IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i24p13583-d698033.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Application of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment to Used Lubricant Oil Management in South Brazilian Region

Author

Listed:
  • Malaquias Zildo António Tsambe

    (Department of Studies in Environmental Technologies, Faculty of Natural Science and Mathematics, Pedagogical University of Maputo, Av. do Trabalho, Maputo 2482, Mozambique)

  • Cássio Florisbal de Almeida

    (Post-Graduation Program in Hydric Resources and Environmental Sanitary, Federal University of Technology of Rio Grande do Sul, Av. Bento Gonçalves, Porto Alegre 9500, Brazil)

  • Cássia Maria Lie Ugaya

    (Post-Graduation Program in Mechanical Engineering and Materials, Federal University of Technology—Paraná, Av. Sete de Setembro, Curitiba 6681, Brazil)

  • Luiz Fernando de Abreu Cybis

    (Post-Graduation Program in Hydric Resources and Environmental Sanitary, Federal University of Technology of Rio Grande do Sul, Av. Bento Gonçalves, Porto Alegre 9500, Brazil)

Abstract

Used Lubricant Oil (ULO) is a hazardous waste resulting from lubricant oil used in motorized equipment to reduce friction between moving surfaces that, over time, wear outs and becomes contaminated. The purpose of this study is to compare the sustainability of two ULO management systems in Brazil: one designated in this study by the TTR scenario (which includes transportation, trans-shipment, and re-refining phases), the other designated by the TsTR scenario (without the trans-shipment phase) to evaluate which scenario is socially, economically, and environmentally more efficient. The study uses the life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) methodology. As a combination of life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle cost (LCC), and social life cycle assessment (s-LCA), it integrates the three sustainability dimensions (environmental, social, and economic). The sustainability index was calculated by aggregating data from eight environmental indicators, five economic indicators, and five social indicators. The results showed that the TsTR scenario presented the best values for the sustainability assessment than the TTR scenario. The TsTR scenario had the best social and economic performance, and the TTR scenario had the best environmental performance. The differences observed in those scenarios’ performances were noted by the absence or presence of the trans-shipment center. The absence of this center improved the social and economic performance of the scenario. The social dimension was improved by the elimination of the stage that causes problems related to social and economic dimensions by reducing several costs that can be associated with it. The presence of the trans-shipment center improves the environmental performance scenario by reducing the number of hazards that could impact the re-refining phase. The LCSA methodology enables a comparative life cycle assessment of two alternative system evaluations of ULO management by the sustainability index of each scenario. This index helps to analyze the contributions of each of the 18 categories and subcategories in the perspective of the sustainability dimensions and, consequently, to carry out their integrated evaluation, aiming to define the best sustainability scenario.

Suggested Citation

  • Malaquias Zildo António Tsambe & Cássio Florisbal de Almeida & Cássia Maria Lie Ugaya & Luiz Fernando de Abreu Cybis, 2021. "Application of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment to Used Lubricant Oil Management in South Brazilian Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-16, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:24:p:13583-:d:698033
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/24/13583/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/24/13583/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Patrick Hofstetter & Arthur Braunschweig & Thomas Mettier & Ruedi Müller‐Wenk & Olaf Tietje, 1999. "The Mixing Triangle: Correlation and Graphical Decision Support for LCA‐based Comparisons," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 3(4), pages 97-115, October.
    2. Ciroth, Andreas, 2009. "Cost data quality considerations for eco-efficiency measures," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1583-1590, April.
    3. Atilgan, Burcin & Azapagic, Adisa, 2016. "An integrated life cycle sustainability assessment of electricity generation in Turkey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 168-186.
    4. Nuri Cihat Onat & Murat Kucukvar & Anthony Halog & Scott Cloutier, 2017. "Systems Thinking for Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: A Review of Recent Developments, Applications, and Future Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-25, April.
    5. Matthias Finkbeiner & Erwin M. Schau & Annekatrin Lehmann & Marzia Traverso, 2010. "Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(10), pages 1-14, October.
    6. Ruqun Wu & Dan Yang & Jiquan Chen, 2014. "Social Life Cycle Assessment Revisited," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(7), pages 1-27, July.
    7. Inês Ribeiro & Florinda Matos & Celeste Jacinto & Hafiz Salman & Gonçalo Cardeal & Helena Carvalho & Radu Godina & Paulo Peças, 2020. "Framework for Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Additive Manufacturing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-22, January.
    8. Erwin M. Schau & Marzia Traverso & Annekatrin Lehmann & Matthias Finkbeiner, 2011. "Life Cycle Costing in Sustainability Assessment—A Case Study of Remanufactured Alternators," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(11), pages 1-21, November.
    9. Rizal Taufiq Fauzi & Patrick Lavoie & Luca Sorelli & Mohammad Davoud Heidari & Ben Amor, 2019. "Exploring the Current Challenges and Opportunities of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-17, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Haicheng Jia & Ling Liang & Jiqing Xie & Jianyun Zhang, 2022. "Environmental Effects of Technological Improvements in Polysilicon Photovoltaic Systems in China—A Life Cycle Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-18, July.
    2. Oluwaseun Nubi & Stephen Morse & Richard J. Murphy, 2022. "Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Electricity Generation from Municipal Solid Waste in Nigeria: A Prospective Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-16, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. T.E.T Dantas & S.R Soares, 2022. "Systematic literature review on the application of life cycle sustainability assessment in the energy sector," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 1583-1615, February.
    2. Christina Wulf & Jasmin Werker & Christopher Ball & Petra Zapp & Wilhelm Kuckshinrichs, 2019. "Review of Sustainability Assessment Approaches Based on Life Cycles," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-43, October.
    3. Rizal Taufiq Fauzi & Patrick Lavoie & Luca Sorelli & Mohammad Davoud Heidari & Ben Amor, 2019. "Exploring the Current Challenges and Opportunities of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-17, January.
    4. Meylan, Grégoire & Ami, Helen & Spoerri, Andy, 2014. "Transitions of municipal solid waste management. Part II: Hybrid life cycle assessment of Swiss glass-packaging disposal," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 16-27.
    5. Oluwaseun Nubi & Stephen Morse & Richard J. Murphy, 2022. "Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Electricity Generation from Municipal Solid Waste in Nigeria: A Prospective Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-16, December.
    6. Martina Zimek & Andreas Schober & Claudia Mair & Rupert J. Baumgartner & Tobias Stern & Manfred Füllsack, 2019. "The Third Wave of LCA as the “Decade of Consolidation”," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-19, June.
    7. Buchmayr, A. & Verhofstadt, E. & Van Ootegem, L. & Sanjuan Delmás, D. & Thomassen, G. & Dewulf, J., 2021. "The path to sustainable energy supply systems: Proposal of an integrative sustainability assessment framework," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    8. Marwa Hannouf & Getachew Assefa, 2018. "A Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment-Based Decision-Analysis Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-22, October.
    9. Kucukvar, Murat & Haider, Muhammad Ali & Onat, Nuri Cihat, 2017. "Exploring the material footprints of national electricity production scenarios until 2050: The case for Turkey and UK," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 251-263.
    10. Hannah Karlewski & Annekatrin Lehmann & Klaus Ruhland & Matthias Finkbeiner, 2019. "A Practical Approach for Social Life Cycle Assessment in the Automotive Industry," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-60, August.
    11. Najat Omran & Amir Hamzah Sharaai & Ahmad Hariza Hashim, 2021. "Visualization of the Sustainability Level of Crude Palm Oil Production: A Life Cycle Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-16, February.
    12. Eleni Iacovidou & Jonathan Busch & John N. Hahladakis & Helen Baxter & Kok Siew Ng & Ben M. J. Herbert, 2017. "A Parameter Selection Framework for Sustainability Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-18, August.
    13. Thies, Christian & Kieckhäfer, Karsten & Spengler, Thomas S. & Sodhi, Manbir S., 2019. "Operations research for sustainability assessment of products: A review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(1), pages 1-21.
    14. Rafael Horn & Hanaa Dahy & Johannes Gantner & Olga Speck & Philip Leistner, 2018. "Bio-Inspired Sustainability Assessment for Building Product Development—Concept and Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-25, January.
    15. Zeug, Walther & Bezama, Alberto & Thrän, Daniela, 2020. "Towards a holistic and integrated Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of the bioeconomy: Background on concepts, visions and measurements," UFZ Discussion Papers 7/2020, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    16. Irene Huertas-Valdivia & Anna Maria Ferrari & Davide Settembre-Blundo & Fernando E. García-Muiña, 2020. "Social Life-Cycle Assessment: A Review by Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-25, August.
    17. Vojtěch Václavík & Marcela Ondová & Tomáš Dvorský & Adriana Eštoková & Martina Fabiánová & Lukáš Gola, 2020. "Sustainability Potential Evaluation of Concrete with Steel Slag Aggregates by the LCA Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-20, November.
    18. Bartlomiej Gladysz & Krzysztof Ejsmont & Aldona Kluczek & Donatella Corti & Stanislaw Marciniak, 2020. "A Method for an Integrated Sustainability Assessment of RFID Technology," Resources, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-24, September.
    19. Nuri Cihat Onat & Murat Kucukvar & Anthony Halog & Scott Cloutier, 2017. "Systems Thinking for Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: A Review of Recent Developments, Applications, and Future Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-25, April.
    20. Esteban Lopez-Arboleda & Alfonso T. Sarmiento & Laura M. Cardenas, 2019. "Systematic Review of Integrated Sustainable Transportation Models for Electric Passenger Vehicle Diffusion," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-19, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:24:p:13583-:d:698033. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.