signiﬁcant environmental impacts that need to be properly assessed in order to make it a sustainable activity (Ripley et al., 1996). LCA e LifeCycle Assessment e is currently one of the most promising methods to evaluate and rank environmentalaspects and impacts of a product (Durucan et al., 2006; Blengini et al., 2012). LifeCycle Assessment (LCA) is an environmental approach that considers the quantiﬁcation of natural resource consumption and pollutant emissions of a product, not only in the production phase, but also in the earlier stages of production (manufacturing of inputs and raw materials) and the later stages of use of this product to its disposal as waste (Blengini et al., 2012). This is therefore a comprehensive tool for the quantiﬁcation and interpretation of environmental impacts of a product or service from cradle to the grave. However, depending on the nature and intended purpose of a LCA study, the system limits in study can be modiﬁed, resulting in the evaluation of any other cradle-to-gate or door-to-gate system (Awuah-Offei and Adekpedjou, 2011).
“guarantees the reduction of the thermal bri- dges and greater thermal comfort due to the higher interior thermal inertia, providing a fi - nished appearance similar to the traditional rendering. From the construction point of view, ETICS allows thinner exterior walls and increases the facades’ durability. To the pointed advan- tages, three very relevant aspects in the cons- truction industry must be added: low cost, ease of application, and possibility to be installed without disturbing the building’s dwellers, whi- ch is particularly important in refurbishment.” (BARRREIRA; FREITAS, 2014)
The first studies considering the lifecycleaspects of products and materials were published during the late sixties and early seventies when concerns over the limitations of raw materials and energy resources gave interest in finding ways to account for energy use and to project future resource supplies and use. The focus of these studies was on issues such as energy efficiency, the consumption of raw materials and to some extent, waste disposal. In the beginning, the use of energy was considered a higher priority than waste and outputs and because of that there was little distinction, at the time, between inventory development (resources going into a product and emissions to the air) and the interpretation of total associated impacts. However, after the oil crisis (1973), energy issues declined in projection. Even though interest in LCA continued, thinking proceeded a bit slower. It was during the mid eighties and early nineties that interest in LCA conquered a wider range of industries, design establishments and retailers .
The present study ought to demonstrate how a quantitative LCA-based methodology has the ability to improve the current environmental aspect’s assessment performed on the organization and not to perform an identification and assessment of the organization’s significant environmentalaspects. Obviously that one of the major basis of comparison between the two methods is the difference between the significant environmentalaspects reached out by each one of the methods – being its overall objective. In fact, the assessment performed throughout the proposed method has shown a few differences, mainly among inputs, waste generation and result’s presentation structure. However, as the assessment is not the major goal, the results may present some uncertainty rate on account of the several assumptions performed (referred to on sub-chapter 4.2.3), data incompleteness and the use of European databases, not specific to the present product. Additionally, the fact that the study is being performed around only one production phase is not helpful for the certainty of the results. The overall environmental impact should, in fact, reflect the entire production process and the contributions of the several unit processes and included process steps should be calculated towards this value, thus making the assessment more realistic, as underlined by Zobel et al. (2002). They also stressed that, all in all, the main importance is the consistency of the LCIA results with the goal and scope of the study. On a further evaluation the assumptions performed can be tested during the sensitivity analysis, allowing an analysis of the data completeness and indicating if more work is necessary around a certain issue/aspect (LifeCycle Initiative, 2003; UNEP, 2015).
A lifecycle assessment (LCA) is a technique used to identify and quantify the direct and indirect environmental and health-related impacts throughout all stages of productlife, usually referred to “cradle-to-grave” or “cradle-to-cradle” analysis (ISO 14040:2006, 2006; Moro & Helmers, 2017). It allows a true assessment of environmentalaspects in different stages, generically, production, use and end-of- life phases. Furthermore, the basic elements of an LCA includes the evaluation of the potential environmental impacts related to raw materials used and the energy used.
Therefore, there is the need for a holistic analytical approach to quantify the use of resources, emissions, and other significant environmentalaspects of this sector and to highlight opportunities for product system improvements. LifeCycle Assessment (LCA) presents an important set of tools to quantify, evaluate, compare, and improve products and services in terms of their potential environmental impacts [ 5 ]. In LCA, all stages related to the products’ lifecycle may be studied, including raw materials extraction, various stages of production and distribution, its use or consumption and the final stages leading to its disposal in the environment. The methodology is standardized for global environmental management through the ISO 14040:2006 [ 6 ] and 14044:2006 [ 7 ] standards. LCA is a tool that takes into account the triple bottom line (economic performance, environmental balance, and society needs). Thus, this tool of analysis of environmental impacts is not only based on environmental loads, but also on social and economic impacts. Lifecycle sustainability assessment represents the evaluation of all environmental, social, and economic negative impacts and benefits of a product throughout its lifecycle and how to use the result to support decision-making processes [ 8 ]. This tool can still allow farmers and other producers to respond to consumer and environmental groups regarding the environmental footprints of agricultural products.
workplace and indoor pollutants, eco toxicity and climate change supposedly should be considered as universal. Further analysis of LCA methodologies reveals possibilities to conduct LCA without spending too much time and costs. Such tool as BEES 4.0 is free of charge, combines a lifecycle cost for building and construction materials with a lifecycle assessment and should be very adaptable and cost – saving, even more indispensable when applied to institu- tions of a social sphere . For the purpose of under- standing the internal analytic mechanisms, it would be use- ful to compare two methodologies, for example EDIP97 and Eco-indicator 99 in context of modelling types they use. Thus, the EDIP97 is a midpoint methodology where modelling midpoints considered as links in the cause-effect chain (environmental mechanism) of an impact category. From the other side the Eco-indicator 99 is an endpoint tool where characterization factors (indicators) can be derived to reflect the relative importance of emissions or extrac- tions. Common examples of midpoint characterization fac- tors include ozone depletion potentials, global warming potentials, and photochemical ozone (smog) creation po- tentials. However, in the endpoint modelling, characteriza- tion factors are adopted at the endpoint level in the cause- effect chain for all categories of impact (e.g., human health impacts in terms of disability adjusted life years for car- cinogenicity; impacts in terms of changes in biodiversity, etc.). On the Figure 3 is given graphical representation of basic differences between the midpoint (lower row of swinging arrows) and the endpoint approach (upper row of swinging arrows). The small arrows represent models that add information in a cause – effect framework. The ques- tion marks indicate information that is available but could not be further modelled. Such cases include unmeasured emissions, unconsidered types of releases (occupational, accidental), and substances where endpoint models have still to be established (e.g. neurotoxic effects on human health) . Both midpoint and endpoint methodologies provide useful information to the decision maker with re- spect to uncertainty (parameter, model and scenario), transparency, and the ability to subsequently resolve com- promises across impact categories using weighting tech- niques. Following the LCA methodology, the last 4th stage is the Interpretation, which is designed for identification of key parameters and evaluation of results of inventory stage and impact assessment with purpose to select the pre- ferred product or process. Certainly, the clear understand- ing of the assumptions, used to generate the results of the conducted research has been made. Consequently to sup- port the importance of a holistic approach, we need to in- sist on the integrating of various aspects of the analysed system into cohesive whole i.e. the general sustainability.
They say that the LCA is considered by the European Commission to be the best tool to evaluate the environmental performance of a product or system. In their assessment, they also use the four stages to implement a LCA. This paper might be a good example of how a LCA should be applied. They define the functional unit and the system boundaries in the beginning of the study, by identifying a reference unit and by dividing the system in upstream, core and downstream processes. The data collected in the LCI stage was done for three regions in Italy with different climates and the energy consumption was calculated considering different scenarios for each climatic zones (like the insulation systems of dwellings built during the 1990s and the ones adopted since 2000). They used the software SimaPro 7.3.3 and the CML2001 LCIA method at the midpoint. The results show that the impacts of the conventional boiler are consistently higher than the condensing boiler for each of the scenarios considered.
fruit production, this will provide two distinct results. Both FU are dependent on the study method. The former is used in land-based while the latter is more used for agricultural production guidance . According to Cerutti et al. , comparing different functional units to the same fruit production system, can provide different situations, especially in cultures with a higher yield, in which there is a significantly better environmental performance using a mass-based FU. On the other hand, to use a land-based FU is more advantageous in fruit crops with a lower yield. To develop the peach ELCA study in the Portuguese Beira Interior region, the utilized FU was land-based during the production process, since the energy consumption is quite similar in high or low production, due to the fact that the operations carried out in the plantation are not production dependent. In the harvest and post-harvest period, mass-based FU was essential to use since the energy consumption is dependent on the processed fruit amount.
The present study indicates that the development of tetrasporophytes and gametophytes in S. interrupta depends on light intensity, and is limited by low irradiance levels. The influence of the irradiance regime on initial tetrasporo- genesis is reported for the first time for Scinaia, with development being accelerated under higher irradiance levels. The influence of light on the Scinaia life-cycle had been previously investigated by Ramus (1969) and van den Hoek and Cortel-Breeman (1970) for respectively S. confusa and S. complanata. The former author observed tetrasporangia development only under high irradiance levels whereas the study of van den Hoek and Cortel- Breeman (1970) was inconclusive. Production of apical utricles by the filamentous gametophyte (Fig. 4b–c) is also newly reported for the genus. This was observed in all culture regimes, but further development of gametophytes was not observed at the lowest irradiance level. Further studies in other species of Scinaia are needed and recommended to evaluate the persistence of this new development phase.
different areas (computation, control, communication, and human factors) and the introduction of fundamentally new techniques that extend and complement the existing state of the art. The major challenges come from the distributed nature of these frameworks and from the human factors. This is why we need to couple the development of scientific frameworks with field tests with human operators. At the Underwater Systems and Technology Laboratory (USTL) from Porto University we have been designing and building ocean and air going autonomous and remotely operated vehicles with the goal of deploying networked vehicle systems for oceanographic and environmental applications (Sousa
Most project life-cycle descriptions share a number of common characteristics: cost and staffing levels are low at the start, higher toward the end, and drop rapidly as the project draws to a conclusion; the probability of successfully completing the project is lowest, and hence risk and uncertainty are highest, at the start of the project. The probability of successful completion generally gets progressively higher as the project continues; the ability of the stakeholders to influence the final characteristics of the project's product and the final cost of the project is highest at the start and gets progressively lower as the project continues. A major contributor to this phenomenon is that the cost of changes and error correction generally increases as the project continues.
Two approaches to quantifying lifecycle inventories are in use. In conventional LCA methodology, henceforth referred to as process-LCA, a bottom-up approach is taken to deﬁne and describe operations in physical terms. This approach makes possible the use of data that are speciﬁc for the operations under consideration, meaning that results can potentially be generated at high levels of detail and accuracy. On the downside, there is a need to apply cut-off criteria to exclude operations that are not expected to make signiﬁcant contributions. It is known, however, that added together the excluded contribu- tions are signiﬁcant [10,11]. The second approach, environmen- tally extended input–output analysis (EEIOA), is a top-down technique in which inventories are quantiﬁed using monetary data at the level of economic sectors. As EEIOA does not require cut-offs to be made, it does not have the same problem with truncation as process-LCA. However, EEIOA operates at a high aggregation level; the sector resolution in EEIOA is generally too coarse for making LCAs of speciﬁc products. Hybrid methods – where process-LCA is used to model important operations, and EEIOA is used to model operations that would otherwise be omitted – can potentially exploit advantages of both approaches, but is more challenging to employ [10–12]. Also, depending on the method of hybridization and quality of data , most hybrid models may offer limited support for following material ﬂows through product systems.
Fascioliasis is a parasitic disease of domestic ruminants that occurs worldwide. The lymnaeid intermediate hosts of Fasciola hepatica include Lymnaea columella, which is widely distributed in Brazil. A colony of L. columella from Belo Horizonte, MG, was reared in our laboratory to be used in studies of the F. hepatica lifecycle, the intermediate host-parasite relationship and development of an anti-helminthic vaccine. In the first experiment 1,180 snails were exposed to miracidia of F. hepatica eggs removed from the biliary tracts of cattle from the State of Rio Grande do Sul. In the second and third experiments the snails were exposed to miracidia that had emerged from
Ciroth and Franze (2011) proposed their impact assessment method to study the social and environmental impacts of an eco-labeled notebook throughout its lifecycle. Their approach consists of two phases. The first one assesses the performance of the company/sector based on Performance Reference Points. They compare the performance of the sectors/companies engaged in the notebook lifecycle with the performance in the country or region where the companies/sector are. The major reference points used in the study were the International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions, ISO 26000 guidelines, and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. The second phase assesses the impacts of the company/sector behavior with regard to the impact categories proposed in the UNEP Guidelines (2009). Each subcategory of a stakeholder was assessed twice, i.e., for the performance of a company and the impacts of the company, based on a color rating scale. This color scale consists of six shades colors, where green, light green, bluish green, yellow, orange and red, means very good performance/positive impact, good performance/lightly positive impact, satisfactory performance/indifferent impact, inadequate performance/lightly negative impact, poor performance/negative impact and very poor performance/very negative impact, respectively. A specific factor, between 1 and 6, is then assigned to each color to allow the quantification of the performance and impacts. The resulting score for each stakeholder category was the average of the assigned factors of its subcategories. Finally, social hotspots (orange and red color) are identified in every lifecycle stage of the notebook to facilitate its comparison with different product alternatives.
Life-cycle models and inventories were developed for three cultivation systems in northern Portugal: P1 (92 ha), P2 (7 ha) and P3 (10 ha). A processing factory with two distinct production lines (fresh and frozen chestnut) was analysed. The functional unit (FU) chosen for this study was 1 kg of harvested chestnut. Figure 1 presents the chestnut production system.
The AM technology proposes major challenges to business models because it is a new approach to traditional business models , creating new value propositions in what is related to the cost structure (e.g. using economies of scale or small lots) and to the value chain configuration (e.g. local production or distributed production). According to Gebler et al. , the adoption of AM and other advanced manufacturing technologies appears in a context where value chains are shorter, smaller, more localized, more collaborative and offer significant sustainability benefits aligned with the triple-bottom-line (3BL), this is, the utilization of resources without environmental and ecological impacts, minimizing the impacts of human activities and generating economic value. To this extent, AM technology promises to reduce material consumption, eliminate waste, eliminate transport by decentralizing production and create value by allowing customization of products and customer engagement [3,15–17]. Garetti and Taisch  define sustainable manufacturing as “the ability to smartly use natural resources for manufacturing, by creating products and solutions that, owing to new technology, regulatory measures and coherent social behaviours, are able to satisfy economic, environmental and social objectives, thus preserving the environment, while continuing to improve the quality of human life”. As stressed by Despeisse et al.  the AM technology could be a driver for the implementation of sustainability principles. However, its impacts on industrial systems are still to be understood. To this end, it is necessary to consider multiple factors influencing the 3BL and to define proper boundaries for the system under analysis (e.g. using the life-cycle concept).
Como propostas de investigação futuras, uma vez que os restantes Ramos das Forças Armadas também ratificaram o STANAG 4728, poderia revelar-se útil averiguar se estes se deparam com as mesmas dificuldades encontradas na FA e apurar como lidam com esses impedimentos. Este estudo deveria ser novamente realizado a médio-longo prazo. Primeiramente, para analisar se a FA já se encontra efetivamente a aplicar o LifeCycle Costing ou outra metodologia de análise dos custos de ciclo de vida dos SOI e, em segundo lugar, por se perspetivar que já haja uma maior base de dados de iguais pressupostos para uma análise mais robusta. Com uma maior base de dados, análises através de regressões e de modelos ARIMA seriam possíveis, permitindo a perspetivação do futuro e, por exemplo, a aferição do momento ótimo para o phase-out das frotas. Por fim, à semelhança do já efetuado para o CHV, dever-se-ia apresentar discriminadamente e por etapas a forma de obter cada FC para o cálculo do CHV Ciclo de Vida , CHV organizacional e CHV RE ,