4.8 Article

Benefits and Risks of Emerging Technologies: Integrating Life Cycle Assessment and Decision Analysis To Assess Lumber Treatment Alternatives

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 48, Issue 19, Pages 11543-11550

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es501996s

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Assessing the best options among emerging technologies (e.g., new chemicals, nanotechnologies) is complicated because of trade-offs across benefits and risks that are difficult to quantify given limited and fragmented availability of information. This study demonstrates the integration of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) and life cycle assessment (LCA) to address technology alternative selection decisions. As a case study, prioritization of six lumber treatment alternatives [micronized copper quaternary (MCQ); alkaline copper quaternary (ACQ); water-borne copper naphthenate (CN); oil-borne copper naphthenate (CNo); water-borne copper quinolate (CQ); and water-borne zinc naphthenate (ZN)] for military use are considered. Multiattribute value theory (MAVT) is used to derive risk and benefit scores. Risk scores are calculated using a cradle-to-gate LCA. Benefit scores are calculated by scoring of cost, durability, and corrosiveness criteria. Three weighting schemes are used, representing Environmental, Military and Balanced stakeholder perspectives. Aggregated scores from all three perspectives show CQ to be the least favorable alterative. MCQ is identified as the most favorable alternative from the Environmental stakeholder perspective. From the Military stakeholder perspective, ZN is determined to be the most favorable alternative, followed closely by MCQ. This type of scoring and ranking of multiple heterogeneous criteria in a systematic and transparent way facilitates better justification of technology selection and regulation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available