0 votes

Dear all, best regards.

I´ve assessed the same dataset (Copper {RER} production, primary, APOS U) from ecoinvent with OpenLCA and Simapro using ReCiPe method and I have very different results.

In the following table are shown the results with openLCA and Simapro

Human carcinogenic toxicity0.874580.936
Terrestrial acidification0.051840.0523
Freshwater ecotoxicity8.523194.11
Terrestrial ecotoxicity 507.53968506
Global warming1.702511.9
Stratospheric ozone depletion4.30425E-064.29 E-6
Ozone formation. Human health 0.017270.0174
Land use 0.04450.188
Water consumption 53.135050.0426
Marine eutrophication 0.000130.0612
Marine ecotoxicity 10.780195.94
Ozone formation.Terrestrial ecosystems 0.01760.0178
Human non-carcinogenic toxicity 85.72095150
Mineral resource scarcity 0.001661.63
Ionizing radiation 0.254270.284
Fresh water eutrophication0.010310.0229
Fossil resource scarcity 0.405280.485
Fine particulate matter formation0.024740.0249

As you might see the results are very different even when I was assessing the same dataset from the same database version and the same LCIA.

I would like to know if you might help me to solve this problem.


in openLCA by (430 points)

2 Answers

+1 vote
by (90k points)
selected by
Best answer

You do not write the specific ReCiPe method, nor the database version, nor whether you calculated in openLCA with cut-off or not, but when I use ReCiPe 2016 H, from openLCA LCIA pack 2.0.4, and ecoinvent 3.5 APOS, without cut-off, I get these results in openLCA (version 1.10.2 but this should not influence anything):

NameImpact resultUnit
Fine particulate matter formation0.02499kg PM2.5 eq
Fossil resource scarcity0.48719kg oil eq
Freshwater ecotoxicity4.11204kg 1,4-DCB
Freshwater eutrophication0.02299kg P eq
Global warming1.83582kg CO2 eq
Human carcinogenic toxicity0.93618kg 1,4-DCB
Human non-carcinogenic toxicity150.1444kg 1,4-DCB
Ionizing radiation0.2784kBq Co-60 eq
Land use0.18999m2a crop eq
Marine ecotoxicity5.93977kg 1,4-DCB
Marine eutrophication0.06126kg N eq
Mineral resource scarcity1.62791kg Cu eq
Ozone formation, Human health0.0178kg NOx eq
Ozone formation, Terrestrial ecosystems0.01814kg NOx eq
Stratospheric ozone depletion4.33E-06kg CFC11 eq
Terrestrial acidification0.05253kg SO2 eq
Terrestrial ecotoxicity506.33335kg 1,4-DCB
Water consumption53.58003m3

This is very much aligned with your SimaPro results. For some categories there are differences (you do not post units for your results, however), e.g. water, where we include water from hydropower, and also GWP. We documented this in the LCIA method handbook, since we tested also our results against SimaPro.

I am receiving the values you post for openLCA with ecoinvent 3.6 APOS in openLCA, using method pack LCIA 2.0.4, ReciPe 2016 H. Note that ecoinvent 3.6 is today not yet available for SimaPro, as 3.6 was just released in September last year by the ecoinvent centre. The new version brings quite larger product systems, with more diverse processes from different countries, which can have an influence on the results.

help me to solve this problem.

-> either use also ecoinvent 3.5 in openLCA, or take the new values in openLCA, with ecoinvent 3.6. And as a side-note, it helps if you are more precise with terms, in LCA, when talking about your work. I hope this is fine to mention.

0 votes
by (430 points)

Hi Andreas, thanks a lot for your answer.

I used Recipe midpoint (H). Following your advice I assessed other several dataset from ecoinvent 3.5 using the same recipe method and compare them with the results in Simapro. I am attaching the table showing the results for impact category water consumption from Recipe midpoint H:

Open LCASimapro
market for diesel, low-sulfur | diesel, low-sulfur | APOS, U-ROWm3/kg0.8364Diesel, low-sulfur (ROW)/market for/APOS, Um3/kg0.00598
market for diesel, low-sulfur | diesel, low-sulfur | APOS, U-ROWm3/kg35.923Diesel, low-sulfur (ROW)/market for/APOS, Um3/kg0.251
market for electricity, low voltage | electricity, low voltage | APOS, U-PEm3/kWh0.59239Electricity, low voltage (PE)/market for/APOS, Um3/kWh0.00492
paper production, woodcontaining, supercalendered | paper, woodcontaining, supercalendered | APOS, U - RERm3/kg9.11682Paper, woodcontaining, supercalendred (RER)/market for paper, woodcontaining, supercalem3/kg0.0319
market for kraft paper, unbleached | kraft paper, unbleached | APOS, U-GLOm3/kg6.27615Kraft paper, unbleached (GLO)/market for/APOS, Um3/kg0.0516
market for sludge, pig iron production | sludge, pig iron production | APOS, U-ROWm3/kg0.3897Sludge, pig iron production (ROW)/market for sludge, pig iron production/APO, Um3/kg0.00101
market for iron ore, beneficiated, 65% Fe | iron ore, beneficiated, 65% Fe | APOS, U-GLOm3/kg0.31162Iron ore, beneficiated, 65% Fe (GLO)/market for/APOS,Um3/kg0.000636
market for polypropylene, granulate | polypropylene, granulate | APOS, U-GLOm3/kg0.16097Polypropylene granulate (GLO)/market for/APOS,Um3/kg0.0158
market for hard coal | hard coal | APOS, U-RLAm3/kg0.39756Hard coal (RLA)/market for/APOS, Um3/kg0.000759
I have the same problem because results from openLCA are much higher than Simapro. I really appreciate your help.


by (4.4k points)
As mentioned above, the difference in the results for water between Simapro and openLCA is explained in the lCIA method handbook.