Source was major, but the report did not specify their system. Seven research utilized major information, while the other nine utilized secondary information. The authors in the examined analysis utilized two types of secondary data approaches: databases and earlier studies. Eleven on the research made use of databases, when five of them employed prior studies. 5 writers, alternatively, gathered inventory data from databases and prior studies. Twenty-six research Climate 2021, 9, x FOR PEER Review 13 of 67 utilized both main and secondary approaches to minimize the uncertainty of their findings (Figure 12A,B).Figure 12. (A) Information sources in the inventory stage rendered as a pie chart; (B) breakdown of key and and secondary data Figure 12. (A) Information sources with the inventory stage rendered as a pie chart; (B) breakdown of main secondary data into several sources as obtained from the studies. into a variety of sources as obtained in the studies.three.4. Phase 3: Life Cycle Influence Uniconazole Protocol assessment In life cycle effect assessment (LCIA), the significance of a solution system’s possible environmental impacts, determined by life cycle inventory outcomes, is evaluated applying LCIA. The LCIA consists of a number of components: classification, characterization, normalization, and weighting. Of these four elements, normalization and weighting are viewed as optional,Climate 2021, 9,14 of3.4. Phase three: Life Cycle Influence Assessment In life cycle effect assessment (LCIA), the significance of a solution system’s prospective environmental impacts, determined by life cycle inventory outcomes, is evaluated employing LCIA. The LCIA consists of various components: classification, characterization, normalization, and weighting. Of those four elements, normalization and weighting are thought of optional, though the very first two are mandatory components in LCIA [10] (Figure 13). As shown in Figure 14, all 74 reviewed studies completed the classification and characterization phases, whereas 14 studies completed normalization and ten completed weighting. Couple of research integrated the waiting stage given that it truly is optional and challenging. The very first step is classification, which requires identifying the effect assessment approach. Probably the most prevalent normal strategy was the CML with different versions, which include CML 2 baseline 2000 V2/world, developed by the Center for Environmental Research, and CML 2000 made by the Center of Environmental Science of Leiden University. The second most common procedures had been ISO 14044 (2006), ISO (2000), and ISO 14040, followed by several other procedures, which include IPCC 2001 GWP one hundred, proposed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate N-Acetylneuraminic acid References Modify. For much more information about the solutions used in the research, see Figure 15. The model utilized to calculate the effect is determined by the impact category the author intends to examine. Consequently, LCA, ISO, and IPCC have been essentially the most frequently Climate 2021, 9, x FOR PEER Assessment 14 of 67 applied effect methods considering the fact that they provide categorization factors for ecotoxicity and climate change, which were amongst the criteria utilised to select articles for this review.Figure 13. Phase 3 (effect assessment) of life cycle assessment (LCA). Figure 13. Phase 3 (effect assessment) of life cycle assessment (LCA).Classification tages of LCIA Characterization Normalization74Climate 2021, 9,15 ofFigure 13. Phase 3 (effect assessment) of life cycle assessment (LCA).Classification Stages of LCIA Characterization Normalization WeightingClimate 2021, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW74 74 14 ten 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 7015 ofNumb.