Abstract
Three approaches recommended for characterization of toxicity impact potential in a life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) are tested on a case study and compared. The two equivalency factor methods are the Persistence, Bioaccumulation, and Toxicity (PBT) method and the Multimedia Fate Modeling (MFM) method using a Mackay Level III model with state-specific environmental data. The simplified risk assessment (SRA) method involved dispersion modeling using site-specific environmental data. The life cycle inventory information evaluated by all three methods was limited to manufacturing of the RDX-based explosive in Kingsport, Tennessee. The effort to collect site-specific environmental data and conduct air dispersion modeling for the SRA method required about 24 times more effort than the PBT method and about 4 times more effort than the MFM method. Direct comparison of impact potential scores for the three approaches were limited to inhalation toxicity scores for nine air pollutants modeled by SRA. Correlations were made on the rank order of the impact potential scores for the nine air emissions evaluated for all three LCIA methods. Although the number of chemicals compared is very limited, the best correlation coefficient (0.96) was between the rank orders for the MFM and the SRA methods. The minimal effort and reduced accuracy of the PBT approach make it best suited for screening large numbers of chemicals for further evaluation of the highest ranked chemicals. The intermediate effort and reasonable accuracy (includes transfers to other media) of the MFM approach make it well suited for LCIAs involving comparative assertions or governmental policy decisions. The maximum effort and assumption of highest accuracy make the SRA approach suitable only after limiting the locations of interest to a few sites by screening with the other two approaches.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Battelle Memorial Institute (1989): Multimedia Environmental Pollutant Assessment System (MEPAS) Application Guidance Vol 2: Guidelines for Evaluating MEPAS Input Parameters. Pacific Northwest Laboratory. Richland, WA
Betts KS (1998): Chemical industry pressured to test high-production volume chemicals. J Environ Sci Tech32, 251A
Guinée JB, Heijungs R (1993): A proposal for the classification of toxic substances within the framework of life cycle assessment of products. Chemosphere26, 1925–1944
Hertwich EG, Pease WS, McKone TE (1998): Evaluating toxic impact assessment methods: What works best? Environ Sci Tech3, 138A-144A
Hogan LM, Beal RT, Hunt RG (1996): Threshold inventory interpretation methodology: A case study of three juice container systems. Int J LCA1, 159–167
Holston Defense Corporation (1993): Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act, Section 313: Toxic Chemical Release Inventory. Prepared for the Holston Army Ammunition Plant to submit to the US EPA by the Holston Defense Corporation, Kingsport, TN
Howard P, Meylan WM (1996): Prediction of physical properties, transport, and degradation for environmental fate and exposure assessments. Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on QSARs in Environmental Science. Elsinnore, Denmark. June 24-28. Downloadable at http://esc.svrrcs.com/~ESC/qsar4.htm
International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (1996): Human Health Impact Assessment in Life Cycle Assessment: Analysis by an Expert Panel. Life Cycle Assessment Technical Committee, ILSI, Health and Environmental Sciences Institute, Washington, DC
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (1999): Environmental Management — Life Cycle Assessment — Life Cycle Impact Assessment. ISO Standard 14042. Prepared by Technical Committee 207, Sub Committee 5 (ISO/TC 207/SC 5)
Jøgensen SE, Halling-Soerensen B, Mahler H (1998): Handbook of Estimation Methods in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Chemistry. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL
Kimerle RA, Barnthouse LW, Brown RP, de Beyssac BC, Gilbertson M, Monk K, Poremski HJ, Purdy RE, Reinert KH, Rolland RM, Zeeman MG (1997): Ecological effects, pp 89–111. In: Swanson MB, Socha AC. Chemical Ranking and Scoring: Guidelines for Relative Assessments of Chemicals. SETAC Press, Pensacola, FL
Kolluru RV (1996): Health Risk Assessment: Principles and Practices. Risk Assessment and Management Handbook for Environmental, Health, and Safety Professionals. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY
Lyman WJ (1990): Solubility in Water. Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation Methods Environmental Behavior of Organic Compounds. Lyman WJ, Reehl WF, Rosenblatt DH (eds) American Chemical Society. Ishington, DC
Mackay D (1991): Multimedia Environmental Models: The Fugacity Approach. Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, MI
Mackay D, Shui WY, Ma KC (1992): Illustrated Handbook of Physical-Chemical Properties and Environmental Fate for Organic Chemicals: Volume I, Monoaromatic Hydrocarbons, Chlorobenzenes, and PCBs. Lewis Publishers, Inc. Chelsea, MI Ostic JK, Reardon PT, Parker RY, Gonzales JM (1995): Life-Cycle Inventory for GBU-24 and M-900 Weapon Systems. Draft. Technology Modeling and Analysis Group, TSA-7, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, pp 72
Owens JW (1996): LCA impact assessment categories: Technical feasibility and accuracy. Int. J. LCA1, 151–158
Owens JW (1999): Why life cycle impact assessment is now described as an indicator system. Int. J. LCA4, 81–86
Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) (1993a): Conceptual Framework for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Fava JA, Consoli F, Denison RA, Dickson K, Mohin T, Vigon BW (eds) Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Pensacola, FL
Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) (1993b): Guidelines for Life Cycle Assessment: A ‘Code of Practice’. Consoli F, Allen D, Boustead I, Fava J, Franklin W, Jensen A, de Oude N, Parrish R, Perriman R, Postlethwaite D, Quay B, Séguin J, Vigon B (eds) Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Pensacola, FL
Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) (1997): Life Cycle Impact Assessment: The State-of-the-Art. Barnthouse L, Fava J, Humphreys K, Hunt R, Laibson L, Noesen S, Owens J, Todd J, Vigon B, Weitz K, Young J (eds). Report of the SETAC Life-Cycle Assessment Workgroup, Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Pensacola, FL
Swanson MB, Davis GA, Kincaid LE, Schultz TW, Bartmess JE, Jones SL, George EL (1997): Screening method for ranking and scoring chemicals by potential human health and environmental impacts. Environ Toxicol Chem16, 372–383
Tennessee Water Quality Control Board (1991): NPDES Permit No. TN0003671, Holston Army Ammunition Plant, Kingsport, Sullivan County, TN. Tennessee Water Quality Control Board, Tennessee Department of Conservation, Nashville, TN
Tolle DA (1997): Regional scaling and normalization in LCIA: Development and application of methods. Int. J. LCA2, 197–208
Udo de Haes, HA (Ed) (1996): Towards a Methodology for Life Cycle Impact Assesment. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC)-Europe, Brussels, Belgium
Udo de Haes HA, Jollier O (1999): How does ISO/DIS 14042 on life cycle impact assessment accommodate current best available practice? Int. J. LCA4, 75–80
US Army (1978): Environmental Impact Assessment on Production of RDX and HMX Explosives, Holston Army Ammunition Plant. Armament Materiel Readiness Command, U.S. Army, Alexandria, VA
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1993): Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA\600\R-93\187. Office of Research and Development, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), and Office of Water (OW), US EPA, Washington, DC
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1994): Chemical Hazard Evaluation for Management Strategies: A Method for Ranking and Scoring Chemicals by Potential Human Health and Environmental Impacts. EPA/600/R-94-177. Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, US EPA, Cincinnati, OH
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1998a): A Life-Cycle Inventory-Based Comparison of an RDX-Based and TNAZ-Based GBU-24 Munition. Draft Report. Prepared by Battelle on Contract No. CR822956 for the National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, US EPA, Cincinnati, OH
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1998b): A Life-Cycle Impact Assesment Demonstration for the GBU-24. EPA/600/R-98/070. Prepared by Battelle on Contract No. CR822956 for the National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, US EPA, Cincinnati, OH
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1998): Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R-95/002F. Final Risk Assessment Forum, US EPA, Washington, DC
Woodward-Clyde Federal Services, Inc. (1994): Final Air Pollution Emissions Statement, Holston Army Ammunition Plant, Kingston, Tennessee. Submitted to the US Army Environmental Center by Woodward-Clyde Federal Services, Inc., Rockville, MD
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tolle, D.A., Hesse, D.J., Chadwell, G.B. et al. Comparison of two equivalency factor approaches with simplified risk assessment for lcia of toxicity impact potential. Int. J. LCA 6, 96–105 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02977845
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02977845