Comparison of two equivalency factor approaches with simplified risk assessment for lcia of toxicity impact potential

  • Duane A. Tolle
  • David J. Hesse
  • G. Bradley Chadwell
  • Joyce S. Cooper
  • David P. Evers
Selected Papers


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.


Air dispersion modeling aquatic toxicity equivalency factor fugacity InLCA inhalation toxicity Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) LCIA multimedia fate model simplified risk assessment terrestrial toxicity toxicity impact potential 


  1. Battelle Memorial Institute (1989): Multimedia Environmental Pollutant Assessment System (MEPAS) Application Guidance Vol 2: Guidelines for Evaluating MEPAS Input Parameters. Pacific Northwest Laboratory. Richland, WAGoogle Scholar
  2. Betts KS (1998): Chemical industry pressured to test high-production volume chemicals. J Environ Sci Tech32, 251ACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Guinée JB, Heijungs R (1993): A proposal for the classification of toxic substances within the framework of life cycle assessment of products. Chemosphere26, 1925–1944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hertwich EG, Pease WS, McKone TE (1998): Evaluating toxic impact assessment methods: What works best? Environ Sci Tech3, 138A-144AGoogle Scholar
  5. Hogan LM, Beal RT, Hunt RG (1996): Threshold inventory interpretation methodology: A case study of three juice container systems. Int J LCA1, 159–167Google Scholar
  6. 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, TNGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 Scholar
  8. 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, DCGoogle Scholar
  9. 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)Google Scholar
  10. Jøgensen SE, Halling-Soerensen B, Mahler H (1998): Handbook of Estimation Methods in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Chemistry. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FLGoogle Scholar
  11. 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, FLGoogle Scholar
  12. 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, NYGoogle Scholar
  13. 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, DCGoogle Scholar
  14. Mackay D (1991): Multimedia Environmental Models: The Fugacity Approach. Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, MIGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 72Google Scholar
  16. Owens JW (1996): LCA impact assessment categories: Technical feasibility and accuracy. Int. J. LCA1, 151–158Google Scholar
  17. Owens JW (1999): Why life cycle impact assessment is now described as an indicator system. Int. J. LCA4, 81–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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, FLGoogle Scholar
  19. 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, FLGoogle Scholar
  20. 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, FLGoogle Scholar
  21. 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, 372–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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, TNGoogle Scholar
  23. Tolle DA (1997): Regional scaling and normalization in LCIA: Development and application of methods. Int. J. LCA2, 197–208Google Scholar
  24. Udo de Haes, HA (Ed) (1996): Towards a Methodology for Life Cycle Impact Assesment. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC)-Europe, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  25. 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, 75–80Google Scholar
  26. 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, VAGoogle Scholar
  27. 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, DCGoogle Scholar
  28. 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, OHGoogle Scholar
  29. 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, OHGoogle Scholar
  30. 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, OHGoogle Scholar
  31. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1998): Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R-95/002F. Final Risk Assessment Forum, US EPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  32. 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, MDGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ecomed Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Duane A. Tolle
    • 1
  • David J. Hesse
    • 1
  • G. Bradley Chadwell
    • 1
  • Joyce S. Cooper
    • 2
  • David P. Evers
    • 1
  1. 1.BattelleColumbusUSA
  2. 2.University of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations