The role of atmospheric dispersion models and ecosystem sensitivity in the determination of characterisation factors for acidifying and eutrophying emissions in LCIA

  • Maximilian Posch
  • Jyri Seppälä
  • Jean-Paul Hettelingh
  • Matti Johansson
  • Manuele Margni
  • Olivier Jolliet
LCIA OF IMPACTS ON ECOSYSTEMS • RESEARCH ARTICLE

Abstract

Background, aim and scope

The methodological choices and framework to assess environmental impacts in life cycle assessment are still under discussion. Despite intensive developments worldwide, few attempts have been made hitherto to systematically present the role of different factors of characterisation models in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). The aim of this study is to show how European average and country-dependent characterisation factors for acidifying and eutrophying emissions differ when using (a) acidifying and eutrophying potentials alone, (b) depositions from an atmospheric dispersion model or (c) critical loads in conjunction with those depositions. Furthermore, in the latter case, the contributions of emissions, an atmospheric transport model and critical loads to changes in characterisation factors of NO2 are studied. In addition, the new characterisation factors based on the accumulated exceedance (AE) method are presented using updated emissions, a new atmospheric transport model and the latest critical loads.

Materials and methods

In this study, characterisation factors for acidifying and eutrophying emissions are calculated by three different methods. In the ‘no fate’ (NF) methods, acidifying and eutrophying potentials alone are considered as characterisation factors. In the ‘only above terrestrial environment’ (OT) approach, characterisation factors are based on the deposition of the acidifying or eutrophying substances to terrestrial land surfaces. The third method is the so-called AE method in which critical loads are used in conjunction with depositions. The results of the methods are compared both at the European and the country level using weighted mean, weighted standard deviation, minimum and maximum values. To illustrate the sensitivity of the AE method, changes in European emissions, employed atmospheric dispersion model and the critical loads database are conducted step-by-step, and the differences between the results are analysed.

Results and discussion

For European average characterisation factors, the three characterisation methods of acidification produce results in which the contributions of NH3, NO2 and SO2 to the acidification indicator do not differ much within each method when 1 kg of each acidifying substance is emitted. However, the NF methods cannot describe any spatial aspects of environmental problems. Both OT and AE methods show that the spatial aspects play an important role in the characterisation factors. The AE method results in greater differentiations between country-dependent characterisation factors than does the OT method. In addition, the results of the AE and OT methods differ from each other for individual countries. A major shortcoming of the OT approach is that it does not consider the sensitivity of the ecosystems onto which the pollutants are deposited, whereas the AE approach does. In the case of the AE method, a new atmospheric dispersion model, new information on emissions and critical loads have a different influence on the characterisation factors, depending on the country. The results of statistics show that the change in the atmospheric dispersion model has a greatest influence on the results, since ecosystem-specific depositions are taken into account for the first time.

Conclusions and recommendations

The simple NF methods can be used in a first approximation to assess the impacts of acidification and terrestrial eutrophication in cases where we do not know where the emissions occur. The OT approach is a more advanced method compared with the NF method, but its capability to describe spatial aspects is limited. The AE factors are truly impact-oriented characterisation factors and the information used here represents the current best knowledge about the assessment practice of acidification and terrestrial eutrophication in Europe. The key message of this study is that there is no shortcut to achieving advanced characterisation of acidification and terrestrial eutrophication: an advanced methodology cannot develop without atmospheric dispersion models and information on ecosystem sensitivity.

Keywords

Acidification Atmospheric transport Characterisation Critical loads Europe LCIA Life cycle impact assessment Terrestrial eutrophication 

References

  1. Amann M, Cofala J, Heyes C, Klimont Z, Schöpp W (1999) The RAINS model: a tool for assessing regional emission control strategies in Europe. Pollut Atmos 20:41–46Google Scholar
  2. Bare JC, Norris GA, Pennington DW, McKone T (2003) TRACI: the US EPA’s tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts. J Ind Ecol 6(3–4):49–78Google Scholar
  3. Bouwman AF, Van Vuuren DP, Derwent RG, Posch M (2002) A global analysis of acidification and eutrophication of terrestrial ecosystems. Water Air Soil Pollut 141:349–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. EMEP (1998) Transboundary acidifying air pollution in Europe. EMEP/MSC-W Report 1/98. Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  5. Hauschild M, Potting J (2005) Spatial differentiation in life cycle assessment. The EDIP2003 methodology. Report No 80, Danish Ministry of the Environment. Environmental Protection Agency, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  6. Heijungs R, Guinée JB, Huppens G, Lankreijer RM, Udo de Haes HA, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Ansems AMM, Eggels PG, Van Duin R, De Goede HP (1992) Environmental life-cycle assessments of products. NOH Report 9266. Institute of Environmental Sciences, Leiden, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  7. Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, De Smet PAM, Downing RJ (1995a) The use of critical loads in emission reduction agreements in Europe. Water Air Soil Pollut 85:2381–2388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hettelingh J-P, Sverdrup H, Zhao D (1995b) Deriving critical loads for Asia. Water Air Soil Pollut 85:2565–2570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, De Smet PAM (2001) Multi-effect critical loads used in multi-pollutant reduction agreements in Europe. Water Air Soil Pollut 130:1133–1138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Potting J (2005) Country-dependent characterisation factors for acidification in Europe—a critical evaluation. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(3):177–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J, Reinds GJ, Spranger T, Tarrason L (2007) Critical loads and dynamic modelling to assess European areas at risk of acidification and eutrophication. Water Air Soil Pollut: Focus 7:379–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Huijbregts MAJ, Schöpp W, Verkuilen E, Heijungs R, Reinders L (2001) Spatially explicit characterisation of acidifying and eutrophying air pollution in life-cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 4(3):125–142Google Scholar
  13. ISO (2006a) ISO 14040: environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  14. ISO (2006b) ISO 14044: environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  15. Krewitt W, Trukenmüller A, Bachmann TM, Heck T (2001) Country-specific damage factors for air pollutants: a step towards site dependent life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6(4):199–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Norris AG (2003) Impact characterization in the tool for reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts. Methods for acidification, eutrophication and ozone formation. J Ind Ecol 6(3–4):79–101Google Scholar
  17. Ouimet R, Arp PA, Watmough SA, Aherne J, Demerchant I (2006) Determination and mapping critical loads of acidity and exceedances for upland forest soils in Eastern Canada. Water Air Soil Pollut 172:57–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Posch M, Hettelingh J-P, De Smet PAM (2001) Characterization of critical load exceedances in Europe. Water Air Soil Pollut 130:1139–1144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Potting J, Hauschild M (2004) Background for spatial differentiation in life cycle impact assessment—the EDIP2003 methodology. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  20. Potting J, Schöpp W, Blok K, Hauschild M (1998) Site-dependent life cycle impact assessment of acidification. J Ind Ecol 2(2):63–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Seppälä J, Posch M, Johansson M, Hettelingh J-P (2006) Country-dependent characterisation factors for acidification and terrestrial eutrophication based on accumulated exceedance as an impact category indicator. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(6):403–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tarrason L, Jonson JE, Fagerli H, Benedictow A, Wind P, Simpson D, Klein H (2003) Transboundary acidification, eutrophication and ground level ozone in Europe, part III; source-receptor relationships. EMEP Report 1/2003, Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway. Available at http://www.emep.int
  23. Tarrason L, Fagerli H, Klein H, Simpson D, Benedictow AC, Vestreng V, Riegler E, Emberson L, Posch M, Spranger T (2006) Transboundary acidification, eutrophication and ground level ozone in Europe from 1990 to 2004 in support for the review of the Gothenburg protocol. EMEP Report 1/2006, Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway. Available at http://www.emep.int
  24. Van Zelm R, Huijbregts MAJ, Van Jaarsveld HA, Reinds GJ, De Zwart D, Van de Meent D (2007) Time horizon dependent characterization factors for acidification in life-cycle assessment based on forest plant species occurrence in Europe. Environ Sci Technol 41(3):922–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maximilian Posch
    • 1
  • Jyri Seppälä
    • 2
  • Jean-Paul Hettelingh
    • 1
  • Matti Johansson
    • 3
  • Manuele Margni
    • 4
  • Olivier Jolliet
    • 5
  1. 1.Coordination Centre for Effects (CCE), PBLBilthovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE)HelsinkiFinland
  3. 3.United Nations Economic Commission for EuropePalais des NationsGeneva 10Switzerland
  4. 4.CIRAIG, Ecole Polytechnique de MontréalEcole Polytechnique de MontrealMontréalCanada
  5. 5.Center for Risk Science and Communication, Department of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public HealthUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations