ReCiPe has two flowables with the same name (Mecoprop) but different CAS numbers. What the LCIAFormatter does is to select only one of these Mecoprop CAS numbers as a source for CFs. In the LCIAFormatter, CAS 7085-19-0 is considered the canonical mecoprop, and CAS 93-65-2 is ignored. Ecoinvent seems to have done the opposite: it selected 93-65-2 as the reference Mecoprop.
I can't tell which of the CAS numbers is the unanimously recognized canonical one. For instance, in the CAS Common Chemistry website, the canonical CAS is 93-65-2, and 7085-19-0 appears under "Deleted or Replaced CAS numbers". In the ECHA website there's no reference to CAS number 93-65-2, just 7085-19-0, and in PubChem both appear under the CAS number section.
I tend to think that we should follow the Ecoinvent case here, because it is more conservative: it has one-order magnitude higher impacts than FEDEFL's, as well as an extra CF that the FEDEFL does not have (Human noncarcinogenic toxicity).
ReCiPe has two flowables with the same name (Mecoprop) but different CAS numbers. What the LCIAFormatter does is to select only one of these Mecoprop CAS numbers as a source for CFs. In the LCIAFormatter, CAS 7085-19-0 is considered the canonical mecoprop, and CAS 93-65-2 is ignored. Ecoinvent seems to have done the opposite: it selected 93-65-2 as the reference Mecoprop.
I can't tell which of the CAS numbers is the unanimously recognized canonical one. For instance, in the CAS Common Chemistry website, the canonical CAS is 93-65-2, and 7085-19-0 appears under "Deleted or Replaced CAS numbers". In the ECHA website there's no reference to CAS number 93-65-2, just 7085-19-0, and in PubChem both appear under the CAS number section. I tend to think that we should follow the Ecoinvent case here, because it is more conservative: it has one-order magnitude higher impacts than FEDEFL's, as well as an extra CF that the FEDEFL does not have (Human noncarcinogenic toxicity).
@ErCollao @ganorris