A characterization model with spatial and temporal resolution for life cycle impact assessment of photochemical precursors in the United States

  • Viral P. Shah
  • Robert J. RiesEmail author


Background, aim, and scope

Traditional life cycle impact assessment methodologies have used aggregated characterization factors, neglecting spatial and temporal variations in regional impacts like photochemical oxidant formation. This increases the uncertainty of the LCA results and diminishes the ease of decision-making. This study compares four common impact assessment methods, CML2001, Eco-indicator 99, TRACI, and EDIP2003, on their underlying models, spatial and temporal resolution, and the level at which photochemical oxidant impacts are calculated. A new characterization model is proposed that incorporates spatial and temporal differentiation.

Materials and methods

A photochemical air quality modeling system (CAMx-MM5-SMOKE) is used to simulate the process of formation, transformation, transport, and removal of photochemical pollutants. Monthly characterization factors for individual US states are calculated at three levels along the cause–effect chain, namely, fate level, human and ecosystem exposure level, and human effect level.

Results and discussion

The results indicate that a spatial variability of one order of magnitude and a temporal variability of two orders of magnitude exist in both the fate level and human exposure and effect level characterization factors for NOx. The summer time characterization factors for NOx are higher than the winter time factors. However, for anthropogenic VOC, the summer time factors are lower than the winter time in almost half of the states. This is due to the higher emission rates of biogenic VOCs in the summer. The ecosystem exposure factors for NOx and VOC do not follow a regular pattern and show a spatial variation of about three orders of magnitude. They do not show strong correlation with the human exposure factors. Sensitivity analysis has shown that the effect of meteorology and emission inputs is limited to a factor of three, which is several times smaller than the variation seen in the factors.


Uncertainties are introduced in the characterization of photochemical precursors due to a failure to consider the spatial and temporal variations. Seasonal variations in photochemical activity influence the characterization factors more than the location of emissions. The human and ecosystem exposures occur through different mechanisms, and impacts calculated at the fate level based only on ozone concentration are not a good indicator for ecosystem impacts.

Recommendations and perspectives

Spatial and temporal differentiation account for fate and transport of the pollutant, and the exposure of and effect on the sensitive human population or ecosystem. Adequate resolution for seasonal and regional processes, like photochemical oxidant formation, is important to reduce the uncertainty in impact assessment and improve decision-making power. An emphasis on incorporating some form of spatial and temporal information within standard LCI databases and using adequately resolved characterization factors will greatly increase the fidelity of a standard LCA.


Characterization model LCA sophistication Spatial resolution Temporal resolution Tropospheric ozone 

Supplementary material

11367_2009_84_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (149 kb)
ESM 1 Supporting Information (PDF 148 kb)


  1. Andersson-Sköld Y, Grennfelt P, Pliejel K (1992) Photochemical ozone creation potentials: a study of different concepts. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 42(9):1152–1158Google Scholar
  2. Bare JC, Norris GA, Pennington DW, McKone T (2003) TRACI: The Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other environmental Impacts. J Ind Ecol 6(3):49–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell MI, McDermott A, Zeger SL, Samet JM, Dominici F (2004) Ozone and short-term mortality in 95 US urban communities, 1987–2000. JAMA 292(19):2372–2378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bellekom S, Potting J, Benders R (2006) Feasibility of applying site-dependent impact assessment of acidification in LCA. Int J LCA 11(6):417–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carter WPL (1998) Updated maximum incremental reactivity scale for regulatory applications. Preliminary report to California Air Resource Board. August 6.∼carter/bycarter.htm, accessed 21.7.2007
  6. Carter WPL (2007) Development of the SAPRC-07 chemical mechanism and updated ozone reactivity scales. Final report to California Air Resource Board. August 31.∼carter/SAPRC/, accessed Sept. 15, 2007
  7. Derwent RG, Jenkin ME (1991) Hydrocarbons and the long range transport of ozone and PAN across Europe. Atmos Env 25A(8):1661–1678Google Scholar
  8. Derwent RG, Jenkin ME, Saunders SM (1996) Photochemical ozone creation potential for a large number of reactive hydrocarbons under European conditions. Atmos Env 30(2):181–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Derwent RG, Jenkin ME, Saunders SM, Pilling MJ (2001) Characterization of the reactivities of volatile organic compounds using a master chemical mechanism. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 51(5):699–707Google Scholar
  10. Environ International Corporation (2006) CAMx user’s guide v4.40., accessed March 4, 2007
  11. Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2001) The eco-indicator 99 A damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment. PRé Consultants, AmersfoortGoogle Scholar
  12. Guinée JB, Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, de Koning A, van Oers L, Sleeswijk AW, Suh S, Udo de Haes HA, de Bruijn H, van Duin R, Huijbregts MAJ (2002) Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment: Operational Guide to the ISO Standards. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  13. Haushild M, Wenzel H (1998) Environmental assessment of products vol. 2—scientific background. Kluwer, BostonGoogle Scholar
  14. Hauschild M, Potting J (2005) Spatial differentiation in life cycle impact assessment—the EDIP2003 methodology. Environmental News No. 80. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  15. Heyes C, Schopp W, Amann M, Unger S (1996) A reduced form model to predict long term ozone concentrations in Europe. Interim report WP-96-12/December. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  16. Heyes C, Schopp W, Amann M, Bertok I, Cofala J, Gyarfas F, Klimont Z, Makowski M, Shibayev S (1997) A model for optimizing strategies for controlling ground level ozone in Europe. Interim report IR-97-002/January 1997. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, LaxenburgGoogle Scholar
  17. Hofstetter P (1998) Perspectives in life cycle impact assessment: a structured approach to combine models of the technosphere, ecosphere, and valuesphere. Kluwer, BostonGoogle Scholar
  18. Kasibhatla P, Chameides WL, Saylor RD, Olerud D (1998) Relationships between regional ozone pollution and emissions of nitrogen oxides in the eastern United States. J Geophys Res 103(D17):22663–22669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lee SM, Fernando HJS, Clarke-Grossman S (2007) MM5-SMOKE-CMAQ as a modeling tool for the 8-h ozone regulatory enforcement: application to the state of Arizona. Environ Model Assessment 12:63–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Norris GA (2003) Impact characterization in the Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other environmental Impacts. J Ind Ecol 6(3–4):79–101Google Scholar
  21. Pennington DW, Potting J, Finnveden G, Lindeijer E, Jolliet O, Rydberg T, Rebitzer G (2004) Life cycle assessment part 2: current impact assessment practice. Env Int 30:721–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Potting J, Haushild M (2005) Background for spatial differentiation in life cycle impact assessment—the EDIP2003 methodology. Environmental Project No. 996. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark., accessed March 10, 2007
  23. Potting J, Hauschild M (2006) Spatial differentiation in life cycle impact assessment. Int J LCA 11(Sp. Iss. 1):11–13Google Scholar
  24. Russell AG (1997) Regional photochemical air quality modeling: model formulations, history, and state of science. Annu Rev Energy Environ 22:537–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shannon JD (1991) A model of regional long-term average sulfur atmospheric pollution, surface removal, and net horizontal flux. Atmos Environ 15(5):689–701Google Scholar
  26. Shah VP (2008) A characterization model with spatial and temporal resolution for life cycle impact assessment of photochemical precursors in the United States. MS Thesis. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh PA, USAGoogle Scholar
  27. Simpson D (1993) Photochemical model calculations over Europe for two extended summer periods: 1985 and 1989. Model results and comparison with observations. Atmos Env 27A(6):921–943Google Scholar
  28. Tonnesen G, Wang Z, Omary M, Chien CJ, Morris R, Mansell G (2005) Final report for the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) Regional Modeling Center (RMC) for the project period March 1, 2004 through February 28, 2005., accessed Sept. 18, 2007
  29. Udo de Haes HA, Jolliet O, Finnveden G, Goedkoop M, Hauschild M, Hertwich E, Hofstetter P, Jolliet O, Klöpffer W, Krewitt W, Lindeijer E, Muller-Wank R, Olsen I, Pennington D, Potting J, Steen B (2002) Life cycle impact assessment: striving towards best practice. SETAC, PensacolaGoogle Scholar
  30. USEPA (2005a) Technical support document for the final Clean Air Interstate Rule—air quality modeling., accessed Sept. 8, 2007
  31. USEPA (2005b) Regulatory impact analysis for the final Clean Air Interstate Rule. EPA-452/R-05-002., accessed Jan. 18, 2008

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building ConstructionUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations