commentary

Environmental life-cycle
assessment
Randolph E. Kirchain Jr, Jeremy R. Gregory and Elsa A. Olivetti
Concerns about the planets health call for a careful evaluation of the environmental impact of materials
choices. Life-cycle assessment is a tool that can help identify sustainable materials pathways by
considering the burdens of materials both during production and as a product.

M
odern materials are transforming
the quality of life for billions of
people bringing safer homes,
cleaner water and reliable transportation
and communication networks. Yet the
environmental burden of realizing these
benefits is significant and bound to grow as
the worlds population increases in number
and wealth.
The materials community has an
obligation to act on this problem not simply
because the problem is acute, but because we
are uniquely positioned to do so. Materials
engineering now has the toolkit to design
materials and material properties that can
alter the nature of the built systems into
which they are formed and fashioned. We
must also extend those tools to design the
products and processes that will allow the
balance of the globe to achieve modernitys
gains with a footprint that the planet can bear.
A tool for better decisions
In the face of this obligation, a key
question emerges: how do we, the materials
community, make good choices? How do
we shape future processes towards that
lighter footprint?
To answer these questions, one key
tool for twenty-first century materials
engineers will be environmental life-cycle
assessment (LCA). This assessment method
combines two simple concepts. The first
involves considering some product of
interest and mapping out all of the activities
that are associated with its construction,
operation and disposition the life cycle.
Consider motorized vehicles: there is a
vast supply chain required to assemble
the vehicle, starting with mining and
material production, and continuing to part
production and vehicle assembly. There is
also a complex system for generating and
distributing the energy required to power
the vehicle, whether it be electric or from
fossil fuels. Once the vehicle has reached
the end of its life, some components can be
recovered for reuse, some will be recycled,
and others will be disposed.
The second concept is to take that list of
life-cycle activities and account for all of the
impacts associated with them. These impacts
derive from the inflows from and outflows
to the natural world that are caused by
individual activities. The cumulative impact
of the products life cycle is considered a
more complete measure of its environmental
consequence. Here we will focus on the use
of LCA to evaluate environmental impacts
(and we will use LCA to strictly refer to
environmental life-cycle assessment), but
there is also a long history of work applying
analogous concepts to evaluate economic
consequence1, and more recently the
concept has been extended to consider social
impacts as well2,3.
One clear example of the value and
importance of LCA comes from the
evaluation of materials choices for
automobiles, either electric or conventional
(Fig. 1). While much attention focuses
on fuel economy improvements through
vehicle electrification, automakers are also
pursuing technical solutions including
the reduction of vehicle mass through
materials substitution. The structure of the
typical vehicle on the road today is made
of steel sheet. Automakers are exploring
the use of advanced high-strength steels
(AHSS), aluminium, magnesium, and
even carbon fibre reinforced polymer
(CFRP) composites to create strong, safe
structures with less mass. Interestingly,
with the exception of AHSS, every one of
these alternatives requires more energy
and produces more greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions per unit mass one
of the impact metrics used in LCA to
assess environmental performance to
manufacture than do conventional steels.
In fact, the GREET (Greenhouse gases,
Regulated Emissions, and Energy use
in Transportation) model, developed by
Argonne National Laboratory, estimates
that the energy required to produce a
unit mass of Al, Mg and CFRP are three,
four and seven times larger than for steel,
respectively 47. For GHG emissions, these
ratios typically become 2.5, 3.25 and 5,
respectively 4, which may suggest that steel
replacement in vehicles would not be
beneficial to the environment. These figures,
however, do not tell the whole story. The
goal of replacing those materials is to reduce
mass and, therefore, energy consumption
and emissions. Changes to a product or
the materials technologies associated
with it should be measured not by their
impacts at just one stage, but rather by their
cumulative effects both up the supply chain
and throughout the products entire life
cycle. LCA is the process of systematically
quantifying those cumulative effects.
(Notably, the GREET model is developed
to facilitate just that kind of whole vehicle,
whole life-cycle assessment.)
A recent article explores the question
of trade-offs in environmental impacts of
materials and vehicle energy consumption
for several alternative materials4. It has been
noted that using alternative materials for
automobiles incurs a kind of environmental
burden debt during the materials production
stage. However, lighter vehicle mass leads to
lower impacts during the use phase, thereby
paying back that debt as the vehicle is
driven. Following this metaphor, a payback
period or, in vehicle kilometres driven,
a breakeven distance for each material
was computed. Despite the additional
production burden, it was shown that,
for a case where the steel in a vehicle is
replaced with wrought Al, which reduces
body mass by 30%, the breakeven driving
distance ranges from 75,000to 200,000km.

NATURE MATERIALS | VOL 16 | JULY 2017 | www.nature.com/naturematerials 693

2
0
1
7
M
a
c
m
i
l
l
a
n
P
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
L
i
m
i
t
e
d
,
p
a
r
t
o
f
S
p
r
i
n
g
e
r
N
a
t
u
r
e
.
A
l
l
r
i
g
h
t
s
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
commentary

chain and across geographical regions.

Body material
production The value of LCA to quantitatively assess
products life-cycle environmental impacts
2
GWP (t CO2eq)
has been recognized and it is increasingly
0 Emission to... used to support decisions in policy and
2 government arenas. For example, the US

Land
Air

Water
ion Ma
4 uct nu Environmental Protection Agency requires
rod Total
f
an assessment of the environmental

ac
6

sp

tur
Steel Steel
rial
2 impact of renewable fuels before they

GWP (t CO2eq)
Worst

e
wrought Al Mg
Mate
case
0 can be approved under the Renewable
2 Fuel Standard15,16. The US Green Building
Council provides points in its LEED
4 Best
case (Leadership in Energy and Environmental
6 Vehicle use

Pro
Design) building standard for the use of
Materials

Steel Steel
fe

du
f li

GWP (t CO2eq)
wrought Al Mg 2
Energy

building products that have a quantified

ct
do us
En e
0
Worst environmental impact 17.
Consumption of... 2 case These trends further reinforce the
4 importance of LCA for evaluating
6
Best novel materials technologies. Many
case
Steel Steel materials production processes impact
wrought Al Mg the environment in significant ways. For
instance, the production of lithium, cobalt
and rare earth elements all consume energy
Figure1 | Example of LCA, related to the analysis of the environmental burden associated with automobile intensely and generate emissions; yet,
mass reduction through materials change. LCA involves two key concepts: (1) identify the activities within without these materials the future of the
the systems required for creating (materials production and manufacture), using (product use) and automotive industry would be hampered
disposing (end of life) of a product; and (2) quantifying the resource inflows (blue arrows) and effluent because we would have neither viable
outflows (red arrows) associated with those activities. The insets show the change in global warming electric vehicles nor the possibility of
potential (GWP; expressed in tonnes of CO2eq) related to replacing steel with wrought Al or Mg in the transportation powered solely by renewable
vehicle body for a mass reduction of 30% its initial weight. Positive and negative GWP values mean sources. The complete impact of a material
increased and decreased environmental burden, respectively. Top-left inset: GWP during materials can only be defined by taking into account
production. Bottom-right inset: GWP during the lifetime use. Centre inset: an abbreviated LCA showing also the environmental costs and benefits
the sum of GWP in the production and lifetime use phases. For the bottom-right and centre insets, of the systems it enables. Developing
worst case represents when the vehicle powertrain is not re-optimized for the lighter vehicle; best case is policies without considering the system-
when the powertrain is re-optimized. Data taken from ref. 4, ACS. wide perspective can lead to unintended
consequences for the environment.

Given that the expected driving distance used in the manufacture of Mg parts a Key considerations in LCA
for a typical light vehicle in the US exceeds practice being phased out globally and LCAs are carried out to support decisions.
250,000km, this result indicates that the where Mg is produced by the Pidgeon To create the consistency that is needed
use of wrought Al could reduce the life- process using semi-coke oven gas as fuel. for effective decision-making, the
cycle energy and GHG emissions burden Armed with this knowledge it is possible to LCA community has been developing
of personal transportation. In contrast, a tailor design and process to maximize the standards of practice. The most general
similar substitution of steel with Mg (again benefits of Mg use in vehicles. and broadly recognized of these are part
reducing body mass by 30%) leads to These case analyses of wrought Al and of the International Organization for
breakeven distances ranging from 125,000to Mg make it clear that the environmental Standardization (ISO) 14000 standards
325,000km. This means that there are real performance of materials technologies specifically, 14040and 1404418,19. Together,
cases where Mg substitution would lead cannot be judged by considering one these standards define LCA as comprising
to a net increase in burden. Strikingly, the life-cycle stage alone. Furthermore, a four stages: (1) goal and scope definition
information collected in a LCA can help well conducted LCA allows us to discern to make clear what the study intends analyse;
material and product designers identify such the specific scenarios where a materials (2) the inventory phase where the life
cases and thus develop vehicles, processes technology does or does not provide benefits. cycle activities and their inflows (resources
and supply chains that reduce the life-cycle consumed) and outflows (emissions)
impact of vehicles. In fact, through the Adoption in policymaking and regulation are quantified; (3) impact assessment
detailed analyses both in ref. 4and a recent Although alternative methods exist to to map those inflows and outflows to
LCA commissioned by the International evaluate the implications of material measures of environmental damage; and
Magnesium Association8, it is possible to design decisions such as environmental (4) interpretation where the results are
isolate the specific conditions that drive up costbenefit analyses9,10, ecosystem services evaluated and recommendations developed.
environmental burden for a Mg-containing valuation11,12 and risk assessments13,14, A large body of literature has been
vehicle. These comprise cases where a these methods have traditionally been developed about the application and
vehicles drivetrain is not re-optimized when applied to evaluate the implications of pedagogy of LCA. Here we cannot cover
mass is reduced (drivetrains are shared specific actions in specific locations14. LCA all the topics needed to be an expert LCA
among multiple vehicles and so cannot be complements these tools by considering practitioner. Instead, our goal is to highlight
optimized for every variant), where SF6 is impacts throughout a products value methodological choices that can strongly

694 NATURE MATERIALS | VOL 16 | JULY 2017 | www.nature.com/naturematerials

2
0
1
7
M
a
c
m
i
l
l
a
n
P
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
L
i
m
i
t
e
d
,
p
a
r
t
o
f
S
p
r
i
n
g
e
r
N
a
t
u
r
e
.
A
l
l
r
i
g
h
t
s
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
 commentary

influence LCA outcomes, particularly for

materials technology decisions. Our hope CO2
is that with this knowledge the materials
community becomes aware of the need for
careful analysis of life-cycle considerations. 8

GWP (kt CO2eq per lane mile)

The interested reader is referred to refs 20
and 21 for comprehensive introductions 6
to the topic, and ref. 22 for a more
4
extensive critical review of methodological
challenges. It is important to highlight that 2
current standards of practice require full
transparency about the decisions taken 0
regarding the points discussed below, to
allow fair comparison among different LCA 2
studies and to make clear how choices made Construction Carbonation Lighting PVI Albedo Maintenance EOL
by the analyst could influence the result. Use phase

Functional unit. A LCA study aims to

understand the environmental impact of
some system of processes that together
delivers a function. As such, the most
fundamental quantity that defines LCA
scope is referred to as the functional
unit 23. This specifically defines the type
and magnitude of the product (or, more
generally, some activity or even service),
the life cycle of which is being evaluated
by quantitatively describing the function
it delivers. For example, the relative
environmental performance of various solar
energy generation technologies might be
compared by considering a specific amount
of usable electricity generated as a functional
unit. In our analysis, we might also include
the expected lifetime and efficiency over
time of the photovoltaic technologies; in
this case, a more appropriate functional unit
would be the lifetime energy generation
capacity. Other studies, with related goals,
might look instead at an area of a solar
cell in units of m2 or number of modules.
There are several options for defining the
functional unit depending on the goal of the
study. Whether we are able to compare the
results of two studies depends on whether
we can align the functional units.
Scope. In 1996, a study by the Technical
Research Centre of Finland (VTT)
concluded that life-cycle global warming
impacts attributable to a highway
constructed of Portland cement concrete
were around 700 tonnes of equivalent CO2
(CO2eq; the amount of CO2 and other GHG
produced) per lane mile24. A recent study
by some of the authors estimated that the
environmental life-cycle impact of a similar
rural highway in Missouri was associated
with about 2,000 tonnes CO2eq per lane
mile25 more than twice the earlier figure.
Although there were some differences in
construction of the two roads, the most
important driver of this difference was what
the two studies considered as part of the
Figure2 | Life-cycle global warming potential (GWP) of an interstate highway, constructed in the US,
of Portland cement concrete and used for 50years, expressed in kilotonnes of CO2eqper lane mile. The
scope of a LCA defines what activities are explicitly evaluated. In this case, together with the construction,
maintenance and end-of-life (EOL) phases, a use phase including the impact of carbonation, lighting,
pavementvehicle interaction (PVI) and albedo is considered in the scope of this LCA. PVI represents
the impact of imperfect pavement condition on vehicle operation (here fuel use) either due to roadway
roughness or deflection. Error bars represent the 5th and 95th percentile of results derived from Monte
Carlo simulation. The GWP of the use phase can represent more than half of life-cycle impacts. Adapted
from ref. 25, National Academy of Sciences.
system being evaluated the scope of the environmental life cycle impacts across
life cycle. economic sectors (referred to as economic
The VTT study considered the impacts of inputoutput LCA)26,27. Research has focused
materials production, roadway construction on providing insight that is both truly
and maintenance (including traffic delay), comprehensive (including all environmental
as well as the impact of road material on impacts associated with producing goods
lighting demands24. Thanks to modelling and services due to interdependent branches
advances, the more recent study 25 also of a regional economy) and still sufficiently
considered several other impacts that detailed to be actionable (which depends
are attributable to pavement design and on the number of sectors in the economic
maintenance, and that occur throughout inputoutput data)28.
the pavements useful life (Fig. 2). These
include excess fuel consumption of vehicles Allocation. In a recent review of
driving on the pavements (associated with 40 environmental LCA studies of biodiesel
the rolling resistance of the pavement, such production29, it was found that reported life-
as roughness), pavement albedo (pavement cycle GHG values ranged from 15170 g of
reflectivity affects the radiative balance of CO2eq per MJ of fuel. The GHG intensity of
the climate and the energy consumption fossil diesel (approximately 80 g of CO2eq
of buildings nearby), and carbonation of per MJ of fuel) falls within such a large
pavement materials (absorbing carbon range, which prevents decision-makers from
dioxide from the atmosphere). Interestingly, drawing immediate conclusions about the
these use-phase impacts can represent technology to be preferred. Interestingly,
more than half of a pavements overall that report showed that, beyond some
environmental burden25. differences concerning the estimation of
Defining the scope of a LCA is an release of carbon from agricultural soils,
important exercise that can have significant this variation could be largely explained
consequences on the outcome of the by an accounting issue how the studies
analysis. In this case of pavements, excluding apportioned emissions between the fuel
these use-phase elements can reverse the and the many other products produced by
conclusions drawn from a LCA, making the same system (see Fig. 3for an example
the least preferred materials choice appear of the many co-products associated
to be the best alternative. One key area of with biodiesel production). Obviously,
LCA research has aimed to address the comparing results that derive from different
challenges of scope by leveraging economic accounting assumptions can lead to
inputoutput information to quantify erroneous conclusions30.

NATURE MATERIALS | VOL 16 | JULY 2017 | www.nature.com/naturematerials 695

2
0
1
7
M
a
c
m
i
l
l
a
n
P
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
L
i
m
i
t
e
d
,
p
a
r
t
o
f
S
p
r
i
n
g
e
r
N
a
t
u
r
e
.
A
l
l
r
i
g
h
t
s
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
commentary
Fertilizer
Fossil fuel
Seed
Rapeseed Oil
Electricity
cultivation extraction
Straw
Figure3 | Allocation issues. Most real-world systems produce multiple products. Emissions and impacts
from that system must be allocated across those products. The production of biodiesel from rapeseed oil
produces at least three additional co-products (straw, meal cakes and crude glycerine). RME, rapeseed
methyl ester. Arrow width shows approximately the relative mass of flows. Adapted from ref. 29, Elsevier.
This issue is not limited to biofuels;
in fact, many real-world manufacturing
systems produce multiple useful outputs.
For instance, refineries produce gasoline,
kerosene and asphalt, while zinc mines
may also produce indium. Agricultural and
silvicultural systems produce food, fuel and
structural materials, but also the feedstock
used to synthesize bio-derived polymers (for
instance, terpenes used for polyisoprene and
other elastomers, and triglycerides used for
nylon and polyester)31.
In such cases, where the environmental
impact of only one of the multiple products
derived by the same system has to be
assessed, the LCA analyst must decide how
the inventory associated with the system
is distributed among the various output
products. This distribution is referred to
as allocation. The ISO standard describes
several approaches to allocation for
instance, by mass or by value. Whenever
several of these approaches may be
appropriate, the standard requires that a
sensitivity analysis covering all the different
possibilities is included in the study, to avoid
possible misinterpretation of the estimated
impact due to the adoption of a specific
allocation approach.
An analogous accounting issue is
presented when assessing the end of life of
a product. Materials recycling is broadly
discussed as an important strategy for
improving the sustainability of materials
production32. In fact, for some metals,
production from recycled material can
reduce energy burdens by a factor of 10 20
compared to production from ore33. How
to account for the impact of recycling
within a LCA, however, presents a specific
type of allocation challenge. For a specific
component that is recycled (or reused),
it may be straightforward to identify the
environmental burden associated with
the recycling process and the benefits for
696 NATURE MATERIALS | VOL 16 | JULY 2017 | www.nature.com/naturematerials
Methanol Conventional Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Diesel (IPCC), which periodically publishes
assessment reports on the factors that
Oil RME characterize the global warming potential of
Trans-
Blending a greenhouse gas37,38.
esterification
Biodiesel However, GHG emissions (or energy
use, the other commonly reported metric)
do not always correlate with other types
Meal Crude of environmental impact 39. Examining
cakes glycerin multiple indicators in an analysis, such
Co-products as acidification, water use, toxicity or
carcinogens provides the decision-maker a
basis for understanding trade-offs among
these various impacts. For example, a recent
examination of the environmental impacts
of historical electricity generation by country
found that, as fuel mixes shift, environmental
burdens also shift among categories such as
GHG emissions, toxicity-related impacts and
potentially avoiding primary extraction respiratory effects39. These LCIA methods
(and some refining processes). But which are still evolving and their development is
life cycle should be given this credit, the an active area of research. For example, most
product/material being recycled or the LCIA methods require higher geographical
product/material into which the recycled resolution than is possible based on current
material is being used34? Furthermore, data availability. Spatially (and temporally)
what is the value of this credit; should we differentiated methods are currently under
assume that the recycled material fully development 40,41,42. Advances in materials
displaces primary production? Changes further motivate the need for improvement
in these disposal assumptions can change in LCIA methods as the community
the conclusions of a comparative LCA pursues the use of lead-containing
assessment between alternative technologies, perovskite materials43, carbon nanotubes
as demonstrated by a recent review for thin- and other nanoparticulates, as well as
film photovoltaic technologies35. other novel technologies with potentially
This question of whether recycling significant environmental impacts beyond
displaces primary production is an example GHG emissions44,45.
of a concept referred to as consequential
LCA, which has gained traction recently. Challenges for the future of LCA
Here, more broadly, rather than focusing The power of LCA as a tool for exploring
on activities directly attributable to a the environmental implications of
single product/material the practitioner products, services and systems derives
attempts to characterize how technological from the holistic consideration of activities
changes translate into changes in society across stakeholders, time and location.
and its systems, and then evaluates the Unfortunately, this source of power is the
environmental consequences of those selfsame source of most (if not all) practical
changes. Using this viewpoint, recycling challenges to LCA implementation. Simply
accounting becomes an assessment of put, the amount of information required
how much primary extraction might to characterize life-cycle activities is
be avoided36. exceptionally large, and is not collected
without special expenditure of time and
Impact assessment. The impact assessment resources. Not surprisingly, this discourages
step of LCA translates the inventory or at least delays the execution of a LCA.
of resources consumed and pollutants To overcome this challenge, two critical
emitted into indicator scores that provide a developments are needed: (1) more
quantitative metric of impact for a product comprehensive life-cycle inventory databases
or process. This translation is done through and (2) parametric system models of both
one of several life-cycle impact assessment process inventories and product life cycles.
(LCIA) methods, which include the single No LCA study has the resources to collect
metric indicators such as GHG emissions new (primary) data on every relevant life-
or more complex measures of human health cycle activity. Instead, LCA practitioners
impairment, ecosystem toxicity and resource collect primary data where possible but
depletion. GHG emissions are one of the rely upon existing databases that contain
most commonly reported life-cycle impact modular datasets compiled by other analysts.
assessment metrics. This indicator is strictly Unfortunately, these databases are currently
related to the guidelines produced by the far from comprehensive. Not all technologies
2
0
1
7
M
a
c
m
i
l
l
a
n
P
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
L
i
m
i
t
e
d
,
p
a
r
t
o
f
S
p
r
i
n
g
e
r
N
a
t
u
r
e
.
A
l
l
r
i
g
h
t
s
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
 commentary

are included and many regions (for instance,
North America) have notably incomplete
coverage. Unfortunately, collecting and
compiling this data is costly. Currently,
market demand for the data is insufficient to
completely fund such efforts. Public support
for data collection and database maintenance
is needed until that demand develops.
Even when data is collected, it always
represents only specific instances of a
process or a product. It is possible to create
model-based (parametric) datasets that
allow analysts to explore many process
variations. Similarly, it is possible to create
parametric models of products that allow
users to estimate the magnitude of life-cycle
activities associated with that product. These
kinds of tools allow analyses to be created
for specific products and contexts based
on limited information about the case of
interest. By reducing the data collection
burden these developments should make
LCA more attractive for early stage design
and materials decisions.
Earlier we noted that LCA studies have
reported large differences in the estimation
of the GHG impact of biodiesel. Disparities
like this have caused many to feel that
LCA is unreliable and lacks credibility. To
overcome this challenge, LCAs must include
an assessment of the uncertainty in the result
and be transparent about the implications
of that uncertainty. To make this a reality,
we both need to develop inventory datasets
and educate those who would make use
of LCA results to both expect uncertainty
information and know how to factor it into
their decision-making 46,47.
Engineering materials have profoundly
improved the quality of life for much
of the globe. The systems that deliver
those improvements also put real burden
on the natural world. The materials
community has the unique skills and
potential to transform the nature of that
burden. Current and future members of
the materials community must be able to
evaluate and lighten the environmental
burden of a materials technology with
which they are involved. To realize
that potential, we must teach materials
engineers, scientists and technicians
the skills to characterize and shape not
only technical performance, but also
environmental performance as well. To fully
embed this into the materials community
toolbox, LCA cannot be viewed as a tool
borrowed from another community;
materials scientists and engineers should
become engaged in developing and
tailoring the methods of LCA to address
pressing materials questions.
Randolph Kirchain, Jeremy Gregory and
Elsa Olivetti are at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge,
Massachusetts 02139, USA.
e-mail: kirchain@mit.edu
References
1. Leontief, W.InputOutput Economics (Oxford Univ. Press, 1986).
2. Jrgensen, A. Int. J.Life Cycle Assess. 18, 296299 (2013).
3. Weidema, B.P. Int. J.Life Cycle Assess. 11, 8996 (2006).
4. Kelly, J.C., Sullivan, J.L., Burnham, A. & Elgowainy, A. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 49, 1253512542 (2015).
5. A fresh design for GREET life cycle analysis tool. Argonne
National Laboratory https://greet.es.anl.gov/net (2016).
6. Keoleian, G., Miller, S., De Kleine, R., Fang, A. & Mosley, J. Life Cycle
Material Data Update for GREET Model (Univ. Michigan, 2012).
7. Burnham, A., Wang, M. & Wu, Y. Development and Applications
of GREET 2.7 The Transportation Vehicle-Cycle Model
(Argonne National Laboratory, 2006).
8. Ehrenberger, S., Dieringa, H. & Friedrich, H.E. Life Cycle
Assessment of Magnesium Components in Vehicle Construction
(German Aerospace Centre e.V., 2013).
9. Atkinson, G. & Mourato, S. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.
33, 317344 (2008).
10. Hanley, N. & Spash, C.L. CostBenefit Analysis and the
Environment (Edward Elgar, 1993).
11. Costanza, R. etal. Nature 387, 253260 (1997).
12. Hein, L., van Koppen, K., de Groot, R.S. & van Ierland, E.C. Ecol.
Econ. 57, 209228 (2006).
13. Sonnemann, G., Castells, F. & Schuhmacher, M. Integrated Life-
Cycle and Risk Assessment for Industrial Processes (CRC, 2003).
14. Cowell, S.J., Fairman, R. & Lofstedt, R.E. Risk Anal.
22, 879894 (2002).
15. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (110th US
Congress, 2007); https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/
house-bill/6
16. Lifecycle analysis of greenhouse gas emissions under the
renewable fuel standard. Environmental Protection Agency
http://go.nature.com/2rFLoMg (2017).
17. Building product disclosure and optimization environmental
product declarations. US Green Building Council
http://go.nature.com/2r38ABh (2017).
18. ISO 14044:2006 International Organization for Standardization
https://www.iso.org/standard/38498.html (2006).
19. ISO 14040:2006 International Organization for Standardization
https://www.iso.org/standard/37456.html (2006).
20. Baumann, H. & Tillman, A.-M. The Hitch Hikers Guide to LCA
(Studentlitteratur, 2004).
21. Matthews, H.S., Hendrickson, C.T. & Matthews, D.H.
Life Cycle Assessment (Creative Commons, 2015);
http://www.lcatextbook.com/
22. Hammond, G.P., Jones, C.I. & OGrady, A. in Handbook of Clean
Energy Systems Vol. 6 (ed. Yan, J.) Ch. 22 (Wiley, 2015).
23. Rebitzer, G. etal. Environ. Int. 30, 701720 (2004).
24. Hkkinen T. & Mkel K. Environmental Adaption of Concrete:
Environmental Impact of Concrete and Asphalt Pavements
(Technical Research Centre of Finland, 1996).
25. Xu, X., Gregory, J. & Kirchain, R. Transportation Research
Board 94th Annual Meeting 15-4011 (National Academy of
Sciences, 2015).
26. Matthews, H.S. & Small, M.J. J.Ind. Ecol. 4, 710 (2000).
27. Hendrickson, C., Horvath, A., Joshi ,S. & Lave, L. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 32, 184A-191A (1998).
28. Tukker, A. etal. Ecol. Econ. 68, 19281937 (2009).
29. Mala, J. & Freire, F. Renew. Sustainable Energy Rev.
15, 338351 (2011).
30. Hanes, R.J., Cruze, N.B., Goel, P.K. & Bakshi, B.R. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 49, 79968003 (2015).
31. Zhu, Y., Romain, C. & Williams, C.K. Nature 540, 354362 (2016).
32. Ciacci, L., Harper, E.M., Nassar, N.T., Reck, B.K. & Graedel,
T.E. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 1139411402 (2016).
33. Reck, B.K. & Graedel, T.E. Science 337, 690695 (2012).
34. Newell, S.A. & Field, F.R. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 22, 3145 (1998).
35. Chatzisideris, M.D., Espinosa, N., Laurent, A. & Krebs, F.C. Sol.
Energ. Mat. Sol. C 156, 210 (2016).
36. Weidema, B. J.Ind. Ecol. 4, 1133 (2000).
37. IPCC Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis
(eds Solomon, S. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).
38. IPCC Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report (eds Core Writing
Team, Pachauri, R.K. & Meyer, L. A.) (IPCC, 2014).
39. Laurent, A., Olsen, S.I. & Hauschild, M.Z. Environ. Sci. Technol.
46, 41004108 (2012).
40. Cherubini, F. etal. Environ. Sci. Policy 64, 129140 (2016).
41. Krewitt, W., Trukenmller, A., Bachmann, T.M. & Heck, T. Int.
J.Life Cycle Assess. 6, 199210 (2001).
42. Pfister, S., Koehler, A. & Hellweg, S. Environ. Sci. Technol.
43, 40984104 (2009).
43. Babayigit, A., Ethirajan, A., Muller, M. & Conings, B. Nat. Mater.
15, 247251 (2016).
44. Eckelman, M.J., Mauter, M.S., Isaacs, J.A. & Elimelech, M.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 29022910 (2012).
45. Meyer, D.E., Curran, M.A. & Gonzalez, M.A. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 43, 12561263 (2009).
46. Gregory, J., Noshadravan, A., Olivetti, E. & Kirchain, R. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 50, 63976405 (2016).
47. Lloyd, S.M. & Ries, R. J.Ind. Ecol. 11, 161179 (2007).

NATURE MATERIALS | VOL 16 | JULY 2017 | www.nature.com/naturematerials 697

2
0
1
7
M
a
c
m
i
l
l
a
n
P
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
L
i
m
i
t
e
d
,
p
a
r
t
o
f
S
p
r
i
n
g
e
r
N
a
t
u
r
e
.
A
l
l
r
i
g
h
t
s
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.