Development of damage function for stratospheric ozone layer depletion

A tool towards the improvement of the quality of life cycle impact assessment
Methodology Development


The purpose of our study was to develop damage functions due to ozone layer depletion, that related the emission of ozone depleting substances (ODS) to the damage of category endpoints. The ozone layer depletion causes many types of damage such as skin cancer, cataract, adverse effect to crop and plant growth. We assessed the increase of skin cancer incidence risk. The damage function have been developed with connecting the main processes on ozone depletion, emission of ODS, increase of tropospheric ODS, increase of stratospheric ODS, change of total ozone, change of B region ultra-violet (UV-B) at the surface, and the increase of skin cancer incidence. As the result, we could introduce damage functions of melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer incidence for 13 species of ODSs and damage factors based on the disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). We also compared the DALYs value with the damage factors of Eco-indicator 99 (egalitarian and hierarchic value), and it was found that our result was several ten times as small except methyl bromide. Furthermore, a case study for refrigerator was performed and it showed that shifting to less ozone depleting substances reduced the risk of skin cancer incidence to one-fourteenth in DALYs.


B region ultra violet damage function disability-adjusted life years LCIA life cycle impact assessment non-melanoma skin cancer ozone depleting substance ozone depletion skin cancer melanoma 



Ozone Depleting Substances




Disability-adjusted Life Years




Ozone Depletion Potential


Tropospheric Chlorine Loading


Equivalent Effective Stratospheric Chlorine


B-B Region Ultra violet


  1. Aida M. (1982): Promenade to Meteorology 8: Atmosphere and Radiation Process (Jpn.). Tokyo-do Press, Tokyo, JapanGoogle Scholar
  2. Altmeyer P, Hoffmann K, Stucker M (1997): Eds., Skin Cancer and UV Radiation. Springer, Bochum, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  3. Aoki K, Kurihara M, Hayakawa N, Suzuki S (1992): Eds. Death Rates for Malignant Neoplasms for Selected Sites by Sex and Five-Year Age Group in 33 Countries 1953–57 to 1983–87. International Union Against Cancer, University of Nagoya Coop Press, 560 ppGoogle Scholar
  4. Committee of International Study for Rational Using (1995): Methods of Energy. Life-Cycle Inventory for Refrigerator — Analysis of Quantitative Change of Emissions by Using Substitutes for CFCs. Environmental Management 31(7) 91–97Google Scholar
  5. Daniel JS, Solomon S, Albritton DL (1995): On the Evaluation of Halocarbon Radiative Forcing and Global Warming Potentials. Journal of Geophysical Research Vol. 100, No. D1, 1271–1285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. EAJ (1998): Annual Report on Monitoring the Ozone Layer 1997 (Jpn.). Environmental Agency of JapanGoogle Scholar
  7. European Commission (1995): Externalities of Energy Vol.1–5, Direcorate-General XII Science, Research and Developent, L-2920 Luxembourg Ferlay, J.; Black, R.J.; Whelan, S.L.; Parkin, D.M. (1997): CI5VII: Electronic Database of Cancer Incidence in Five Continents Vol. 7. IARC CancerBase No.2, IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) / WHO, CD-ROM with BookletGoogle Scholar
  8. ExternE (1997): ExternE Core Project, Extension of the Accounting Framework; Final ReportGoogle Scholar
  9. Ferlay J, Black RJ, Whelan SL and Parkin DM (1997): CI5VII: Electronic Database of Cancer Incidence in Five Continents Vol. 7. IARC CancerBase No.2, IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) / WHO, CD-ROM with BookletGoogle Scholar
  10. Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2000a): The Eco-indicator 99, A Damage Oriented Method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment, Methodology Report 2nd EditionGoogle Scholar
  11. Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2000b): The Eco-indicator 99, A Damage Oriented Method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment, Methodology Annex 2nd Edition. 74Google Scholar
  12. Goedkoop M (1995): The Eco-indicator 95, Final report; NOH report 9523; PRé consultants; Amersfoort (NL); July 1995; ISBN 90-72130-77-4Google Scholar
  13. Hauschild M, Wenzel H (1996): Environmental Assessment of Products, Volume 2: Scientific Background. Chapman & HallGoogle Scholar
  14. Hofstetter P (1998): Perspectives in Life Cycle Impact Assessment, A Structured Approach to Combine Models of the Techno-sphere, Ecosphere and Valuesphere. Kluwer Academic Publishers, p 254–255Google Scholar
  15. Houghton JT (1986): The Physics of Atmospheres second edition. Cambridge University Press, UKGoogle Scholar
  16. Itsubo N, Inaba, A, Matsuno Y, Yasui I, Yamamoto R (2000): Current Status of Weighting Methodologies in Japan. Int. J. LCA 5(1) 5–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Itsubo N, Matsuno Y, Inaba A, Yamamoto R (1998): Environmental Impact Assessment for Materials Produced in Japan. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on EcoBalance, p 375–378Google Scholar
  18. Itsubo N, Yamamoto R (1999): Application of Life Cycle Assessment to Manufacturing of Nonferrous Metals. J. Japan Inst. Metals 63(2) 208–214Google Scholar
  19. JMA (1998): Annual Report on Monitoring the Ozone Layer No. 8 Observation Results for 1996 (CD-ROM). Japan Meteorological AgencyGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaye JA, Penkett SA, Ormond FM (1994): Eds., Report on Concentrations, Lifetimes, and Trends of CFCs, Halons, and Related Species. NASA Reference Publication 1339, NASA Office of Mission to Planet Earth, USAGoogle Scholar
  21. MacPeter R, Beach E (1996): Eds., TOMS Version 7 O3 Gridded Data: 1978–1993. Goddard Space Flight Center, NASA, USAGoogle Scholar
  22. Matsuno Y, Inaba A, Itsubo N, Yamamoto R (1998): Development of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Weighting Methodology for Japan. Weighting Methodology Based on the Distance to Target Method. Journal of the Japan Institute of Energy, p 139–1147Google Scholar
  23. Nagata K, Yokota R, Ureshino M, Maeno T (1996): Development on Valuation Method of LCA. the 2nd International Conference on EcoBalance, p 161–164Google Scholar
  24. NOAH (1998): Halocompounds Dataset through its ftp site Nitrous Oxide and Halocompounds Group, Climate Monitoring and Diagnostic Laboratory, NOAA, USAGoogle Scholar
  25. Solomon S, Mills M, Heidt LE, Pollock WH, Tuck AF (1992a): On the Evaluation of Ozone Depletion Potentials. Journal of Geophysical Research Vol. 97, No. Dl, p 825–842Google Scholar
  26. Solomon S, Albritton DL (1992b): Time-Dependent Ozone Depletion Potentials for Short- and Long-Term Forecasts. Nature, Vol. 357, p 33–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Steen B (1996): EPS-Default Valuation of Environmental Impacts from Emission and Use of Resources Version 1996, Swedish Environmental Research Institute (IVL), Göteborg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  28. UNEP (1994): Environmental Effects of Ozone Depletion: 1994 AssessmentGoogle Scholar
  29. WMO(1994): Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1994. World Meteorological Organization Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project, Report No. 37Google Scholar
  30. Yasui I (1998): A New Scheme of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method Based on the Consumption of Time. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on EcoBalance, p 89–92Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ecomed Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kentaro Hayashi
    • 1
  • Norihiro Itsubo
    • 2
  • Atsushi Inaba
    • 3
  1. 1.Pacific Consultants, TokyoJapan
  2. 2.Japan Environment Management Association for Industry (JEMAI)Taito-ku, TokyoJapan
  3. 3.National Institute for Resources and Environment (NIRE), AIST, MITITsukubaJapan

Personalised recommendations