet 164–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.017.
framework. AlChE J. 61 (10), 3320–3331. https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.14918. Martins, A.A., Mata, T.M., Costa, C.A.V., Sikdar, S.K., 2007. Framework for sustainability
Hauschild, M.Z., 2015. Better – but is it good enough? On the need to consider both eco- metrics. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 46 (10), 2962–2973. https://doi.org/10.1021/
efficiency and eco-effectiveness to gauge industrial sustainability. Procedia CIRP 29, ie060692l.
1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.02.126. McAloone, T.C., Hauschild, M.Z., 2020. Sustainable Futures from an engineering systems
He, C., You, F., 2016. Investigating the energy-water-carbon nexus of mega-scale perspective. In: Maier, A., Oehmen, J., Vermaas, P.E. (Eds.), Handbook of
chemicals production from Appalachian shale gas. In: Computer Aided Chemical Engineering Systems Design. Springer International Publishing, pp. 1–23. https://
Engineering, 38. Elsevier, pp. 865–870. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444- doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46054-9_4-1.
63428-3.50149-1. Mele, F.D., Kostin, A.M., Guillén-Gosálbez, G., Jiménez, L., 2011. Multiobjective model
Heidrich, A., Farenzena, M., Trierweiler, J.O., 2019. Environmentally conscious design of for more sustainable fuel supply chains. a case study of the sugar cane industry in
chemical processes based on prediction of environmental damage. Ind. Eng. Chem. Argentina. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 50 (9), 4939–4958. https://doi.org/10.1021/
Res. 58 (4), 1650–1657. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.8b04074. ie101400g.
Heijungs, R., Dekker, E., 2022. Meta-comparisons: how to compare methods for LCA? Int. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment. (2000). Eco-indicator 99
J. Life Cycle Assess. 27 (7), 993–1015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02075- Manual for Designers (p. 49). https://pre-sustainability.com/legacy/downl
4. oad/EI99_Manual.pdf.
Hellweg, S., Milà i Canals, L., 2014. Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunities Modahl, I.S., Askham, C., Lyng, K.A., Brekke, A., 2012. Weighting of environmental
in life cycle assessment. Science 344 (6188), 1109–1113. https://doi.org/10.1126/ trade-offs in CCS–an LCA case study of electricity from a fossil gas power plant with
science.1248361. post-combustion CO2 capture, transport and storage. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 17 (7),
932–943. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0421-z.
13
Morgan, R.K., 1999. Environmental Impact Assessment: A Methodological Approach, Schuller, O., Hassel, F., Kokborg, M., Thylmann, D., Stoffregen, A., Schöll, S., & Rudolf,
1998th ed. Springer. M. (2013). GaBi database & modelling principles. In PE INTERNATIONAL (Issue
Müller, L.J., Kätelhön, A., Bachmann, M., Zimmermann, A., Sternberg, A., Bardow, A., November).
2020. A guideline for life cycle assessment of carbon capture and utilization. Front. Sheldon, R.A., 2017. The E factor 25 years on: the rise of green chemistry and
Energy Res. 8, 15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2020.00015. sustainability. Green Chem. 19 (1), 18–43. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6GC02157C.
Ning, C., You, F., 2019. Data-driven adaptive robust unit commitment under wind power Smith, R.L., Ruiz-Mercado, G.J., Gonzalez, M.A., 2015. Using GREENSCOPE indicators
uncertainty: a Bayesian nonparametric approach. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 34 (3), for sustainable computer-aided process evaluation and design. Comput. Chem. Eng.
2409–2418. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.2019.2891057. 81, 272–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2015.04.020.
Olsen, S.I., Christensen, F.M., Hauschild, M., Pedersen, F., Larsen, H.F., Tørsløv, J., 2001. Sustainable Industrial Design and Waste Management. (2007). Elsevier. 10.1016/B978-0-1
Life cycle impact assessment and risk assessment of chemicals–a methodological 2-373623-9.X5000-X.
comparison. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 21 (4), 385–404. https://doi.org/ Telenko, C., Seepersad, C.C., Webber, M.E., 2008. A compilation of design for
10.1016/S0195-9255(01)00075-0. environment principles and guidelines. In: Proceedings of the 13th Design for
Owsianiak, M., Laurent, A., Bjørn, A., Hauschild, M.Z., 2014. IMPACT 2002+, ReCiPe Manufacturability and the Lifecycle Conference; 5th Symposium on International
2008 and ILCD’s recommended practice for characterization modelling in life cycle Design and Design Education; 10th International Conference on Advanced Vehicle
impact assessment: a case study-based comparison. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 19 (5), and Tire Technologies, 5, pp. 289–301. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2008-49651.
1007–1021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0708-3. Thonemann, N., 2020. Environmental impacts of CO2-based chemical production: a
Pérez-Fortes, M., Laínez-Aguirre, J.M., Arranz-Piera, P., Velo, E., Puigjaner, L., 2012. systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Appl. Energy 263, 114599. https://
Design of regional and sustainable bio-based networks for electricity generation doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114599.
using a multi-objective MILP approach. Energy 44 (1), 79–95. https://doi.org/ Tian, X., You, F., 2019. Carbon-neutral hybrid energy systems with deep water source
10.1016/j.energy.2012.01.033. cooling, biomass heating, and geothermal heat and power. Appl. Energy 250,
Pérez-López, P., Montazeri, M., Feijoo, G., Moreira, M.T., Eckelman, M.J., 2018. 413–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.04.172.
Integrating uncertainties to the combined environmental and economic assessment Vásquez-Ibarra, L., Rebolledo-Leiva, R., Angulo-Meza, L., González-Araya, M.C.,
of algal biorefineries: a Monte Carlo approach. Sci. Total Environ. 626, 762–775. Iriarte, A., 2020. The joint use of life cycle assessment and data envelopment analysis
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.12.339. methodologies for eco-efficiency assessment: a critical review, taxonomy and future
Persson, L.M., Breitholtz, M., Cousins, I.T., de Wit, C.A., MacLeod, M., McLachlan, M.S., research. Sci. Total Environ. 738, 139538 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
2013. Confronting unknown planetary boundary threats from chemical pollution. scitotenv.2020.139538.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 (22), 12619–12622. https://doi.org/10.1021/es402501c. Vázquez-Rowe, I., Iribarren, D., Hospido, A., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., 2011.
Pinto, J., Morales, M., Fedoruk, M., Kovaleva, M., Diemer, A., 2019. Servitization in Computation of operational and environmental benchmarks within selected galician
support of sustainable cities: what are steel’s contributions and challenges? fishing fleets. J. Ind. Ecol. 15 (5), 776–795. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-
Sustainability 11 (3), 855. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030855. 9290.2011.00360.x.
Pozo, C., Ruíz-Femenia, R., Caballero, J., Guillén-Gosálbez, G., Jiménez, L., 2012. On the Vázquez-Rowe, I., Iribarren, D., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., 2010. Combined application of
use of principal component analysis for reducing the number of environmental life cycle assessment and data envelopment analysis as a methodological approach
objectives in multi-objective optimization: application to the design of chemical for the assessment of fisheries. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 15 (3), 272–283. https://doi.
supply chains. Chem. Eng. Sci. 69 (1), 146–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. org/10.1007/s11367-010-0154-9.
ces.2011.10.018. Verones, F., Hellweg, S., Antón, A., Azevedo, L.B., Chaudhary, A., Cosme, N.,
Qazi, A., Hussain, F., Rahim, N.A., Hardaker, G., Alghazzawi, D., Shaban, K., Haruna, K., Cucurachi, S., de Baan, L., Dong, Y., Fantke, P., Golsteijn, L., Hauschild, M.,
2019. Towards sustainable energy: a systematic review of renewable energy sources, Heijungs, R., Jolliet, O., Juraske, R., Larsen, H., Laurent, A., Mutel, C.L., Margni, M.,
technologies, and public opinions. IEEE Access 7, 63837–63851. https://doi.org/ Huijbregts, M.A.J., 2020. LC-IMPACT: a regionalized life cycle damage assessment
10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2906402. method. J. Ind. Ecol. 24 (6), 1201–1219. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13018.
Rebitzer, G., Ekvall, T., Frischknecht, R., Hunkeler, D., Norris, G., Rydberg, T., Vollmer, N., 2022. Conceptual Process Design in Fermentation-Based
Schmidt, W.P., Suh, S., Weidema, B.P., Pennington, D.W., 2004. Life cycle Biomanufacturing—DTU Findit. Technical University of Denmark. https://findit.dtu.
assessment part 1: framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and dk/en/catalog/6316717a1a0f2c313d23036d.
applications. Environ. Int. 30 (5), 701–720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Wang, B., Gebreslassie, B.H., You, F., 2013. Sustainable design and synthesis of
envint.2003.11.005. hydrocarbon biorefinery via gasification pathway: integrated life cycle assessment
Rebolledo-Leiva, R., Angulo-Meza, L., Iriarte, A., González-Araya, M.C., 2017. Joint and technoeconomic analysis with multiobjective superstructure optimization.
carbon footprint assessment and data envelopment analysis for the reduction of Comput. Chem. Eng. 52, 55–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture production. Sci. Total Environ. 593–594, compchemeng.2012.12.008.
36–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.147. Wernet, G., Conradt, S., Isenring, H.P., Jiménez-González, C., Hungerbühler, K., 2010.
Rehnstrom, 2003. LCA of two chemical recovery processes in the pulp industry–a case Life cycle assessment of fine chemical production: a case study of pharmaceutical
study. Nord. Pulp Pap. Res. J. 18, 344–354. https://doi.org/10.3183/NPPRJ-2003- synthesis. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 15 (3), 294–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/
18-03-p344-354. s11367-010-0151-z.
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F.S.I., Lambin, E., Lenton, T. Wheeler, J., Páez, M.A., Guillén-Gosálbez, G., Mele, F.D., 2018. Combining multi-
M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H.J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C.A., Hughes, T., attribute decision-making methods with multi-objective optimization in the design
van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P.K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., of biomass supply chains. Comput. Chem. Eng. 113, 11–31. https://doi.org/
Foley, J., 2009. Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for 10.1016/j.compchemeng.2018.02.010.
humanity. Ecol. Soc. 14 (2) https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03180-140232 art32. Wigley, R. (2021, July 2). Renewable energy vs sustainable energy: what’s the
Rosen, M.A., Dincer, I., 1999. Exergy analysis of waste emissions. Int. J. Energy Res. 23 difference? MA in Sustainable Energy. https://energy.sais.jhu.edu/articles/renewabl
(13), 1153–1163. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-114X(19991025)23: e-energy-vs-sustainable-energy/.
13<1153::AID− ER545>3.0.CO;2-Y. Woertz, I.C., Benemann, J.R., Du, N., Unnasch, S., Mendola, D., Mitchell, B.G.,
Rosenbaum, R.K., 2017. Selection of impact categories, category indicators and Lundquist, T.J., 2014. Life cycle GHG emissions from microalgal biodiesel – A CA-
characterization models in goal and scope definition. In: Curran, M.A. (Ed.), Goal GREET model. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48 (11), 6060–6068. https://doi.org/10.1021/
and Scope Definition in Life Cycle Assessment. Springer, Netherlands, pp. 63–122. es403768q.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-0855-3_2. Wu, W., Lin, K.H., Chang, J.S., 2018. Economic and life-cycle greenhouse gas
Ruiz-Mercado, G.J., Gonzalez, M.A., Smith, R.L., 2014. Expanding GREENSCOPE beyond optimization of microalgae-to-biofuels chains. Bioresour. Technol. 267, 550–559.
the gate: a green chemistry and life cycle perspective. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.07.083.
16 (4), 703–717. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-012-0533-y. Yang, M., You, F., 2018. Modular methanol manufacturing from shale gas: techno-
Ryberg, M., 2021. Absolute environmental sustainability assessment of a Danish utility economic and environmental analyses of conventional large-scale production versus
company relative to the Planetary Boundaries. J. Ind. Ecol. 25 (3), 765–777. https:// small-scale distributed, modular processing. AlChE J. 64 (2), 495–510. https://doi.
doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13075. org/10.1002/aic.15958.
Sala, S., Goralczyk, M., 2013. Chemical footprint: a methodological framework for Yang, Y., Ingwersen, W.W., Hawkins, T.R., Srocka, M., Meyer, D.E., 2017. USEEIO: a new
bridging life cycle assessment and planetary boundaries for chemical pollution: and transparent United States environmentally-extended input-output model.
chemical footprint methodology for aquatic ecosystems. Integr. Environ. Assess. J. Clean. Prod. 158, 308–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.150.
Manag. 9 (4), 623–632. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1471. Yao, Y., Masanet, E., 2018. Life-cycle modeling framework for generating energy and
Santibañez-Aguilar, J.E., González-Campos, J.B., Ponce-Ortega, J.M., Serna- greenhouse gas emissions inventory of emerging technologies in the chemical
González, M., El-Halwagi, M.M., 2011. Optimal planning of a biomass conversion industry. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 768–777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
system considering economic and environmental aspects. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 50 jclepro.2017.10.125.
(14), 8558–8570. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie102195g. Yi, H.S., Bakshi, B.R., 2007. Rectification of multiscale data with application to life cycle
Santibañez-Aguilar, J.E., González-Campos, J.B., Ponce-Ortega, J.M., Serna- inventories. AlChE J. 53 (4), 876–890. https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.11119.
González, M., El-Halwagi, M.M., 2014. Optimal planning and site selection for You, F., Tao, L., Graziano, D.J., Snyder, S.W., 2012. Optimal design of sustainable
distributed multiproduct biorefineries involving economic, environmental and social cellulosic biofuel supply chains: multiobjective optimization coupled with life cycle
objectives. J. Clean. Prod. 65, 270–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. assessment and input-output analysis. AlChE J. 58 (4), 1157–1180. https://doi.org/
jclepro.2013.08.004. 10.1002/aic.12637.
Santos, A., Carvalho, A., Barbosa-Póvoa, A., 2022. A methodology for integrating the You, F., Wang, B., 2011. Life cycle optimization of biomass-to-liquid supply chains with
characterization factors uncertainty into life cycle assessments. Sustain. Prod. distributed–centralized processing networks. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 50 (17),
Consum. 33, 1018–1030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.08.018. 10102–10127. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie200850t.
14
Young, D.M., Cabezas, H., 1999. Designing sustainable processes with simulation: the Yue, D., Pandya, S., You, F., 2016. Integrating hybrid life cycle assessment with
waste reduction (WAR) algorithm. Comput. Chem. Eng. 23 (10), 1477–1491. multiobjective optimization: a modeling framework. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50 (3),
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0098-1354(99)00306-3. 1501–1509. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b04279.
Young, D., Scharp, R., Cabezas, H., 2000. The waste reduction (WAR) algorithm: Zamboni, A., Bezzo, F., Shah, N., 2009. Spatially explicit static model for the strategic
environmental impacts, energy consumption, and engineering economics. Waste design of future bioethanol production systems. 2. Multi-objective environmental
Manag. 20 (8), 605–615. optimization. Energy Fuels 23 (10), 5134–5143. https://doi.org/10.1021/
Yue, D., Kim, M.A., You, F., 2013. Design of sustainable product systems and supply ef9004779.
chains with life cycle optimization based on functional unit: general modeling Zhang, X., Li, C., Fu, C., Zhang, S., 2008. Environmental impact assessment of chemical
framework, mixed-integer nonlinear programming algorithms and case study on process using the green degree method. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 47 (4), 1085–1094.
hydrocarbon biofuels. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 1 (8), 1003–1014. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1021/ie0705599.
10.1021/sc400080x. Zimmerman, J.B., Anastas, P.T., Erythropel, H.C., Leitner, W., 2020. Designing for a
green chemistry future. Science 367 (6476), 397–400. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.aay3060.
15

1 s2.0 S0098135423003745 Main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S0098135423003745 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Computers and Chemical Engineering 180 (2024) 108504

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Chemical Engineering

A process systems engineering view of environmental impact assessment in

2011) liquids supply multi-objective, step grave minimalist empirical

Computers and Chemical Engineering 180 (2024) 108504

Computers and Chemical Engineering 180 (2024) 108504

2018) processing and hysys scenarios endpoint and SA (impact

Computers and Chemical Engineering 180 (2024) 108504

objective decision-making procedures. During these procedures, PSE

become the approach of choice in the PSE community. This is a welcome

category, the distribution is as follows: (i) 41.7% (15 out of 36 studies)

You might also like