SimaPro database manual

Methods library
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

Title: SimaPro database manual

Methods library

Written by: Various authors, PRé Sustainability

Version: 4.15

Date: June 2020

Copyright: © 2020 PRé Sustainability B.V. All rights reserved.

PRé grants the right to distribute and print the unchanged PDF
version of this manual for non-commercial purposes only.

Parts of the manual may be reproduced in other work only after

permission and if a clear reference is made that PRé is the author.

About SimaPro
SimaPro was developed by PRé with the goal of making sustainability a fact-
based endeavor. PRé has been a leading voice in sustainability metrics and
life cycle thinking development for nearly 30 years, pioneering the field of
environmental and social impact assessment. We develop tools that help
you create value and drive sustainable change.
SimaPro is distributed through a Global Partner Network. All partners were carefully selected by
PRé. A partner in your country will act as your local SimaPro sales and support representative
and can show you a personal demo or provide more information.
Find your local partner: simapro.com/global-partner-network

Get in touch
T +31 33 450 40 10
E support@simapro.com
W simapro.com | support.simapro.com | pre-sustainability.com

2
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

Table of contents
1 Introduction .................................................................................... 7
1.1 Structure of methods in SimaPro 7
1.1.1 Characterization 7
1.1.2 Damage assessment 8
1.1.3 Normalization 8
1.1.4 Weighting 8
1.2 Checking impact assessment results 9

2 European methods ......................................................................... 10

2.1 CML-IA 10
2.1.1 Classification and characterization 10
2.1.2 Normalization 13
2.2 Environmental Prices 13
2.2.1 Characterization 14
2.2.2 Normalization and weighting 14
2.3 Ecological scarcity 2013 15
2.3.1 Characterization, normalization and weighting 16
2.4 EDIP 2003 18
2.4.1 Characterization 18
2.4.2 Normalization 20
2.4.3 Weighting 20
2.5 EF method (adapted) 21
2.5.1 Characterization 22
2.5.2 Normalization 24
2.5.3 Weighting 24
2.6 EN 15804 + A2 method 25
2.7 EPD (2018) 26
2.7.1 Characterization 26
2.7.2 Normalization and weighting 27
2.8 EPS 2015d and EPS 2015dx 28
2.8.1 Classification and characterization 29
2.8.2 Normalization/weighting 30

3
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

2.9 ILCD 2011 Midpoint+ 31

2.10 Impact 2002+ 33
2.10.1Characterization 34
2.10.2Normalization 34
2.10.3Weighting 34

3 Global ............................................................................................ 35
3.1 ReCiPe 2016 35
3.1.1 Value choices 36
3.1.2 Characterization at midpoint level 37
3.1.3 Damage assessment 39
3.1.4 Normalization 39
3.1.5 Weighting 39
3.1.6 Updates in ReCiPe 2016 39

4 North American ............................................................................. 42

4.1 BEES 42
4.1.1 Characterization 42
4.1.2 Normalization and weighting 43
4.2 TRACI 2.1 43
4.2.1 Characterization 43
4.2.2 Normalization 44

5 Single issue .................................................................................... 45

5.1 Cumulative Energy Demand 45
5.1.1 Characterization 45
5.2 Cumulative Energy Demand (LHV) 46
5.2.1 Characterization 46
5.3 Cumulative Exergy Demand 46
5.3.1 Characterization 47
5.3.2 Normalization and weighting 48
5.4 Ecosystem Damage Potential 49
5.5 Greenhouse Gas Protocol 49
5.5.1 Characterization 50
5.5.2 Normalization and weighting 50
5.6 IPCC 2013 50
5.6.1 Characterization 50

4
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

5.6.2 Normalization and weighting 51

5.7 Selected LCI results 51
5.7.1 Classification 51
5.8 USEtox 2 53
5.8.1 Characterization 53
5.8.2 Damage assessment 55

6 Water Footprint ............................................................................. 56

6.1 AWARE 56
6.2 Berger et al 2014, WAVE (Water Scarcity) 56
6.3 Boulay et al 2011 (Human Health) 57
6.4 Boulay et al 2011 (Water Scarcity) 58
6.5 Ecological Scarcity 2006 (Water Scarcity) 59
6.6 Hoekstra et al 2012 (Water Scarcity) 59
6.7 Motoshita et al 2011 (Human Health) 59
6.8 Pfister et al 2009 (Eco-indicator 99) 60
6.9 Pfister et al 2009 (Water Scarcity) 61
6.10 Pfister et al 2010 (ReCiPe) 62

7 Superseded .................................................................................... 63
7.1 CML 1992 63
7.1.1 Characterization 63
7.1.2 Normalization 67
7.1.3 Evaluation 68
7.2 Eco-indicator 95 68
7.2.1 Characterization 68
7.2.2 Normalization 72
7.2.3 Evaluation 72
7.2.4 Summary of weighting factors 76
7.3 Eco-indicator 99 77
7.3.1 Characterization 78
7.3.2 Uncertainties 80
7.3.3 Damage assessment 81
7.3.4 Normalization 81
7.3.5 Weighting 81
7.4 Ecological Footprint 81
7.4.1 Characterization 81

5
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

7.4.2 Normalization and weighting 82

7.5 Ecological scarcity 2006 82
7.5.1 Characterization, normalization and weighting 82
7.6 Ecopoints 97 83
7.6.1 Normalization 84
7.6.2 Weighting 85
7.7 EDIP/UMIP 97 85
7.7.1 Characterization 85
7.7.2 Normalization 86
7.7.3 Weighting 87
7.8 EPD (2008) 87
7.8.1 Characterization 87
7.8.2 Non renewable, fossil 88
7.8.3 Ozone layer depletion (ODP), Photochemical oxidation, Acidification and
Eutrophication 88
7.8.4 Normalization and weighting 88
7.9 EPD (2013) 88
7.9.1 Characterization 88
7.9.2 Normalization and weighting 89
7.10 EPS 2000 89
7.10.1Classification and characterization 90
7.10.2Normalization/Weighting 91
7.11 IPCC 2001 GWP 92
7.11.1Characterization 92
7.11.2Normalization and weighting 92
7.12 IPCC 2007 92
7.12.1Characterization 92
7.12.2Normalization and weighting 93
7.13 ReCiPe 93
7.13.1Value choices 95
7.13.2Characterization at midpoint level 96
7.13.3Damage assessment 97
7.13.4Normalization 97
7.13.5Weighting 98

6
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

1 Introduction
SimaPro contains a number of impact assessment methods, which are used to calculate impact
assessment results. This manual describes how the various impact assessment methods are
implemented in SimaPro. For specific details on the method see the literature references given or
contact the authors of the method.

Important note on changing methods

If you want to change methods in SimaPro, it is strongly advised to copy the original method to
your project first. By copying, you make sure you always have the original method intact in
your database. Please note that once changes are saved, they cannot be undone!

1.1 Structure of methods in SimaPro

The basic structure of impact assessment methods in SimaPro is:
1. Characterization
2. Damage assessment
3. Normalization
4. Weighting
5. Addition
The last four steps are optional according to the ISO standards. This means they are not always
available in all methods. In SimaPro you can switch the optional steps on or off when you edit a
method.

1.1.1 Characterization
The substances that contribute to an impact category are multiplied by a characterization factor
that expresses the relative contribution of the substance. For example, the characterization
factor for CO2 in the Climate change impact category can be equal to 1, while the characterization
factor of methane can be 25. This means the release of 1 kg methane causes the same amount of
climate change as 25 kg CO2. The total result is expressed as impact category indicators (formerly
characterization results).

Note

A new substance flow introduced in ecoinvent 2.0 called ‘carbon dioxide, land transformation’
is included in all the methods available in SimaPro 8. This substance flow represents the CO2
emissions from clear cutting and land transformation.
CO2 uptake and emissions of CO2 and CO from biogenic sources were removed from every
method with effects on climate change. The characterization factors for methane from
biogenic sources were corrected for the CO2 sequestration.

7
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

In SimaPro, sub-compartments can be specified for each substance. For example, you can define
an emission to water with a sub-compartment of ocean. This allows you to create detailed impact
assessment methods, with specific characterization factors for each sub-compartment.
Some impact assessment methods are not as detailed as the inventory in terms of specification
of sub-compartments. In this case SimaPro will choose the “unspecified” characterization factor
as the default factor for a substance that has a sub-compartment specified in the inventory but
has no specific characterization factor in the chosen impact assessment method.

1.1.2 Damage assessment

Damage assessment is a relatively new step in impact assessment. It is added to make use of
'endpoint methods', such as the Eco-indicator 99 and the EPS2000 method. The purpose of
damage assessment is to combine a number of impact category indicators into a damage
category (also called area of protection).
In the damage assessment step, impact category indicators with a common unit can be added.
For example, in the Eco-indicator 99 method, all impact categories that refer to human health are
expressed in DALY (disability adjusted life years). In this method DALYs caused by carcinogenic
substances can be added to DALYs caused by climate change.

1.1.3 Normalization
Many methods allow the impact category indicator results to be compared by a reference (or
normal) value. This mean that the impact category is divided by the reference. A commonly used
reference is the average yearly environmental load in a country or continent, divided by the
number of inhabitants. However, the reference may be chosen freely. You could also choose the
environmental load of lighting a 60W bulb for one hour, 100 km of transport by car or 1 liter of
milk. This can be useful to communicate the results to non LCA experts, as you benchmark your
own LCA against something everybody can imagine. In SimaPro, there are often alternative
normalization sets available.
After normalization the impact category indicators all have the same unit, which makes it easier
to compare them. Normalization can be applied on both characterization and damage
assessment results.
PLEASE NOTE: SimaPro does not divide by the reference value (N), but multiplies by the inverse. If you
edit or add a normalization value in a method, you must therefore enter the inverted value (1/N).

1.1.4 Weighting
Some methods allow weighting across impact categories. This means the impact (or damage)
category indicator results are multiplied by weighting factors, and are added to create a total or
single score. Weighting can be applied on normalized or non-normalized scores, as some
methods like EPS do not have a normalization step. In SimaPro, there are often alternative
weighting sets available, always in combination with a normalization set.

8
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

1.2 Checking impact assessment results

Although impact assessment methods become very extensive and include more and more
substances, they still do not cover all substances that you can find in your inventory. This can be
a methodological issue, as some methods for example do not include raw materials as impact
category. Issues can arise if you added a new substance that is not automatically included in the
impact assessment method or if you introduced synonyms by importing data from other parties.
SimaPro has a built-in check to show you which substances are not included in the selected
impact assessment method. For each result, the substances and their amounts not included in
the method are shown under ‘Checks’ in the result window.
Further, under ‘Inventory results’ you can see the impact assessment results per substance. If a
substance is not defined in the method, a pop-up hint will tell you this.
On a method level, you can run a check which will show you which of all substances, available in
the SimaPro database, are included in the method on impact category level. To run this check,
select a method and click the ‘Check’ button in the right hand side of the methods window.

9
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

2 European methods

2.1 CML-IA
In 2001, a group of scientists under the lead of CML (Center of Environmental Science of Leiden
University) proposed a set of impact categories and characterization methods for the impact
assessment step. The impact assessment method implemented as CML-IA methodology is
defined for the midpoint approach. Normalization is provided but there is neither weighting nor
addition.
There are two version of this method available in SimaPro 8: a ‘baseline’ version with 10 impact
categories; and an extended version with ‘all impact categories’ including other impact categories
as well as variations of existing impact categories, e.g. for different time frames.
The current version of CML-IA implemented in SimaPro has been updated using a version of the
method uploaded in August 2016 from the website http://www.cml.leiden.edu/software/data-
cmlia.html.

2.1.1 Classification and characterization

The CML Guide (Guinée et al. 2002) provides a list of impact assessment categories grouped into
A. Obligatory impact categories (category indicators used in most LCAs)
B. Additional impact categories (operational indicators exist, but are not often included in
LCA studies)
C. Other impact categories (no operational indicators available, therefore impossible to
include quantitatively in LCA)
In case several methods are available for obligatory impact categories; a baseline indicator is
selected, based on the principle of best available practice. These baseline indicators are category
indicators at “mid-point level” (problem oriented approach)” and are presented below. Baseline
indicators are recommended for simplified studies. The guide provides guidelines for inclusion of
other methods and impact category indicators in case of detailed studies and extended studies.

Depletion of abiotic resources

This impact category is concerned with protection of human welfare, human health and
ecosystem health. This impact category indicator is related to extraction of minerals and fossil
fuels due to inputs in the system. The Abiotic Depletion Factor (ADF) is determined for each
extraction of minerals and fossil fuels (kg antimony equivalents/kg extraction) based on
concentration reserves and rate of de-accumulation. The geographic scope of this indicator is at
global scale.

Climate change
Climate change can result in adverse effects upon ecosystem health, human health and material
welfare. Climate change is related to emissions of greenhouse gases to air. The characterization

10
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

model as developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is selected for
development of characterization factors. Factors are expressed as Global Warming Potential for
time horizon 100 years (GWP100), in kg carbon dioxide/kg emission. The geographic scope of this
indicator is at global scale.

Stratospheric Ozone depletion

Because of stratospheric ozone depletion, a larger fraction of UV-B radiation reaches the earth
surface. This can have harmful effects upon human health, animal health, terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems, biochemical cycles and on materials. This category is output-related and at global
scale. The characterization model is developed by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
and defines ozone depletion potential of different gasses (kg CFC-11 equivalent/ kg emission).
The geographic scope of this indicator is at global scale. The time span is infinity.

Human toxicity
This category concerns effects of toxic substances on the human environment. Health risks of
exposure in the working environment are not included. Characterization factors, Human Toxicity
Potentials (HTP), are calculated with USES-LCA, describing fate, exposure and effects of toxic
substances for an infinite time horizon. For each toxic substance HTP’s are expressed as 1,4-
dichlorobenzene equivalents/ kg emission. The geographic scope of this indicator determines on
the fate of a substance and can vary between local and global scale.

Fresh-water aquatic eco-toxicity

This category indicator refers to the impact on fresh water ecosystems, as a result of emissions of
toxic substances to air, water and soil. Eco-toxicity Potential (FAETP) are calculated with USES-
LCA, describing fate, exposure and effects of toxic substances. The time horizon is infinite
Characterization factors are expressed as 1,4-dichlorobenzene equivalents/kg emission. The
indicator applies at global/continental/ regional and local scale.

Marine ecotoxicity
Marine eco-toxicity refers to impacts of toxic substances on marine ecosystems (see description
fresh water toxicity).

Terrestrial ecotoxicity
This category refers to impacts of toxic substances on terrestrial ecosystems (see description
fresh water toxicity).

Photo-oxidant formation
Photo-oxidant formation is the formation of reactive substances (mainly ozone) which are
injurious to human health and ecosystems and which also may damage crops. This problem is
also indicated with “summer smog”. Winter smog is outside the scope of this category.
Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (POCP) for emission of substances to air is calculated

11
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

with the UNECE Trajectory model (including fate), and expressed in kg ethylene equivalents/kg
emission. The time span is 5 days and the geographical scale varies between local and
continental scale.

Acidification
Acidifying substances cause a wide range of impacts on soil, groundwater, surface water,
organisms, ecosystems and materials (buildings). Acidification Potential (AP) for emissions to air
is calculated with the adapted RAINS 10 model, describing the fate and deposition of acidifying
substances. AP is expressed as kg SO2 equivalents/ kg emission. The time span is eternity and
the geographical scale varies between local scale and continental scale.
Characterization factors including fate were used when available. When not available, the factors
excluding fate were used (In the CML baseline version only factors including fate were used). The
method was extended for Nitric Acid, soil, water and air; Sulphuric acid, water; Sulphur trioxide,
air; Hydrogen chloride, water, soil; Hydrogen fluoride, water, soil; Phosphoric acid, water, soil;
Hydrogen sulfide, soil, all not including fate. Nitric oxide, air (is nitrogen monoxide) was added
including fate.

Eutrophication
Eutrophication (also known as nutrification) includes all impacts due to excessive levels of macro-
nutrients in the environment caused by emissions of nutrients to air, water and soil. Nutrification
potential (NP) is based on the stoichiometric procedure of Heijungs (1992), and expressed as kg
PO4 equivalents per kg emission. Fate and exposure is not included, time span is eternity, and
the geographical scale varies between local and continental scale.
The method available with all impact categories has, comparing with the baseline version, the
following impact categories available:
 Global warming (different time frames)
 Upper limit of net global warming
 Lower limit of net global warming
 Ozone layer depletion (different time frames)
 Human toxicity (different time frames)
 Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity (different time frames)
 Marine aquatic ecotoxicity (different time frames)
 Terrestrial ecotoxicity (different time frames)
 Marine sediment ecotoxicity (different time frames)
 Average European (kg NOx-eq); Average European (kg SO2-eq)
 Land competition
 Ionising radiation
 Photochemical oxidation; Photochemical oxidation (low NOx)
 Malodorous air

12
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

 Equal benefit incremental reactivity

 Max. incremental reactivity; Max. ozone incremental reactivity

2.1.2 Normalization
Normalization is regarded as optional for simplified LCA, but mandatory for detailed LCA. For
each baseline indicator, normalization scores are calculated for the reference situations: the
world in 1990, Europe in 1995 and the Netherlands in 1997. Normalization data are available for
the Netherlands (1997/1998), Western Europe (1995) and the World (1990 and 1995) (Huijbregts
et al. 2003).

References
Guinée, J.B.; Gorrée, M.; Heijungs, R.; Huppes, G.; Kleijn, R.; Koning, A. de; Oers, L. van; Wegener
Sleeswijk, A.; Suh, S.; Udo de Haes, H.A.; Bruijn, H. de; Duin, R. van; Huijbregts, M.A.J. 2002.
Handbook on life cycle assessment. Operational guide to the ISO standards. Part III:
Scientific background. Kluwer Academic Publishers, ISBN 1-4020-0228-9, Dordrecht, 692 pp.
Huijbregts, M.A.J.; Breedveld L.; Huppes, G.; De Koning, A.; Van Oers, L.; Suh, S. 2003.
Normalisation figures for environmental life-cycle assessment: The Netherlands
(1997/1998), Western Europe (1995) and the World (1990 and 1995). Journal of Cleaner
Production 11 (7): 737-748.

2.2 Environmental Prices

Environmental Prices is a method developed by CE Delft for expressing environmental impacts in
monetary terms. Environmental prices thus indicate the loss of economic welfare that occurs
when one additional kilogram of the pollutant finds its way into the environment.
Development of the Environmental Prices consisted of five steps:
 updating monetary values of the endpoint categories on basis of literature, General SCBA
Guidelines and Discount Rate Working Group;
 updating the impact pathway analyses, which specify the relationship between emissions
in the Netherlands and impacts on endpoints;
 valuation of 15 pollutants on basis of inputs from the previous steps and literature;
 allocation of those pollutants to midpoint impact categories in ReCiPe 2008;
 deriving weighted average value for damage to midpoint categories in order to calculate
the damage cost for each substance characterized in ReCiPe 2008 and midpoint damage
factors.

In LCA context environmental prices are used as weighting sets, which allows calculation of single
score results.

13
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

Figure 1. The relationships mapped in the Environmental Prices Handbook (de Bruyn, et al. 2017)

2.2.1 Characterization
The characterization step is a copy of ReCiPe (2008) Midpoint, hierarchist perspective with an
exception for Climate change based on IPCC (2013), as prescribed by the developers. An overview
is provided in section 7.13.

2.2.2 Normalization and weighting

Normalization is not included in this method.
The Environmental Prices in SimaPro use the midpoint-level prices (pollutant- and endpoint-level
were also developed). In practical terms, it means that the prices of environmental themes are
combined in a weighting set. CE Delft developed two weightings sets:
 Dutch Environmental Prices (2015) – based on average emissions in the Netherlands in
2015,
 European Environmental Prices (2015) – based on average emissions in the EU28 in 2015.

The environmental prices are not available for the following impact categories: Natural land
transformation, Water, Metal and Fossil depletion.

14
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

References
S.M. de Bruyn, S. Ahdour, M, Bijleveld, L. de Graaff, A. Schroten, Handboek Milieuprijzen 2017,
Methodische onderbouwing van kengetallen gebruikt voor waardering van emissies en
milieu-impacts, CE Delft, 2017.
S.M. de Bruyn, M, Bijleveld, L. de Graaff, E. Schep, A. Schroten, R. Vergeer, S. Ahdour
Environmental Prices Handbook, EU28 version, CE Delft, 2018.

2.3 Ecological scarcity 2013

The “ecological scarcity” method (also called Ecopoints or Umweltbelastungspunkte method) is a
follow up of the Ecological scarcity 2006 (see section 6.9) and the Ecological scarcity 1997 method
(see section 7.4) which was named Ecopoints 97 (CH) in the SimaPro method library.
The ecological scarcity method weights environmental impacts - pollutant emissions and
resource consumption - by applying "eco-factors". The distance to target principle is applied in
the Ecological scarcity method. The eco-factor of a substance is derived from environmental law
or corresponding political targets. The more the current level of emissions or consumption of
resources exceeds the environmental protection target set, the greater the eco-factor becomes,
expressed in eco-points (EP = UBP). An eco-factor is essentially derived from three elements (in
accordance with ISO Standard 14044): characterization, normalization and weighting.
The most important changes since last update are as follows:
 A reduction target of 80% has been set for CO2 and other greenhouse gases. This falls in
the upper range of the Swiss reduction target and within the range of the reduction
required to achieve the 2°C target.
 To assess energy, the federal government's long-term target (2,000 W per capita) is
interpolated to the usual time frame set out in the legislation, which is 2035.
 With regard to air pollutants, additional eco-factors are provided for PAHs and radioactive
isotopes.
 In this version, PAHs, dioxins and furans, and benzene are all assessed for their
carcinogenic potential.
 As for water pollutants, additional eco-factors for oil emissions to the sea are provided
based on an international agreement to protect the North Sea. Furthermore, eco-factors
for the emissions of radioactive isotopes and persistent organic pollutants in
watercourses are included for the first time.
 In some parts of the world, freshwater is a scarce resource. The regionalized ecofactors
introduced in the last update are now indicated for all countries and as determined on
the basis of scarcity in OECD and BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China).
 It is now recommended that the eco-factor for freshwater be applied to consumptive
water use (and not water extraction).
 In Switzerland, resource efficiency has become a relevant area of environmental policy.
For that reason, a new eco-factor for mineral primary resources (minerals and metals)
was introduced. The ratio of annual production to available reserves is used as the basis
for the characterization.

15
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

 New eco-factors were introduced for land use in various biomes. Characterization is
based on the impacts of land uses upon plant and animal biodiversity.
 New eco-factors are provided for noise pollution caused by road, rail and air traffic.

2.3.1 Characterization, normalization and weighting

In the ecological scarcity method, a characterization may be applied if the corresponding
environmental impact played a key role when the target was set. Accordingly, the current CO2 Act
stipulates that all greenhouse gases must be taken into account. Therefore, it is both possible
and appropriate to use global warming potential values. Characterization is not, however,
appropriate in every theoretically conceivable case. It should not be used in cases where the
environmental impact of the characterization does not match the legislators’ intention with
regard to the way the reduction target (or the limit or target value) was set.
The ecoinvent implementation contains nineteen specific impact categories, with for each
substance a final UBP (environmental loading points) score as characterization factor which
compile the characterization, normalization and distance-to-target weighting. The impact
categories considered by this method are not defined as an impact indicator but rather as type of
emission or resource:

1 Water sources
2 Energy sources
3 Mineral sources
4 Land use
5 Global warming
6 Ozone layer depletion
7 Main air pollutants and PM
8 Carcinogenic substances into air
9 Heavy metals into air
10 Water pollutants
11 POP into water
12 Heavy metals into water
13 Pesticides into soil
14 Heavy metals into soil
15 Radioactive substances into air
16 Radioactive substances into water
17 Noise
18 Non radioactive waste to deposit
19 Radioactive waste to deposit
20 Deposited waste

16
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

Weighting is conducted on the basis of goals set by Swiss environmental policy. In specific cases,
global, international or regional goals are used and converted to the Swiss level. The method can
also be applied to other countries and regions. To do so, information about the current
environmental situation and the official environmental targets is required.

References
Frischknecht Rolf, Büsser Knöpfel Sybille, 2013: Swiss Eco-Factors 2013 according to the
Ecological Scarcity Method. Methodological fundamentals and their application in
Switzerland. Environmental studies no. 1330. Federal Office for the Environment, Bern: 254
pp.Bern 2013. www.bafu.admin.ch/uw-1330-e

17
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

2.4 EDIP 2003

EDIP 2003 is a Danish LCA methodology that is presented as an update of the EDIP 97
methodology. The main innovation of EDIP2003 lies in the consistent attempt to include
exposure in the characterization modelling of the main non-global impact categories. EDIP2003
can originally be used both with and without spatial differentiation. Only characterization factors
for site-generic effects, which does not take spatial variation into account, are implemented in
SimaPro 8.

2.4.1 Characterization
The EDIP 2003 methodology represents 19 different impact categories. Some of them are
updated versions of EDIP 97, whereas others are modelled totally differently. Table 1 gives an
overview of the EDIP 2003 impact categories. The choices made for implementing the
methodology into SimaPro 8, are summed up for each impact category.

Impact categories: Implemented in Choices made during implementation

original form
Global warming Time horizon of 100y is used (IPPC, 2007)

Ozone depletion x

Acidification x

Terrestrial eutrophication x

Aquatic eutrophication (N-eq) Only emissions to inland waters only are

included. Emissions to air included

Aquatic eutrophication (P-eq)

Ozone formation (human) x Extended with extra factors from EI 2.0

Ozone formation (vegetation) x Extended with extra factors from EI 2.0

Human toxicity (exposure route Release height of 25m

via air)

Human toxicity (exposure route x

via water)

Human toxicity (exposure route x

via soil)

Ecotoxicity (water acute) x

Ecotoxicity (water chronic) x

Ecotoxicity (soil chronic) x

Hazardous waste Directly taken from EDIP 97 (update 2004)

Slags/ashes Directly taken from EDIP 97(update 2004)

18
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

Bulk waste Directly taken from EDIP 97(update 2004)

Radioactive waste Directly taken from EDIP 97(update 2004)

Resources Directly taken from EDIP 97(update 2004)

Table 1: Overview of the different impact categories in EDIP2003, and the changes made for
implementation.

In the EDIP 2003 method, characterization factors for aquatic eutrophication are developed for
two impact categories: aquatic eutrophication (N-eq) and aquatic eutrophication (P-eq). In each
impact category, characterization factors for emissions effecting inland waters and emissions
effecting marine waters are developed. This double set of characterization factors reflects the
fact that, in general, eutrophication is limited by nitrate in fresh waters, and phosphate in marine
waters.
In order to avoid double counting, that would occur if both emission types are implemented
simultaneously, only the characterization factors for inland water are implemented in SimaPro.
When characterization factors for marine water are needed, the following list can be used and
implemented in the EDIP 2003 method:

Substances CAS no. Impact category

Emission to marine Aquatic Aquatic eutrophication

water eutrophication

Compartment Soil Water Water Soil

Nitric acid 7697-37-2 1,24E-01 1,61E-01 0,00E+00 0,00E+00

Nitrite 14797-65-0 1,62E-01 2,10E-01 0,00E+00 0,00E+00

Cyanide 57-12-5 2,92E-01 3,78E-01 0,00E+00 0,00E+00

Nitrogen, total 5,40E-01 7,00E-01 0,00E+00 0,00E+00

Phosphate 14265-44-2 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 3,30E-01 1,98E-02

Pyrophosphate 7722-88-5 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 3,50E-01 2,10E-02

Phosphorus, total 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 1,00E+00 6,00E-02

Table 2: Characterization factors for emissions to marine water in aquatic eutrophication.

Emission compartment soil corresponds with the source category waste water while water
corresponds with the source category agriculture.

The emission to soil only takes into account the effects after plant uptake. For this impact
category the topsoil is part of the technosphere. Emissions to air are also included in the model.

19
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

The data needed for this compartment is not present in the guideline, but is received from
Michael Hauschild.

The EDIP2003 characterization factors for human toxicity, exposure route via air, are enhanced.
The new exposure factors are established for:
 Two different kinds of substances: short-living (hydrogen chloride) and long-living
(benzene)
 Actual variation in regional and local population densities: added for each substance
 Different release heights: 1m, 25m and 100m.

The release height of 25m is presented as default in EDIP2003 and is used in SimaPro.

2.4.2 Normalization
There are normalization factors provided for Europe in the reference year 2004 (Laurent et al.
2011).

2.4.3 Weighting
Until the EDIP weighting factors have been updated to an EDIP2003 version, the weighting factors
of EDIP97 (according to the update issued in 2004), are also used in EDIP2003. Because
ecotoxicity has no normalization factors, also for weighting the value is set at zero. For resources,
normalization and weighing are already included in the characterization factor and therefore set
at zero.

References
Frischknecht, R.; Jungbluth, N.; Althaus, H.J.; Doka, G.; Dones, R.; Hischier, R.; Hellweg, S.;
Humbert, S.; Margni, M.; Nemecek, T.; Spielmann, M. 2007. Implementation of Life Cycle
Impact Assessment Methods: Data v2.0. ecoinvent report No. 3, Swiss centre for Life Cycle
Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland.
Hauschild, M.; Potting, J. 2003. Spatial differentiation in Life Cycle impact assessment - The
EDIP2003 methodology. Institute for Product Development Technical University of
Denmark.
Laurent, A.; Lautier, A.; Rosenbaum, R.K.; Olsen, S.I.; Hauschild, M.Z. 2011. Normalization in
EDIP97 and EDIP2003: updated European inventory for 2004 and guidance towards a
consistent use in practice. Int J LCA 16 (8): 728-738.

20
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

2.5 EF method (adapted)

EF method is the impact assessment method of Environmental Footprint (EF), initiative
introduced by the European Commission. The method included in the SimaPro Professional
database includes a number of adaptations, which make the EF method compatible with the data
libraries provided in SimaPro.
Since the method was modified, it is not suitable for conducting the EF-compliant studies but can
be used for other assessments. The original version of the method will be distributed in the
dedicated SimaPro EF database.
The implementation is based on EF method with the following modifications:
 it does not include any substances, which would be new to SimaPro, e.g. regionalized
land use flows;
 additional substances have been included as they are extensively used by the
background databases and their synonyms are part of the original EF method:
 Resource use, energy carriers - flows expressed in mass units (not only in net
calorific value as in EF); characterization factor corresponds to the lower heating
values of given fuel;
 Resource use, mineral and metals - additional flows for already characterized
mineral and metals;
 Water scarcity - flows representing geographies not covered in the original EF
method; global factor was applied;
 Climate change - carbon dioxide (emission to air) is added with factor of carbon
dioxide, fossil; carbon dioxide, to soil or biomass stock is added with factor -1 (this
flow is necessary for the correct modeling of land use in ecoinvent).

As some projects still demand the use of the EF method version 2.0, two versions are available:
 The EF 2.0 method based on EF method version 2.0
 The EF 3.0 method based on EF method version 3.0, the latest version of the method and
has numerous changes, especially for human toxicity, ecotoxicity and land use.

21
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

2.5.1 Characterization
Impact Recommended default LCIA method Indicator
category

Climate Baseline model of the IPCC 2013, including the carbon feedbacks for different Global Warming Potential
change substances. 100 years

IPCC 2013 supplementary material chap. 8 tab 8SM15

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
report/ar5/wg1/supplementary/WG1AR5_Ch08SM_FINAL.pdf

Ozone Steady-state ODPs Ozone Depletion Potential

depletion (ODP) calculating the
Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1998. Global Ozone Research and
destructive effects on the
Monitoring Project - Report No. 44, ISBN 92-807-1722-7, Geneva. Undefined Report
stratospheric ozone layer
no. 4 by WMO (1999)
over a time horizon of 100
years

Human USEtox consensus model Comparative Toxic Unit for

toxicity, cancer human (CTUh) expressing
Rosenbaum, R.K., Bachmann, T.M., Gold, L.S., Huijbregts, A.J., Jolliet, O., Juraske,
the estimated increase in
R., Koehler, A., Larsen, H.F., MacLeod, M., Margni, M., McKone, T.E., Payet, J.,
morbidity in the total
Schuhmacher, M., Van de Meent, D., Hauschild, M.Z., 2008, USEtox™, the UNEP-
human population per unit
SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterization factors for human toxicity and
mass of a chemical emitted
freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13 (7):
(cases per kilogramme).
532-546

Human USEtox consensus model Comparative Toxic Unit for

toxicity, non- human (CTUh) expressing
Rosenbaum, R.K., Bachmann, T.M., Gold, L.S., Huijbregts, A.J., Jolliet, O., Juraske,
cancer the estimated increase in
R., Koehler, A., Larsen, H.F., MacLeod, M., Margni, M., McKone, T.E., Payet, J.,
morbidity in the total
Schuhmacher, M., Van de Meent, D., Hauschild, M.Z., 2008, USEtox™, the UNEP-
human population per unit
SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterization factors for human toxicity and
mass of a chemical emitted
freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13 (7):
(cases per kilogram).
532-546

Respiratory PM method recommendaed by UNEP Disease incidence due to kg

inorganics of PM2.5 emitted
Fantke, P., Evans, J., Hodas, N., Apte, J., Jantunen, M., Jolliet, O., McKone, T.E.
(2016). Health impacts of fine particulate matter. In: Frischknecht, R., Jolliet, O. (Eds.),
Global Guidance for Life Cycle Impact Assessment Indicators: Volume 1. UNEP/SETAC
Life Cycle Initiative, Paris, pp. 76-99

Ionising Human health effect model as developed by Dreicer et al. 1995 Ionizing Radiation
radiation, Potentials: Quantification of
Frischknecht, R., Braunschweig, A., Hofstetter P., Suter P. (2000), Modelling human
human health the impact of ionizing
health effects of radioactive releases in Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Environmental
radiation on the population,
Impact Assessment Review, Volume 20, Number 2, April 2000, pp. 159-189
in comparison to Uranium
235

Photochemical LOTOS-EUROS model Photochemical ozone

ozone creation potential (POCP):
Van Zelm, R., Huijbregts, M.A.J., Den Hollander, H.A., Van Jaarsveld, H.A., Sauter,
formation, Expression of the potential
F.J., Struijs, J., Van Wijnen, H.J., Van de Meent, D. (2008). European characterization
human health contribution to
factors for human health damage of PM10 and ozone in life cycle impact assessment.
photochemical ozone
Atmospheric Environment 42, 441-453
formation

Acidification Accumulated Exceedance Accumulated Exceedance

(AE) characterizing the
Seppälä, J., M. Posch, M. Johansson and J. P. Hettelingh (2006). Country-dependent
change in critical load
Characterisation Factors for Acidification and Terrestrial Eutrophication Based on
exceedance of the sensitive

22
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

Accumulated Exceedance as an Impact Category Indicator. International Journal of area in terrestrial and main
Life Cycle Assessment 11(6): 403-416 freshwater ecosystems, to
which acidifying substances
Posch, M., J. Seppälä, J. P. Hettelingh, M. Johansson, M. Margni and O. Jolliet
deposit.
(2008). The role of atmospheric dispersion models and ecosystem sensitivity in the
determination of characterization factors for acidifying and eutrophying emissions in
LCIA. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 13(6): 477-486

Terrestrial Accumulated Exceedance Accumulated Exceedance

eutrophication (AE) characterizing the
Seppälä, J., M. Posch, M. Johansson and J. P. Hettelingh (2006). Country-dependent
change in critical load
Characterisation Factors for Acidification and Terrestrial Eutrophication Based on
exceedance of the sensitive
Accumulated Exceedance as an Impact Category Indicator. International Journal of
area, to which eutrophying
Life Cycle Assessment 11(6): 403-416
substances deposit
Posch, M., J. Seppälä, J. P. Hettelingh, M. Johansson, M. Margni and O. Jolliet
(2008). The role of atmospheric dispersion models and ecosystem sensitivity in the
determination of characterization factors for acidifying and eutrophying emissions in
LCIA. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 13(6): 477-486

Freshwater EUTREND model Phosphorus equivalents:

eutrophication Expression of the degree to
Struijs, J., Beusen, A., van Jaarsveld, H. and Huijbregts, M.A.J. (2008b). Aquatic
which the emitted nutrients
Eutrophication. Chapter 6 in: Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M.A.J., De
reaches the freshwater end
Schryver, A., Struijs, J., Van Zelm, R. (2008). ReCiPe 2008 A life cycle impact
compartment (phosphorus
assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint
considered as limiting
and the endpoint level. Report I: Characterisation factors, first edition. Chapter in
factor in freshwater).
anthology Chapter on aquatic eutrophication in the ReCiPe report (report I:
characterization factors, 2008).

Marine EUTREND model Nitrogen equivalents:

eutrophication Expression of the degree to
Struijs, J., Beusen, A., van Jaarsveld, H. and Huijbregts, M.A.J. (2008b). Aquatic
which the emitted nutrients
Eutrophication. Chapter 6 in: Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M.A.J., De
reaches the marine end
Schryver, A., Struijs, J., Van Zelm, R. (2008). ReCiPe 2008 A life cycle impact
compartment (nitrogen
assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint
considered as limiting
and the endpoint level. Report I: Characterisation factors, first edition. In press.
factor in marine water)
Chapter in anthology Chapter on aquatic eutrophication in the ReCiPe report (report
I: characterization factors, 2008)

Land use CFs set re-calculated by JRC starting from LANCA® v 2.2 as baseline model. Soil quality index

Bos U., Horn R., Beck T., Lindner J.P., Fischer M. (2016). LANCA® Characterization
Factors for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Version 2. Franhofer Verlag, Stuttgart, DE.
http://publica.fraunhofer.de/eprints/urn_nbn_de_0011-n-3793106.pdf

Ecotoxicity USEtox consensus model Comparative Toxic Unit for

freshwater ecosystems (CTUe)
Rosenbaum, R.K., Bachmann, T.M., Gold, L.S., Huijbregts, A.J., Jolliet, O., Juraske,
expressing an estimate of
R., Koehler, A., Larsen, H.F., MacLeod, M., Margni, M., McKone, T.E., Payet, J.,
the potentially affected
Schuhmacher, M., Van de Meent, D., Hauschild, M.Z., 2008, USEtox™, the UNEP-
fraction of species (PAF)
SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterization factors for human toxicity and
integrated over time and
freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13 (7):
volume per unit mass of a
532-546
chemical emitted (PAF m3
year/kg)

Water scarcity Available WAter REmaining (AWARE) as recommended by UNEP m3 water eq. deprived

Boulay A.M., Bare J., Benini L., Berger M., Lathuillière M.J., Manzardo A., Margni
M., Motoshita M., Núñez M., Pastor A.V., Ridoutt B., Oki T., Worbe S., Pfister S.
(2016). The WULCA consensus characterization model for water scarcity footprints:
Assessing impacts of water consumption based on available water remaining (AWARE)

Resource use, ADP for energy carriers, based on van Oers et al. 2002 as implemented in CML, v. Abiotic resource depletion
energy carriers 4.8 (2016). fossil fuels (ADP-fossil);

23
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

van Oers, L, Koning, A, Guinée, JB, Huppes, G (2002) Abiotic resource depletion in based on lower heating
LCA. Road and Hydraulic Engineering Institute, Ministry of Transport and Water, value
Amsterdam
http://www.leidenuniv.nl/cml/ssp/projects/lca2/report_abiotic_depletion_web.pdf

Resource use, ADP for mineral and metal resources, based on van Oers et al. 2002 as Abiotic resource depletion
mineral and implemented in CML, v. 4.8 (2016). (ADP ultimate reserve)
metals
van Oers, L, Koning, A, Guinée, JB, Huppes, G (2002) Abiotic resource depletion in
LCA. Road and Hydraulic Engineering Institute, Ministry of Transport and Water,
Amsterdam
http://www.leidenuniv.nl/cml/ssp/projects/lca2/report_abiotic_depletion_web.pdf

2.5.2 Normalization
Global normalization set for a reference year 2010 is part of the EF method. These normalization
values were updated for the EF 3.0 method in November 2019.

2.5.3 Weighting
The EF 2.0 method includes two versions of the weighting factors – including and excluding three
toxicity-related impact categories. Currently, those impact categories are “not seen as sufficiently
robust to be included in external communications or in a weighted result”. The EF 3.0 method
only has a single weighting set, which includes toxicity.
After an evaluation of existing weighting methods, three weighting sets were developed: i) panel
based approach - general public survey; ii) panel based approach - LCA experts’ survey; iii) hybrid
evidence-and judgement-based approach. Those three weighting sets were then aggregated by
first averaging the sets based on panel based approach.

References
Fazio, S. Castellani, V. Sala, S., Schau, EM. Secchi, M. Zampori, L., Supporting information to the
characterization factors of recommended EF Life Cycle Impact Assessment methods, EUR 28888
EN, European Commission, Ispra, 2018, ISBN 978-92-79-76742-5, doi:10.2760/671368,
JRC109369.
Normalization and weighting factors: Annex A of the Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules
Guidance v6.3, May 2018.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/pdf/PEFCR_guidance_v6.3.pdf.
Sala S., Cerutti A.K., Pant R., Development of a weighting approach for the Environmental Footprint,
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2018, ISBN 978-92-79-68042-7,
EUR 28562, doi 10.2760/945290.

24
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

2.6 EN 15804 + A2 method

The EN 15804 standard covers Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) of Construction

Products. The 2019 A2 revision of this standard has aligned their methodology with the EF 3.0
method, except for their approach on biogenic carbon. According to the EN 15804, biogenic
carbon emissions cause the same amount of Climate Change as fossil carbon, but can be
neutralized by removing this carbon from the atmosphere.
Thus, this method is identical to the EF 3.0 method above, except for a few characterization
factors (CF) in both the Climate Change and Climate Change – Biogenic impact categories:

Substance Compartment CF EN 15804 CF EF 3.0

carbon dioxide (biogenic) Emission 1 0

carbon monoxide (biogenic) Emission 1.57 0

methane (biogenic) Emission 36.75 34

carbon dioxide (biogenic) Resource -1 0

EF 3.0 normalization values, published November 2019, were used, as older normalization
factors, incompatible with methodology changes, were withdrawn.

25
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

2.7 EPD (2018)

This method is the successor of EPD (2013) and is to be used for the creation of Environmental
Product Declarations (EPDs), as published on the website of the Swedish Environmental
Management Council (SEMC). An EPD is always created according to a Product Category Rule.
This method is especially important for everybody who is reporting a Product Category Rule (PCR)
published by Environdec.

2.7.1 Characterization
In the standard EPDs one only has to report on the following impact categories:

Original names Names in SimaPro

Acidification potential Acidification (fate not incl.)

Eutrophication potential Eutrophication

Global warming potential Global warming (GWP100a)

Photochemical oxidant creation potential Photochemical oxidation

Abiotic depletion potential - elements Abiotic depletion, elements

Abiotic depletion potential - fossil fuels Abiotic depletion, fossil fuels

Water Scarcity Footprint (WSF) Water scarcity

Additional indicators:
The following impact categories are optional indicators and the inclusion of them should be
specified in the PCR.

Original names Names in SimaPro

Ozone-depleting gases (expressed as the Ozone layer depletion (ODP) (optional)

sum of ozone-depleting potential in mass of
CFC 11-equivalents, 20 years)

Most impact categories are taken directly from the CML-IA baseline method (eutrophication,
global warming, ozone depletion and abiotic resource depletion) and CML-IA non baseline
method (acidification). Water scarcity category is based on AWARE method and Photochemical
oxidation is based on ReCiPe 2008. All those individual methods can be found in SimaPro.

26
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

2.7.2 Normalization and weighting

Normalization and weighting are not a part of this method.

References
General programme instructions for the international EPD® system, 3.0. 11 December 2017. Download at
http://www.environdec.com/Documents/GPI/General_programme_instructions_2_01_20130918.pdf.

27
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

2.8 EPS 2015d and EPS 2015dx

EPS 2015 default methodology (Environmental Priority Strategies in product design) is a damage
oriented method, the successor of EPS 2000. In the EPS system, willingness to pay to restore
changes in the safe guard subjects is chosen as the monetary measurement. The indicator unit is
ELU (Environmental Load Unit), which includes characterization, normalization and weighting.

The method is available in two versions:

- EPS 2015d - including climate impacts from secondary particles,
- EPS 2015dx - excluding climate impacts from secondary particles.

The reason for developing two versions is the uncertain but important valuations of near-term
climate forcers (NTCF) such as Nitrogen oxides (NOx) and Sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions. Based
on the recommendation from UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, method developer suggests that
the version including the secondary impacts (2015d) is used with care (e.g. in sensitivity analysis)
and by LCA practitioners and experts understanding the underlying concept. For more details
explanation, you can check the website dedicated to EPS system: http://www.ivl.se/eps
The top-down development of the EPS system has led to an outspoken hierarchy among its
principles and rules. The general principles remain unchanged since previous version:
 The top-down principle (highest priority is given to the usefulness of the system);
 The index principle (ready-made indices represent weighted and aggregated impacts);
 The default principle (an operative method as default is required);
 The uncertainty principle (uncertainty of input data has to be estimated);
 Choice of default data and models to determine them.

The EPS system is mainly aimed to be a tool for a company's internal product development
process. The system is developed to assist designers and product developers in finding which
one of two product concepts has the least impact on the environment. The models and data in
EPS are intended to improve environmental performance of products. The choice and design of
the models and data are made from an anticipated utility perspective of a product developer.
They are, for instance not intended to be used as a basis for environmental protection strategies
for single substances, or as a sole basis for environmental product declarations. In most of those
cases additional site-specific information and modelling is necessary.

Implementation of EPS 2015 in SimaPro required few adaptations:

 Some state indicators were not implemented, either because they do not correspond
with the flows used in the inventory (Land use), or the inventory does not cover flows
used in the method (Noise and Waste). Also, none of the state indicators under social safe
guard subject is included (as they are quantitative, not monetary valued) and only one
state indicator from economical safe guard subject is included - housing availability.

28
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

 Approx. 50 substances from the EPS spreadsheet were not implemented as they were
not available in SimaPro;
 Depletion of abiotic resources includes all the elements covered by the method.
Originally, each element has a separate state indicator.

2.8.1 Classification and characterization

Emissions and resources are assigned to impact categories when actual effects are likely to occur
in the environment, based on likely exposure. Empirical, equivalency and mechanistic models are
used to calculate default characterization values.

Ecosystem services
Weighting factors for damage to ecosystem are included for the following indictors, all expressed
in kg:
 Crop growth capacity,
 Production capacity of fruits and vegetables,
 Wood growth capacity,
 Fish and meat production capacity.

Access to water
Weighting factors for damage to water access are included for the following indictors, all
expressed in kg:
 Drinking water,
 Irrigation water.

Biodiversity
Default impact category for biodiversity is extinction of species, expressed in Normalized
Extinction of species (NEX).

Building technology
Default impact category for building technology is housing availability, expressed in square
meters.

Human health
Weighting factors for damage to human health are included for the following indictors, all
expressed in personyears:
 Life expectancy (YOLL - years of life lost),

29
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

 Malnutrition,
 Diarrhea,
 Gravation of angina pectoris,
 Working capacity,
 Asthma cases,
 COPD severe,
 Cancer,
 Skin cancer,
 Low vision,
 Poisoning,
 Intellectual disability: mild.

Abiotic resources
Default impact category for abiotic resources is depletion of abiotic resources, expressed in kg of
element. In SimaPro, characterization values for abiotic depletion result from both the impact of
depletion and impacts due to extraction of the element/mineral or resource.

2.8.2 Normalization/weighting
In the EPS default method, normalization/weighting is made through valuation.
Normalization/weighting factors represent the willingness to pay to avoid changes. The
environmental reference is the present state of the environment. The indicator unit is ELU
(Environmental Load Unit).

References
Steen B. 2015. The EPS 2015 impact assessment method – An overview. Swedish Life Cycle Center,
Report number 2015:5.
Steen B. 1999. A systematic approach to environmental strategies in product development (EPS).
Version 2000 - General system characteristics. Centre for Environmental Assessment of
Products and Material Systems. Chalmers University of Technology, Technical
Environmental Planning. CPM report 1999:4.

30
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

2.9 ILCD 2011 Midpoint+

This is the corrected and updated method of the ILCD 2011 Midpoint (without the +) which can
still be found in the Superseded folder. For this new version, the normalization factors were
added as provided in "Normalisation method and data for Environmental Footprints; 2014;
Lorenzo Benini, et al.; Report EUR 26842 EN". The characterization factors in the Land use
category are updated based on "ERRATA CORRIGE to ILCD - LCIA Characterization Factors" -
Version06_02_2015(v. 1.0.6) - "List of changes to CFs for land use from v 1 0 5 to v 1 0
6_REVISED.xlsx".
Characterization factors for long term emissions are set to zero, because this was an implicit
requirement from the European Commission. Weighting factors were added with equal weights
for each of the recommended categories as indicated by the guidance document.
The full title of this method is: ILCD recommendations for LCIA in the European context. The
European Commission (EC-JRC–IES, 2011) analyzed several methodologies for LCIA and made
some effort towards harmonization. Starting from the first pre-selection of existing methods and
the definition of criteria, a list of recommended methods for each impact category at both
midpoint and endpoint was produced.
The endpoint methods, however, are not included here, because the list is far from complete.
Recommendations are given for the impact categories of climate change, ozone depletion,
human toxicity, particulate matter/respiratory inorganics, photochemical ozone formation,
ionizing radiation impacts, acidification, eutrophication, ecotoxicity, land use and resource
depletion (Table 3).
Research needs are identified for each impact category and differentiated according to their
priority. No method development took place in the development of the ILCD recommendations.
The intention was to identify and promote current best practice. These recommendations do not
provide recommendations for weighting across impact categories, nor for normalization within a
given category relative to impacts in a given region.

Impact category Recommended default LCIA Indicator Classification*

method

Climate change Baseline model of 100 years of Radiative forcing as Global Warming I
the IPCC Potential (GWP100)

Ozone depletion Steady-state ODPs 1999 as in Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP) I

WMO assessment

Human toxicity, cancer USEtox model (Rosenbaum et al, Comparative Toxic Unit for humans II/III
effects 2008) (CTUh)

Human toxicity, non- USEtox model (Rosenbaum et al, Comparative Toxic Unit for humans II/III
cancer effects 2008) (CTUh)

Particulate RiskPoll model (Rabl and Spadaro, Intake fraction for fine particles (kg I
matter/Respiratory 2004) and Greco et al 2007 PM2.5-eq/kg)
inorganics

Ionising radiation, Human health effect model as Human exposure efficiency relative to II
human health developed by Dreicer et al. 1995 U235
(Frischknecht et al, 2000)

31
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

Ionising radiation, No methods recommended

ecosystems

Photochemical ozone LOTOS-EUROS (Van Zelm et al, Tropospheric ozone concentration II

formation 2008) as applied in ReCiPe increase

Acidification Accumulated Exceedance Accumulated Exceedance (AE) II

(Seppälä et al. 2006, Posch et al,
2008)

Eutrophication, Accumulated Exceedance Accumulated Exceedance (AE) II

terrestrial (Seppälä et al. 2006, Posch et al,
2008)

Eutrophication, aquatic EUTREND model (Struijs et al, Fraction of nutrients reaching II

2009b) as implemented in ReCiPe freshwater end compartment (P)/
marine end compartment (N)

Ecotoxicity (freshwater) USEtox model, (Rosenbaum et al, Comparative Toxic Unit for II/III
2008) ecosystems (CTUe)

Ecotoxicity (terrestrial No methods recommended

and marine)

Land use Model based on Soil Organic Soil Organic Matter III
Matter (SOM) (Milà i Canals et al,
2007b)

Resource depletion, Model for water consumption as Water use related to local scarcity of III
water in Swiss Ecoscarcity (Frischknecht water
et al, 2008)

Resource depletion, CML 2002 (Guinée et al., 2002) Scarcity II

mineral, fossil and
renewable**

Table 3: Recommended methods and their classification at midpoint (ILCD 2011).

* Levels: “I” (recommended and satisfactory), level “II” (recommended but in need of some improvements) or level “III”
(recommended, but to be applied with caution); “interim” indicates that a method was considered the best among the
analyzed methods for the impact category, but still immature to be recommended.

** Depletion of renewable resources is included in the analysis but none of the analyzed methods is mature for
recommendation

References
European Commission - Joint Research Centre. 2011. International Reference Life Cycle Data System
(ILCD) Handbook- Recommendations for Life Cycle Impact Assessment in the European context.
First edition November 2011. EUR 24571 EN. Luxemburg. Publications Office of the
European Union; 2011
LCIA characterization factors release in February 2012 with errata from March 2012 can be
downloaded from http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/assessment/projects.

32
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

2.10 Impact 2002+

IMPACT 2002+, acronym of IMPact Assessment of Chemical Toxics, is an impact assessment

methodology originally developed at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology - Lausanne (EPFL),
with current developments carried out by the same team of researchers now under the name of
Ecointesys-life cycle systems (Lausanne). The present methodology proposes a feasible
implementation of a combined midpoint/damage approach, linking all types of life cycle
inventory results (elementary flows and other interventions) via 14 midpoint categories to four
damage categories (Figure 1).

Figure 2: Overall scheme of the IMPACT 2002+ framework, linking LCI results via the midpoint categories to damage
categories. Based on Jolliet et al. (2003a)

In SimaPro, only the characterization factors at endpoint level are provided.

33
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

2.10.1 Characterization
The characterization factors for human toxicity and aquatic and terrestrial ecotoxicity are taken
from the methodology IMPACT 2002+. The characterization factors for other categories are
adapted from existing characterizing methods, i.e. Eco-indicator 99, CML 2001, IPCC and the
Cumulative Energy Demand.
The IMPACT 2002+ method (version 2.1) presently provides characterization factors for almost
1500 different LCI-results. In SimaPro, 15 different impact categories are presented, as human
toxicity is split up in ‘Carcinogens’ and ‘Non-carcinogens’.

2.10.2 Normalization
The damage factor reported in ecoinvent are normalized by dividing the impact per unit of
emission by the total impact of all substances of the specific category for which characterization
factors exist, per person per year (for Europe). The unit of all normalized midpoint/damage
factors is therefore [pers*year/unitemission], i.e. the number of equivalent persons affected
during one year per unit of emission.

2.10.3 Weighting
The authors of IMPACT2002+ suggest to analyze normalized scores at damage level considering
the four-damage oriented impact categories human health, ecosystem quality, climate change,
and resources or, alternatively, the 14 midpoint indicators separately for the interpretation phase
of LCA. However, if aggregation is needed, one could use self-determined weighting factors or a
default weighting factor of one, unless other social weighting values are available.

PRé added an extra weighting step. Each damage category is given the weighting factor 1.

References
Frischknecht, R.; Jungbluth, N.; Althaus, H.J.; Doka, G.; Dones, R.; Hischier, R.; Hellweg, S.;
Humbert, S.; Margni, M.; Nemecek, T.; Spielmann, M. 2007. Implementation of Life Cycle
Impact Assessment Methods: Data v2.0. ecoinvent report No. 3, Swiss centre for Life Cycle
Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland.
Jolliet, O.; Margni, M.; Charles, R.; Humbert, S.; Payet, J.; Rebitzer, G.; Rosenbaum, R. 2003. IMPACT
2002+: A New Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methodology. Int J LCA 8 (6): 324 – 330.

34
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

3 Global

3.1 ReCiPe 2016

ReCiPe 2016 is an updated and extended version of ReCiPe 2008. Like the precessor, ReCiPe 2016
includes both midpoint (problem oriented) and endpoint (damage oriented) impact categories,
available for three different perspectives (individualist (I), hierarchist (H), and egalitarian (E)). The
characterization factors are representative for the global scale, instead of the European scale as it
was done in ReCiPe 2008. Because of that the method was moved from the European category to
Global.
ReCiPe comprises two sets of impact categories with associated sets of characterization factors.
At the midpoint level, 18 impact categories are addressed:
1. Climate change
2. Stratospheric ozone depletion
3. Ionizing radiation
4. Ozone formation, human health
5. Fine particulate matter formation
6. Ozone formation, terrestrial ecosystems
7. Terrestrial acidification
8. Freshwater eutrophication
9. Marine eutrophication
10. Terrestrial ecotoxicity
11. Freshwater ecotoxicity
12. Marine ecotoxicity
13. Human carcinogenic toxicity
14. Human non-carcinogenic toxicity
15. Land use
16. Mineral resource scarcity
17. Fossil resource scarcity
18. Water use

At the endpoint level, most of these midpoint impact categories are multiplied by damage factors
and aggregated into three endpoint categories:
 Human health
 Ecosystems
 Resource scarcity

35
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

The Figure 2 sketches the relations between the 18 midpoint impact categories and the 3
endpoint categories.

Figure 3: Representation of the relations between the impact categories midpoint and the areas of production (endpoint)
Source: Huijbregts MAJ et al.(2017) Department of Environmental Science, Radbound University Nijmegen.

3.1.1 Value choices

It is obvious that the environmental mechanisms and damage models are sources of uncertainty:
the relationships modelled reflect state of the art knowledge of the environmental mechanisms
that has a certain level of incompleteness and uncertainty. In ReCiPe 2016 it was decided to
group different sources of uncertainty and different (value) choices into a limited number of
perspectives or scenarios, according to the “Cultural Theory” by Thompson 1990. This is the same
approach as in the first version of ReCiPe.
Three perspectives are discerned: individualist (I), hierarchist (H), and egalitarian (E). These
perspectives do not claim to represent archetypes of human behavior, but they are merely used
to group similar types of assumptions and choices. For instance:
1. Individualist perspective (I) is based on the short-term interest, impact types that are
undisputed, technological optimism as regards human adaptation.
2. Hierarchist perspective (H) is based on the most common policy principles with regards to
time-frame and other issues.
3. Egalitarian perspective (E) is the most precautionary perspective, taking into account the
longest time-frame, impact types that are not yet fully established but for which some
indication is available.
36
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

3.1.2 Characterization at midpoint level

Climate change
The characterization factor of climate change is the global warming potential, based on IPCC 2013
report. For the Individualist perspective 20 year time horizon was used, for Hierarchist 100 years
and for Egalitarian 1000 years. Climate-carbon feedbacks are included for non-CO2 GHGs in the
Hierarchist perspective. The unit is yr/kg CO2 equivalents.

Ozone depletion
The characterization factor for ozone layer depletion accounts for the destruction of the
stratospheric ozone layer by anthropogenic emissions of ozone depleting substances (ODS). The
unit is yr/kg CFC-11 equivalents

Ionizing radiation
The characterization factor of ionizing radiation accounts for the level of exposure for the global
population. The unit is yr/kBq Cobalt-60 equivalents to air.

Fine particulate matter formation

The characterization factor of particulate matter formation is the intake fraction of PM2.5. The
unit is yr/kg PM2.5 equivalents.

Photochemical ozone formation, terrestrial ecosystems

The characterization factor is determined from the change in intake rate of ozone due to change
in emission of precursors (NOx and NMVOC). The unit of ecosystem ozone formation potential is
yr/kg NOx equivalents.

Photochemical ozone formation, human health

The characterization factor is determined from the change in intake rate of ozone due to change
in emission of precursors (NOx and NMVOC). The unit of human health ozone formation
potential is yr/kg NOx equivalents.

Terrestrial acidification
The characterization factor for terrestrial acidification is Acidification Potential (AP) derived using
the emission weighted world average fate factor of SO2. The unit is yr/kg SO2 equivalents.

37
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

Freshwater eutrophication
The characterization factor of freshwater eutrophication accounts for the environmental
persistence (fate) of the emission of P containing nutrients. The unit is yr/kg P to freshwater
equivalents.

Marine eutrophication
The characterization factor of marine eutrophication accounts for the environmental persistence
(fate) of the emission of N containing nutrients. The unit is yr/kg N to marine equivalents.

Human toxicity and ecotoxicity

The characterization factor of human toxicity and ecotoxicity accounts for the environmental
persistence (fate) and accumulation in the human food chain (exposure), and toxicity (effect) of a
chemical. The unit is yr/kg 1,4-dichlorobenzeen (1,4-DCB) emitted.

Land use
The amount of land transformed or occupied for a certain time. The unit is m2*yr.

Water use
The factor for the water use is the amount of fresh water consumption. The unit is m3 water
consumed. Current implementation includes regionalized characterization factors in the
endpoint version of the method.

Mineral resource scarcity

The characterization factor for mineral resource scarcity is the surplus ore potential. The unit is
kg Copper (Cu) equivalents.

Fossil resource scarcity

The characterization factor of fossil resource scarcity is the fossil fuel potential, based on the
higher heating value. The unit is kg oil equivalents.

38
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

3.1.3 Damage assessment

The endpoint characterization factors used in ReCiPe can be described as follows:
1. Human Health, expressed as the number of year life lost and the number of years
lived disabled. These are combined as Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs), an index
that is also used by the World Bank and WHO. The unit is years.
2. Ecosystems, expressed as the loss of species over a certain area, during a certain
time. The unit is years.
3. Resource scarcity, expressed as the surplus costs of future resource production over
an infinitive timeframe (assuming constant annual production), considering a 3%
discount rate. The unit is USD2013. Mind that fossil resource scarcity does not have
constant mid-to-endpoint factor but individual factors for each substance.

3.1.4 Normalization
Global normalization factors for reference year 2010 are included since version 1.03 of ReCiPe
2016. However, the reference report has not been published yet and the global reference
inventory is still to be implemented in SimaPro.

3.1.5 Weighting
Development of weighting factors was not part of ReCiPe 2016 project. Therefore, weighting sets
from the previous version of ReCiPe are reused here. Those are based on panel weighting
performed at damage category (endpoint) level. A specific weighting set is available for each
perspective. Additionally, the average result of the panel assessment is available as weighting set.
The hierarchist version of ReCiPe with average weighting is chosen as default. In general, value
choices made in the hierarchist version are scientifically and politically accepted.

3.1.6 Updates in ReCiPe 2016

Environmental Update
mechanism

- The time horizon for the Egalitarian perspective was explicitly taken as 1,000
years, which is the longest time horizon reported for CO2 response functions in
the literature.

Climate change - A much larger set of greenhouse gas emissions (207 GHGs in total) is included
on the basis of the latest IPCC report

- Damage factors for human health and terrestrial ecosystems were updated

- Damage to freshwater (river) ecosystems was now included

- New semi‐empirical ODPs were included with a more detailed specification

Stratospheric ozone between various chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)
depletion
- A preliminary ODP for N2O was included

39
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

- Three time horizons were consistently implemented: 20 years (Individualist),

100 years (Hierarchist) and infinite (Egalitarian)

- Three time horizons were consistently implemented: 20 years (Individualist),

100 years (Hierarchist) and 100,000 years (Egalitarian)

Ionizing radiation - Dose and dose rate effectiveness factors (DDREFs) were specified per cultural
perspective

- Updated DALYs per fatal cancer incidence were applied.

- The European factor was replaced by a world average factor

- Lung cancer and cardiovascular mortality were included as critical effects

Fine particulate
matter formation - Value choices were added

- World‐region specific characterization factors were added (not implemented in

SimaPro)

- The European factor was replaced by a world average factor

- Respiratory mortality was included

- To derive characterization factors for individual VOCs, most recent

Photochemical ozone photochemical ozone formation potentials (POCPs) reported in the literature
formation were used

- Damage to terrestrial ecosystems was included as well

- World‐region specific characterization factors were added (not implemented in

SimaPro)

- The European factor was replaced by a world average factor, based on grid
specific factors

Terrestrial - Soil sensitivity was based on H+ concentration instead of base saturation

acidification - Effects of all vascular plant species included, not only forest species

- Country‐specific characterization factors were provided (not implemented in

SimaPro)

- Fate factors were derived with a state‐of‐the‐art global fate model for
phosphorus instead of a European fate model

Freshwater - Effect factors were updated based on a global analysis instead of using
eutrophication information from the Netherlands only

‐ Country‐specific characterization factors were provided as well (not

implemented in SimaPro)

- Fate factors were derived with a state-of-the-art global fate model for nitrogen,
instead of a European fate model.
Marine
- Endpoint characterization factors were included by determining effect and
eutrophication
damage factors based on a global analysis.

- Continent-specific characterization factors were provided as well.

- Characterization factors for human cancer and non-cancer effects were

Toxicity separately included.

- Fate and exposure for dissociating organics was explicitly modelled.

40
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

- The USEtox organic and inorganic database was implemented (3094

substances).

- A time horizon of 20 years was included for the Individualist perspective.

- Only linear effect factors were included for reasons of simplicity.

- Effects on agricultural and urban soil were excluded to prevent double

counting with the land use impact category.

‐ Consumption/extraction ratios were provided

‐ Characterization factors on an endpoint level for human health, terrestrial and

Water use aquatic ecosystems were included

- Country‐specific characterization factors were provided (to be implemented in

SimaPro)

- Characterization factors were based on global scale data, whereas the previous
factors focused on Europe
Land use - The local impact of land use was covered only, as the modelling of regional
impacts in the previous ReCiPe version was considered too uncertain to
recommend

- Cumulative grade‐tonnage relationships and cumulative cost‐tonnage

Mineral resource relationships were used, based on mine‐specific cost and production data
scarcity ‐ An estimation of future production was included in the modelling without
future discounting

- Cumulative cost-tonnage relationships were based on recent cost and future

Fossil resource production data
scarcity - An estimation of future production was included in the modelling without
future discounting

References
Huijbregts MAJ, Steinmann ZJN, Elshout PMF, Stam G, Verones F, Vieira MDM, Van Zelm R, 2017.
ReCiPe2016 v1.1. A harmonized life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and
endpoint level. Report I: Characterization. Department of Environmental Science,
Radbound University Nijmegen.
http://www.rivm.nl/en/Topics/L/Life_Cycle_Assessment_LCA/Downloads/Documents_ReCiP
e2017/Report_ReCiPe_Update_2017
Huijbregts, M.A.J., Steinmann, Z.J.N., Elshout, P.M.F. et al. Int J Life Cycle Assess (2017) 22: 138.
doi:10.1007/s11367-016-1246-y https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11367-016-
1246-y

41
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

4 North American

4.1 BEES
BEES is the acronym for Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability, a software tool
developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). BEES combines a partial
life cycle assessment and life cycle cost for building and construction materials into one tool.
Results are presented in terms of life cycle assessment impacts, costs, or a combination of both
as it can be seen in Figure 3. BEES strives to assist the architect, engineer, or purchaser choose a
product that balances environmental and economic performance, thus finding cost-effective
solutions for protecting the environment.

Figure 4: Structure of the BEES 4.0 methodology

4.1.1 Characterization
BEES uses the SETAC method of classification and characterization. The following six life cycle
assessment impact categories are used by BEES:
1. global warming potential
2. acidification
3. eutrophication potential
4. natural resource depletion
5. solid waste
6. indoor air quality

42
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

Smog Characterization factors for two substances from equiv12.xls, biphenyl and diphenyl (both
to air) have been averaged and assigned to biphenyl (air). Smog Characterization factors for
Butane (C4H10) and Butane-n (n-C4H10) (both to air) have been averaged and assigned to Butane
(air).

4.1.2 Normalization and weighting

Normalization is implemented as described in the report (Lippiatt, 2007) and weighting as
described in Gloria et al. (2007).

References
Gloria, T.P.; Lippiatt, B.C.; Cooper, J. 2007. Life Cycle Impact Assessment Weights to Support
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing in the United States. Environ Sci Technol 41 (21):
7551-7557.
Lippiatt, B.C. 2007. BEES 4.0: Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability. Technical
Manual and User Guide. NISTIR 7423. National Institute of Standards and Technology.

4.2 TRACI 2.1

The Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other environmental Impacts
(TRACI), a stand-alone computer program developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency specifically for the US using input parameters consistent with US locations. Site specificity
is available for many of the impact categories, but in all cases a US average value exists when the
location is undetermined.
TRACI facilitates the characterization of environmental stressors that have potential effects,
including ozone depletion, global warming, acidification, eutrophication, tropospheric ozone
(smog) formation, ecotoxicity, human health criteria–related effects, human health cancer effects,
human health non-cancer effects, fossil fuel depletion, and land-use effects. TRACI was originally
designed for use with life-cycle assessment (LCA), but it is expected to find wider application in
the future.
TRACI is a midpoint oriented life cycle impact assessment methodology, consistently with EPA’s
decision not to aggregate between environmental impact categories. It includes classification,
characterization and normalization.

4.2.1 Characterization
Impact categories were characterized at the midpoint level for reasons including a higher level of
societal consensus concerning the certainties of modelling at this point in the cause-effect chain.
Research in the impact categories was conducted to construct methodologies for representing
potential effects in the United States.

43
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

TRACI is a midpoint oriented LCIA method including the following impact categories:
 Ozone depletion
 Global warming
 Smog
 Acidification
 Eutrophication
 Carcinogenics
 Non carcinogenics
 Respiratory effects
 Ecotoxicity
 Fossil fuel depletion

4.2.2 Normalization
Morten Rybert from the Technical University of Denmark calculated normalization factors for the
US and US + Canada. Data from 2008 and 2005 combined with 2008 was used for these
reference geographies, respectively. A manuscript is now being prepared for publication at the
International Journal of LCA.

References
Bare, J.; Gloria, T.; Norris, G. 2006. Development of the Method and U.S. Normalization Database
for Life Cycle Impact Assessment and Sustainability Metrics. Environ Sci Techol 40 (16):
5108-5115.
Bare, J.C.; Norris, G.A.; Pennington, D.W.; McKone, T. 2003. TRACI: The Tool for the Reduction and
Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts. Journal of Industrial Ecology.
http://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/pdf/jiec_6_3_49_0.pdf
Frischknecht, R.; Jungbluth, N.; Althaus, H.J.; Doka, G.; Dones, R.; Hischier, R.; Hellweg, S.;
Humbert, S.; Margni, M.; Nemecek, T.; Spielmann, M. 2007. Implementation of Life Cycle
Impact Assessment Methods: Data v2.0. ecoinvent report No. 3, Swiss centre for Life Cycle
Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland.

44
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

5 Single issue

5.1 Cumulative Energy Demand

The method to calculate Cumulative Energy Demand (CED) is based on the method published by
Ecoinvent version 1.01 and expanded by PRé for energy resources available in the SimaPro
database. Extra substances, according to the Ecoinvent database version 2.0, are implemented.
This default version of CED is based on the fuels’ higher heating values.

5.1.1 Characterization
Characterization factors are given for the energy resources divided in 5 impact categories:
1. Non renewable, fossil
2. Non renewable, nuclear
3. Renewable, biomass
4. Renewable, wind, solar, geothermal
5. Renewable, water

Normalization is not a part of this method. In order to get a total (“cumulative”) energy demand,
each impact category is given the weighting factor 1.

References
Frischknecht, R.; Jungbluth, N.; Althaus, H.J.; Doka, G.; Dones, R.; Hischier, R.; Hellweg, S.;
Humbert, S.; Margni, M.; Nemecek, T.; Spielmann, M. 2007. Implementation of Life Cycle
Impact Assessment Methods: Data v2.0. ecoinvent report No. 3, Swiss centre for Life Cycle
Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland.

45
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

5.2 Cumulative Energy Demand (LHV)

This method is a variation of Cumulative Energy Demand, based on fuels’ lower heating values
(LHV). Cumulative Energy Demand (CED) is calculated from data published by Ecoinvent and
expanded by PRé for energy resources available in the SimaPro database.
Ratio between lower and higher heating value for each fuel type was derived from Table 5.1 of
Overview and methodology - Data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3. It was
then used to convert the higher heating values from the default Cumulative Energy Demand
method into lower heating values. For peat this ratio was not available in the Data quality
guideline, therefore we assume a slightly lower ratio than what was calculated for lignite (0.85).

5.2.1 Characterization
Characterization factors are given for the energy resources divided in 5 impact categories:
1. Non renewable, fossil
2. Non renewable, nuclear
3. Renewable, biomass
4. Renewable, wind, solar, geothermal
5. Renewable, water

Normalization is not a part of this method. In order to get a total (“cumulative”) energy demand,
each impact category is given the weighting factor 1.

References
Frischknecht, R.; Jungbluth, N.; Althaus, H.J.; Doka, G.; Dones, R.; Hischier, R.; Hellweg, S.;
Humbert, S.; Margni, M.; Nemecek, T.; Spielmann, M. 2007. Implementation of Life Cycle
Impact Assessment Methods: Data v2.0. ecoinvent report No. 3, Swiss centre for Life Cycle
Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland.
Weidema B P, Bauer C, Hischier R, Mutel C, Nemecek T, Reinhard J, Vadenbo C O, Wernet G.
(2013). Overview and methodology.
Data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3. Ecoinvent Report 1 (v3). St.
Gallen: The ecoinvent Centre.

5.3 Cumulative Exergy Demand

The indicator Cumulative Exergy Demand (CExD) is introduced to depict total exergy removal
from nature to provide a product, summing up the exergy of all resources required. CExD
assesses the quality of energy demand and includes the exergy of energy carriers as well as of
non-energetic materials. The exergy concept was applied to the resources contained in the
ecoinvent database, considering chemical, kinetic, hydro-potential, nuclear, solar-radiative and
thermal exergies. Details on the CExD method may be found in Bösch et al. (2007).

46
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

In order to quantify the life cycle exergy demand of a product, the indicator Cumulative Exergy
Demand (CExD) is defined as the sum of exergy of all resources required to provide a process or
product.
Exergy is another way to express quality of energy rather than energy content. Both are
expressed in MJ. Exergy is a measure for the useful “work” a certain energy carrier can offer. For
instance, natural gas has a high exergy value, as it can be used to create high temperatures and
high pressured steam. If natural gas is used to heat a house in a highly efficient boiler, very little
energy content is lost, but the exergy content is almost entirely lost (there is very little one can do
with water between 50 and 80 degrees).
In this method exergy is used as a measure of the potential loss of “useful” energy resources.
This method has been directly taken from Ecoinvent 2.0. The amount of substances present is
compatible with the EI 2.0 database and extended for other databases.

5.3.1 Characterization
The impact category indicator is grouped into the eight resource categories fossil, nuclear,
hydropower, biomass, other renewables, water, minerals, and metals. However, in SimaPro, 10
different impact categories are presented:
 Non renewable, fossil
 Non renewable, nuclear
 Renewable, kinetic
 Renewable, solar
 Renewable, potential
 Non renewable, primary
 Renewable, biomass
 Renewable, water
 Non renewable, metals
 Non renewable, minerals

Exergy characterization factors for 112 different resources were included in the calculations.

CExD   mi * Ex( ch ),i   n j * rex e ( k , p ,n ,r ,t ), j

i j

CExD = cumulative exergy demand per unit of product or process (MJ-eq)

mi
= mass of material resource i (kg)
Ex( ch),i
= exergy per kg of substance i (MJ-eq/kg)
nj
= amount of energy from energy carrier j (MJ)
rexe( k , p ,n,r ,t ),i
= exergy to energy ratio of energy carrier j (MJ-eq/MJ)
ch = chemical
k = kinetic

47
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

p = potential
n = nuclear
r = radiative
t = thermal exergy

The assignment of the adequate type of exergy depends on resource use:

 Chemical exergy is applied on all material resources, for biomass, water and fossil fuels
(i.e. all materials that are not reference species in the reference state)
 Thermal exergy is applied for geothermy, where heat is withdrawn without matter
extraction
 Kinetic exergy is applied on the kinetic energy in wind used to drive a wind generator
 Potential exergy is applied on potential energy in water used to run a hydroelectric plant
 Nuclear exergy is applied on nuclear fuel consumed in fission reactions
 Radiative exergy is applied on solar radiation impinging on solar panels

5.3.2 Normalization and weighting

Normalization is not a part of this method. In order to get a total (“cumulative”) exergy demand,
each impact category is given the weighting factor 1.

References
Bösch, M.E.; Hellweg, S.; Huijbregts, M.A.J.; Frischknecht, R. 2007. Applying Cumulative Energy
Demand (CExD) Indicators to the ecoinvent Database. In: Int J LCA 12 (3): 181–190.
Frischknecht, R.; Jungbluth, N.; Althaus, H.J.; Doka, G.; Dones, R.; Hischier, R.; Hellweg, S.;
Humbert, S.; Margni, M.; Nemecek, T.; Spielmann, M. 2007. Implementation of Life Cycle
Impact Assessment Methods: Data v2.0. ecoinvent report No. 3, Swiss centre for Life Cycle
Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland.

48
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

5.4 Ecosystem Damage Potential

The Ecosystem Damage Potential (EDP) is a life cycle impact assessment methodology for the
characterization of land occupation and transformation developed by the Swiss Federal Institute
of Technology (ETH), Zürich. It is based on impact assessment of land use on species diversity.

5.4.1 Characterization
This method was created using empirical information on species diversity from Central Europe.
With information about species diversity on 5581 sample plots, Characterization factors for 53
land use types and six intensity classes were calculated. The typology is based on the CORINE
Plus classification.
Linear transformations of the relative species numbers are linearly transformed into ecosystem
damage potentials. The damage potential calculated is endpoint oriented.
The impact factor for the unknown reference land use type (ref) before or after the land
transformation is chosen as EDP(ref) = 0.80. This represents the maximum EDP, i.e. the land use
type with the most negative impact.
The different impact categories implemented in SimaPro are:

 “land transformation” as a result of the addition of “transformation, from land use type I”
and “transformation, to land use type I”
 “land occupation”

Normalization is not a part of this method.

Because the two impact categories are expressed in the same unit (points), PRé added a
weighting step. Each impact category is given the weighting factor 1.

References
Koellner, T.; Scholz, R. 2007. Assessment of land use impact on the natural environment: Part 1:
An Analytical Framework for Pure Land Occupation and Land Use Change. Int J LCA 12 (1):
16-23.

5.5 Greenhouse Gas Protocol

The Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol), developed by the World Resources Institute (WRI)
and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), is an accounting standard
of greenhouse gas emissions. This method is based on the draft report on Product Life Cycle
Accounting and Reporting Standard.

49
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

5.5.1 Characterization
To calculate carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2eq) of all non-CO2 gases (CH4, N2O, SF6, HFCs, CFCs)
the company shall use and report the most recent 100-year IPCC global warming potentials
(GWP). The 100–year GWP is a metric used to describe the time-integrated radiative
characteristics of well mixed greenhouse gases over a 100-year time horizon.
The total GHG emissions for a product inventory shall be calculated as the sum of GHG
emissions, in CO2eq, of all foreground processes and significant background processes within
the system boundary. A distinction is made between:
 GHG emissions from fossil sources
 Biogenic carbon emissions
 Carbon storage
 Emissions from land transformation

According to the draft standard on product accounting, fossil and biogenic emissions must be
reported independently. The reporting of the emissions from carbon storage and land
transformation is optional.

5.5.2 Normalization and weighting

Normalization and weighting are not a part of this method.

References
WBCSD & WRI. 2009. Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard. Review Draft for
Stakeholder Advisory Group. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative. November 2009.

5.6 IPCC 2013

IPCC 2013 is an update of the method IPCC 2007 developed by the International Panel on Climate
Change. This method lists the climate change factors of IPCC with a timeframe of 20 and 100
years.

5.6.1 Characterization
IPCC characterization factors for the direct (except CH4) global warming potential of air
emissions. They are:
 not including indirect formation of dinitrogen monoxide from nitrogen emissions.
 not accounting for radiative forcing due to emissions of NOx, water, sulphate, etc. in the
lower stratosphere + upper troposphere.

50
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

 not considering the range of indirect effects given by IPCC.

 not including CO2 formation from CO emissions.

5.6.2 Normalization and weighting

Normalization and weighting are not a part of this method.

References
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2013. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. The Physical
Science Basis. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/.

5.7 Selected LCI results

The selected life cycle inventory indicators are, in most cases, the summation of selected
substances emitted to all different sub-compartments.

5.7.1 Classification
The list of selected LCI indicators is divided in two. The first list contains the common set of
elementary flows shown in the results discussion of the ecoinvent reports. One example is "fossil
CO2 emissions to air". The second list contains additional elementary flows used in at least one
of the ecoinvent reports (Table 4). One example of this extended list is "actinides emitted to
water". These two lists are implemented as two different methods into SimaPro: Selected LCI
results and Selected LCI results, additional.
The selection does not necessarily reflect the environmental importance of the listed pollutants
and resources. The pollutants and resources are selected in view of a better characterization of
the analyzed products and services.
The selection helps practitioners to get a more convenient access to a selection of LCI results of
products and services. It does not replace the use of the complete set of LCI results and the
application of LCIA methods.

Subcategory Name Location Unit Used in ecoinvent report

resource land occupation GLO m2a all

resource water GLO m3 No. 6 VIII

resource carbon, biogenic, fixed GLO kg No. 17

air carbon monoxide GLO kg No. 11 II

air CO2, fossil GLO kg all

air lead GLO kg No. 6 VI

51
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

air methane GLO kg No. 6 IV

air N2O GLO kg No. 6 VI

air nitrogen oxides GLO kg all

air NMVOC GLO kg all

air particulates, <2.5 um GLO kg all

air particulates, >2.5 um and <10 um GLO kg No. 6 VI

air particulates, >10 um GLO kg No. 6 VI

air particulates GLO kg No. 11 II

air sulphur dioxide GLO kg all

air zinc GLO kg No. 6 VI

air, radioactive radon (+ radium) GLO kBq No. 6 VI

air, radioactive noble gas GLO kBq No. 6 VI

air, radioactive aerosol GLO kBq No. 6 VI

air, radioactive actinides GLO kBq No. 6 VI

soil cadmium GLO kg all

water BOD GLO kg all

water,
radioactive radium GLO kBq No. 6 VII

water,
radioactive tritium GLO kBq No. 6 VII

water,
radioactive nuclides GLO kBq No. 6 VII

water,
radioactive actinides GLO kBq No. 6 VII

total oils, unspecified GLO kg No. 6 IV

total heat, waste GLO MJ No. 6 VII

Table 4: List of selected life cycle inventory indicators implemented in ecoinvent data v2.0.

52
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

References
Frischknecht, R.; Jungbluth, N.; Althaus, H.J.; Doka, G.; Dones, R.; Hischier, R.; Hellweg, S.;
Humbert, S.; Margni, M.; Nemecek, T.; Spielmann, M. 2007. Implementation of Life Cycle
Impact Assessment Methods: Data v2.0. ecoinvent report No. 3, Swiss centre for Life Cycle
Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland.

5.8 USEtox 2

The USEtox 2 is a successor of USEtox - an environmental model for characterization of human

and eco-toxicological impacts in Life Cycle Impact Assessment and Comparative Risk Assessment.
It has been developed by a team of researchers from the Task Force on Toxic Impacts (TF LCIA 2)
under the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative (see www.usetox.org). USEtox 2 is designed to
describe the fate, exposure, effects of chemicals and includes both midpoint and endpoint
factors. The model was peer-reviewed and USEtox team continuously maintains and updates the
method. USEtox is officially endorsed by the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative and officially
recommended as assessment method by the European Commission, the European
Commission's Joint Research Centre, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development,
and by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

5.8.1 Characterization
The USEtox model calculates characterization factors for carcinogenic impacts, non-carcinogenic
impacts, and total impacts (Carc + non-carc) for chemical emissions to household indoor air,
industrial indoor air, urban air, rural air, freshwater, sea water, agricultural soil, natural soil and
from human exposure to pesticide residues in food crop consumption. At midpoint level the unit
of the characterization factor for freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity is PAF.m3.day/kgemission and for
human toxicity cases/kgemission. Both are summarized as Comparative Toxic Unit (CTU) to stress
the comparative nature of the characterization factors. Equal weighting between cancer and non-
cancer effects is assumed.

The provided characterization factors have been classified as:

 Recommended
 Interim

Recommended factors are given for substances where the USEtox™ model is considered fully
appropriate and the underlying substance data is of sufficient quality to support a
recommendation. In cases where relatively high uncertainty in addressing fate, exposure and/or
effects of a chemical is expected, the characterization factor is labelled as interim. This
recommendation is given in cases where the substance is a metal or an inorganic chemical, an
organometallic chemical, an amphiphilic chemical (e.g. detergents) or dissociating under
environmental conditions. It is also recommended that aquatic eco-toxicological characterization
factors are specified as interim, if effect factors are based on species toxicity data covering less
than three different trophic levels. This is to ensure a minimum variability of biological responses.

53
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

SimaPro compartments USEtox compartments

50 Em.airU / 50
50/50 urban/rural
Air (unspecified) Em.airR Estimated

Calculate
Em.airU Urban air
Air high. pop. d

Calculate
Em.airR Rural air
Air low. pop. d

Air low. pop., long-term Em.airR Rural air Estimated

stratosphere +
Em.airR Rural air
Air troposphere Estimated

Household indoor
Em.air
Air indoor air

Wate
Em.fr.waterC Freshwater
r (unspecified) Estimated

Wate Calculate
Em.fr.waterC Freshwater
r river d

Wate
Em.fr.waterC Freshwater
r river, long-term Estimated

Wate Calculate
Em.fr.waterC Freshwater
r lake d

Wate Calculate
Em.sea waterC Sea water
r ocean d

Calculate
Em.agr.soilC Agri. Soil
Soil agricultural d

Soil (unspecified) Em.nat.soilC Natural soil Estimated

Calculate
Em.nat.soilC Natural soil
Soil forestry d

Table 5. List of correspondence of SimaPro and USEtox sub-compartments.

Following recommendations of the USEtox developers, the following rules have been followed for
the characterization factors for inorganic emissions:
i. Antimony: average of factors for Antimony (III) and (V);
ii. Arsenic: average of factors for Arsenic (III) and (V);

54
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

iii. Chromium: equals factor for Chromium (III), because Cr (IV) is emitted only in very specific
processes, while for others Cr (III) is a predominant fraction;
iv. Iron: equals factor for Iron (III) as this is the oxidation state that usually occurs in the
environment.

What version should you use?

The version Recommended + interim should be used. The version including only the
Recommended characterization factors is only provided for purposes of sensitivity analysis.

5.8.2 Damage assessment

USEtox 2 includes the mid-to-endpoint factors, making it possible to assess the effects at the
endpoint level. For the impacts on human health the unit is DALY (disability adjusted life years)
and for impact on ecosystems PDF (potentially disappeared fraction of species).

References
USEtox 2.02TM. 2016. Retrieved from www.usetox.org.

55
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

6 Water Footprint

6.1 AWARE
AWARE is a regionalized, water use midpoint indicator representing the relative Available WAter
REmaining per area in a watershed after the demand of humans and aquatic ecosystems has
been met. It assesses the potential of water deprivation, to either humans or ecosystems,
building on the assumption that the less water remaining available per area, the more likely
another user will be deprived. AWARE is the recommended method from WULCA (working group
under the umbrella of UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative) to assess water consumption impact
assessment in LCA.
It is first calculated as the water Availability Minus the Demand (AMD) of humans and aquatic
ecosystems and is relative to the area (m3 m-2 month-1). In a second step, the value is
normalized with the world average result (AMD = 0.0136m3 m-2 month-1) and inverted. The
result represents the relative value in comparison with the average m3 consumed in the world
(the world average is calculated as a consumption-weighted average). The indicator is limited to a
range from 0.1 to 100, with a value of 1 corresponding to the world average, and a value of 10,
for example, representing a region where there is 10 times less available water remaining per
area than the world average.
Implementation of AWARE in SimaPro includes only the generic factors for unknown water usage
and not the factors specific for agricultural and non-agricultural use of water (irrigation/non-
irrigation, these are currently not supported in SimaPro and its inventory data).
Documentation is available from: http://www.wulca-waterlca.org

References
Boulay A.M., Bare J., Benini L., Berger M., Lathuilliere M.J., Manzardo A., Margni M., Motoshita M.,
Núnez M., Pastor A.V., Ridoutt B., Oki T., Worbe S., Pfister S. (2016). The WULCA consensus
characterization model for 108 water scarcity footprints: Assessing impacts of water
consumption based on available water remaining (AWARE). Submitted

6.2 Berger et al 2014, WAVE (Water Scarcity)

This method is based on the publication Berger et al (2014).

The method analyzes the vulnerability of basins to freshwater depletion. Based on local blue
water scarcity, the water depletion index (WDI) denotes the risk that water consumption can lead
to depletion of freshwater resources. Water scarcity is determined by relating annual water
consumption to availability in more than 11 000 basins. Additionally, WDI accounts for the
presence of lakes and aquifers which have been neglected in water scarcity assessments so far.
By setting WDI to the highest value in (semi)arid basins, absolute freshwater shortage is taken
into account in addition to relative scarcity. This avoids mathematical artifacts of previous
indicators which turn zero in deserts if consumption is zero.

56
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

The regional factors are weighted averages based on the freshwater withdrawal by country data
from the Pacific Institute (http://www2.worldwater.org/data.html).

After calculating your results, we recommend you view the 'Checks' tab to see if there are any
significant flows omitted due to the incomplete list of characterization factors for some countries.

References
Markus Berger, Ruud van der Ent, Stephanie Eisner, Vanessa Bach, and Matthias Finkbeiner.
2014. Water Accounting and Vulnerability Evaluation (WAVE): Considering Atmospheric
Evaporation Recycling and the Risk of Freshwater Depletion in Water Footprinting. Environ.
Sci. Technol., 2014, 48 (8), pp 4521–4528.

6.3 Boulay et al 2011 (Human Health)

This method is based on the publication Boulay et al (2011).

The method is an endpoint indicator expressed in DALY and is obtained by modelling each water
user’s loss of functionality. It addresses three different impact pathways:
1) malnutrition from water deprivation for agricultural users,
2) malnutrition from water deprivation for fisheries, and
3) water-related diseases associated with a lack of water for domestic use.

The cause-effect chain modelling is based on hydrological and socio-economic data. The water
scarcity index is used at the midpoint level [Boulay et al 2011 (Water Scarcity)]. The level of
economic development is considered through the adaptation capacity based on gross national
income.
The method contains two different types of human health categories: distribution and marginal.
Distribution effects apply to all types of water consumption. Distribution refers to the impact
assessment in which all users are competing and proportionally affected according to their
distributional share of water use for off-stream users (here, agriculture, fisheries and domestic).
Marginal effects apply to agricultural water consumption. Marginal refers to a modelling choice in
which any additional water use will deprive only one off-stream user (agricultural).
The "HH, marginal" category is comparable with the "HH, agricultural water scarcity" category in
the Motoshita et al 2010 (Human Health) method and the "Human Health" category of the Pfister
et al 2009 (Eco-indicator 99) and Pfister et al 2010 (ReCiPe) methods. Note that the "HH,
distribution" category includes more effects and is NOT complementary to the "HH, marginal"
category.

57
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

The regional factors are weighted averages based on the freshwater withdrawal by country data
from the Pacific Institute (http://www.worldwater.org/data.html).

After calculating your results we recommend you view the 'Checks' tab to see if there are any
significant flows omitted due to the incomplete list of characterization factors for some countries.

References
Boulay, A.M., Bulle, C., Bayart, J.B., Deschenes, L., Margni, M. (2011). Regional Characterization of
Freshwater Use in LCA: Modeling Direct Impacts on Human Health. Environmental Science
& Technology 45: 8948-8957.

6.4 Boulay et al 2011 (Water Scarcity)

This method is based on the publication Boulay et al (2011). This water scarcity indicator (WSI)
method is based on a consumption to availability (CTA) ratio and modelled using a logistic
function (S-curve) in order to fit the resulting indicator to values between 0 and 1 m3
deprived/m3 consumed. The curve is tuned using OECD water stress thresholds, which define
moderate and severe water stress as 20% and 40% of withdrawals, respectively and converted
with an empirical correlation between withdrawal to availability (WTA) and CTA. The scarcity
indicators are also available for surface and groundwater. Water consumption and availability
data are taken from the WaterGap model. The indicator is applied to the consumed water
volume and assesses consumptive water use only.
The regional factors are weighted averages based on the freshwater withdrawal by country data
from the Pacific Institute (http://www.worldwater.org/data.html).
After calculating your results we recommend you view the 'Checks' tab to see if there are any
significant flows omitted due to the incomplete list of characterization factors for some countries.

References
Boulay, A.M., Bulle, C., Bayart, J.B., Deschenes, L., Margni, M. (2011). Regional Characterization of
Freshwater Use in LCA: Modeling Direct Impacts on Human Health. Environmental Science
& Technology 45: 8948-8957.

58
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

6.5 Ecological Scarcity 2006 (Water Scarcity)

This method is taken from http://www.esu-services.ch/projects/ubp06/ (23-May 2008), with
adaptations by PRé as described below. The characterization factors have first been implemented
by ESU-services Ltd. All files are provided without liability. Contact info: http://www.esu-
services.ch/address/
Ecological Scarcity 2006 is a follow up of the Ecological scarcity 1997 method, which is called
Ecopoints 97 (CH) in the SimaPro method library (superseded). The ecoinvent implementation
contains seven specific impact categories, with for each substance a final UBP (environmental
loading points) score as characterization factor. This method only contains the impact category
Natural resources containing only water resources. The complete method can be found in the
European methods category.

6.6 Hoekstra et al 2012 (Water Scarcity)

This method is based on the publication Hoekstra et al (2012). This water scarcity indicator (WSI)
is based on a consumption-to-availability ratio (CTA) calculated as the fraction between
consumed (referred to as blue water footprint) and available water. The latter considers all runoff
water, of which 80% is subtracted to account for environmental water needs. The data is from
Fekete et al. 2002 for water runoff and Mekonnen et al. for water consumption. Results are
available for the main watersheds worldwide but many outlying regions are not covered. The
indicator is applied to the consumed water volume and only assesses consumptive water use.
The regional factors are weighted averages based on the freshwater withdrawal by country data
from the Pacific Institute (http://www.worldwater.org/data.html).
After calculating your results we recommend you view the 'Checks' tab to see if there are any
significant flows omitted due to the incomplete list of characterization factors for some countries.

References
Hoekstra AY, Mekonnen MM, Chapagain AK, Mathews RE, Richter BD (2012) Global Monthly
Water Scarcity: Blue Water Footprints versus Blue Water Availability. PLoS ONE 7(2): e32688.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0032688

6.7 Motoshita et al 2011 (Human Health)

This method is based on the publication Motoshita et al (2011). The method is an endpoint
indicator. It contains two different types of human health categories: one for infectious disease
damage caused by domestic water scarcity and one for malnutrition damage caused by
agricultural water scarcity.
For domestic water scarcity, the method assumes that water resource scarcity caused by water
consumption will lead to a loss of access to safe water. The cause-effect chain modelling is based
on hydrological and socio economic data. The water scarcity index used at the midpoint is Pfister

59
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

et al 2009 (Water Scarcity). The level of economic development is considered through the
parameter house connection to water supply.
The impacts of malnutrition caused by agricultural water deficit are modelled using the same
data source for scarcity and distribution as above, multiplied by a socio-economic parameter
describing the trade effect. This illustrates how food supply shortage in a country will spread to
other countries through international food trade. Countries with low and middle incomes will be
affected by the food shortage. This effect is quantified in DALY by using malnutrition-related
DALYs in the importing countries (DALYs/kcal malnutrition).
The "HH, agricultural water scarcity" category is comparable with the "HH, marginal" category of
Boulay et al 2011 (Human Health) and the "Human Health" category of the Pfister et al 2009 (Eco-
indicator 99) and Pfister et al 2010 (ReCiPe) methods. The "HH, domestic water scarcity" category
is complementary to the "HH, agricultural water scarcity" category.
The method provides country-based characterization factors in the context of both domestic and
agricultural water scarcity, expressed in DALY per m3 of water consumed.
The regional factors are weighted averages based on the freshwater withdrawal by country data
from the Pacific Institute (http://www.worldwater.org/data.html).
After calculating your results we recommend you view the 'Checks' tab to see if there are any
significant flows omitted due to the incomplete list of characterization factors for some countries.

References
Motoshita, M., Itsubo, N., Inaba, A. (2011). Development of impact factors on damage to health by
infectious diseases caused by domestic water scarcity. Int J LCA 16, 65-73.

6.8 Pfister et al 2009 (Eco-indicator 99)

This method is based on the publication Pfister et al (2009). The method is based on the same
endpoint categories as in the Eco-indicator 99 method.
Human health is obtained by modelling the cause-effect chain of water deprivation for
agricultural users (lack of irrigation water) leading to malnutrition. It builds on the midpoint
scarcity indicator [Pfister et al 2009 (Water Scarcity)] and models the cause-effect chain by
multiplying it by:
 the agricultural users’ share of water use from Vorosmarty,
 a socio-economic parameter defined as a human development factor for
malnutrition, which relates the Human Development Index and
 two values independent of location combined in an effect factor that describes the
DALY/m3 of water deprived for agriculture: the per-capita water requirements to
prevent malnutrition (in m3/(yr•capita)) and the damage factor denoting the damage
caused by malnutrition (DALY/(yr•capita)).

Ecosystem quality is obtained by modelling the cause-effect chain of freshwater consumption on

terrestrial ecosystem quality and assessed following the Eco-indicator 99 method, with units of
potentially disappeared fraction of species (PDF). The fraction of net primary productivity (NPP)
60
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

which is limited by water availability represents the water-shortage vulnerability of an ecosystem,

and is used as a proxy for PDF.
Resources is obtained by modelling the cause -effect chain of freshwater consumption on water
resource depletion. The back-up technology concept is used following the Eco-indicator 99
method. The damage to resources resulting from water consumption is calculated by multiplying
the energy demand for desalination by the fraction of water consumption contributing to
freshwater depletion, which is dependent on the withdrawal to availability (WTA) ratio. The unit is
expressed in surplus energy (MJ).
The "Human Health" category is comparable with the "HH, marginal" category in the Boulay et al
2011 (Human Health) method the "HH, agricultural water scarcity" category in the Motoshita et al
2010 (Human Health) method.
The regional factors are weighted averages based on the freshwater withdrawal by country data
from the Pacific Institute (http://www.worldwater.org/data.html).
After calculating your results we recommend you view the 'Checks' tab to see if there are any
significant flows omitted due to the incomplete list of characterization factors for some countries.

References
Pfister, S.; Koehler, A.; Hellweg, S. (2009). Assessing the environmental impacts of freshwater
consumption in LCA. Environmental Science and Technology, 43(11), 4098–4104; DOI:
10.1021/es802423e (download: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es802423e)

6.9 Pfister et al 2009 (Water Scarcity)

This method is based on the publication Pfister et al (2009). This water scarcity indicator (WSI) is
based on a withdrawal to availability (WTA) ratio and modelled using a logistic function (S-curve)
in order to fit the resulting indicator to values between 0.01 and 1 m3 deprived/m3 consumed.
The curve is tuned using OECD water stress thresholds, which define moderate and severe water
stress as 20% and 40% of withdrawals, respectively. Data for water withdrawals and availability
were obtained from the WaterGap model. The indicator is applied to the consumed water
volume and assesses consumptive water use only.
The regional factors are weighted averages based on the freshwater withdrawal by country data
from the Pacific Institute (http://www.worldwater.org/data.html).
After calculating your results we recommend you view the 'Checks' tab to see if there are any
significant flows omitted due to the incomplete list of characterization factors for some countries.

References
Pfister, S.; Koehler, A.; Hellweg, S. (2009). Assessing the environmental impacts of freshwater
consumption in LCA. Environmental Science and Technology, 43(11), 4098–4104; DOI:
10.1021/es802423e (download: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es802423e)

61
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

6.10 Pfister et al 2010 (ReCiPe)

This method is based on the publication Pfister et al (2010). The method is based on the same
endpoint categories as in the ReCiPe method.
Human health is expressed in DALY and is obtained by modelling the cause-effect chain of water
deprivation for agricultural users (lack of irrigation water) leading to malnutrition. The cause-
effect chain modelling is based on hydrological and socioeconomic data. The water scarcity index
is used at the midpoint [Pfister et al 2009 (Water Scarcity)]. The level of economic development is
considered though the parameter Human Development Index.
Ecosystem quality is obtained by modelling the cause-effect chain of freshwater consumption on
terrestrial ecosystem quality and assessed following ReCiPe, with units of disappeared species
per year.
Resources is obtained by modelling the cause-effect chain of freshwater consumption on water
resource depletion following ReCiPe, with units of surplus cost to extract an additional cubic
meter of water.
The "Human Health" category is comparable with the "HH, marginal" category in the Boulay et al
2011 (Human Health) method the "HH, agricultural water scarcity" category in the Motoshita et al
2010 (Human Health) method.
The regional factors are weighted averages based on the freshwater withdrawal by country data
from the Pacific Institute (http://www.worldwater.org/data.html).
After calculating your results we recommend you view the 'Checks' tab to see if there are any
significant flows omitted due to the incomplete list of characterization factors for some countries.

References
Pfister, Stephan; Saner, Dominik; Koehler, Annette (2010). The environmental relevance of
freshwater consumption in global power production. The International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment 2011, 16, 580-591.

62
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

7 Superseded

Superseded methods

This section includes methods which have been updated or replaced by a newer version. We
recommend therefore not using these but instead the methods presented in previous
sections.

7.1 CML 1992

This classification method is based on the method published by CML of the University of Leiden
in October 19921.
PRé has modified the method: the depletion and energy classes were separated and the classes
for smell and biotic exhaustion were excluded.
This v2 version is adapted for SimaPro 8. All characterization factors in this method are entered
for the 'unspecified' sub-compartment of each compartment (Raw materials, air, water, soil) and
thus applicable on all sub-compartments.
This method is NOT fully adapted for inventory data from the Ecoinvent library and the USA Input
Output Database 98, and therefore omits emissions that could have been included in impact
assessment.

7.1.1 Characterization
Grouped substances or sum parameters have been defined in a number of classes. This has
been done because the emissions are not always specified separately in the data sources for the
processes concerned. Emissions are often specified under a collective name, e.g. aromatic
hydrocarbons. Since the different substances within such a group can have considerable
variation in their environmental impact, the resulting effect score may not be completely reliable.
The main classes are: 1. Exhaustion of raw materials and energy, and 2. Pollution.

1. Exhaustion of raw materials and energy

Abiotic
This term refers to energy sources and a number of scarce metals. In the CML 92 method, all the
energy sources were grouped into a separate class called Energy.

1
R. Heijungs et al, Environmental life cycle assessment of products, Guide, October 1992 CML, Leiden, The Netherlands, NOH
report 9266.

63
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

The effect score for exhaustion is calculated on the following basis:

Exhaustion = (amount consumed (kg) x {1/resources (kg)}) 2

Biotic
This category is intended for rare animals and plants. This score is as yet very rudimentary and
has therefore not been used.

2. Pollution

Greenhouse effect
The Global Warming Potential (GWP) is the potential contribution of a substance to the
greenhouse effect. This value has been calculated for a number of substances over periods of 20,
100 and 500 years because it is clear that certain substances gradually decompose and will
become inactive in the long run. For the CML 92 method, we have taken the GWP over a 100-year
period because this is the most common choice.
We have added values for CFC (hard) and for CFC (soft) to the CML (1992) method, since it is not
always known which CFC is released. The GWP for this category of substances has been equated
to that of CFCs frequently used in industrial mass and series production; for CFC (hard) this is the
value for CFC-12, and for CFC (soft) it is the value for HCFC-22.
The effect score for the greenhouse effect is calculated per substance as follows:
Greenhouse effect (kg) = (GWP 100 x airborne emission (kg)) 3

Ozone layer depletion

Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP) values have been established mainly for hydrocarbons
containing combined bromine, fluorine and chlorine, or CFCs. Here too, one of the substances
(CFC-11) has been adopted as a reference. As for the greenhouse effect, we have added values
for CFC (hard) and CFC (soft). The ODP equivalents for these groups are again those of CFC-12
and HCFC-22 respectively.
The effect score for ozone layer depletion is calculated as follows:
Ozone layer depletion (kg) = (ODP x airborne emission (kg)) 4

Human toxicity
Criticism of the use of MAC values in the CML 1990 method led to the development of a fairly
long list of substances that are poisonous to human beings. A notable feature is that human

2
World Institute, World Resources 1990-1991, Oxford University Press, New York/Oxford.
3
Houghton, Callender & Varney, Climate Change 1992. The supplementary report to the IPCC scientific assessment,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1992.
4
World Meteorological Organization, Scientific assessment of ozone depletion 1991, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring
Project - Report no. 25, 1991.

64
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

toxicity combines a score for emissions to air, water and soil. The following values have been
established for most substances:
 Human-toxicological classification value for air (HCA)
 Human-toxicological classification value for water (HCW)
 Human-toxicological classification values for soil (HCS).

We have not included soil emissions in this because the program does not have an impact
category for substances emitted to soil. The number of characterization factors from soil is very
limited. Moreover, it may be assumed that emissions that initially enter the soil will ultimately
appear in the groundwater and hence can be dealt with as emissions to water.
We have added a number of values for groups to this class: metallic ions and various groups of
hydrocarbons. Metallic ions have been given a value equal to that of iron. The values of the
hydrocarbons are given in Table 6. An equivalent has also been selected for most other values
that were not defined; e.g. for chlorine, the equivalent value of bromine has been used.

equivalents

Substances human toxicity human toxicity ecotoxicity smog

air water water air

CxHy isopropanol isopropanol crude oil aliphatics

average

CxHy aliphatic isopropanol isopropanol crude oil aliphatics

average

CxHy benzene benzene benzene aromatics

aromatic average

CxHy chloro 1,2, 1,2, 1,2, average

dichloroethane dichloroethane dichloroethan chlorinated org.
e compounds

PAH benzo(a)pyrene benzo(a)pyrene benzo(a)pyren aromatics

e average

Table 6: Substances from which HCA/HCW, ECA and POCP values for hydrocarbons are taken.
The human toxicity effect score is calculated as follows:
Human toxicity (kg) = (HCA (kg.kg-1) x emission to air (kg) +
HCW (kg.kg-1) x emission to water (kg)) 5

5
Vermeire, T.G et al., Voorstel voor de humaan-toxicologische onderbouwing van C - (toetsings)waarden [Proposal for the
human-toxicological basis of test values], RIVM, Bilthoven, The Netherlands, 1991.

65
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

Ecotoxicity
Substances in this class are given values for toxicity to flora and fauna. The main substances are
heavy metals. Values have been established for emissions to water and to soil, i.e.:
 Aquatic ecotoxicity (ECA)
 Terrestrial ecotoxicity (ECT)

Only the ECA values have been included in the CML 92 method because emissions to soil
eventually appear in the groundwater and are thus already covered.
We have added a number of values for groups of hydrocarbons to this class. Values for the
hydrocarbons are shown in Table 6. An equivalent has been selected for most other values
that were not defined. The effect score for ecotoxicity is calculated as follows:
Ecotoxicity (m³) = (ECA (m³. kg-1) x waterborne emission (kg))6

Smog
The photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP) indicates the potential capacity of a volatile
organic substance to produce ozone. Values have been published for a wide range of volatile
organic substances. The value for ethene has been set at 1. The values for most other substances
are less than this. The POCP of these sum-parameters such as alcohols, ketones, aldehydes and
various groups of hydrocarbons groups is the average of all the relevant substances in the CML
(1992) list. The values for the hydrocarbon groups are given in Table 6. NOx is omitted in
the CML 92 methodThe effect score for smog is calculated as follows:
Smog (kg) = (POCP x airborne emission (kg))7

Acidification
The Acidification Potential (AP) is expressed relative to the acidifying effect of SO2. Other known
acidifying substances are nitrogen oxides and ammonia. SOx has been added, with the same
value as SO2.
Acidification effect scores are calculated as follows:
Acidification (kg) = (AP x airborne emission (kg))

Note that the results of the acidification classes from CML (1990) and CML (1992) are not
calculated in the same way.

6
Slooff, W., Maximum tolerable concentrations, eco-toxicological effect assessment, RIVM no. 719102018, Bilthoven, The
Netherlands.
7
Protocol to the convention on long-range transboundary air pollution concerning the control of emissions of volatile
organic compounds or their transboundary fluxes, United Nations - Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), Geneva,
Switzerland, 1991.

66
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

Eutrophication
The Nutrification Potential (NP) is set at 1 for phosphate (PO4). Other emissions also influence
eutrophication, notably nitrogen oxides and ammonium.
The eutrophication effect score is calculated as follows:
Eutrophication (kg) = (NP x airborne emission (kg))

Odour
Weighting factors for stench have been developed, although their use is unusual in LCAs. In
these, ammonia is given the value 1.
This class is not included in the CML 92 method because it is a highly localized environmental
effect, and the degree of stench nuisance depends largely on local circumstances.

Solids
This class is not included in the original CML 1992 classification. We have added the solids class to
the method because solid emissions form an important environmental problem in their own
right. The weight of the waste emission is used for calculation, and no weighting factors are
involved.
Solids (kg) = (solid emission output (kg))

7.1.2 Normalization
The first and probably most widely used normalization set was published in 1993 by Guinée from
the CML. This set was compiled by extrapolating 1988 data from the Dutch Emission Registration.
Most of the data was simply multiplied by a factor 100, to extrapolate them to the world level, as
The Netherlands contribute about 1% to the Gross National Product figures in the World. An
exception was made for greenhouse and ozone depleting emissions. These were taken directly
from IPCC. The figures are supposed to reflect the world emissions. In order to make the figures
more manageable, we have divided them by the world population of 6.000.000.000. A very recent
project executed by IVAM-ER, NWS (University of Utrecht) and PRé, under commission from
VROM and RIZA, in the Netherlands has resulted in three new sets of normalization figures. They
are for a large part based on the Emission registration (base year 1994), and several other
sources. The results of this project have been peer reviewed by Guinée.
The normalization levels are:
 Dutch territory. All emissions registered emitted within the Netherlands and all raw
materials consumed by the Dutch economy.
 Dutch consumer. The effect of imports have been added, the effects of exports have
been subtracted. The calculation was performed using the Dutch input-output matrix.
 European territory (EC, Switzerland, Austria and Norway). Most data are from original
European data. In some cases data was extrapolated from Dutch and Swiss data. The
energy consumption within a region was taken as a basis for extrapolation.

67
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

7.1.3 Evaluation
Although several organizations have developed evaluation factors using panel methods, there is
no generally recognized method to evaluate the results obtained with the CML method.

7.2 Eco-indicator 95
Eco-indicator 95 is adapted for SimaPro 8. All characterization factors in this method are entered
for the 'unspecified' sub-compartment of each compartment (Raw materials, air, water, soil) and
thus applicable on all sub-compartments.
This method is NOT fully adapted for inventory data from the Ecoinvent library and the USA Input
Output Database 98, and therefore omits emissions that could have been included in impact
assessment.
Due to continual adjustments of the method and/or inventory data sets the Eco-indicator 95 in
SimaPro 8 will not give the same result as the original printed version.

7.2.1 Characterization
The only difference between the characterizations in the SimaPro 2 CML and SimaPro 3 Eco-
indicator 95 methods is in the ecotoxicity and human toxicity effect definition. Both toxicity
scores have been replaced by:
 Summer smog (already available in the SimaPro 2 CML method)
 Winter smog
 Carcinogens
 Heavy metals to air and water
 Pesticides

The characterization values are based on the following data:

Effect score of persistent toxic substances in air and water

This effect score relates in particular to heavy metals because long-term exposure at low levels
brings clear health risks. The risks relate particularly to the nervous system and the liver and can
be assessed for toxicity to both human beings and ecosystems. It is assumed in general (Globe,
Air Quality Guidelines) that human toxicity is the most important limiting factor. The Air Quality
Guidelines specify the following admissible air concentrations for annual exposure to humans
(Table 7).

68
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

Maximum Weightin Main health effect

concentration g factor
(µg/m³)

Cadmium 0.02 50 Kidneys

Lead 1 1 Blood biosynthesis, nervous system and blood

pressure

Manganese 7 0.14 Lungs and nervous system (shortage cause skin

complaints)

Mercury 1 1 Brain: sensory and co-ordination functions

Table 7: Air Quality Guidelines admissible air concentrations for annual exposure to humans

Chromium and nickel are regarded as carcinogens because the risk of cancer is greater than the
toxicological effect. Based on this concentration a weighting factor can be determined which is
equal to the inverse of the admissible concentration. This agrees with the critical volume
approximation that used to be applied with the MAC value. We have expressed the effect score
as a lead equivalent.
The WHO 'Quality guidelines for drinking water' specify a number of values for persistent
substances based on long-term, low-level exposure. These criteria have been drawn up to
evaluate drinking water, based on established health effects. In table 8, a selection of substances
that are persistent to a greater or lesser extent and that therefore accumulate in the
environment.

69
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

Substance Norm Weighting Effect

(mg/liter) factor

Antimony 0.005 2 Glucose and cholesterol content of blood

Arsenic 0.01 1 Probability of skin cancer 6*10-4

Barium 0.07 0.14 Blood pressure and blood vessels

Boron 0.3 0.03 Fertility

Cadmium 0.003 3 Kidneys

Chromium (all) 0.05 0.2 Heredity (carcinogenity only applicable in event of inhalation)

Copper 2 0.005 Generally no problems, sometimes liver abnormalities

Lead 0.01 1 Blood biosynthesis, nervous system and blood pressure

Manganese 0.5 0.02 Nervous system

Mercury 0.001 10 Kidneys, nervous system (methyl mercury)

Molybdenum 0.07 0.14 No clear description

Nickel 0.02 0.5 Weight loss, great uncertainty

Table 8: WHO based substances that are persistent

With this effect score the weighting factor is determined in order to be able to calculate the lead
equivalent. SimaPro merges the scores for water and air. This is possible because they are both
expressed as a lead equivalent and because the target reductions for air and water are the same.
We have combined the two scores for heavy metals. This was possible since they are both
expressed as a lead equivalent and since the weighting factors are identical.

Heavy metal to air (kg lead eq.) = (AQG (lead)/AQG (substance) * emission)
Heavy metal to water (kg lead eq.) = (GDWQ (lead)/GDWQ (substance)* emission)

Carcinogenic substances
The 'Air Quality Guidelines' do not specify acceptable levels, but calculate the probability of
cancer at a level of 1 µg/m³. In Table 9 this probability is expressed as the number of people from
a group of 1 million who will develop cancer with the stated exposure.

70
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

Probability of Weighting factor Type of cancer

cancer at for PAH
1 µg/m³ equivalent

Arsenic 0.004 0.044 General, also mutagenic effects

Benzene 0.000001 1.1 * 10-5 Leukemia

Nickel 0.04 0.44 Lung and larynx

Chromium (VI) 0.04 0.44 Lung, among others, and mutagenic

effects

PAHs 0.09 1 Lung cancer but also other types of

(benzo(a)pyrene) cancer

Table 9: Number of people from a group of 1 million who will develop cancer with the stated
exposure.

It is worth considering whether to include asbestos in this list. The difficulty with this is that
asbestos emissions cannot be expressed meaningfully in a unit of weight. The number and type
of fibers is the determining factor.
It is not entirely clear whether these numbers can be used directly as a weighting factor in order
to calculate, for example, a PAH equivalent. This is because it is not known exactly whether a
linear correlation may be assumed between probability and exposure. At present we assume
that this is so.
Heavy metal to air (kg lead eq.) = (AQG (lead)/AQG (substance))

Winter smog
Only dust (SPM) and SO2 are factors in this problem. For both substances the 'Air Quality
Guidelines' specify a level of 50 µg/m³. The weighting factors are thus both 1.
Winter smog (SO2 or SPM eq.) = SO2 emission + SPM emission

Pesticides
The Globe report describes pesticides as a problem for two reasons:
 Groundwater becomes too toxic for human consumption.
 Biological activity in the soil is impaired, as a result of which vegetation is damaged.

This means that account must be taken in the effect score weighting of both ecotoxicity (soil) and
human toxicity (water). The target reduction is based on human toxicity. Globe distinguishes
between
 disinfectants
 fungicides

71
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

 herbicides
 insecticides

Within these groups all the different sorts are listed, based on their active ingredient content. We
propose also doing this for this effect score and shall also list the various mutual categories.
Pesticides (kg) = (active ingredients)

7.2.2 Normalization
The normalization values are based on average European (excluding the former USSR) data from
different sources. The reference year is 1990. In many cases we had to extrapolate data from one
or more individual countries to the European level. As an extrapolation basis we used the energy
consumption of the countries. In order to make the figures more manageable we divided the
figures by the population of Europe: 497,000,000.

7.2.3 Evaluation
In the SimaPro 3 and the ecopoints methods the distance-to-target principle is used to calculate
evaluation values. The basic assumption is that the seriousness of an impact can be judged by
the difference between the current and a target level.
In the SimaPro 3 method the target is derived from real environmental data for Europe
(excluding the former USSR), compiled by the RIVM. In the text below this report is referred to as
Globe (The Environment in Europe: A Global Perspective).
The targets are set according to the following criteria:
 At target level the effect will cause 1 excess death per million per year
 At target level the effect will disrupt fewer than 5% of the ecosystems in Europe
 At target level the occurrence of smog periods is extremely unlikely

Greenhouse effect
At present, temperatures are rising by 0.2% every ten years. Under the current policy this rate will
increase to 0.3% every ten years. The consequence will be a large temperature change by 2050.
In Northern and Eastern Europe the winters will be more than 5°C warmer, and in Southern
Europe the summers will be 4°C warmer. Areas in particular that have no other systems in their
vicinity that can exist in such climatic conditions will suffer serious damage. This will affect
approximately 20% of Europe.
The Globe report indicates that fewer than 5% of the ecosystems will be impaired if the
greenhouse effect is reduced by a factor of 2.5.

72
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

Ozone layer depletion

In accordance with the Montreal Protocol and its London amendment all CFC emissions must be
reduced to zero. For the less persistent HCFCs it has been agreed that the contribution to the
effect in 1989 may not exceed 2.6% of the total adverse effect of CFCs. After this, the use of these
substances too is to be reduced gradually by 2015.
If that happens the annual total of fatalities per million inhabitants in Europe will first rise from
approximately 1 to 2 and then fall to 1 death per year per million inhabitants. It does not yet
seem directly necessary to reduce all HCFC emissions to zero because the norm (2 ppbv) is going
to be achieved, even if after 2100. For these gases the target reduction is linked to the
greenhouse effect8.
Based on this reduction for greenhouse gases, we therefore assume, for the moment, that the
target reduction for HCFCs is of the order of 60%. Based on the premise that the HCFCs presently
cause 2.6% of ozone layer depletion it can be estimated that this reduction will cause ozone layer
depletion to fall to 1% of its present level. The reduction factor is thus 100. There is a great deal
of uncertainty about this figure.

Acidification
There is a great variety in Europe in the ability of ecosystems to withstand acidification. In
Scandinavia, for example, problems can occur with deposits of 100 eq/ha.yr, while in some places
in the Netherlands and Germany the soil can withstand a deposit of more than 2000 eq/ha.yr.
Actual deposition appears to reach its highest level in Central Europe, particularly as a result of
the use of lignite.
If the deposition and ability to withstand acidification are combined with each other, it seems
that major problems are occurring particularly in England, the Benelux countries, Germany,
Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
A provisional estimate based on the RAINS computer model shows that the reduction must be of
the order of a factor of 10 to 20 to keep damage to the ecosystem below 5%.

Eutrophication
Eutrophication is seen in the Globe report particularly as the problem of excessive use of
fertilizers by agriculture, as a result of which nitrates leach out and poison groundwater supplies.
The problem is at its greatest in the Benelux countries, North-Rhine Westphalia (Germany) and
Italy's Po valley plain (approx. 200 kg/ha).
In the CML classification Eutrophication refers mainly to air and water emissions. These rarely
contribute more than 10% of the amount of fertilizer applied by farmers. In uncultivated
biotopes, however, that are low in nutrients this eutrophication can have a serious adverse effect
on biodiversity.
In describing the level of eutrophication in rivers and lakes it is estimated that the critical value
for phosphates is 0.15 mg/l and for nitrates 2.2 mg/l. At these levels there are no problems with

8
By contrast, the elimination of CFCs will also result in a significant reduction in the greenhouse effect. CFCs are
responsible for 24% of this effect. Eliminating the CFCs will therefore yield a 24% reduction in the greenhouse effect.

73
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

eutrophication. In the rivers Rhine, Schelde, Elbe, Mersey and Ebro, however, these figures have
been exceeded more than 5 times. This means that the emissions must be reduced by a factor 5.

Summer smog
A hundred years ago the ozone concentration averaged over the whole year was approximately
10 ppb. At present it is 25 ppb. This is approximately the maximum acceptable level; above 30
ppb, for example, crop damage can occur.
The major problem is not determined by the average figures but by the summer peaks which can
reach more than 300 ppb. To reduce this type of dangerous peak by 90% it is necessary to reduce
VOCs and NOx by 60 to 70%.

Heavy metals
In Central Europe lead concentrations are very high, particularly in the soil and water. The air
concentration is also high in towns and cities, particularly because of the use of leaded petrol. For
adults the Air Quality Guideline specifies a limit in the air of 0.5 to 1 µg/m³. According to Globe
this value is often exceeded by a number of times. Globe notes in passing (and without backing it
up) that average lead concentrations in Poland are 20 µg/m³.
Eating locally grown vegetables would result in a blood lead level that is ten times too high. Lead
levels in children’s blood of 150 to 400 µg/l have been found. Such readings also occurred in the
West 30 years ago, but not anymore. The figures are five to ten times lower now. There is thought
not to be a no-effect-level for exposure for children. Above 100 µg/l clear reductions in learning
ability can be measured.
Thus although it is plausible that this pollution has a clearly measurable effect on human health,
it is not easy to calculate a general reduction percentage for lead. The best estimate is a
reduction by a factor of 5 to 10. We have taken a figure of 5 for heavy metal emissions to air.
Agriculture (fertilizer) is the major source of cadmium deposition. The average deposition rate is
0.6 to 0.67 g/ha on grassland and 3.4 to 6.8 g/ha for arable land. The Southern Netherlands holds
the record with a deposition rate of 7.5 to 8.5 g/ha. Furthermore, approximately 14% is
distributed via the air (see winter smog).
This leaching is calculated in the Globe report for the Rhine. A detailed calculation makes a
convincing case for the necessity to reduce cadmium emissions by 80 to 85%. In some other
rivers such as the Elbe cadmium contamination is substantially greater, and the required target
will perhaps have to be set even higher. For the moment we are continuing with a target
reduction of a factor of 5 for heavy metals in water.

Winter smog
The most important sources of this problem which occurs mainly in Eastern Europe are SO2 and
SPM (suspended particle matter, or small dust and soot particles). NOx, organic substances and
CO are also involved to a lesser extent. The dust particles can also contain heavy metals.
This form of smog achieved notoriety in 1952 when it caused an estimated 4000 deaths in
London. The SO2 and SPM concentrations reached values of 5000 micrograms per cubic meter.
In Southern Poland and Eastern Germany average readings of 200µg/m³ still occur repeatedly.

74
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

The Air Quality Guidelines specify a limit of 50µg/m³ for long-term exposure to both SPM and
SO2. Based on this, a reduction of 75% would be necessary.
Globe estimates that a reduction in SO2 emissions of more than 80% is necessary to eliminate by
and large the occurrence of occasional smog periods. No target is proposed for SPM because it is
not well a defined or well measured9 pollutant.
We are continuing to use a factor of 5 as a target.

Carcinogenic substances
Globe also provides some data on the distribution of carcinogenic substances. The main
substances involved are polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), of which benzo[a]pyrene in
particular is an important example. This occurs, among other places, in coke furnaces and in
(diesel) motors. In fact, the problem is only relevant in urban areas.
Globe specifies a value of 0.8 to 5 ng/m³ for Northern European towns and cities. The Air Quality
Guideline specifies a value of 1 ng/m³ in American cities without coke furnaces in the vicinity and
1 to 5 ng/m³ in cities with coke furnaces. In European towns and cities in the 60s, when open coal
fires were still very much in use, the average concentrations were in excess of 100 ng/m³. In
Eastern Europe the values are still high because of the use of coal-fired heating systems. As a
point of comparison, a room in which a lot of smoking takes place can contain 20 ng/m³.
The Air Quality Guideline specifies a threshold concentration of 0.01 ng/m³ at which 1 cancer case
per million inhabitants per year will still occur. This criterion cannot be compared
straightforwardly with the criterion for ozone layer depletion because not all the cancer cases are
terminal. In addition, only about 1/3 of the population of Europe lives in towns or cities10. If we
assume that one in every three cancer cases is terminal and if we only take the urban population
the risk of death is about ten times lower. Based on this, there would be one death per million
inhabitants per year at a concentration of 0.1 ng/m³.
Based on a background concentration of 1 ng/m³ in towns and cities without coke furnaces (West
European towns and cities in particular) a reduction by a factor of 10 could be estimated.

Pesticides
Leaching of pesticides threatens groundwater sources throughout the EU. The groundwater is
contaminated in 65% of the EU above the EU norm (0.5 µg/liter). The norm is exceeded tenfold in
25% of the EU. This occurs in 20% of the land area of Eastern Europe. A reduction by a factor of
25 is necessary to ensure that the norm is exceeded in less than 10% of Europe.

Exhaustion of raw materials and solid waste

We have not defined any percentage reductions for exhaust of raw materials. There are two
reasons for this:

9
A major shortcoming of the CML classification system is the lack of a weighting factor for particulate matter in
calculating human toxicity. According to the Globe report, SPM is one of the most injurious substances to health.
10
Eurostat, estimate based on data for 6 EU member states

75
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

No people die and no ecosystems are impaired as a result of the depletion of raw materials. It
mainly causes economic and social problems.
Exhaustion is difficult to quantify because there are alternatives for most materials. For example,
copper has already been replaced on a very wide scale by glass-fiber (communications) and
aluminum (electricity-conducting medium). There are also good prospects for substituting
materials in energy generation if the market is prepared to pay more for energy. In fact, the
problem with energy is not the depletion of fossil fuels but the environmental impacts of
combustion. Explicit account is taken of these in the indicator. In other words, you need not think
that all the oil reserves that are presently known have actually been used. That would be an
environmental disaster.
We have not defined any percentage reduction for waste. A similar reason applies to waste as to
energy. No people die and only very small sections of ecosystems are threatened by the use of
space for waste (apart from litter or fly-tipped waste). Emissions from incineration, the
decomposition of waste and the leaching of, for example, heavy metals are major problems.
These emissions are properly specified in a good LCA. Waste is thus included in similar fashion,
but it is assessed in terms of its emissions.
We do not have any score for ecotoxicity and human toxicity, as is usually the case. Instead we
have a score for carcinogenic substances, heavy metals, winter smog and pesticides. The reason
for this is that we could not find any reduction target for such a vague concept. We therefore
opted to specify the term "toxicity" in individual problems.
As a result of these changes, the Eco-indicator can be viewed as an indicator for emissions, and
raw materials exhaustion and the use of space for waste must be assessed individually for the
moment. Despite this limitation we feel that the indicator is a powerful tool. Emissions will be our
greatest concern if we wish to protect health and ecosystems.

7.2.4 Summary of weighting factors

Table 10 summarizes the values and the criteria used in determining them. The choice of these
criteria is very important because there is a direct correlation with the reduction factors. If 5%
ecosystem damage is compared with ten deaths per year rather than one, then all reduction
factors based on the number of deaths criterion will fall by a factor of ten, assuming there is a
linear correlation between an effect and the number of deaths.

Table 10 gives you an opportunity to calculate other weightings for yourself if you wish to use
different criteria.

76
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

Characterization Reduction Criterion

factor

Greenhouse CML (IPCC) 2.5 0.1° per decade, 95th percentile?

Ozone layer CML (IPCC) 100 Probability of 1 death per year per million inhabitants

Acidification CML 10 95th percentile

Eutrophication CML 5 Rivers and lakes damage to an unknown number of

aquatic ecosystems? (95th percentile?)

Summer smog CML 2.5 Prevent smog periods, health complaints, particularly
amongst asthma patients and the elderly

Winter smog Air Quality Guidelines 5 Prevent smog periods, health complaints, particularly
amongst asthma patients and the elderly

Pesticide Active ingredient 25 95th percentile ecosystems

Heavy metals in Air Quality Guidelines 5 Lead content in blood of children, limited life
air expectancy and learning performance in an unknown
number of people

Heavy metals in Quality Guidelines for 5 Cadmium content in rivers, ultimately also has an
water water effect on people (see air)

Carcinogenic Air Quality Guidelines 10 Probability of 1 death per year per million inhabitants
substances

Table 10: Background weighting factors.

7.3 Eco-indicator 99
Eco-indicator 99 is the successor of Eco-indicator 95. Both methods use the damage-oriented
approach. The development of the Eco-indicator 99 methodology started with the design of the
weighting procedure. Traditionally in LCA the emissions and resource extractions are expressed
as 10 or more different impact categories, like acidification, ozone layer depletion, ecotoxicity and
resource extraction. For a panel of experts or non-experts it is very difficult to give meaningful
weighting factors for such a large number and rather abstract impact categories. It was
concluded that the panel should not be asked to weight the impact categories but the different
types of damage that are caused by these impact categories. The other improvement was to limit
the number of items that are to be assessed. As a result the panel, consisting of 365 persons
from a Swiss LCA interest group, was asked to assess the seriousness of three damage
categories:
1. Damage to Human Health, expressed as the number of year life lost and the number
of years lived disabled. These are combined as Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs),
an index that is also used by the World bank and WHO.

77
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

2. Damage to Ecosystem Quality, express as the loss of species over an certain area,
during a certain time
3. Damage to Resources, expressed as the surplus energy needed for future extractions
of minerals and fossil fuels.

In order to be able to use the weights for the three damage categories a series of complex
damage models had to be developed. In Figure 4 these models are represented in a schematic
way.
Extraction of Damage to
minerals and Concentration of ores Surplus energy at future extraction
resources [MJ
Mining fossil fuels Availability of fossil fuels surplus energy]
Surplus energy at future extraction

Converter Land-use and

Decrease of natural area's Regional effect on species numbers
land conversion
Damage to
Milling Local effect on species numbers
ecosystems [%

Indicator
NOx Altered pH.+nutrient Effect on Target species plant species
SOx availability. *m2 *yr]
Pressing NH3 Concentration in soil Ecotoxicity: toxic stress (PAF)
Pesticides
Heavy metals Concentration of greenhouse gas Climate change (disease + displacement)
Transport CO2
Concentration ozone depl. Damage to
HCFC Ozonlayer depletion (cancer + cataract)
subst. Human health
Nuclides (Bq) [disability
Disposal Concentration radionuclides Radiation effects (cancer)
SPM adjusted life
VOC’s Concentration fine dust, VOC . Respiratory effects years (DALY)]
PAH’s
Concentr. air, water and food Cancer

Invetory analysis Resource analysis Exposure and Damage analysis Normalisation

Land-use analysis effect analysis and Weighting
Fate analysis

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Figure 5: Detailed representation of the damage model

In general, the factors used in SimaPro do not deviate from the ones in the (updated) report. In
case the report contained synonyms of substance names already available in the substance list of
the SimaPro database, the existing names in the database are used. A distinction is made for
emissions to agricultural soil and industrial soil, indicated with respectively (agr.) or (ind.) behind
substance names emitted to soil.

7.3.1 Characterization
Emissions
Characterization is factors are calculated at end-point level (damage). The damage model for
emissions includes fate analysis, exposure, effects analysis and damage analysis.
This model is applied for the following impact categories:
Carcinogens
Carcinogenic affects due to emissions of carcinogenic substances to air, water and soil. Damage
is expressed in Disability adjusted Life Years (DALY) / kg emission.

78
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

Respiratory organics
Respiratory effects resulting from summer smog, due to emissions of organic substances to air,
causing respiratory effects. Damage is expressed in Disability adjusted Life Years (DALY) / kg
emission.
Respiratory inorganics
Respiratory effects resulting from winter smog caused by emissions of dust, sulphur and nitrogen
oxides to air. Damage is expressed in Disability adjusted Life Years (DALY) / kg emission.
Climate change
Damage, expressed in DALY/kg emission, resulting from an increase of diseases and death
caused by climate change.
Radiation
Damage, expressed in DALY/kg emission, resulting from radioactive radiation
Ozone layer
Damage, expressed in DALY/kg emission, due to increased UV radiation as a result of emission of
ozone depleting substances to air.
Ecotoxicity
Damage to ecosystem quality, as a result of emission of ecotoxic substances to air, water and
soil. Damage is expressed in Potentially Affected Fraction (PAF)*m2*year/kg emission.
Acidification/ Eutrophication
Damage to ecosystem quality, as a result of emission of acidifying substances to air. Damage is
expressed in Potentially Disappeared Fraction (PDF)* m2*year/kg emission.

Land use
Land use (in manmade systems) has impact on species diversity. Based on field observations, a
scale is developed expressing species diversity per type of land use. Species diversity depends on
the type of land use and the size of the area. Both regional effects and local effects are taken into
account in the impact category:
Damage as a result of either conversion of land or occupation of land. Damage is expressed in
Potentially Disappeared Fraction (PDF)* m2*year/ m2 or m2a.

Resource depletion
Mankind will always extract the best resources first, leaving the lower quality resources for future
extraction. The damage of resources will be experienced by future generations, as they will have
to use more effort to extract remaining resources. This extra effort is expressed as “surplus
energy”.
Minerals
Surplus energy per kg mineral or ore, as a result of decreasing ore grades.
Fossil fuels
Surplus energy per extracted MJ, kg or m3 fossil fuel, as a result of lower quality resources.

79
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

7.3.2 Uncertainties
Of course it is very important to pay attention to the uncertainties in the methodology that is
used to calculate the indicators. Two types are distinguished:
1. Uncertainties about the correctness of the models used
2. Data uncertainties
Data uncertainties are specified for most damage factors as squared geometric standard
deviation in the original reports, but not in the method in SimaPro. It is not useful to express the
uncertainties of the model as a distribution. Uncertainties about the model are related to
subjective choices in the model. In order to deal with them we developed three different versions
of the methodology, using the archetypes specified in Cultural Theory. The three versions of Eco-
indicator 99 are:
1. the egalitarian perspective
2. the hierarchist perspective
3. the individualist perspective

Hierarchist perspective
In the hierarchist perspective the chosen time perspective is long-term, substances are included
if there is consensus regarding their effect. For instance all carcinogenic substances in IARC class
1, 2a and 2b are included, while class 3 has deliberately been excluded. In the hierarchist
perspective damages are assumed to be avoidable by good management. For instance the
danger people have to flee from rising water levels is not included. In the case of fossil fuels the
assumption is made that fossil fuels cannot easily be substituted. Oil and gas are to be replaced
by shale, while coal is replaced by brown coal. In the DALY calculations age weighting is not
included.

Egalitarian perspective
In the egalitarian perspective the chosen time perspective is extremely long-term, Substances are
included if there is just an indication regarding their effect. For instance all carcinogenic
substances in IARC class 1, 2a, 2b and 3 are included, as far as information was available. In the
egalitarian perspective, damages cannot be avoided and may lead to catastrophic events. In the
case of fossil fuels the assumption is made that fossil fuels cannot be substituted. Oil, coal and
gas are to be replaced by a future mix of brown coal and shale. In the DALY calculations age
weighting is not included.

Individualist perspective
In the individualist perspective the chosen time perspective is short-term (100 years or less).
Substances are included if there is complete proof regarding their effect. For instance only
carcinogenic substances in IARC class 1 included, while class 2a, 2b and 3 have deliberately been
excluded. In the individualist perspective damages are assumed to be recoverable by
technological and economic development. In the case of fossil fuels the assumption is made that
fossil fuels cannot really be depleted. Therefore they are left out. In the DALY calculations age
weighting is included.

80
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

7.3.3 Damage assessment

Damages of the impact categories result in three types of damages:
1. Damage to Human Health, expressed as the number of year life lost and the number
of years lived disabled. These are combined as Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs),
an index that is also used by the World Bank and the WHO.
2. Damage to Ecosystem Quality, express as the loss of species over an certain area,
during a certain time
3. Damage to Resources, expressed as the surplus energy needed for future extractions
of minerals and fossil fuels.

7.3.4 Normalization
Normalization is performed on damage category level. Normalization data is calculated on
European level, mostly based on 1993 as base years, with some updates for the most important
emissions.

7.3.5 Weighting
In this method weighting is performed at damage category level (endpoint level in ISO). A panel
performed weighting of the three damage categories. For each perspective, a specific weighting
set is available. The average result of the panel assessment is available as weighting set.
The hierarchist version of Eco-indicator 99 with average weighting is chosen as default. In
general, value choices made in the hierarchist version are scientifically and politically accepted.

7.4 Ecological Footprint

The ecological footprint is defined as the biologically productive land and water a population
requires to produce the resources it consumes and to absorb part of the waste generated by
fossil and nuclear fuel consumption.

7.4.1 Characterization
In the context of LCA, the ecological footprint of a product is defined as the sum of time
integrated direct and indirect land occupation, related to nuclear energy use and to CO2
emissions from fossil energy use:

EF  EFdirect  EFCO 2  EFnuclear

81
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

7.4.2 Normalization and weighting

Normalization is not a part of the method. To get a footprint, each impact category is given the
weighting factor 1.

References
Frischknecht, R.; Jungbluth, N.; Althaus. H.J.; Doka, G.; Dones, R.; Hischier, R.; Hellweg, S.;
Humbert, S.; Margni, M.; Nemecek, T.; Spielmann, M. 2007. Implementation of Life Cycle
Impact Assessment Methods: Data v2.0. ecoinvent report No. 3, Swiss centre for Life Cycle
Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland.
Wackernagel, M. 1994. Ecological Footprint and Appropriated Carrying Capacity: A Tool for
Planning Toward Sustainability (PhD thesis). Vancouver, Canada: School of Community and
Regional Planning. The University of British Columbia.

7.5 Ecological scarcity 2006

The “ecological scarcity” method (also called Ecopoints or Umweltbelastungspunkte method) is a
follow up of the Ecological scarcity 1997 method (see section 7.4), named Ecopoints 97 (CH) in the
SimaPro method library.
The ecological scarcity method weights environmental impacts - pollutant emissions and
resource consumption - by applying "eco-factors". The eco-factor of a substance is derived from
environmental law or corresponding political targets. The more the current level of emissions or
consumption of resources exceeds the environmental protection target set, the greater the eco-
factor becomes, expressed in eco-points (EP). An eco-factor is essentially derived from three
elements (in accordance with ISO Standard 14044): characterization, normalization and
weighting.

7.5.1 Characterization, normalization and weighting

Characterization captures the relative harmfulness of a pollutant emission or resource extraction
vis-à-vis a reference substance within a given impact category (global warming potential,
acidification potential, radioactivity etc.). Normalization quantifies the contribution of a unit of
pollutant or resource use to the total current load/pressure in a region (in this case the whole of
Switzerland) per year. Weighting expresses the relationship between the current pollutant
emission or resource consumption (current flow) and the politically determined emission or
consumption target (critical flow).
The Ecoinvent implementation contains seven specific impact categories, with for each substance
a final UBP (environmental loading points) score as characterization factor which compile the
characterization, normalization and distance-to-target weighting. The impact categories
considered by this method are not defined as an impact indicator but rather as type of emission
or resource:
 Emissions into air
 Emissions into surface water

82
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

 Emissions into ground water

 Emissions into top soil
 Energy resources
 Natural resources
 Deposited waste

References
Frischknecht, R.; Steiner, R.; Jungbluth, N. 2008. Methode der ökologischen Knappheit -
Ökofaktoren 2006. Öbu SR No. 28/2008, Bundesamt für Umwelt (BAFU), ÖBU
Schweizerische Vereinigung für ökologisch bewusste Unternehmungsführung, Zürich und
Bern.
Frischknecht, R.; Jungbluth, N.; Althaus, H.J.; Doka, G.; Dones, R.; Hischier, R.; Hellweg, S.;
Humbert, S.; Margni, M.; Nemecek, T.; Spielmann, M. 2007. Implementation of Life Cycle
Impact Assessment Methods: Data v2.0. ecoinvent report No. 3, Swiss centre for Life Cycle
Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland.
Frischknecht, R.; Steiner, R.; Braunschweig, A.; Egli, N.; Hildesheimer, G. 2006. Swiss Ecological
Scarcity Method: The New Version 2006. Available at http://www.esu-
services.ch/fileadmin/download/Frischknecht-2006-EcologicalScarcity-Paper.pdf.

7.6 Ecopoints 97
The Swiss Ministry of the Environment (BUWAL) has developed the Ecopoint system, based on
actual pollution and on critical targets that are derived from Swiss policy. It is one of the earliest
systems for impact assessment with a single score. Like the Eco-indicator 95 method, described
above, it is based on the distance-to-target method. The Swiss Ecopoints 1997 (also called Swiss
ecoscarcity) is an update of the 1990 method.
There are three important differences:
1. The Ecopoint system does not use a classification. It assesses impacts individually.
Although this allows for a detailed and very substance-specific method, it has the
disadvantage that only a few impacts are assessed.
2. The Ecopoint system uses a different normalization principle. It uses target values
rather than current values.
3. The Ecopoint system is based on Swiss policy levels instead of sustainability levels.
Policy levels are usually a compromise between political and environmental
considerations.

The following data are necessary in calculating a score in ecopoints for a given product:
4. quantified impacts of a product;
5. total environmental load for each impact type in a particular geographical area;

83
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

6. maximum acceptable environmental load for each impact type in that particular
geographical area.

7.6.1 Normalization
In SimaPro you will find 3 normalization sets: Target; Actual; and Ecopoints.
1. Normalization on Target Value or Critical Emission (N=Target)
The original formula is used to calculate the Ecopoints:

1 F
Ecofactor=   Const
Fk Fk
1
=normalization factor
Fk
F
 Const =evaluation factor
Fk

2. Normalization based on Actual Emission (N= Actual)

The adapted formula is used to calculate the Ecopoints so that normalization based on actual
emissions can be done:

1 F F
Ecofactor=    Const
F Fk Fk
1
=normalization factor
F

F F
 Const =evaluation factor
Fk Fk

F =Actual Swiss emission per year

Fk =Critical Swiss emission per year Const.=1012/year
3. Ecopoints
Ecofactors given in the evaluation step, normalization factors=1.

84
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

7.6.2 Weighting
Ecopoints (weighting factors) are calculated using the following formula:

1 F F
f   1012  2
1012
Fk Fk Fk

f: ecofactor F: actual total current load

12
Fk: target norm for total load 10 constant

The first term (1/Fk) expresses the relative contribution of the load to the exceeding of the target
norm. It is the normalization step. The second term (F/Fk) expresses the extent to which the
target norm is already being exceeded.
Please note that not all sum parameters such as (heavy) metals, AOX contributants, are included
in the method.

References
Braunschweig A. et al. 1998. Bewertung in Ökobilanzen mit der Methode der ökologischen
Knappheit. Ökofaktoren, Methodik Für Oekobilanzen, Buwal Schriftenreihe Umwelt Nr 297.

7.7 EDIP/UMIP 97
The EDIP method (Environmental Design of Industrial Products, in Danish UMIP) was developed
in 1996.
In 2004 the characterization factors for resources, the normalization and weighting factors for all
impact categories were updated. Excluded in this version of the method in SimaPro are working
environment and emissions to waste water treatment plants (WWTP).
The method is adapted for SimaPro. All characterization factors in this method are entered for
the 'unspecified' sub-compartment of each compartment (raw, air, water, soil) and thus
applicable on all sub-compartments, where no specific characterization value is specified.

7.7.1 Characterization
Global warming is based on the IPCC 1994 Status report. Is SimaPro GWP 100 is used.
Stratospheric ozone depletion potentials are based on the status reports (1992/1995) of the
Global Ozone Research Project (infinite time period used in SimaPro). Photochemical ozone
creation potentials (POCP) were taken from UNECE reports (1990/1992). POCP values depend on
the background concentration of NOx, in SimaPro we have chosen to use the POCPs for high
background concentrations. Acidification is based on the number of hydrogen ions (H+) that can
be released. Eutrophication potential is based on N and P content in organisms. Waste streams

85
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

are divided in 4 categories, bulk waste (not hazardous), hazardous waste, radioactive waste and
slags and ashes. All wastes are reported on a mass basis.
Ecotoxicity is based on a chemical hazard screening method, which looks at toxicity, persistency
and bio-concentration. Fate or the distribution of substances into various environmental
compartments is also taken account. Ecotoxicity potentials are calculated for acute and chronic
ecotoxicity to water and chronic ecotoxicity for soil. As fate is included, an emission to water may
lead not only to chronic and acute ecotoxicity for water, but also to soil. Similarly an emission to
air gives ecotoxicity for water and soil. This is the reason you will find emissions to various
compartments in each ecotoxicity category.
Human toxicity is based on a chemical hazard screening method, which looks at toxicity,
persistency and bio-concentration. Fate or the distribution of substances into various
environmental compartments is also taken account. Human toxicity potentials are calculated for
exposure via air, soil, and surface water. As fate is included, an emission to water may lead not
only to toxicity via water, but also via soil. Similarly an emission to air gives human toxicity via
water and soil. This is the reason you will find emissions to various compartments in each
human toxicity category.
As resources use a different method of weighting, it cannot be compared with the other impact
categories, for which reason the weighting factor is set at zero. Resources should be handled with
great care when analyzing results, the characterization and normalization results cannot be
compared with the other impact categories.
To give the user some information in a useful way all resources have been added into one impact
category. As equivalency factor the result of the individual normalization and weighting scores
have been used, i.e. the resulting score per kg if they would have been calculated individually.
For detailed information on resources, including normalization and weighting, choose the
"EDIP/UMIP resources only" method.

EDIP v2.0 resources only

In the "EDIP/UMIP resources only" method only resources are reported. Opposite to the default
EDIP/UMIP method, resources are given in individual impact categories, on a mass basis of the
pure resource (i.e. 100% metal in ore, rather than ore). Normalization is based on global
production per world citizen, derived from World Resources 1992. Weighting of non-renewables
is based on the supply-horizon (World Reserves Life Index), which specifies the period for which
known reserves will last at current rates of consumption. If no normalization data are known for
an individual impact category, the normalization value is set at one and the calculation of the
weighting factor is adjusted so that the final result is still consistent. However this may give
strange looking graphs in the normalization step.

7.7.2 Normalization
The normalization value is based on person equivalents for 1994 (according to the update issued
in 2004). For resources, normalization and weighing are already included in the characterization
factor and therefore set at zero.

86
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

7.7.3 Weighting
The weighting factors are set to the politically set target emissions per person in the year 2004
(according to the update issued in 2004), the weighted result are expressed except for resources
which is based on the proven reserves per person in 1994. For resources, normalization and
weighing are already included in the characterization factor and therefore set at zero.

Note:
Presenting the EDIP method as a single score (addition) is allowed, however it is not
recommended by the authors. Note that due to a different weighting method for resources
(based on reserves rather than political targets), resources may never be included in a single
score. This is the reason that the weighting factor for resources is set at zero.

References
Hauschild, M.; Wenzel, H. 1998. Environmental Assessment of Products. Volume 2: Scientific
background. Chapman and Hall. See http://www.wkap.nl/book.htm/0-412-80810-2.
Wenzel, H.; Hauschild, M.; Alting, L. 1997. Environmental Assessment of Products. Volume 1:
Methodology, tools and case studies in product development. Chapman and Hall. See
http://www.wkap.nl/book.htm/0-7923-7859-8.

7.8 EPD (2008)

This method is to be used for the creation of Environmental Product Declarations or (EPDs), as
published on the website Swedish Environmental Management Council (SEMC). The last update
of this method is mainly based on the EPD document version 1.0 dated 2008-02-29.

7.8.1 Characterization
In the standard EPDs one only has to report on the following impact categories:

Original names Names in SP

 Gross Calorific Values (GVC) (referred to as Non renewable, fossil

"Higher Heating Values")

 Greenhouse gases Global warming (GWP100)

 Ozone-depleting gases Ozone layer depletion (ODP)

 Acidifying compounds Acidification

 Gases creating ground-level ozone Photochemical oxidation

(Photochemical Ozone creation)

 Eutrophying compounds Eutrophication

87
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

Specific product category guidelines may require extra information.

7.8.2 Non renewable, fossil

The values as used for the calculation of the non renewable, fossil impact category are taken
from the Cumulative energy demand LCIA method (v 1.05) as implemented in SimaPro. The
values from IPPC (2007) are used as recommended on the EPD website. The characterization for
biogenic methane has been corrected for the CO2 sequestration.

7.8.3 Ozone layer depletion (ODP), Photochemical oxidation,

Acidification and Eutrophication
The values as used by the EPD document are used.

7.8.4 Normalization and weighting

Normalization and weighting are not a part of this method.

References
"Revision of the EPD® system into an International EPD®":
www.environdec.com/Documents/GPI/EPD_annexes_080229.pdf
We thank Leo Breedveld from 2B (www.to-be.it) for his advice and support.

7.9 EPD (2013)

This method is the successor of EPD (2008) and is to be used for the creation of Environmental
Product Declarations (EPDs), as published on the website of the Swedish Environmental
Management Council (SEMC). An EPD is always created according to a Product Category Rule.
This method is especially important for everybody who is reporting a Product Category Rule (PCR)
published by Environdec.

7.9.1 Characterization
In the standard EPDs one only has to report on the following impact categories:

Original names Names in SimaPro

Acidification potential acidification (fate not included)

Eutrophication potential eutrophication

Global warming potential global warming’

88
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

Photochemical oxidant creation potential photochemical oxidation’

Additional indicators:

Original names Names in SimaPro

Ozone-depleting gases (expressed as the sum ozone layer depletion (ODP) (optional)
of ozone-depleting potential in mass of CFC 11-
equivalents, 20 years)

Abiotic resource depletion Abiotic depletion (optional)

Abiotic depletion (fossil fuels) Abiotic depletion, fossil fuels (opt.)

All impact categories are taken directly from the CML-IA baseline method (eutrophication, global
warming and photochemical oxidation) and CML-IA non baseline method (acification). These two
methods can be found in SimaPro as well.

7.9.2 Normalization and weighting

Normalization and weighting are not a part of this method.

References
General programme instructions for the international EPD® system, 2.01. 18 September 2013.
Download at
http://www.environdec.com/Documents/GPI/General_programme_instructions_2_01_2013
0918.pdf

7.10 EPS 2000

The EPS 2000 default methodology (Environmental Priority Strategies in product design) is a
damage oriented method. In the EPS system, willingness to pay to restore changes in the safe
guard subjects is chosen as the monetary measurement. The indicator unit is ELU (Environmental
Load Unit), which includes characterization, normalization and weighting.
The top-down development of the EPS system has led to an outspoken hierarchy among its
principles and rules. The general principles of its development are:
 The top-down principle (highest priority is given to the usefulness of the system);
 The index principle (ready-made indices represent weighted and aggregated impacts)
 The default principle (an operative method as default is required)
 The uncertainty principle (uncertainty of input data has to be estimated)
 Choice of default data and models to determine them
89
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

The EPS system is mainly aimed to be a tool for a company's internal product development
process. The system is developed to assist designers and product developers in finding which
one of two product concepts has the least impact on the environment. The models and data in
EPS are intended to improve environmental performance of products. The choice and design of
the models and data are made from an anticipated utility perspective of a product developer.
They are, for instance not intended to be used as a basis for environmental protection strategies
for single substances, or as a sole basis for environmental product declarations. In most of those
cases additional site-specific information and modelling is necessary.
The EPS 2000 default method is an update of the 1996 version. The impact categories are
identified from five safe guard subjects: human health, ecosystem production capacity, abiotic
stock resource, biodiversity and cultural and recreational values.
This V2 version is adapted for SimaPro. All characterization factors in this method are entered for
the 'unspecified' sub-compartment of each compartment (Raw materials, air, water, soil) and
thus applicable on all sub-compartments, where no specific characterization value is specified.
This method is NOT fully adapted for inventory data from the Ecoinvent library and the USA Input
Output Database 98, and therefore omits emissions that could have been included in impact
assessment.

7.10.1 Classification and characterization

Emissions and resources are assigned to impact categories when actual effects are likely to occur
in the environment, based on likely exposure. Empirical, equivalency and mechanistic models are
used to calculate default characterization values.

Human Health
In EPS weighting factors for damage to human health are included for the following indictors:
 Life expectancy, expressed in Years of life lost (person year)
 Severe morbidity and suffering, in person year, including starvation
 Morbidity, in person year, like cold or flue
 Severe nuisance, in person year, which would normally cause a reaction to avoid the
nuisance
 Nuisance, in person year, irritating, but not causing any direct action

Ecosystem production capacity

The default impact categories of production capacity of ecosystems are:
 Crop production capacity, in kg weight at harvest
 Wood production capacity, in kg dry weight
 Fish and meat production capacity, in kg full weight of animals

90
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

 Base cat-ion capacity, in H+ mole equivalents (used only when models including the other
indicators are not available)
 Production capacity of (irrigation) water, in kg which is acceptable for irrigation, with
respect to persistent toxic substances
 Production capacity of (drinking) water, in kg of water fulfilling WHO criteria on drinking
water.

Abiotic stock resources

Abiotic stock resource indicators are depletion of elemental or mineral reserves and depletion of
fossil reserves. Some classification factors are defined 0 (zero).
In SimaPro, characterization values for abiotic depletion result from both the impact of depletion
and impacts due to extraction of the element/mineral or resource.

Biodiversity
Default impact category for biodiversity is extinction of species, expressed in Normalized
Extinction of species (NEX).

Cultural and recreational values

Changes in cultural and recreational values are difficult to describe by general indicators as they
are highly specific and qualitative in nature. Indicators should be defined when needed, and thus
are not included in the default methodology in SimaPro.

7.10.2 Normalization/Weighting
In the EPS default method, normalization/weighting is made through valuation.
Normalization/weighting factors represent the willingness to pay to avoid changes. The
environmental reference is the present state of the environment. The indicator unit is ELU
(Environmental Load Unit).

References
Steen B. 1999. A systematic approach to environmental strategies in product development (EPS).
Version 2000 - General system characteristics. Centre for Environmental Assessment of
Products and Material Systems. Chalmers University of Technology, Technical
Environmental Planning. CPM report 1999:4.

91
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

7.11 IPCC 2001 GWP

IPCC 2001 is a method developed by the International Panel on Climate Change.

This method lists the climate change factors of IPCC with a timeframe of 20, 100 and 500 years.
The method from the ecoinvent 1.01 database was expanded with other characterization factors
for emissions available in the SimaPro database.

7.11.1 Characterization
The IPCC characterization factors for the direct global warming potential of air emissions. They
are:
 not including indirect formation of dinitrogen monoxide from nitrogen emissions.
 not accounting for radiative forcing due to emissions of NOx, water, sulphate, etc. in the
lower stratosphere + upper troposphere.
 not considering the range of indirect effects given by IPCC.
 including CO2 formation from CO emissions.
 considering biogenic CO2 uptake as negative impact.

7.11.2 Normalization and weighting

Normalization and weighting are not a part of this method.

References
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. IPCC Third Assessment Report. The
Scientific Basis. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/

7.12 IPCC 2007

IPCC 2007 is an update of the method IPCC 2001 developed by the International Panel on Climate
Change. This method lists the climate change factors of IPCC with a timeframe of 20, 100 and 500
years.

7.12.1 Characterization
IPCC characterization factors for the direct (except CH4) global warming potential of air
emissions.

92
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

They are:
 not including indirect formation of dinitrogen monoxide from nitrogen emissions.
 not accounting for radiative forcing due to emissions of NOx, water, sulphate, etc. in the
lower stratosphere + upper troposphere.
 not considering the range of indirect effects given by IPCC.
 not including CO2 formation from CO emissions.
 If only a minimum or maximum value of a substance is reported this minimum or
maximum value is used.
 The substances that do not have a common name but only a formula are not included in
the method.
 NOT considering biogenic CO2 uptake and emission, but only considering the biogenic
methane release.

7.12.2 Normalization and weighting

Normalization and weighting are not a part of this method.

References
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. The Physical
Science Basis. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. The Physical
Science Basis. Errata. http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Errata_2008-08-05.pdf

7.13 ReCiPe
ReCiPe is the successor of the methods Eco-indicator 99 and CML-IA. The purpose at the start of
the development was to integrate the ‘problem oriented approach’ of CML-IA and the ‘damage
oriented approach’ of Eco-indicator 99. The ‘problem oriented approach’ defines the impact
categories at a midpoint level. The uncertainty of the results at this point is relatively low. The
drawback of this solution is that it leads to many different impact categories which makes the
drawing of conclusions with the obtained results complex. The damage oriented approach of
Eco-indicator 99 results in only three impact categories, which makes the interpretation of the
results easier. However, the uncertainty in the results is higher. ReCiPe implements both
strategies and has both midpoint (problem oriented) and endpoint (damage oriented) impact
categories. The midpoint characterization factors are multiplied by damage factors, to obtain the
endpoint characterization values.

93
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

ReCiPe comprises two sets of impact categories with associated sets of characterization factors.
At the midpoint level, 18 impact categories are addressed:
1. Ozone depletion
2. Human toxicity
3. Ionizing radiation
4. Photochemical oxidant formation
5. Particulate matter formation
6. Terrestrial acidification
7. Climate change
8. Terrestrial ecotoxicity
9. Agricultural land occupation
10. Urban land occupation
11. Natural land transformation
12. Marine ecotoxicity
13. Marine eutrophication
14. Fresh water eutrophication
15. Fresh water ecotoxicity
16. Fossil fuel depletion
17. Minerals depletion
18. Fresh water depletion

At the endpoint level, most of these midpoint impact categories are multiplied by damage factors
and aggregated into three endpoint categories:
 Human health
 Ecosystems
 Resource surplus costs

The three endpoint categories are normalized, weighted, and aggregated into a single score.
Figure 2 sketches the relations between lifecycle inventory (LCI) parameters (left side), the 18
midpoint categories (middle), and the 3 endpoint categories, including the single score (right
side).

94
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

Figure 6: Representation of the relations between the inventory and the midpoint categories (environmental mechanisms)
and the endpoint categories, including the single score (damage model).

7.13.1 Value choices

It is obvious that the environmental mechanisms and damage models are sources of uncertainty:
the relationships modelled reflect state of the art knowledge of the environmental mechanisms
that has a certain level of incompleteness and uncertainty. In ReCiPe, like in Eco-indicator 99, it
was decided to group different sources of uncertainty and different (value) choices into a limited
number of perspectives or scenarios, according to the “Cultural Theory” by Thompson 1990.
Three perspectives are discerned: individualist (I), hierarchist (H), and egalitarian (E). These
perspectives do not claim to represent archetypes of human behaviour, but they are merely used
to group similar types of assumptions and choices. For instance:
4. Perspective I is based on the short-term interest, impact types that are undisputed,
technological optimism as regards human adaptation.
5. Perspective H is based on the most common policy principles with regards to time-frame and
other issues.
6. Perspective E is the most precautionary perspective, taking into account the longest time-
frame, impact types that are not yet fully established but for which some indication is
available.

95
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

7.13.2 Characterization at midpoint level

Ozone depletion
The characterization factor for ozone layer depletion accounts for the destruction of the
stratospheric ozone layer by anthropogenic emissions of ozone depleting substances (ODS). The
unit is yr/kg CFC-11 equivalents.

Human toxicity and ecotoxicity

The characterization factor of human toxicity and ecotoxicity accounts for the environmental
persistence (fate) and accumulation in the human food chain (exposure), and toxicity (effect) of a
chemical. The unit is yr/kg 1,4-dichlorobenzeen (14DCB).

Radiation
The characterization factor of ionizing radiation accounts for the level of exposure. The unit is
yr/kg Uranium 235 equivalents.

Photochemical oxidant formation

The characterization factor of photochemical oxidant formation is defined as the marginal
change in the 24h-average European concentration of ozone (dCO3 in kg·m–3) due to a marginal
change in emission of substance x (dMx in kg·year–1). The unit is yr/kg NMVOC.

Particulate matter formation

The characterization factor of particulate matter formation is the intake fraction of PM10. The unit
is yr/kg PM10 equivalents.

Climate change
The characterization factor of climate change is the global warming potential. The unit is yr/kg
CO2 equivalents.

Agricultural and urban land occupation

The amount of either agricultural land or urban land occupied for a certain time. The unit is
m2*yr.

Natural land transformation

The amount of natural land transformed and occupied for a certain time. The unit is m 2*yr.

96
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

Marine eutrophication
The characterization factor of marine eutrophication accounts for the environmental persistence
(fate) of the emission of N containing nutrients. The unit is yr/kg N to freshwater equivalents.

Freshwater eutrophication
The characterization factor of freshwater eutrophication accounts for the environmental
persistence (fate) of the emission of P containing nutrients. The unit is yr/kg P to freshwater
equivalents.

Fossil fuel and minerals depletion

The characterization factor of fossil depletion is the amount of extracted fossil fuel extracted,
based on the lower heating value. The unit is kg oil equivalent (1 kg of oil equivalent has a lower
heating value of 42 MJ).

Minerals depletion
The characterization factor for minerals depletion is the decrease in grade. The unit is kg Iron (Fe)
equivalents.

Freshwater depletion
The factor for the freshwater depletion is the amount of fresh water consumption. The unit is m 3.

7.13.3 Damage assessment

The endpoint characterization factors used in ReCiPe can be described as follows:
4. Human Health, expressed as the number of year life lost and the number of years
lived disabled. These are combined as Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs), an index
that is also used by the World Bank and WHO. The unit is years.
5. Ecosystems, expressed as the loss of species over a certain area, during a certain
time. The unit is years.
6. Resources surplus costs, expressed as the surplus costs of future resource
production over an infinitive timeframe (assuming constant annual production),
considering a 3% discount rate. The unit is 2000US$.

7.13.4 Normalization
The normalization is based on the report of Sleeswijk et al. (2007). The normalization figures used
in SimaPro are recalculated per citizen. The used population of EU25+3 is 464,036,294 citizens
and the world has 6,055,000,000 citizens. Mineral use and the natural land transformation were

97
 SimaPro database manual – Methods library

not part of this project. Mineral use is based on data from USGS (2000). The source of the land
transformation was FAO using the changes between 2000 and 2005.

7.13.5 Weighting
In this method, weighting is performed at damage category level (endpoint level in ISO terms). A
panel performed weighting of the three damage categories. For each perspective, a specific
weighting set is available. The average result of the panel assessment is available as weighting
set.
The hierarchist version of ReCiPe with average weighting is chosen as default. In general, value
choices made in the hierarchist version are scientifically and politically accepted.

References
Goedkoop, M.J.; Heijungs, R.; Huijbregts, M.A.J.; De Schryver, A.M.; Struijs, J.; Van Zelm, R. 2009.
ReCiPe 2008: A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category
indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level; First edition Report I: Characterisation. 6
January 2009, http://www.lcia-recipe.net.
Sleeswijk, A.W.; van Oers, L.F.; Guinée, J.B.; Huijbregts, M.A.J. 2007. Normalization in product life
cycle assessment: An LCA of the global and European economic systems in the year 2000.
Sci Total Environ 390 (1):227-240.

98