系统回顾热电材料和器件的生命周期评估,以确定知识差距和可持续性观点

IF 9.8 1区 社会学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Unza Jamil , Nicholas M. Holden
{"title":"系统回顾热电材料和器件的生命周期评估,以确定知识差距和可持续性观点","authors":"Unza Jamil ,&nbsp;Nicholas M. Holden","doi":"10.1016/j.eiar.2025.108060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This research examines the sustainability of thermoelectric (TE) materials and devices through a systematic review of 15 life cycle assessment (LCA) studies. The review was designed to focus on the significant question, not addressed in the literature, of whether published LCAs of thermoelectric materials and devices collectively enable conclusions to be drawn at the sector scale. The analysis focused on gaps and inconsistencies in the methodologies employed, including a lack of adherence to ISO standards, varying definitions of functional units, and incomplete reporting of environmental impacts. Most studies concentrate on traditional TE materials, such as bismuth telluride, with little emphasis on alternative or emerging materials. The majority of the assessments are based on process-oriented attributional LCAs, while consequential LCAs and cradle-to-cradle approaches are notably underutilized. Key findings suggest that, although TE technologies have the potential to offer environmental advantages—like energy recovery from waste heat and efficient cooling—there are considerable challenges that must be addressed. These include high production costs, dependence on toxic materials, and scalability concerns. The findings of the review illuminate the pathway for future research. It is recommended to focus on the development of sustainable and abundant materials, ensure compliance with standardized LCA methodologies, and incorporate cradle-to-end-of-use assessments to enhance transparency and comparability. There should also be an increased emphasis on case-specific analyses and the use of advanced computational models to better inform decisions regarding environmental sustainability and scalability. While TE technologies are promising, the inconsistencies and gaps in current studies limit a thorough understanding of their environmental impacts and broader acceptance. This review highlights the critical need for consistent methodologies, greater exploration of diverse materials, and geographic inclusivity to build a solid foundation for assessing the sustainability of TE materials and devices.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":309,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Impact Assessment Review","volume":"115 ","pages":"Article 108060"},"PeriodicalIF":9.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic review of life cycle assessment of thermoelectric materials and devices to identify knowledge gaps and sustainability perspectives\",\"authors\":\"Unza Jamil ,&nbsp;Nicholas M. Holden\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.eiar.2025.108060\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>This research examines the sustainability of thermoelectric (TE) materials and devices through a systematic review of 15 life cycle assessment (LCA) studies. The review was designed to focus on the significant question, not addressed in the literature, of whether published LCAs of thermoelectric materials and devices collectively enable conclusions to be drawn at the sector scale. The analysis focused on gaps and inconsistencies in the methodologies employed, including a lack of adherence to ISO standards, varying definitions of functional units, and incomplete reporting of environmental impacts. Most studies concentrate on traditional TE materials, such as bismuth telluride, with little emphasis on alternative or emerging materials. The majority of the assessments are based on process-oriented attributional LCAs, while consequential LCAs and cradle-to-cradle approaches are notably underutilized. Key findings suggest that, although TE technologies have the potential to offer environmental advantages—like energy recovery from waste heat and efficient cooling—there are considerable challenges that must be addressed. These include high production costs, dependence on toxic materials, and scalability concerns. The findings of the review illuminate the pathway for future research. It is recommended to focus on the development of sustainable and abundant materials, ensure compliance with standardized LCA methodologies, and incorporate cradle-to-end-of-use assessments to enhance transparency and comparability. There should also be an increased emphasis on case-specific analyses and the use of advanced computational models to better inform decisions regarding environmental sustainability and scalability. While TE technologies are promising, the inconsistencies and gaps in current studies limit a thorough understanding of their environmental impacts and broader acceptance. This review highlights the critical need for consistent methodologies, greater exploration of diverse materials, and geographic inclusivity to build a solid foundation for assessing the sustainability of TE materials and devices.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":309,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Impact Assessment Review\",\"volume\":\"115 \",\"pages\":\"Article 108060\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Impact Assessment Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925525002574\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Impact Assessment Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925525002574","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究通过对15项生命周期评估(LCA)研究的系统回顾,考察了热电(TE)材料和器件的可持续性。该综述旨在关注文献中未解决的重要问题,即已发表的热电材料和器件的lca是否能够在部门规模上得出结论。分析的重点是所采用方法的差距和不一致,包括缺乏对ISO标准的遵守,功能单位的定义不同,以及对环境影响的报告不完整。大多数研究集中在传统的TE材料,如碲化铋,很少强调替代材料或新兴材料。大多数评估基于面向过程的归因lca,而结果性lca和从摇篮到摇篮的方法明显未得到充分利用。主要研究结果表明,尽管TE技术具有提供环境优势的潜力,比如从废热中回收能源和高效冷却,但仍有相当大的挑战需要解决。这些问题包括高生产成本、对有毒材料的依赖以及可扩展性问题。本文的研究结果为今后的研究指明了方向。建议将重点放在可持续和丰富材料的开发上,确保遵守标准化的生命周期分析方法,并纳入从摇篮到最终使用的评估,以提高透明度和可比性。还应更加强调具体案例分析和使用先进的计算模型,以便更好地为有关环境可持续性和可伸缩性的决策提供信息。虽然TE技术很有前途,但目前研究中的不一致和差距限制了对其环境影响的彻底理解和更广泛的接受。这篇综述强调了对一致的方法、对不同材料的更大探索和地理包容性的迫切需要,以为评估TE材料和器件的可持续性奠定坚实的基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Systematic review of life cycle assessment of thermoelectric materials and devices to identify knowledge gaps and sustainability perspectives
This research examines the sustainability of thermoelectric (TE) materials and devices through a systematic review of 15 life cycle assessment (LCA) studies. The review was designed to focus on the significant question, not addressed in the literature, of whether published LCAs of thermoelectric materials and devices collectively enable conclusions to be drawn at the sector scale. The analysis focused on gaps and inconsistencies in the methodologies employed, including a lack of adherence to ISO standards, varying definitions of functional units, and incomplete reporting of environmental impacts. Most studies concentrate on traditional TE materials, such as bismuth telluride, with little emphasis on alternative or emerging materials. The majority of the assessments are based on process-oriented attributional LCAs, while consequential LCAs and cradle-to-cradle approaches are notably underutilized. Key findings suggest that, although TE technologies have the potential to offer environmental advantages—like energy recovery from waste heat and efficient cooling—there are considerable challenges that must be addressed. These include high production costs, dependence on toxic materials, and scalability concerns. The findings of the review illuminate the pathway for future research. It is recommended to focus on the development of sustainable and abundant materials, ensure compliance with standardized LCA methodologies, and incorporate cradle-to-end-of-use assessments to enhance transparency and comparability. There should also be an increased emphasis on case-specific analyses and the use of advanced computational models to better inform decisions regarding environmental sustainability and scalability. While TE technologies are promising, the inconsistencies and gaps in current studies limit a thorough understanding of their environmental impacts and broader acceptance. This review highlights the critical need for consistent methodologies, greater exploration of diverse materials, and geographic inclusivity to build a solid foundation for assessing the sustainability of TE materials and devices.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.60
自引率
10.10%
发文量
200
审稿时长
33 days
期刊介绍: Environmental Impact Assessment Review is an interdisciplinary journal that serves a global audience of practitioners, policymakers, and academics involved in assessing the environmental impact of policies, projects, processes, and products. The journal focuses on innovative theory and practice in environmental impact assessment (EIA). Papers are expected to present innovative ideas, be topical, and coherent. The journal emphasizes concepts, methods, techniques, approaches, and systems related to EIA theory and practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信