USEtox human exposure and toxicity factors for comparative assessment of toxic emissions in life cycle analysis: sensitivity to key chemical properties
- 1.8k Downloads
The aim of this paper is to provide science-based consensus and guidance for health effects modelling in comparative assessments based on human exposure and toxicity. This aim is achieved by (a) describing the USEtox™ exposure and toxicity models representing consensus and recommended modelling practice, (b) identifying key mechanisms influencing human exposure and toxicity effects of chemical emissions, (c) extending substance coverage.
The methods section of this paper contains a detailed documentation of both the human exposure and toxic effects models of USEtox™, to determine impacts on human health per kilogram substance emitted in different compartments. These are considered as scientific consensus and therefore recommended practice for comparative toxic impact assessment. The framework of the exposure model is described in details including the modelling of each exposure pathway considered (i.e. inhalation through air, ingestion through (a) drinking water, (b) agricultural produce, (c) meat and milk, and (d) fish). The calculation of human health effect factors for cancer and non-cancer effects via ingestion and inhalation exposure respectively is described. This section also includes discussions regarding parameterisation and estimation of input data needed, including route-to-route and acute-to-chronic extrapolations.
Results and discussion
For most chemicals in USEtox™, inhalation, above-ground agricultural produce, and fish are the important exposure pathways with key driving factors being the compartment and place of emission, partitioning, degradation, bioaccumulation and bioconcentration, and dietary habits of the population. For inhalation, the population density is the key factor driving the intake, thus the importance to differentiate emissions in urban areas, except for very persistent and mobile chemicals that are taken in by the global population independently from their place of emission. The analysis of carcinogenic potency (TD50) when volatile chemicals are administrated to rats and mice by both inhalation and an oral route suggests that results by one route can reasonably be used to represent another route. However, we first identify and mark as interim chemicals for which observed tumours are directly related to a given exposure route (e.g. for nasal or lung, or gastrointestinal cancers) or for which absorbed fraction by inhalation and by oral route differ greatly.
A documentation of the human exposure and toxicity models of USEtox™ is provided, and key factors driving the human health characterisation factor are identified. Approaches are proposed to derive human toxic effect factors and expand the number of chemicals in USEtox™, primarily by extrapolating from an oral route to exposure in air (and optionally acute-to-chronic). Some exposure pathways (e.g. indoor inhalation, pesticide residues, dermal exposure) will be included in a later stage. USEtox™ is applicable in various comparative toxicity impact assessments and not limited to LCA.
KeywordsConsensus Human exposure Human health LCIA Life cycle impact assessment Toxicity 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. The financial support for the USEtox™ consortium from ACC (American Chemical Council) and ICMM (International Council on Mining and Metals) is also gratefully acknowledged.
- Assies JA (1997) Risk indicators for use in life-cycle impact assessment: An approach based on sustainability. Center for Energy and Environmental Studies (IVEM), University of Groningen, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
- Barnthouse LW, Fava JA, Humphreys K, Hunt R, Laibson L, Noesen S, Norris GA, Owens JW, Todd J, Vigon B, Weitz K, Young JS (1997) Life-cycle impact assessment: the state of the art, 2nd edn. SETAC, Pensacola (FL), USAGoogle Scholar
- Cox LA, Ricci PF (eds) (1990) New risks: issues and management. SpringerGoogle Scholar
- EC (2003) Technical Guidance Document on Risk Assessment in Support of Commission Directive 93/67/EEC on Risk Assessment for new notified substances Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 on Risk Assessment for existing substances Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market - Part I. Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, European Chemicals Bureau, European Joint Research Centre (JRC) Ispra, ItalyGoogle Scholar
- FAO (2002) FAO Statistical Databases (FAOSTAT) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org
- Gold LS (2011) The Carcinogenic Potency Project and Database (CPDB) University of California, Berkeley; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; National Library of Medicine’s (NLM®). http://potency.berkeley.edu
- Henderson A, Hauschild M, Van de Meent D, Huijbregts MAJ, Larsen HF, Margni M, McKone TE, Payet J, Rosenbaum RK, Jolliet O (2011) USEtox fate and ecotoxicity factors for comparative assessment of toxic emissions in life cycle analysis: sensitivity to key chemical properties. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi: 10.1007/s11367-011-0294-6
- Huijbregts MAJ, Thissen U, Guinée JB, Jager T, Kalf D, van de Meent D, Ragas AMJ, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Reijnders L (2000) Priority assessment of toxic substances in life cycle assessment. Part I: calculation of toxicity potentials for 181 substances with the nested multi-media fate, exposure and effects model USES-LCA. Chemosphere 41(4):541–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- ISO (2006) ISO 14040 International Standard. Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. International Organisation for Standardization, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
- JMPR (2004) Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues. Monographs and evaluations www.inchem.org/pages/jmpr.html. Accessed 17–23 May 2004
- Ligthart T, Aboussouan L, Van de Meent D, Schönnenbeck M, Hauschild M, Delbeke K, Struijs J, Russel A, Udo de Haes H, Atherton J, van Tilborg W, Karman C, Korenromp R, Sap G, Baukloh A, Dubreuil A, Adams W, Heijungs R, Jolliet O, De Koning A, Chapmann P, Verdonck F, van der Loos R, Eikelboom R, Kuyper J (2004) Declaration of Apeldoorn on LCIA of Non-Ferrous Metals. http://lcinitiative.unep.fr/includes/file.asp?site=lcinit&file=38D1F49D-6D64-45AE-9F64-578BA414E499
- Mackay D, Seth R (1999) The Role of Mass Balance Modelling in Impact Assessment and Pollution Prevention. In: Sikdar SK, Diwekar U (eds) Tools and methods for pollution prevention. Kluwer, The Netherlands, pp 157–179Google Scholar
- Margni M (2003) Source to intake modeling in life cycle impact assessment. Ph.D, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
- McKone T, Bennett D, Maddalena R (2001) CalTOX 4.0 technical support document, Vol. 1. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
- McKone TE (2001) Ecological toxicity potentials (ETPs) for substances released to air and surface waters. School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, CA, Environmental Health Sciences Division, 94720Google Scholar
- Molander S, Lidholm P, Schowanek D, Recasens M, Fullana I, Palmer P, Christensen FM, Guinée JB, Hauschild M, Jolliet O, Pennington DW, Carlson R, Bachmann TM (2004) OMNIITOX—operational life-cycle impact assessment models and information tools for practitioners. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(5):282–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- NLM (2011) Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB®) National Library of Medicine’s (NLM) Toxicology Data Network (TOXNET®). http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov
- Pant R, Van Hoof G, Schowanek D, Feijtel TCJ, De Koning A, Hauschild M, 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):295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rosenbaum RK, Bachmann TK, Gold LS, Huijbregts MAJ, Jolliet O, Juraske R, Koehler A, Larsen HF, MacLeod M, Margni M, McKone TE, Payet J, Schuhmacher M, Van de Meent D, Hauschild MZ (2008) USEtox—the UNEP/SETAC-consensus 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
- Udo de Haes H, Jolliet O, Finnveden G, Goedkoop M, Hauschild M, Hertwich E, Hofstetter P, Klöpffer W, Krewitt W, Lindeijer E, Mueller-Wenk R, Olson S, Pennington D, Potting J, Steen B (2002) Life-cycle impact assessment: striving towards best practice. SETAC, Pensacola, USAGoogle Scholar
- USEPA (1997) Exposure factors handbook—volume I. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- USEPA (2011) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) http://www.epa.gov/iris