## 3 Results and Discussion
### Uncertainty Analysis
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Material/Consumables** & **Unit** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Logarithmic** \\ **Distribution** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Square Standard** \\ **Deviation (\(\sigma^{2}\))** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Triangular** \\ **Distribution** \\ \end{tabular} & **Amount Min** & **Amount Max** \\ \hline Natural Water & L & & & X & 130 & 270 \\ \hline \({}^{*}\) Land Transformation & m\({}^{2}\) & X & 1.5639 & & & \\ \hline \({}^{*}\) Land Use & m\({}^{2}\) & X & 2.2567 & & & \\ \hline \begin{tabular}{c} Diesel \\ Desel Combustion \\ \end{tabular} & kg & & & X & 0.391 & 0.748 \\ \hline \begin{tabular}{c} Transport \\ \end{tabular} & m-km & & & X & 2.625 & 4.913 \\ \hline \begin{tabular}{c} Diesel \\ \end{tabular} & kg & & & X & 0.272 & 0.697 \\ \hline \begin{tabular}{c} Diesel \\ \end{tabular} & kg & & & X & 293.6 & 6133.6 \\ \hline \begin{tabular}{c} Steel \\ \end{tabular} & kg & & & X & \(1.91\times 10^{-2}\) & \(3.535\times 10^{-2}\) \\ \hline \({}^{*}\) Labricant & kg & X & 1.2214 & & & \\ \hline \({}^{*}\) Aggregate Plant & & & X & 3.0999 & & \\ \hline \({}^{*}\) Aggregate Plant & & & X & 3.0999 & & \\ \hline \({}^{*}\) Implementation & P & X & 3.0999 & & & \\ \hline \({}^{*}\) Particulate Emission & kg & X & 3.2097 & & & \\ \hline \begin{tabular}{c} Noise Emission \\ \end{tabular} & kg & X & 1.7607 & & & \\ \hline \
\begin{tabular}{c} Scrap \\ \end{tabular} & kg & & & X & \(1.91\times 10^{-2}\) & \(3.535\times 10^{-2}\) \\ \hline \({}^{*}\) Worn Lubricant & kg & X & 1.5296 & & & \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{c} Worn Tire \\ \end{tabular} & kg & & & X & \(1.7\times 10^{-3}\) & \(6\times 10^{-3}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Uncertainty values of the LCI data. \({}^{*}\) Data obtained from the process Gravel, crushed {RoW} | Production | Cut-off, U.  
aggregates sector is highly variable--for example, research by [PERSON] et al. identifies that there are studies where a water consumption of 0.006 L/kg is reported [2]. On the other hand, other categories suffer less variability, as is the case for the global warming category (+25/\(-\)20%), which implies that in more pessimistic scenarios, the production of NCA would emit a maximum value of 5.38 kg CO\({}_{2}\)/t, instead of the average value obtained of 4.30 kg CO\({}_{2}\)/t an acceptable difference. Finally, the results obtained from the land use impact category (+50%/\(-\)30%) are due to the fact that the land in the gravel pits and quarries is not uniform in terms of yield or productivity. There may be areas where the accumulation of virgin material to be processed for aggregate production is abundant, and these areas will have the least impact on the soil. Conversely, for those areas where the potential of virgin material extracted for production is lower, this means that in order to produce the same amount of NCA, a larger area of natural land has to be affected. Overall, the uncertainty analysis yields values that can be assumed in the research, since if the coefficients of variation (CV) are analyzed (see Table 4) and excluding the impact categories Ozone Depletion and Water Scarcity, which have an average CV of 43.8% and