Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:27422–27440

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-24077-3

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Life cycle assessment of photovoltaic electricity production

by mono‑crystalline solar systems: a case study in Canada
Ehsan Alam1 · Xiaohong Xu1

Received: 21 October 2021 / Accepted: 3 November 2022 / Published online: 16 November 2022
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2022

Abstract
Photovoltaic (PV) system is widely recognized as one of the cleanest technologies for electricity production, which transforms
solar energy into electrical energy. However, there are considerable amounts of emissions during its life cycle. In this study,
life cycle assessment (LCA) was used to evaluate the environmental and human health impacts of PV electricity production
in Canada. The PV potential varies considerably among the provinces, with higher values in Manitoba (MB), Saskatchewan
(SK), Alberta (AB), and southern Ontario (ON). A grid-connected slanted-roof mono-crystalline silicon (mono-Si) PV system
with a capacity of 3 kWp (the peak power of the system in kilowatts) in Toronto, Ontario, was considered as the case study
system. Ten impact categories were considered including (1) acidification, (2) carcinogenic, (3) ecotoxicity, (4) eutrophica-
tion, (5) fossil fuel depletion, (6) global warming, (7) non-carcinogenic, (8) ozone depletion, (9) respiratory effects, and (10)
smog. Among the four components of the PV system, i.e., mono-Si panel, mounting system, inverter, and electric installation,
the mono-Si panel production was the highest contributor in seven out of ten impact categories, including acidification (68%),
eutrophication (60%), fossil fuel depletion (81%), global warming (77%), ozone depletion (88%), respiratory effects (74%),
and smog (70%). For the other three processes, the electric installation contributed most to ecotoxicity at 58%, followed by
the mounting system in the carcinogenic category (29%), and the inverter in the non-carcinogenic category (31%). By nor-
malizing the impacts based on the reference scores in Canada, it was found that the ecotoxicity and carcinogenic categories
had dominant contributions to the overall impact by 53% and 42%, respectively. The global warming potential impact was
estimated as 79 gr ­CO2 eq /kWh, which is close to the mean value of 79.5 gr ­CO2 eq /kWh, reported in the literature. The
sensitivity analysis indicated that a 10% increase in the panel and mounting system area will increase the ozone depletion
and carcinogenic categories by 8.1% and 2.8%, respectively.

Keywords Life cycle assessment (LCA) · Impact category · Global warming · Photovoltaic systems · Mono-Si panel ·
Canada

Nomenclature ISO International organization for standardization

AC Alternating current LCA Life cycle assessment
CdTe Cadmium telluride LCI Life cycle inventory
CFC Chlorofluorocarbon LCIA Life cycle impact assessment
CIS Copper (C), indium (I), and selenium (S) NF Normalization factor
CTUe Comparative toxic unit for human PV Photovoltaic
CTUh Comparative toxic unit for human Si Silicon
DC Direct current SO2 Sulfur dioxide
GHG Greenhouse gas TRACI Tool for reduction and assessment of chemicals
and other environmental impacts

Responsible Editor: Philippe Loubet

* Ehsan Alam
alam72@uwindsor.ca
1
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Windsor, Windsor, ON, Canada

13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:27422–27440
Introduction
Several factors have led to a significant increase in the
development of renewable energy, including the serious
global environmental crises in recent years, the regulations
of greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions, and technological
advances in distributed energy technologies (Pehnt 2006;
Sabour et al. 2020a, 2020b). Since 1990, renewable energy
sources have grown at an average annual rate of 2%, which
is slightly higher than the growth rate of the world’s total
energy supply of 1.8%. The growth has been especially
high for solar photovoltaic (PV) systems, with an aver-
age rate of 36.5% per year (IEA 2021). Solar energy is
the most widely distributed renewable energy worldwide
(Fu et al. 2015), and solar PV panel technology generates
electricity directly from solar radiation without emitting
any GHGs during its operations (Peng et al. 2013). There
are different types of PV panels in terms of the technology,
chemical elements used, and efficiency in converting the
Sun’s energy into electricity. First-generation PV panels
were made from mono-crystalline silicon (mono-Si), poly-
crystalline, or multi-crystalline silicon PV (multi-Si). The
second generation included thin-film solar cells (CdTe and
CIS). Currently, the most commercial and common types
of PV systems are mono-Si and multi-Si panels (Stoppato
2008; Rabaia et al. 2021). Mono-Si panels have relatively
high efficiency with an average module efficiency of 14%;
however, mono-Si panels are more expensive due to the
Fig. 1  Annual average daily
solar insolation in Canada based
on data from Natural Resources
Canada (NRCAN 2020a)
27423
high silicon purity in the extraction and manufacturing
processes (Rabaia et al. 2021).Solar energy is a small but
fast-increasing source of electricity in Canada, whose
capacity of solar PV ranked 9th in the world, with China
being 1st (33% of the global total), followed by the USA
(12%) and Japan (10%). The total installed capacity of
solar power in Canada has grown from 16.7 megawatts in
2005 to 3040 megawatts in 2018 (NRCAN 2020b), and
over 98% of the solar PV capacity in Canada is located in
the province of Ontario (CER 2022).
Solar PV potential is defined as the amount of power
generated (kWh) per installed kilowatt peak capacity (kWp)
over a period of time, such as a day, week, month, or year
(Suri et al. 2020). Another measure is solar insolation in the
unit of kWh/m2, which is usually reported by the daily aver-
age. Figure 1 shows the annual average daily solar insolation
in Canada, which is generated using ArcGIS Pro software
(Esri 2020) based on data from (NRCAN 2020a). According
to the map, daily global insolation highly varies in Canada,
ranging from 2.5 to 5.8 kWh/m2. The cities of Regina and
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, are exposed to the largest amount
of sunlight, followed by Calgary, Alberta; Winnipeg, Mani-
toba; Edmonton, Alberta; and Ottawa, Ontario (CER 2022).
This highlights the importance of geographical location in
the performance of PV systems in terms of environmental
and economic aspects.
There has been an increasing concern over the environ-
mental impacts of PV systems, especially in the past two
decades, due to the exponential growth in the use of PV
13
27424
technologies. Regarding the operation phase, PV systems
are completely clean technologies with no emissions (Rabaia
et al. 2021). However, there are considerable amounts of
emissions during their life cycle, including the extraction
and manufacturing of raw materials, transportation, pro-
duction and assembly of electrical components, installa-
tion process, and disposal (Fu et al. 2015). Therefore, it is
essential to investigate the environmental performance of
PV systems and determine the life cycle emissions during
different stages (Peng et al. 2013). Life cycle assessment
(LCA) is a quantitative method that takes into account the
complete life cycle of a product or process, starting from the
production of raw materials to the final disposal (ISO14040
2006; ISO14044 2006); thus, LCA can address a broad range
of environmental issues (Hauschild et al. 2017), such as cli-
mate change, acidification, eutrophication, depletion of non-
renewable resources, ecotoxicity, and human health impacts.
According to the literature review conducted for the pur-
poses of the present study, several studies have been pre-
sented on the LCA of PV systems; however, there are many
variations in terms of purpose, scope, data, methodology,
system type, and geographic location. Because solar irra-
diance varies in different regions of the world (Suri et al.
2020), it is essential to evaluate each project based on its
specific location. In this regard, case studies have been
presented in locations such as Switzerland (Dones and
Frischknecht 1998; Jungbluth et al. 2007), southern Europe
(Wild-Scholten 2013), China (Fu et al. 2015; Yu et al. 2017;
Xie et al. 2018; Jia et al. 2020), Japan (Ito et al. 2011), Sin-
gapore (Kannan et al. 2006; Zhong et al. 2011), Italy (Desi-
deri et al. 2012, 2013; Carnevale et al. 2014; Vellini et al.
2017), Spain (Dominguez-Ramos et al. 2010; Bayod-Rújula
et al. 2011; Sumper et al. 2011), USA (Pacca et al. 2006),
UK (Muneer et al. 2006), Mexico (Santoyo-Castelazo et al.
2021), Germany (Graebig et al. 2010), the Netherlands
(Mohr et al. 2013), Brazil (Constantino et al. 2018), and
France (Beylot et al. 2014).
Most studies have only focused on global warming poten-
tial (Ito et al. 2010, 2011; Zhai and Williams 2010; Alsema
and Wild-Scholten 2011; Stoppato 2008; Bayod-Rújula
et al. 2011; Wild-Scholten 2013; Constantino et al. 2018).
However, there are fewer studies on other impact catego-
ries such as ecotoxicity, ozone depletion, eutrophication,
and human health (Yu et al. 2017; Xie et al. 2018; Jia et al.
2020; Santoyo-Castelazo et al. 2021; Fu et al. 2015). The
reported GHG emission rate has been in the range of 5–220
gr ­CO2-equivalent/kWh, which shows a significant variation.
This situation is mainly due to several factors including (1)
solar irradiance, (2) the manufacturing process (raw material
extraction and energy consumption), (3) the type of PV tech-
nology (i.e., system lifetime, capacity, module efficiency),
and (4) system installation type (e.g., grid-connected, stand-
alone, roof, ground-mounted). Further, the scope of LCA,
13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:27422–27440
including the functional unit and system boundary, can sig-
nificantly influence the results.
The use of PV technologies has been significantly increas-
ing in Canada, especially in the last decade. However, the
environmental impacts of the PV technologies have not been
fully investigated, resulted in a significant knowledge gap in
the overall performance of these systems. Only two studies
were found on the LCA of PV systems in Canada (Mehedi
et al. 2022; Cubi et al. 2016). Mehedi et al. (2022) conduct
an LCA study on a utility-scale multi-Si PV system with a
lithium-ion battery, located in Alberta, Canada. However,
the focus of the study was only on energy and GHG emis-
sions, ignoring other impact categories. Cubi et al. (2016)
evaluate the environmental performance of rooftop technolo-
gies including white roofs, green roofs, and roof-mounted
multi-Si PV in three locations, i.e., Calgary, Alberta, Van-
couver, British Colombia, and Toronto, Ontario. However,
their study was more concerned with the comparison of dif-
ferent rooftop technologies than a detailed LCA study on the
PV system, including different components.
Although LCA studies have been conducted to assess
the environmental performance of mono-Si PV systems
(Wild-Scholten 2013; Fthenakis and Kim 2011), there is no
study in Canada. Further, previous studies have only con-
sidered GHG emissions, ignoring other impact categories.
According to the literature, there are few studies on the other
impacts of mono-Si panels (Chen et al. 2016). Therefore,
the objective of this study is to assess the environmental
and human health impacts of PV electricity production by
grid-connected mono-Si residential PV systems in Canada
using LCA. Specific objectives include:
1) Identifying major environmental and human health
impacts including acidification, ecotoxicity, eutrophi-
cation, fossil fuel depletion, global warming, ozone
depletion, smog, carcinogenic, non-carcinogenic, and
respiratory effect
2) Analyzing the variability of PV potential and the life
cycle impacts in Canada
3) Comparing the impacts of PV electricity production
with Ontario’s electricity grid mix
Methodology
Overall framework
In this study, LCA was used to assess the environmental
and human health impacts of PV electricity production by
mono-Si PV systems. This study followed the LCA method-
ology defined by ISO14040 (2006) and ISO14044 (2006).
Also, the European ILCD guideline (EuropeanCommis-
sion 2010) was used to further specify the methodological
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:27422–27440
choices. There are four steps for performing LCA includ-
ing (1) goal and scope definition, (2) inventory analysis, (3)
impact assessment, and (4) interpretation.
Goal and scope definition
Goal and scope definition is the first step in performing
LCA. The goal of this study was to identify environmen-
tal and human health performance indicators of residential
PV electricity production in Canada. The impact categories
included acidification, carcinogenic, ecotoxicity, eutrophi-
cation, fossil fuel depletion, global warming, non-carcino-
genic, ozone depletion, respiratory effects, and smog.
Scope definition determines the product system of the
study and the way LCA should take place (Hauschild et al.
2017). A typical residential house with a slanted roof,
located in Toronto, Ontario (43.6532° N, 79.3832° W)
was selected as the case study building. The electricity was
assumed to be grid-connected and produced by a mounted
PV system using mono-silicon (mono-Si) panels which is
the most used type of solar panel compared to other types
(Bayod-Rújula 2019) due to its high efficiency (Plante 2014;
Kalyani et al. 2021). Mono-Si panels are also referred to
as mono-crystalline (or single-Si) panels in the literature
(Jungbluth et al. 2007). The nominal capacity was assumed
to be 3 kW at peak performance, which is a popular system
due to its size, efficiency, and affordability (Martin 2012).
It was assumed that tap water was used for cleaning the PV
panels every six months (Zahedi et al. 2021; Wernet et al.
2016). Other components include an inverter to convert the
low voltage DC power into AC power, the mounting system,
and electric components such as scrap copper, steel, epoxy
resin, and wire drawing. The process ends with low voltage
(i.e., 15 v) grid-connected electricity produced with the 3
kWp system, assuming an average yield. Also, the service
lifetime of the system was assumed to be 30 years, as in
Wernet et al. (2016).
PV potential determines the expected lifetime average
electricity production (kWh) per kilowatt of installed PV
capacity (NRCAN 2020b). PV potential directly affects the
Fig. 2  System boundary (dash-
line) of PV electricity production
27425
life cycle impacts of a PV system. Therefore, in the present
study, the relative impacts of the PV system were calcu-
lated according to the PV potential in different provinces
in Canada, ranging from 860 to 1235 kWh/kWp. The high-
est impact is considered 100%, as a base for comparison.
Ontario’s electricity supply mix includes a range of diverse
resources, including nuclear, hydro, natural gas, and renewa-
bles such as wind and solar (IESO 2021) (Fig. S1). To pro-
vide a contextual understanding of the life cycle impacts
of PV systems, the results were compared to the impacts
of Ontario’s electricity mix, based on LCI data from the
Ecoinvent database (Wernet et al. 2016).
Functional unit
The functional unit significantly affects the results and
interpretation of LCA. The reason is that the functional unit
provides a basis for deciding which processes to include
and how much material and energy are needed (Hauschild
et al. 2017). In this study, the functional unit was defined
as 1 kWh of electricity production, which served as a refer-
ence point to include all required processes and flows. The
impact results were reported based on per kWh of electricity
production.
System boundary
The system boundary is shown in Fig. 2. Each process is an
activity that transforms an input into an output (e.g., panel
production). Flows are all products (e.g., panel), material
(e.g., silicon), or energy inputs (e.g., electricity) and out-
puts (e.g., electricity or heat) of processes in the electricity
product system under study. This study took a cradle-to-gate
approach which considered all processes and flows from raw
material extraction (cradle) to the end of manufacturing and
electricity production (gate); however, it leaves the disposal
stage (grave) of the PV system due to a lack of reliable data.
Figure 3 shows the four major components of the PV
system. The inverter converts the low voltage DC power into
AC power with a capacity of 2.5 kW and an efficiency of
13
27426 Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:27422–27440

Fig. 3  Major components of the

case study PV system

Table 1  Key characteristics of the PV system

( )
(
kWh
) kWp
Total electricity =Lifetime (y) × capacity
unit unit
Item Description
× annual yield (kWh∕(kWp ⋅ y)) (1)
PV panel area (total) 22.071 ­m2
Frame Aluminum alloy where y is lifetime of the system (30 years). The annual
Front cover of the panel Tempering yield in Ontario, Canada is 1060 kWh/kWp/year (NRCAN
glass with a 2020b). Table 2 summarizes the inventory data of the PV
thickness of
system, which were obtained from the Ecoinvent database
3.2 mm
v3.7.1 (Wernet et al. 2016).
Efficiency of the panel 14%
Number of inverters required 2 items
Capacity of the inverter 2500 watts Handling of multifunctional processes
Efficiency of the inverter 93.5%
Area of the mounting structure 21.42 ­m2, A process is multi-functional when it delivers more than one
directly output (Hauschild et al. 2017). The cut-off system model
attached to the was used for handling of by-products in multifunctional
rafter of the
roof
processes. According to the cut-off approach (Ecoinvent
2021), (1) recyclable materials are considered burden-free
to recycling processes, and secondary (recycled) materials
bear only the impacts of the recycling processes, excluding
93.5%. The electric installation represents the production of their previous life, (2) The treatment of wastes is entirely
different components required for installing a 3kWp building allocated to the waste producer and all valuable by-products
integrated PV system. These components include all parts of waste treatment (such as heat from incineration) are cut
between the PV panel and the grid, i.e., lightning protection, off and become available burden-free, and (3) allocation
cabling in the PV panel area, fuse box, cabling from the PV takes place over all remaining (ordinary) products produced
panel to the inverter, and cabling from the inverter to the in an activity based on the allocation factors defined in the
electric meter. The mounting system includes the structural dataset.
components necessary for the mounting of the PV panel
on a slanted roof. Sufficient ventilation is ensured with a Impact assessment
distance of 10 cm from the roof surface. Thus, efficiency
losses due to high temperatures are minimized (Wernet et al. The LCIA method, TRACI 2.1, developed by the U.S. Envi-
2016; Jungbluth et al. 2007). The process of panel produc- ronmental Protection Agency (USEPA 2021), was used to
tion includes silica sand extraction, silicon purification, and determine typical and emerging impact categories. Within
cell production. the TRACI methodology, the impact categories are char-
acterized at the midpoint level. The ten impact categories
LCI data were (1) acidification, (2) carcinogenic, (3) ecotoxicity, (4)
eutrophication, (5) fossil fuel depletion, (6) global warm-
Ecoinvent database (v 3.7.1) was used to access the required ing, (7) non-carcinogenic, (8) ozone depletion, (9) respira-
data. Table 1 describes the key characteristics of the PV tory effects, and (10) smog. The advantage of considering
system. multiple environmental impacts is to avoid burden shifting
To derive the inventory amounts and impacts on a per which happens when efforts for lowering one impact unin-
kilowatt-hour basis, the analysis was performed based on the tentionally result in increasing another impact (Hauschild
reciprocal of the result from Eq. 1, for 1 kWh of electricity.

13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:27422–27440 27427

Table 2  Input data to perform Flow Amount

LCA. Data were obtained from
Ecoinvent database (Wernet et al. Annual PV potential in Ontario, Canada* 1060 kWh/kWp
2016) unless otherwise noted
Electricity required for erecting a 3 kWp PV plant (drilling and screwing)** 0.23 kWh
Panel production (mono-Si)
Acetone, liquid 0.012 kg
Propanol 0.008 kg
Aluminum alloy, almg3 2.629 kg
Brazing solder, cadmium free 0.112 kg
Copper, cathode 0.112 kg
Corrugated board box (Quebec) 0.012 kg
Corrugated board box 1.082 kg
Ethyl vinyl acetate, foil 1.001 kg
Electricity, medium voltage 4.710 kWh
Glass fiber reinforced plastic 0.187 kg
Heat, district or industrial, natural gas 4.786 MJ
Heat, district or industrial, natural gas (Quebec) 0.079 MJ
Lubricating oil 0.001 kg
Methanol 0.002 kg
Nickel 0.0001 kg
Photovoltaic cell, mono-Si wafer 0.93241 ­m2
Polyethylene terephthalate, granulate, amorphous 0.372 kg
Polyvinyl fluoride, film 0.110 kg
Silicone product 0.121 kg
Solar glass, low iron 10.079 kg
T0ap water 21.286 kg
Tempering, flat glass 10.079 kg
Vinyl acetate 0.001 kg
Wire drawing, copper 0.112 kg
Inverter
Aluminum, cast alloy 1.4 kg
Capacitor, film type, for through-hole mounting 0.341 kg
Capacitor, electrolyte type, > 2 cm height 0.256 kg
Capacitor, tantalum-, for through-hole mounting 0.023 kg
Copper, cathode 5.51 kg
Copper, cathode 2.470 kg
Corrugated board box 0.029 kg
Diode, glass-, for through-hole mounting 0.047 kg
Electric connector, wire clamp 0.237 kg
Electricity, medium voltage 21.2 kWh
Fleece, polyethylene 0.06 kg
Inductor, ring core choke type 0.351 kg
Integrated circuit, logic type 0.028 kg
Polystyrene foam slab 0.3 kg
Polyvinylchloride, suspension polymerized 0.001 kg
Printed wiring board, for through-hole mounting, Pb free surface 0.1123 kg
Printed wiring board, for through-hole mounting, Pb containing surface 0.1123 kg
Resistor, metal film type, through-hole mounting 0.005 kg
Section bar extrusion, aluminum 1.4 kg
Sheet rolling, steel 9.8 kg
Steel, low-alloyed, hot rolled 9.8 kg
Styrene-acrylonitrile copolymer 0.01 kg
Transistor, wired, small size, through-hole mounting 0.038 kg

13
27428 Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:27422–27440

Table 2  (continued) Flow Amount

Waste paperboard, unsorted 2.5 kg

Wire drawing, copper 5.51 kg
Mounting system
Aluminum, wrought alloy 2.835 kg
Corrugated board box 0.131 kg
Corrugated board box 0.001 kg
Polyethylene, high density, granulate 0.001 kg
Polystyrene, high impact 0.007 kg
Section bar extrusion, aluminum 2.835 kg
Sheet rolling, steel 1.499 kg
Steel, low-alloyed, hot rolled 1.499 kg
Waste paperboard, unsorted 0.133 kg
Electric installations
Brass 0.02 kg
Copper, cathode 14.7 kg
Epoxy resin, liquid 0.002 kg
Nylon 0.23 kg
Polycarbonate 0.2 kg
Polyethylene, high density, granulate 14.41 kg
Polyvinylchloride, bulk polymerized 2.13 kg
Steel, low-alloyed, hot rolled 0.86 kg
Wire drawing, copper 14.7 kg
Zinc 0.04 kg
*
NRCAN 2020a
**
Wernet et al. 2016

et al. 2017). Also, impacts were categorized based on the Table 3  Normalization factors for Canada adopted from USEPA (2021)
environment (air, water, and soil) in which emissions occur.
Further, the impacts were subcategorized by the population Impact category Normalization factor Unit
density of the environment and time of emission (Table S1). (NF)
The LCA calculations were performed by using Openlca
Acidification 154.67 kg ­SO2 eq
(Version 1.11), a professional software which allows import-
Carcinogenic 2.32 × ­10–5 CTUh
ing data from different sources (Openlca 2022).
Ecotoxicity 10,414.19 CTUe
Because the impact categories are in different units, it is
Eutrophication 13.61 kg N eq
difficult to compare the results and determine which one is
Fossil fuel depletion 55,801.08 MJ surplus
large and which small in comparison with a reference system
Global warming 23,501.1 kg ­CO2 eq
(Hauschild et al. 2017). To support such a comparison, the
Non-carcinogenic 8.98 × ­10–4 CTUh
results were normalized based on the normalization factors
Ozone depletion 0.004 kg CFC-11 eq
(NFs) in Table 3. Normalization is an optional step (ISO14040
Respiratory effects 73.50 kg ­PM2.5 eq
2006; ISO14044 2006) to support the interpretation of impact
Smog 2043.239 kg ­O3 eq
results in LCA studies (Hauschild et al. 2017). Normalization
means that the magnitudes of the calculated impact scores are
expressed in a common metric. Normalization factors (NFs) are
the total impact of a reference region for a certain impact cat-
egory (e.g., climate change, eutrophication) within a reference where NFi is the normalization factor (impact per capita per
year. NFs were calculated based on Eq. 2 (Ryberg et al. 2014). year) for the impact category i, CF i,s is the characterization
∑ factor (impact per kg of emitted substance s), E­ s is emissions
CFi,s × Es
NFi = (2) of substances for a given geographical reference area (kg per
P year), and P is the human population of the reference area
(capita). The NFs can be used in LCA studies to calculate

13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:27422–27440 27429

the normalized impacts (Ryberg et al. 2014), as shown in
Eq. 3, where:
ISi
Ni =
NFi
Ni is the normalized impact result for the category i,
ISi is the impact score of a process or product. Thus, nor-
malization is dividing the scores by the reference situa-
tion’s scores.
Results and discussion
Variability of the results in Canada
Figure 4 shows the relative life cycle impacts of PV electric-
ity production and PV potential variability in each province
of Canada. The lowest impact was related to Regina, Sas-
katchewan (SK) with the highest PV potential. The highest
impact was related to Whitehorse, Yukon (YT), with the
lowest PV potential. There appears to be an inverse relation-
ship between the PV potential and the associated impact of
the PV system. The difference in the life cycle impacts of
a PV system among the 13 provinces was as high as 30%.
The provinces of Manitoba (MB), Saskatchewan (SK), and
Alberta (AB) were the best provinces for PV electricity pro-
duction, causing lower life cycle impacts due to higher PV
potential.
In the following, a detailed analysis is provided on the life
cycle impacts of PV electricity production in Ontario, the
second largest province in Canada. Over 98% of the solar
(3) PV capacity in Canada is located in Ontario (CER 2022),
because of reasons such as land area, and high PV potential
(Fig. 1 and Fig. 4).
Overview of LCA results
As shown in Fig. 5, panel production was the dominant
process in acidification (68%), eutrophication (60%), fossil
fuel depletion (81%), global warming (77%), ozone deple-
tion (88%), respiratory effects (74%), and smog (70%). Other
processes have been the dominant contributors in ecotoxic-
ity (82%), non-carcinogenic (60%), and carcinogenic (53%).
The electric installation was the process that contributed
the most to ecotoxicity at more than 58%. The contribution
of the mounting system was noticeable in the carcinogenic
category (29%). The inverter contributed to the non-carci-
nogenic category at 31%.
Environmental impacts
Acidification
The process of PV electricity production contributed
to the acidification impact category by 0.0004 kg S­ O2
eq/kWh. Among the four components, panel production
contributed 70%. As shown in Fig. 6, sulfur dioxide and

Fig. 4  Relative life cycle Relative impact %

impacts of PV electricity
production and PV potential Annual PV potential (kWh/kWp)
variability in each province of 100 1400

Annual PV potential (kWh/kWp)

Canada 90 1200
80
Relative impact %

70 1000
60 800
50
40 600
30 400
20
10 200
0 0

13
27430 Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:27422–27440

Fig. 5  Contribution of the Panel Mounting system Inverter Electric installation

main processes to the impact
categories 100%
90%
80%

Relative impact %
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Impact category

Fig. 6  Acidification [kg ­SO2 eq/ Ammonia (Emission to air / unspecified)

kWh]
Sulfur dioxide (Emission to air / unspecified)
Sulfur dioxide (Emission to air / high population density)
Sulfur dioxide (Emission to air / low population density)
Nitrogen oxides (Emission to air / high population density)
Nitrogen oxides (Emission to air / unspecified)
Nitrogen oxides (Emission to air / low population density)
Hydrogen chloride (Emission to air / low population density)

0.00045
0.0004
0.00035
0.0003
Kg SO2 eq

0.00025
0.0002
0.00015
0.0001
0.00005
0
Panel Mounting Inverter Electric Total
production system production installation
production

nitrogen oxides were, respectively, the most contributing by heat production at hard coal industrial furnace, metal
flows (40% and 22%) in acidification where blasting was mine operation, electricity production from hard coal,
the most direct contributing upstream process, followed and flat glass production.

13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:27422–27440 27431

Ecotoxicity process of mono-Si cell production (Czochralski process). In

The PV process contributed to ecotoxicity by 11.56 CTUe/kWh
(Fig. 7). Copper (ion) was the flow that contributed the most,
85% of the total impact, because of two factors: (1) the treat-
ment of scrap copper in the upstream process of municipal incin-
erations and (2) treatment of sulfidic tailings from copper mine
operations. The process of electric installation significantly con-
tributed to ecotoxicity (58%) because of incineration processes
for waste electric wirings including scrap copper and waste wire
plastic (Wernet et al. 2016). The inverter and panel production
contributed to ecotoxicity at 21% and 18%, respectively.
Eutrophication
Regarding the eutrophication category, the total impact was
0.00044 kg N eq/kWh. Panel production contributed 61% to
the overall eutrophication impact, mainly due to the Czochralski
process for the preparation of mono-Si crystals (Benda 2018).
Inverter contributed 20% to the eutrophication category. Also,
the emission of phosphate into the ground water (long-term) was
the flow that contributed the most: 77% (as shown in Fig. 8).
terms of upstream processes, three processes were the major
contributors to the global warming impact category: hard
coal mine operation and preparation, heat production at hard
coal furnace, and electricity production from hard coal. Car-
bon dioxide, emitted into the air with a low population, was
the flow that contributed the most (69%) in panel production.
Fossil fuel energy demand
Although PV systems are widely recognized as one of the
cleanest technologies for electricity production, they require
energy during their life cycle, specifically in the manufac-
turing processes (Peng et al. 2013; Tsang et al. 2016). The
fossil fuel energy demand was 0.074 MJ /kWh (Fig. 10).
Among all processes, the major contributor was panel pro-
duction by 81%. Regarding the type of fossil fuel, natural
gas was the flow that contributed the most (59%), followed
by crude oil (33.8%), and hard coal (4.8%).
Ozone depletion

Global warming
As shown in Fig. 9, the global warming impact was
0.0791 kg ­CO2 eq/kWh. Panel production was the major
contributor to the global warming impact by 77% due to the
At 88%, panel production was the most significant contribu-
tor to the ozone depletion category among the four compo-
nents of the PV system (Fig. S2). With respect to flows, bro-
motrifluoromethane (Halon 1301) was the most significant
contributor in the impact category (31%) due to the process

Fig. 7  Ecotoxicity [CTUe/kWh] Vanadium, ion (Emission to water / ground water, long-term)
Zinc, ion (Emission to water / ground water, long-term)
Silver, ion (Emission to water / ground water, long-term)
Copper, ion (Emission to water / ground water, long-term)
Chromium VI (Emission to water / ground water, long-term)
Other
14

12

10
CTUe

0
Panel Mounting Inverter Electric Other Total
production system production installation processes
production
Process

13
27432 Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:27422–27440

Fig. 8  Eutrophication [kg N eq/ Phosphate (Emission to water / surface water)

kWh]
Phosphate (Emission to water / ground water)
Phosphate (Emission to water / ground water, long-term)
Nitrogen oxides (Emission to air / low population density)
Nitrogen (Emission to water / surface water)
Nitrate (Emission to water / surface water)
Nitrate (Emission to water / ground water, long-term)
COD (Emission to water / ground water, long-term)
BOD5 (Emission to water / ground water, long-term)
Other
0.0005

0.0004
Kg N eq

0.0003

0.0002

0.0001

0
Panel Mounting Inverter Electric Other Total
production system production installation processes
production
Process

of petrolum production. The next was tetrachloromethane
(23%), which was due to the production of basic chemicals.
Smog
The total amount of smog impact was 0.0051 kg O ­ 3 eq
(Fig. S3), mainly because of blasting processes for mineral
extractions. Nitrogen oxide was the flow that contributed
the most, emitted into the air with low population density
(60%), high population density (28%), and unspecified
(12%). Among the main processes, panel production was
the major contributor (69%).
Human health impacts
Carcinogenic and non‑carcinogenic
As depicted in Fig. 11A, panel production was the process
that contributed the most to carcinogenic (46%), followed by
mounting system production (29%), and inverter production
(20%). The most contributing flow was chromium VI emitted
into ground water (74%) and surface water (21%), caused by
landfilling of slag, a by-product of electric arc furnace. Also,
75% of chromium VI was emitted into ground water, which
leads to long-term effects on human health.
As shown in Fig. 11B, panel production contributed the
most (40%) to non-carcinogenic impact, followed by inverter
production (31%), and electric installation (24%). Further, zinc-
ion, which was emitted into ground water, was the flow that
contributed most (42%). Silver (7%) is only produced in panel
production due to the process of photovoltaic cell production.
Landfilling of copper slag led to the emission of arsenic (10%)
into ground water. It is estimated that 108 countries are affected
by arsenic contamination in ground water (Shaji et al. 2021).
Respiratory effect
The respiratory effect was 0.0001 kg ­P M 2.5 eq /kWh
(Fig. S4), in which panel production was the most sig-
nificant contributor at 68%. Ambient P ­ M 2.5 (particu-
late matter with less than 2.5 µm in diameter), in low

13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:27422–27440 27433

Fig. 9  Global warming [kg ­CO2 Methane (Emission to air / low population density)
eq/kWh]
Carbon dioxide (Emission to air / unspecified)
Carbon dioxide (Emission to air / high population density)
Carbon dioxide (Emission to air / low population density)
Other
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
Kg CO2 eq

0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
Panel Mounting Inverter Electric Total
production system production installation
production

Fig. 10  Fossil fuel depletion Oil, crude

[MJ surplus/kWh]
Gas, natural
Gas, mine, off-gas, process, coal mining
Coal, hard, unspecified
Other
0.08
0.07
0.06
MJ surplus

0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
Panel Mounting Inverter Electric Total
production system production installation
production

13
27434 Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:27422–27440

Fig. 11  Huaman health impact

[CTUh/kWh]: A) Carcinogenic,
Chromium VI (Emission to water / surface water) (A)
Chromium VI (Emission to water / ground water, long-term)
B) non-carcinogenic
Other
2.5E-08
2E-08

CTUh
1.5E-08
1E-08
5E-09
0
Panel Mounting Inverter Electric Total
production system production installation
production

Zinc, ion (Emission to water / ground water, long-term)

Zinc (Emission to air / low population density) (B)
Thallium (Emission to water / ground water, long-term)
Silver (Emission to air / high population density)
Mercury (Emission to air / low population density)
Lead (Emission to air / high population density)
Lead (Emission to water / ground water, long-term)
Barium (Emission to water / ground water, long-term)
Arsenic, ion (Emission to water / ground water)
Arsenic, ion (Emission to water / ground water, long-term)
Arsenic, ion (Emission to water / surface water)
Other
8E-08

6E-08
CTUh

4E-08

2E-08

0
Panel Mounting Inverter Electric Total
production system production installation
production

population areas, was the flow that contributed most
(65.7%). The size of PM has been directly linked to its
potential in causing health problems because smaller
particles pose a greater risk than larger ones. Thus, peo-
ple experience greater adverse effects from exposure
to ambient ­P M 2.5 than ­P M 10 (Li et al. 2018). For this
reason, ­P M 2.5 flow was assigned higher impact factor
(equals 1), compared to ­PM10 (0.2). The process of elec-
tricity production from lignite was the most contributing
upstream process (16.2%) in the total amount of res-
piratory effects, followed by electricity production from
hard coal (8.6%) in coal mine power plants for internal
use in coal mining.
Normalization
According to the results of the normalization analysis
(Fig. 12), the highest normalized impact was related to the
ecotoxicity category with a relative amount of 1.1, which was
53% of the total normalized impact. The next was the carcino-
genic category with 0.9 (42%). This implies that the process
of PV electricity production caused higher impacts in terms

13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:27422–27440 27435

Fig. 12  Normalized impact 1.2

results of PV electricity
production based on Canadian
normalization factors adopted 1
from USEPA (2021)

Normalized value × 10-3

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
Ecotoxicity Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic Eutrophication Other

Impact category

Table 4  Sensitivity of the LCIA results increase in the lifetime (30 + 3 years) of the PV system
Input parameter PV panel Mounting Number of
will result in decreasing all impact categories by 9% as
Impact category area structure area inverters expected.
(+ 10%) (+ 10%) (+ 10%)
Comparison with Ontario’s electricity grid mix
Acidification + 6.4% + 1.3% + 1.1%
Carcinogenic + 4.4% + 2.8% + 1.9%
Figure 13 compares the relative impacts of PV electricity
Ecotoxicity + 1.7% + 0.3% + 2%
production with Ontario’s electricity grid mix. The PV sys-
Eutrophication + 5.7% + 0.7% + 1.9%
tem led to higher impacts in six out of ten impact categories.
Fossil fuel depletion + 7.5% + 0.8% + 0.7%
Regarding eutrophication and respiratory effects categories,
Global warming + 7.2% + 1.2% + 0.7%
Ontario’s electricity mix led to significantly lower impacts:
Non-carcinogenic + 3.9% + 0.5% + 3%
less than 50% of the PV electricity. On the other hand, the
Ozone depletion + 8.1% + 0.5% + 0.5%
PV system caused about 50% lower impact in the fossil fuel
Respiratory effects + 6.9% + 0.9% + 1%
depletion category.
Smog + 6.5% + 1.2% + 1.1%

Contribution analysis

LCA studies have been extensively performed on mono-Si

of ecotoxicity and carcinogenic, regarding the reference situ-
ation’s scores.
Sensitivity analysis
Table 4 shows the sensitivity of the impact categories to
the changes in the input variables. A 10% increase in the
panel and mounting system area will increase the ozone
depletion and carcinogenic categories the most by 8.1%
and 2.8%, respectively. Moreover, ecotoxicity is the least
affected category by the change in the PV panel area.
The change in the mounting system area, will increase
the carcinogenic category most (2.8%). Further, a 10%
PV systems. However, there is considerable variation in the
reported impacts. For this reason, the results of this work
were compared to previous studies. According to the litera-
ture, the focus has been mainly on global warming potential,
ignoring other impacts such as ecotoxicity and carcinogenic.
The global warming potential impact of 79 gr C­ O2 eq /kWh,
estimated in this study is close to the mean value of 79.5 gr
­CO2 eq /kWh reported by Nugent and Sovacool (2014). In
their review study, the range of GHG emissions for electric-
ity production by using mono-Si panels is 35 to 217 gr ­CO2
eq /kWh. Table 5 summarizes the GHG emissions for mono-
Si solar PV systems reported in the literature. The lowest
amount of GHG emissions, ranging from 5.60 to 12.07 gr

13
27436 Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:27422–27440

Fig. 13  Comparison of the Case study PV system Ontario's electricity mix

relative impacts of PV electric-
ity production with Ontario’s 100
electricity grid mix
90
80

Relative impact %
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Table 5  GHG emissions of mono-Si PV systems in previous LCA studies

Study region (author, year of Solar radia- Lifetime of PV GHG emission System capacity Functional unit System boundary
publication) tion (kWh/ system (years) (gr CO2 eq/
m2/y) kWh)

Japan (Kato et al. 1998) 1427 20 61 3 kWp 1 ­m2 of PV module Cradle to gate
Switzerland (Jungbluth 2005) 1100 25 39–110 (79) 3 kWp 1 kWh of electricity Cradle to gate
South Europe (Alsema and 1700 30 41 160 MWp 1 kWh of electricity Cradle to gate
Wild-Scholten 2005)
Singapore (Kannan et al. 1635 25 165–217 2.7 kWp 1 kWh of electricity Cradle to grave
2006)
South Europe (Fthenakis and 1700 30 45 N/A N/A N/A
Alsema 2006)
Spain (García-Valverde et al. 1932 20 131 4.2 kWp 1 kWh of electricity Cradle to grave
2009)
Arizona, USA (Fthenakis and 2370 30 35 N/A N/A N/A
Kim 2011)
Lebanon (Kabakian et al. 1867 25 38.9 1.8 kWp 1 kWh of electricity Cradle to gate
2015)
China (Chen et al. 2016) 1139–2453 25 5.6–12.7 76.5 MWp 1 kWp mono-Si PV cell Cradle to gate
China (Hou et al. 2016) 1200 25 87.3 N/A 1 kWh of electricity Cradle to grave
Ontario, Canada (Present 1300 30 79.1 3 kWp 1 kWh of electricity Cradle to gate
study)

­CO2 eq /kWh, is reported by a study in China (Chen et al.
2016). On the other hand, the highest amount of GHG emis-
sions was 217 gr C­ O2 eq /kWh, reported in Singapore (Kan-
nan et al. 2006). The considerable difference in the results
is associated with the methods, data resources, technolo-
gies, manufacturing processes, and solar radiation. Further,
factors such as the lifetime of the system, functional unit,
and system boundary can noticeably affect the results. For
example, regarding the functional unit, some studies have
considered 1 kWh of electricity production, (Kannan et al.
2006; Kabakian et al. 2015) or the production of 1 kWp
mono-Si PV cell (Chen et al. 2016). Concerning the system
boundary, some studies have considered the entire life cycle,
including raw material extraction, manufacturing, transpor-
tation, operation, maintenance, and end-of-life treatment
(Kannan et al. 2006; Chen et al. 2016; Hou et al. 2016);
however, some other studies have ignored the end-of-life
phase (Kabakian et al. 2015; Fu et al. 2015).

13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:27422–27440
The GHG emission in this study (79.5 gr ­CO2 eq /kWh)
was considerably lower than the mean value of 123.8 gr
­CO2 eq /kWh reported by (Mehedi et al. 2022) in Alberta,
Canada. However, their study was based on a utility-scale
multi-Si PV system with lithium-ion battery storage with a
different lifetime (25 years) and system boundary which also
included the end-of-life phase. Thus, their results cannot be
served as a comparison basis.
Conclusion
This study estimates the life cycle environmental and human
health impacts of PV electricity production using mono-Si
systems in Canada, including key contributing processes
and factors using the LCA methodology. The process of PV
electricity production contributed to the impact categories
of acidification, carcinogenic, ecotoxicity, eutrophication,
fossil fuel depletion, global warming, non-carcinogenic,
ozone depletion, respiratory effects, and smog by 0.0004 kg
­SO 2 eq/kWh, 2.05×10 −8 CTU​h/kWh, 11.6 CTU​e/kWh,
0.00044 kg N eq/kWh, 0.074 MJ /kWh, 0.0791 kg ­CO2 eq/
kWh, 6.72×10−8 CTU​h/kWh, 8.87×10−8 kg CFC-11 eq /
kWh, 0.0001 kg P ­ M2.5 eq /kWh, and 0.0051 kg O
­ 3 eq /kWh,
respectively. Among the four components of the PV system,
the mono-Si panel production was the highest contributor in
seven out of ten impact categories, including acidification
(68%), eutrophication (60%), fossil fuel depletion (81%),
global warming (77%), ozone depletion (88%), respiratory
effects (74%), and smog (70%). For the other three processes,
the electric installation contributed most to ecotoxicity at
58%, followed by the mounting system in the carcinogenic
category (29%), and the inverter in the non-carcinogenic
category (31%). By normalizing the impacts based on the
reference scores in Canada, it was found that the ecotoxicity
and carcinogenic categories had dominant contributions to
the overall impact by 53% and 42%, respectively. Among the
13 provinces/territories in Canada, the PV potential varies
significantly, with higher values in Manitoba (MB), Sas-
katchewan (SK), Alberta (AB), and southern Ontario (ON).
Therefore, utilization of PV electricity production in those
regions would lead to lower life cycle environmental and
human health impacts. The sensitivity analysis showed that
a 10% increase in the panel and mounting system area will
increase the ozone depletion and carcinogenic categories
the most by 8.1% and 2.8%, respectively. A 10% increase
in the lifetime (30 + 3 years) of the PV system will lead to a
decrease in all impact categories by 9% as expected.
Previous studies have been mostly concerned with the
global warming potential of PV systems. The findings of
this study highlight the importance of other impact cate-
gories such as ecotoxicity and carcinogenic. PV electric-
ity production has the potential to cause harm to human
27437
lives because toxic chemicals can enter the environment
at the beginning life cycle of the system (e.g., during the
manufacturing process of the solar panels), and at the
end of life when the panels and other components (e.g.,
inverters, electric installation) are disposed of (Nguyen
2021). The results of this work will support decision-
making and provide new insights into the existing body
of knowledge on the LCA of PV systems. However, this
study did not include end-of-life treatment due to a lack
of data. Future LCA works should explore the impacts
of the disposal stage which is considered a challenge for
PV technology as the current operating systems reach
their end of life. Further research is also needed to eval-
uate the overall performance of PV systems, considering
the life cycle costs and environmental impacts.
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplemen-
tary material available at https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 007/s​ 11356-0​ 22-2​ 4077-3.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Carina Xue Luo
at the University of Windsor for generating Fig. 1 and academic writing
advisors at the University of Windsor for their editorial assistance. This
project was funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council of Canada (NSERC) and the University of Windsor’s Ignite
Program.
Author contribution Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis,
software, and writing – original draft: Ehsan Alam; writing – review
and editing: Xiaohong Xu.
Funding This project was funded by the Natural Sciences and Engi-
neering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and the University of
Windsor’s Ignite Program.
Data availability All data generated or analyzed during this study are
included in this published article.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable.
Consent for publication Not applicable.
Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests.
References
Alsema E, Wild-Scholten M (2005) The real environmental impacts of
crystalline silicon PV modules: an analysis based on up-to-date
manufacturers data. Presented at the 20th European Photovoltaic
Solar Energy Conference. https://​publi​catio​ns.​ecn.​nl/M/​2005/​
ECN-​RX--​05-​015. Accessed Sep 2022
Alsema EA, Wild-Scholten M (2011) Environmental impact of crystal-
line silicon photovoltaic module production. Materials Research
Society Symposium Proceedings 895.https://​doi.​org/​10.​1557/​
PROC-​0895-​G03-​05
Bayod-Rújula ÁA, Lorente-Lafuente AM, Cirez-Oto F (2011) Envi-
ronmental assessment of grid connected photovoltaic plants with
13
27438
2-axis tracking versus fixed modules systems. Energy 36:3148–
3158. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​energy.​2011.​03.​004
Bayod-Rújula AA (2019) Chapter 8 - Solar photovoltaics (PV). In:
CALISE, F., D’ACCADIA, M. D., SANTARELLI, M., LANZINI,
A. & FERRERO, D. (eds.) Solar Hydrogen Production. Academic
Press. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​B978-0-​12-​814853-​2.​00008-4
Benda V (2018) 9 - Crystalline Silicon solar cell and module tech-
nology. In: LETCHER, T. M. & FTHENAKIS, V. M. (eds.) A
Comprehensive Guide to Solar Energy Systems. Academic Press.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​B978-0-​12-​811479-​7.​00009-9
Beylot A, Payet J, Puech C, Adra N, Jacquin P, Blanc I, Beloin-Saint-
Pierre D (2014) Environmental impacts of large-scale grid-
connected ground-mounted PV installations. Renewable Energy
61:2–6. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​renene.​2012.​04.​051
Carnevale E, Lombardi L, Zanchi L (2014) Life Cycle Assessment
of solar energy systems: Comparison of photovoltaic and water
thermal heater at domestic scale. Energy 77:434–446. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​energy.​2014.​09.​028
CER (2022) "Market Snapshot: Which cities have the highest solar
potential in Canada?". Canada Energy Regulator. www.​cer-​rec.​
gc.​ca [Accessed Sep 2022]
Chen W, Hong J, Yuan X, Liu J (2016) Environmental impact assess-
ment of monocrystalline silicon solar photovoltaic cell production:
a case study in China. J Clean Prod 112:1025–1032. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2015.​08.​024
Constantino G, Freitas M, Fidelis N, Pereira MG (2018) Adoption of
photovoltaic systems along a sure path: a life-cycle assessment
(LCA) study applied to the analysis of GHG emission impacts.
Energies 11:2806. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​en111​02806
Cubi E, Zibin NF, Thompson SJ, Bergerson J (2016) Sustainability
of rooftop technologies in cold climates: comparative life cycle
assessment of white roofs, green roofs, and Photovoltaic panels. J
Ind Ecol 20:249–262. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​jiec.​12269
Desideri U, Proietti S, Zepparelli F, Sdringola P, Bini S (2012) Life
Cycle Assessment of a ground-mounted 1778kWp photovoltaic
plant and comparison with traditional energy production sys-
tems. Appl Energy 97:930–943. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​apene​
rgy.​2012.​01.​055
Desideri U, Zepparelli F, Morettini V, Garroni E (2013) Compara-
tive analysis of concentrating solar power and photovoltaic tech-
nologies: Technical and environmental evaluations. Appl Energy
102:765–784. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​apene​rgy.​2012.​08.​033
Dominguez-Ramos A, Held M, Aldaco R, Fischer M, Irabien A (2010)
Prospective CO2 emissions from energy supplying systems: pho-
tovoltaic systems and conventional grid within Spanish frame
conditions. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
15:557–566. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11367-​010-​0192-3
Dones R, Frischknecht R (1998) Life-cycle assessment of photovoltaic
systems: results of swiss studies on energy chains. Prog Photovol-
taics Res Appl 6:117–125. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​(SICI)​1099-​
159X(199803/​04)6:​2%​3C117::​AID-​PIP209%​3E3.0.​CO;2-M
Ecoinvent (2021) System Models in ecoinvent 3. https://​www.​ecoin​
vent.​org/​datab​ase/​system-​models-​in-​ecoin​vent-3/ [Accessed Feb
16 2021]
Esri (2020) ArcGIS Pro (Version 2.5). Esri Inc. www.​e sri.​c om
[Accessed Sep 2022]
EuropeanCommission (2010) International Reference Life Cycle Data
System (ILCD) Handbook: general guide for life cycle assess-
ment: detailed guidance, Luxembourg, Joint Research Centre.
Institute for Environment and Sustainability. Publications Office
of the European Union. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2788/​38479
Fthenakis V, Alsema E (2006) Photovoltaics energy payback times,
greenhouse gas emissions and external costs: 2004–early 2005
status. Prog Photovoltaics Res Appl 14:275–280. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1002/​pip.​706
13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:27422–27440
Fthenakis VM, Kim HC (2011) Photovoltaics: life-cycle analyses. Sol
Energy 85:1609–1628. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​solen​er.​2009.​10.​
002
Fu Y, Liu X, Yuan Z (2015) Life-cycle assessment of multi-crystal-
line photovoltaic (PV) systems in China. J Clean Prod 86:180–
190. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2014.​07.​057
García-Valverde R, Miguel C, Martínez-Béjar R, Urbina A (2009) Life
cycle assessment study of a 4.2 kWp stand-alone photovoltaic
system. Sol Energy 83:1434–1445. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.s​ olen​
er.​2009.​03.​012
Graebig M, Bringezu S, Fenner R (2010) Comparative analysis of envi-
ronmental impacts of maize–biogas and photovoltaics on a land
use basis. Sol Energy 84:1255–1263. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
solen​er.​2010.​04.​002
Hauschild M, Rosenbaum R, Olsen S (2017). Life Cycle Assessment:
Theory and Practice. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-3-​319-​56475-3
Hou G, Sun H, Jiang Z, Pan Z, Wang Y, Zhang X, Zhao Y, Yao Q
(2016) Life cycle assessment of grid-connected photovoltaic
power generation from crystalline silicon solar modules in China.
Appl Energy 164:882–890. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​apene​rgy.​
2015.​11.​023
IEA (2021) Renewables Information: Overview, IEA, Paris. License:
CC BY 4.0. https://​www.​iea.​org/​repor​ts/​renew​ables-​infor​mation-​
overv​iew. Accessed Aug 2022
IESO (2021) Ontario’s electricity grid. Independent Electricity System
Operator (IESO). www.​ieso.​ca [Accessed Sep 2022]
ISO14040 (2006) Environmental management — life cycle assess-
ment — principles and framework. International Organisation
for Standardization, Switzerland. https://​www.​iso.​org/​stand​ard/​
37456.​html [Accessed Sep 2022]
ISO14044 (2006) Environmental management — life cycle assess-
ment — requirements and guidelines. International Organisation
for Standardization, Switzerland. https://​www.​iso.​org/​stand​ard/​
38498.​html [Accessed Sep 2022]
Ito M, Komoto K, Kurokawa K (2010) Life-cycle analyses of very-large
scale PV systems using six types of PV modules. Curr Appl Phys
10:S271–S273. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​cap.​2009.​11.​028
Ito M, Kudo M, Nagura M, Kurokawa K (2011) A comparative study on
life cycle analysis of 20 different PV modules installed at the Hokuto
mega-solar plant. Prog Photovoltaics Res Appl 19:878–886. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1002/​pip.​1070
Jia X, Lv F, Li P, Wang W (2020) Life-cycle assessment of p-type
multi-Si back surface field (BSF) solar module in China of 2019.
Sol Energy 196:207–216. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​solen​er.​2019.​
12.​018
Jungbluth N (2005) Life cycle assessment of crystalline photovoltaics
in the Swiss ecoinvent database. Prog Photovoltaics Res Appl
13:429–446. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​pip.​614
Jungbluth N, Dones R, Frischknecht R (2007) Life Cycle assessment
of photovoltaics; Update of the ecoinvent Database. MRS Proc
1041.https://​doi.​org/​10.​1557/​PROC-​1041-​R01-​03
Kabakian V, McManus MC, Harajli H (2015) Attributional life cycle
assessment of mounted 1.8kWp monocrystalline photovoltaic
system with batteries and comparison with fossil energy produc-
tion system. Appl Energy 154:428–437. https://​doi.o​ rg/1​ 0.​1016/j.​
apene​rgy.​2015.​04.​125
Kalyani NT, Dhoble SJ, Vengadaesvaran B, Arof AK (2021) Chap-
ter 20 - Sustainability, recycling, and lifetime issues of energy
materials. In: DHOBLE, S. J., KALYANI, N. T., VENGADAES-
VARAN, B. & KARIEM AROF, A. (eds.) Energy Materials.
Elsevier. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​B978-0-​12-​823710-​6.​00015-7
Kannan R, Leong KC, Osman R, Ho HK, Tso CP (2006) Life cycle
assessment study of solar PV systems: An example of a 2.7 kWp
distributed solar PV system in Singapore. Sol Energy 80:555–563.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​solen​er.​2005.​04.​008
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:27422–27440
Kato K, Murata A, Sakuta K (1998) Energy pay-back time and life-
cycle CO2 emission of residential PV power system with silicon
PV module. Prog Photovoltaics Res Appl 6:105–115. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1002/​(SICI)​1099-​159X(199803/​04)6:​2%​3C105::​AID-​
PIP212%​3E3.0.​CO;2-C
Li T, Hu R, Chen Z, Li Q, Huang S, Zhu Z, Zhou L-F (2018) Fine par-
ticulate matter (PM2.5): The culprit for chronic lung diseases in
China. Chronic Diseases and Translational Medicine 4:176–186.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​cdtm.​2018.​07.​002
Martin J (2012) 3kWp solar panel systems: price, power output, and
return on investment. SolarSelections. http://​www.​solar​selec​
tions.​co.​uk/ [Accessed Dec 04 2021]
Mehedi TH, Gemechu E, Kumar A (2022) Life cycle greenhouse
gas emissions and energy footprints of utility-scale solar energy
systems. Applied Energy 314. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​apene​
rgy.​2022.​118918
Mohr N, Meijer A, Huijbregts M, Reijnders L (2013) Environmen-
tal life cycle assessment of roof-integrated flexible amorphous
silicon/nanocrystalline silicon solar cell laminate. Prog Photo-
voltaics Res Appl 21:802–815. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​pip.​2157
Muneer T, Younes S, Lambert N, Kubie J (2006) Life cycle assess-
ment of a medium-sized photovoltaic facility at a high latitude
location. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers,
Part a: Journal of Power and Energy 220:517–524. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/​
10.​1243/​09576​509JP​E253
Nguyen DH (2021) Toxic Chemicals in Solar Panels. https://​scien​
cing.​com/​toxic-​chemi​cals-​solar-​panels-​18393.​html [Accessed
Sep 2022]
NRCAN (2020a) Database: photovoltaic potential and solar resource
maps of Canada. Natural Resources Canada. www.​open.​canada.​
ca/​data [Accessed Sep 2022]
NRCAN (2020b) Photovoltaic potential and solar resource maps of
Canada. Natural Resources Canada. https://​www.​nrcan.​gc.​ca/
[Accessed Sep 2022]
Nugent D, Sovacool BK (2014) Assessing the lifecycle greenhouse gas
emissions from solar PV and wind energy: A critical meta-survey.
Energy Policy 65:229–244. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​enpol.​2013.​
10.​048
Openlca (2022) Version 1.11. https://w ​ ww.o​ penlc​ a.o​ rg/ [Accessed Aug
2022]
Pacca S, D. Sivaraman, and G. Keoleian (2006) Life cycle assessment
of the 33 kW photovoltaic system on the Dana Building at the
University of Michigan: thin film laminates, multi-crystalline
modules, and balance of system components. University of Michi-
gan: Ann Arbor: 1–106. URL: https://c​ ss.u​ mich.e​ du/p​ ublic​ ation​ s/,
Pehnt M (2006) Dynamic life cycle assessment (LCA) of renewable
energy technologies. Renewable Energy 31:55–71. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/​
10.​1016/j.​renene.​2005.​03.​002
Peng J, Lu L, Yang H (2013) Review on life cycle assessment of energy
payback and greenhouse gas emission of solar photovoltaic sys-
tems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 19:255–274. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​rser.​2012.​11.​035
Plante RH (2014) Chapter five - solar photovoltaic systems. In:
PLANTE, R. H. (ed.) Solar Energy, Photovoltaics, and Domes-
tic Hot Water. Boston: Academic Press. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​
B978-0-​12-​420155-​2.​00005-0
Rabaia MKH, Abdelkareem MA, Sayed ET, Elsaid K, Chae K-J,
Wilberforce T, Olabi AG (2021) Environmental impacts of solar
energy systems: a review. Sci Total Environ 754:141989. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2020.​141989
Ryberg M, Vieira MDM, Zgola M, Bare J, Rosenbaum RK (2014)
Updated US and Canadian normalization factors for TRACI 2.1.
27439
Clean Technol Environ Policy 16:329–339. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s10098-​013-​0629-z
Sabour MR, Alam E, Mostafa Hatami A (2020a) Environmen-
tal and economic assessment of Enhanced Landfill Mining
in Tehran. Environ Sci Pollut Res. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 007/​
s11356-​020-​09458-w
Sabour MR, Jafari MA, Hosseini Gohar SM (2020b) Si-based solar
cells’ conversion efficiency related publications bibliometric
review during 2000–2017. SILICON 12:2705–2720. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s12633-​019-​00366-4
Santoyo-Castelazo E, Solano-Olivares K, Martínez E, García EO,
Santoyo E (2021) Life cycle assessment for a grid-connected
multi-crystalline silicon photovoltaic system of 3 kWp: A case
study for Mexico. J Clean Prod 316:128314. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2021.​128314
Shaji E, Santosh M, Sarath KV, Prakash P, Deepchand V, Divya BV
(2021) Arsenic contamination of groundwater: a global synopsis
with focus on the Indian Peninsula. Geosci Front 12:101079.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​gsf.​2020.​08.​015
Stoppato A (2008) Life cycle assessment of photovoltaic electricity
generation. Energy 33:224–232. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​energy.​
2007.​11.​012
Sumper A, Robledo-García M, Villafáfila-Robles R, Bergas-Jané
J, Andrés-Peiró J (2011) Life-cycle assessment of a photovol-
taic system in Catalonia (Spain). Renew Sustain Energy Rev
15:3888–3896. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​rser.​2011.​07.​023
Suri M, Betak J, Rosina K, Chrkavy D, Suriova N, Cebecauer T,
Caltik M, Erdelyi B (2020) Global photovoltaic power potential
by country (English). Energy Sector Management Assistance
Program (ESMAP). URL: https://​docum​ents1.​world​bank.​org/​
curat​e d/​e n/​4 6633​1 5928​1 7725​2 42/​p df/​G lobal-​P hoto​volta​i c-​
Power-​Poten​tial-​by-​Count​r y.​pdf. Accessed Sep 2022
Tsang MP, Sonnemann GW, Bassani DM (2016) A comparative
human health, ecotoxicity, and product environmental assess-
ment on the production of organic and silicon solar cells. Prog
Photovoltaics Res Appl 24:645–655. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​
pip.​2704
USEPA (2021) Tool for reduction and assessment of chemicals and
other environmental impacts (TRACI). https://​www.​epa.​gov/.
Accessed Sep 2022
Vellini M, Gambini M, Prattella V (2017) Environmental impacts
of PV technology throughout the life cycle: Importance of the
end-of-life management for Si-panels and CdTe-panels. Energy
138:1099–1111. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​energy.​2017.​07.​031
Wernet G, Bauer C, Steubing B, Reinhard J, Moreno-Ruiz E, Wei-
dema B (2016) The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I):
overview and methodology. The International Journal of Life
Cycle Assessment 21:1218–1230. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 007/​
s11367-​016-​1087-8
Wild-Scholten MJ (2013) Energy payback time and carbon foot-
print of commercial photovoltaic systems. Sol Energy Mater
Sol Cells 119:296–305. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​solmat.​2013.​
08.​037
Xie M, Ruan J, Bai W, Qiao Q, Bai L, Zhang J, Li H, Lv F, Fu
H (2018) Pollutant payback time and environmental impact of
Chinese multi-crystalline photovoltaic production based on life
cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 184:648–659. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2018.​02.​290
Yu Z, Ma W, Xie K, Lv G, Chen Z, Wu J, Yu J (2017) Life cycle
assessment of grid-connected power generation from metal-
lurgical route multi-crystalline silicon photovoltaic system in
13
27440 Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:27422–27440

China. Appl Energy 185:68–81. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​apene​ Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
rgy.​2016.​10.​051 jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Zahedi R, Ranjbaran P, Gharehpetian GB, Mohammadi F, Ahma-
diahangar R (2021) Cleaning of floating photovoltaic systems: Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
a critical review on approaches from technical and economic exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
perspectives. Energies 14.https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​en140​72018 author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
Zhai P, Williams ED (2010) Dynamic Hybrid life cycle assessment manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of
of energy and carbon of multicrystalline silicon photovoltaic such publishing agreement and applicable law.
systems. Environ Sci Technol 44:7950–7955. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1021/​es102​6695
Zhong ZW, Song B, Loh PE (2011) LCAs of a polycrystalline photo-
voltaic module and a wind turbine. Renewable Energy 36:2227–
2237. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​renene.​2011.​01.​021

13