USEtox fate and ecotoxicity factors for comparative assessment of toxic emissions in life cycle analysis: sensitivity to key chemical properties
- 1.8k Downloads
The USEtox model was developed in a scientific consensus process involving comparison of and harmonization between existing environmental multimedia fate models. USEtox quantitatively models the continuum from chemical emission to freshwater ecosystem toxicity via chemical-specific characterization factors (CFs) for Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA). This work provides understanding of the key mechanisms and chemical parameters influencing fate in the environment and impact on aquatic ecosystems.
Materials and method
USEtox incorporates a matrix framework for multimedia modeling, allowing separation of fate, exposure, and ecotoxicity effects in the determination of an overall CF. Current best practices, such as incorporation of intermittent rain and effect factors (EF) based on substance toxicity across species, are implemented in the model. The USEtox database provides a dataset of over 3,000 organic chemicals, of which approximately 2,500 have freshwater EFs. Freshwater characterization factors for these substances, with a special focus on a subset of chemicals with characteristic properties, were analyzed to understand the contributions of fate, exposure, and effect on the overall CFs. The approach was based on theoretical interpretation of the multimedia model components as well as multidimensional graphical analysis.
Results and discussion
For direct emission of a substance to water, the EF strongly controls freshwater ecotoxicity, with a range of up to 10 orders of magnitude. In this release scenario, chemical-specific differences in environmental fate influence the CF for freshwater emissions by less than 2 orders of magnitude. However, for an emission to air or soil, the influence of the fate is more pronounced. Chemical partitioning properties between water, air, and soil may drive intermedia transfer, which may be limited by the often uncertain, media-specific degradation half-life. Intermedia transfer may be a function of landscape parameters as well; for example, direct transfer from air to freshwater is limited by the surface area of freshwater. Overall, these altered fate factors may decrease the CF up to 8 orders of magnitude.
This work brings new clarity to the relative contributions of fate and freshwater ecotoxicity to the calculation of CFs. In concert with the USEtox database, which provides the most extensive compilation of CFs to date, these findings enable those undertaking LCIA to understand and contextualize existing and newly calculated CFs.
KeywordsCharacterization factors Fate modeling Freshwater ecotoxicity Life Cycle Impact Assessment Model comparison USEtox
Most of the work for this project was carried out on a voluntary basis and financed by in-kind contributions from the authors' home institutions which are therefore gratefully acknowledged. The work was performed under the auspices of the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, which also provided logistic and financial support and facilitated stakeholder consultations. Financial support from American Chemical Council (ACC) and International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) is also gratefully acknowledged.
- Aldenberg T, Jaworska JS, Traas TP (2002) Normal species sensitivity distributions and probabilistic ecological risk assessment. In: Posthuma L, Suter GW II, Traas TP (eds) Species sensitivity distributions in ecotoxicology. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, pp 49–102Google Scholar
- Brandes LJ, Den Hollander HA, van de Meent D (1996) SimpleBox 2.0: a nested multimedia fate model for evaluating the environmental fate of chemicals. Report 719101 029, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, BilthovenGoogle Scholar
- Diamond ML, Gandhi N, Adams WJ, Atherton J, Bhavsar SP, Bulle C, Campbell PGC, Dubreuil A, Fairbrother A, Farley K, Green A, Guinee J, Hauschild MZ, Huijbregts MAJ, Humbert S, Jensen KS, Jolliet O, Margni M, McGeer JC, Peijnenburg WJGM, Rosenbaum R, van de Meent D, Vijverdo MG (2010) The Clearwater consensus: the estimation of metal hazard in fresh water. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(2):143–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fenner K, Scheringer M, MacLeod M, Matthies M, McKone TE, Stroebe M, Beyer A, Bonnell M, Le Gall AC, Klasmeier J, Mackay D, van de Meent D, Pennington DW, Scharenberg B, Suzuki N, Wania F (2005) Comparing estimates of persistence and long-range transport potential among multimedia models. Environ Sci Technol 39(7):1932–1942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Forbes VE, Calow P (2002) Species sensitivity distribution revisited: a critical appraisal. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 8(3):473–492Google Scholar
- Huijbregts M, Margni M, van de Meent D, Jolliet O, Rosenbaum R, McKone TE, Hauschild MZ (2010) USEtox™ Chemical-specific database: organics. http://www.usetox.org. Accessed 4 Apr 2010
- Jolliet O, Shaked S, Friot D, Humbert S, Schwarzer S, Margni M (2008) Multicontinental long range intake fraction of POPS: importance of food exposure and food exports. Organohalogen Compd 70:1939–1941Google Scholar
- Larsen HF, Hauschild MZ (2007a) Evaluation of ecotoxicity effect indicators for use in LCIA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(1):24–33 (Erratum for p 32 in: Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(2):92)Google Scholar
- Ligthart T, Aboussouan L, van de Meent D, Schönnenbeck M, Hauschild MZ, Delbeke K, Struijs J, Russell A, Udo de Haes H, Atherton J, van Tilborg W, Karman Ch, Korenromp R, Sap G, Baukloh A, Dubreuil A, Adams W, Heijungs R, Jolliet O, de Koning A, Chapman P, Verdonck F, van der Loos R, Eikelboom R, Kuyper J (2004) Declaration of Apeldoorn on LCIA of non-ferrous metals. Abstract by Sonnemann G (2004). Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(5):334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mackay D (2002) Multimedia environmental models: the fugacity approach. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
- McKone TE, Bennett D, Maddalena R (2001) CalTOX 4.0 Technical support document, vol. 1. LBNL-47254. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
- McKone TE, Kyle AD, Jolliet O, Olsen SI, Hauschild MZ (2006) Dose-response modeling for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(2):138–140Google Scholar
- Pant R, Van Hoof G, Schowanek D, Feijtel TCJ, De Koning A, Hauschild MZ, Olsen SI, Pennington DW, Rosenbaum RK (2004) Comparison between three different LCIA methods for aquatic ecotoxicity and a product environmental risk assessment: insights from a detergent case study within OMNIITOX. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(5):295–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Payet J (2004) Assessing toxic impacts on aquatic ecosystems in life cycle assessment (LCA). Dissertation, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL): Lausanne, Switzerland. Also see Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(5):373Google Scholar
- Payet J, Jolliet O (2004) Comparative assessment of the toxic impact of metals on aquatic ecosystems: the AMI method. In: Dubreuil A (ed) Life Cycle Assessment of metals: issues and research directions. SETAC Press, Pensacola, pp 188–191Google Scholar
- Rosenbaum RK, Bachmann TM, Gold LS, Huijbregts MAJ, Jolliet O, Juraske R, Köhler A, Larsen HF, MacLeod M, Margni M, McKone TE, Payet J, Schuhmacher M, van de Meent D, Hauschild MZ (2008) USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(7):532–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Van Zelm R, Huijbregts MAJ, Harbers JV, Wintersen A, Struijs J, Posthuma L, van de Meent D (2007) Uncertainty in msPAF-based ecotoxicological freshwater effect factors for chemicals with a non-specific mode of action in life cycle impact assessment. Integr Environ Assess Manage 3(2):203–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar