東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

A comparative analysis of commercial...

Speck, Ricky Lee.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

A comparative analysis of commercially available life cycle assessment software.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	A comparative analysis of commercially available life cycle assessment software./
作者:	Speck, Ricky Lee.
出版者:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2014,
面頁冊數:	238 p.
附註:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 75-07(E), Section: B.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International75-07B(E).
標題:	Packaging. -
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3614162
ISBN:	9781303791512

A comparative analysis of commercially available life cycle assessment software.
Speck, Ricky Lee.

A comparative analysis of commercially available life cycle assessment software. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2014 - 238 p.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 75-07(E), Section: B.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Michigan State University, 2014.

Against a backdrop of increasing demand for products, the packaging industry is continually searching for ways to meet the needs of consumers while simultaneously improving the environmentally sustainability of packaging. This requires making informed decisions based at least in part on knowledge of the environmental impacts attributable to the different packaging options being considered. Many companies have turned to using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to obtain the necessary environmental impact information. To support this effort, several software programs have been developed to aid in doing an LCA. These programs vary considerably in complexity and focus, leading to questions of how similar are the results they provide. To study the consistency of results across LCA software programs, nine common packaging systems were modeled in each of five different programs: GaBi, SimaPro, openLCA, COMPASS, and Package Modeling. Comparison of the LCA information provided by these programs for the packaging systems showed several significant differences. To better understand why the differences occurred, four simplified systems were created with the intent of minimizing the number of variables involved in the system models. Each of these systems consisted of obtaining and disposing of a single basic packaging material: aluminum, glass, corrugated board, and polyethylene terephthalate (PET). Once again a comparison of results showed significant differences. Using information from these basic material comparisons, and making use of the transparency in LCA calculations provided by GaBi and SimaPro, a study was done that traced the causes of the inconsistencies in results back to how implementations of assessment methods differed between the two programs. A comparison of 14 combinations of basic materials and impact categories involving 3 different assessment methods found 98 instances of characterization factors differing between GaBi and SimaPro. These differences in characterization factors accounted for all the discrepancies in results between the two programs. No errors in calculations were found with either program, and there were no significant differences in the type or amount of inputs and emissions in the life cycle inventories from the two programs.

ISBN: 9781303791512Subjects--Topical Terms:

585030
Packaging.

A comparative analysis of commercially available life cycle assessment software.
LDR:03214nmm a2200289 4500 001 2162759
005 20181009045510.5
008 190424s2014 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9781303791512
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI3614162
035 $a (MiAaPQ)grad.msu:12667
035 $a AAI3614162
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Speck, Ricky Lee. $3 3350760
245 1 2 $a A comparative analysis of commercially available life cycle assessment software.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2014
300 $a 238 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 75-07(E), Section: B.
500 $a Adviser: Susan Selke.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Michigan State University, 2014.
520 $a Against a backdrop of increasing demand for products, the packaging industry is continually searching for ways to meet the needs of consumers while simultaneously improving the environmentally sustainability of packaging. This requires making informed decisions based at least in part on knowledge of the environmental impacts attributable to the different packaging options being considered. Many companies have turned to using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to obtain the necessary environmental impact information. To support this effort, several software programs have been developed to aid in doing an LCA. These programs vary considerably in complexity and focus, leading to questions of how similar are the results they provide. To study the consistency of results across LCA software programs, nine common packaging systems were modeled in each of five different programs: GaBi, SimaPro, openLCA, COMPASS, and Package Modeling. Comparison of the LCA information provided by these programs for the packaging systems showed several significant differences. To better understand why the differences occurred, four simplified systems were created with the intent of minimizing the number of variables involved in the system models. Each of these systems consisted of obtaining and disposing of a single basic packaging material: aluminum, glass, corrugated board, and polyethylene terephthalate (PET). Once again a comparison of results showed significant differences. Using information from these basic material comparisons, and making use of the transparency in LCA calculations provided by GaBi and SimaPro, a study was done that traced the causes of the inconsistencies in results back to how implementations of assessment methods differed between the two programs. A comparison of 14 combinations of basic materials and impact categories involving 3 different assessment methods found 98 instances of characterization factors differing between GaBi and SimaPro. These differences in characterization factors accounted for all the discrepancies in results between the two programs. No errors in calculations were found with either program, and there were no significant differences in the type or amount of inputs and emissions in the life cycle inventories from the two programs.
590 $a School code: 0128.
650 4 $a Packaging. $3 585030
690 $a 0549
710 2 $a Michigan State University. $b Packaging - Doctor of Philosophy. $3 3192889
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 75-07B(E).
790 $a 0128
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2014
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3614162