Data implementation matters: Effect of software choice and LCI database evolution on a comparative LCA study of permanent magnets
Journal of Industrial Ecology, vol. 27, pp. 1252–1265
Abstract
Abstract Life cycle assessment (LCA) databases and software evolve. We analyzed to which extent software and evolving life cycle inventory databases affect the comparison of technology alternatives, using a comparative LCA on permanent magnets as a case study, with two selected software tools: CMLCA and Brightway LCA. We migrated the system models from the CMLCA to Brightway LCA software and alternated between the ecoinvent database versions 2.2 and 3.1 to 3.6 in the system background. When using ecoinvent v3.6 instead of v2.2, the change of the indicator results ranged from to 283%. The evolution of the ecoinvent database impacted the absolute amounts of the characterized results and the relative performance between alternatives. The impact category with the highest variability was ionizing radiation, which even showed a ranking inversion with ecoinvent v3.4. In contrast, the impact of using CMLCA or Brightway was negligible because the same data and modeling assumptions caused percentage differences below 0.4%. During the semi‐automated data migration to Brightway, we identified 23 environmental flows in the CMLCA model that were not paired with their corresponding characterization factors in the published study of reference. This error had led to an underestimation of 63% in the photochemical oxidation indicator of one of the alternatives. This underestimation relates to an interoperability issue regarding the nomenclature of environmental flows in software alternatives and is a matter of data implementation rather than an issue intrinsic to the selected software. Finally, we identified improvement opportunities for the transparency and reusability of LCA models. This article met the requirements for a Gold‐Gold JIE data openness badge described at http://jie.click/badges .
Authors 6
-
Brenda Miranda Xicotencatl corresponding Aachen Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML) Leiden University Leiden The Netherlands Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML)
Affiliation as printed
Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML) Leiden University Leiden The Netherlands
Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML), Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands
-
René Kleijn Aachen Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML) Leiden University Leiden The Netherlands Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML)
Affiliation as printed
Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML) Leiden University Leiden The Netherlands
Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML), Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands
-
Sander S. van Nielen Aachen Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML) Leiden University Leiden The Netherlands Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML)
Affiliation as printed
Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML) Leiden University Leiden The Netherlands
Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML), Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands
-
Franco Donati Aachen Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML) Leiden University Leiden The Netherlands Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML)
Affiliation as printed
Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML) Leiden University Leiden The Netherlands
Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML), Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands
-
Delft University of Technology
Affiliation as printed
Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering TU Delft Delft The Netherlands
Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, TU Delft, Delft, The Netherlands
-
Arnold Tukker Aachen Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML) Leiden University Leiden The Netherlands Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML)
Affiliation as printed
Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML) Leiden University Leiden The Netherlands
Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML), Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands
Cited by 28 stored of 29
No patents citing this paper on Lens.org (checked 2026-10-11).