A practice-based framework for defining functional units in comparative life cycle assessments of materials

In comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) studies of materials, there is a mismatch between the current practice and existing guidelines regarding functional unit definition. The purpose of this study is to develop a practice-based framework for defining functional units in comparative LCAs of materials and provide guidance regarding in which situations different functional unit types are relevant. A literature review of comparative LCAs of materials identified three types of functional units: (i) the reference flow functional unit, (ii) the property functional unit, and (iii) the performance functional unit. These functional unit types, of which only the latter strictly complies with LCA guidelines, represent varying degrees of functional equivalence and technological maturity. The most relevant functional unit type depends on the goal of the study. We suggest that screening assessments of whether materials have comparable environmental impacts can apply reference flow functional units. Material comparisons for certain application areas with some important properties can apply property functional units. For comparisons of end products, performance functional units can be applied. However, even in such cases, complete functional equivalence can hardly be achieved due to more or less relevant product differences. The applicability of the framework is demonstrated for the case of comparing cemented carbide and polycrystalline diamond hard materials.

Automated summary

In comparative life cycle assessment studies of materials, there is a discrepancy between current practices and existing guidelines for defining functional units. This study introduces three types of functional units: reference flow, property, and performance functional units. Different types of functional units are suitable for different research goals, but achieving complete functional equivalence in practice is challenging.