The USEtox story: a survey of model developer visions and user requirements

  • Torbjørn Bochsen Westh
  • Michael Zwicky Hauschild
  • Morten Birkved
  • Michael Søgaard Jørgensen
  • Ralph K. Rosenbaum
  • Peter Fantke
LCIA OF IMPACTS ON HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOSYSTEMS

Abstract

Purpose

USEtox is a scientific consensus model for assessing human toxicological and ecotoxicological impacts that is widely used in life cycle assessment (LCA) and other comparative assessments. However, how user requirements are met has never been investigated. To guide future model developments, we analyzed user expectations and experiences and compared them with the developers’ visions.

Methods

We applied qualitative and quantitative data collection methods including an online questionnaire, semi-structured user and developer interviews, and review of scientific literature. Questionnaire and interview results were analyzed in an actor-network perspective in order to understand user needs and to compare these with the developers’ visions. Requirement engineering methods, more specifically function tree, system context, and activity diagrams, were iteratively applied and structured to develop specific user requirements-driven recommendations for setting priorities in future USEtox development and for discussing general implications for developing scientific models.

Results and discussion

The vision behind USEtox was to harmonize available data and models for assessing toxicological impacts in LCA and to provide global guidance for practitioners. Model developers show different perceptions of some underlying aspects including model transparency and expected user expertise. Users from various sectors and geographic regions apply USEtox mostly in research and for consulting. Questionnaire and interview results uncover various user requests regarding USEtox usability. Results were systematically analyzed to translate user requests into recommendations to improve USEtox from a user perspective and were afterwards applied in the further USEtox development process.

Conclusions

We demonstrate that understanding interactions between USEtox and its users helps guiding model development and dissemination. USEtox-specific recommendations are to (1) respect the application context for different user types, (2) provide detailed guidance for interpreting model and factors, (3) facilitate consistent integration into LCA software and methods, (4) improve update/testing procedures, (5) strengthen communication between developers and users, and (6) extend model scope. By generalizing our recommendations to guide scientific model development in a broader context, we emphasize to acknowledge different levels of user expertise to integrate sound revision and update procedures and to facilitate modularity, data import/export, and incorporation into relevant software and databases during model design and development. Our fully documented approach can inspire performing similar surveys on other LCA-related tools to consistently analyze user requirements and provide improvement recommendations based on scientific user analysis methods.

Keywords

Actor-network perspective Requirement engineering methods Toxicity assessment User survey USEtox 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was financially supported by the Marie Curie projects TOX-TRAIN (grant agreement no. 285286) and QUAN-TOX (grant agreement no. 631910) both funded by the European Commission under the Seventh Framework Programme. The authors would like to thank all persons participating in the online survey and interviews for their feedback and the USEtox development team for providing website user statistics, which were treated confidentially.

References

  1. Aboussouan L, van de Meent D, Schönnenbeck M, Hauschild M, Delbeke K, Struijs J, Russell 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, Chapman P, Ligthart T, Verdonck F, van der Loos R, Eikelboom R, Kuyper J (2004) Declaration of Apeldoorn on LCIA of non-ferrous metals. United Nations Environment Programme, ApeldoornGoogle Scholar
  2. American Chemical Council (2012) ExpoDat2012: advancing exposure-informed chemical safety assessment. Budapest, Hungary - June 2012Google Scholar
  3. Bare J (2011) TRACI 2.0: the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts 2.0. Clean Technol Environ 13:687–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bengoa X, Birkved M, Fantke P, Golsteijn L, Humbert S, Sourisseau S, Van Zelm R, Rosenbaum R (2014) TOX-TRAIN: the user-friendly toolbox for human and ecotoxicity assessment in LCA. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Europe 24th Annual Meeting, BaselGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhattacharjee AK, Shyamasundar RK (2009) Activity diagrams: a formal framework to model business processes and code generation. J Object Technol 8:189–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bulle C, Jolliet O, Humbert S, Rosenbaum R, Margni M (2012) IMPACT World+: a new global regionalized life cycle impact assessment method. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 6th World Congress/Europe 22nd Annual Meeting, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  7. Carlson R, Erixon M, Pålsson A-C, Tivander J (2004) OMNIITOX concept model supports characterisation modelling for life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9:289–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coffey AJ, Atkinson PA (1996) Making sense of qualitative data: complementary research strategies. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  9. Cowan C, Mackay D, Feijtel T, van de Meent D, Di Guardo A, Davies J, Mackay N (1995) Multi-media fate model: a vital tool for predicting the fate of chemicals. SETAC Press, Pensacola, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  10. Cross N (2008) Engineering design methods: strategies for product design, 4th edn. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  11. 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, Meent D, Vijver MG (2010) The clearwater consensus: the estimation of metal hazard in fresh water. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:143–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dreyer LC, Niemann AL, Hauschild MZ (2003) Comparison of three different LCIA methods: EDIP97, CML2001 and eco-indicator 99: does it matter which one you choose? Int J Life Cycle Assess 8:191–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. European Commission (2010) International reference life cycle data system (ILCD) Handbook : analysis of existing environmental impact assessment methodologies for use in life cycle assessment, 1st Ed., BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  14. European Commission (2011) International reference life cycle data system (ILCD) Handbook : recommendations for life cycle impact assessment in the European context—based on existing environmental impact assessment models and factors, 1st Ed., BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  15. Fenner K, Scheringer M, MacLeod M, Matthies M, McKone T, 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 39:1932–1942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frechtling J (2010) The 2010 user friendly handbook for project evaluation. National Science Foundation, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  17. Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver A, Struijs J, van Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe 2008: a life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level; 1st Ed. Report I: CharacterisationGoogle Scholar
  18. Guinée J, Hauschild M (2005) State of the art description of characterisation models for assessing human and ecotoxicological impacts in LCA. Chalmers University of Technology, GöteborgGoogle Scholar
  19. Guinée JB, Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, de Koning A, van Oers L, Wegener Sleeswijk A, 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 Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  20. Guinée JB, de Koning A, Pennington DW, Rosenbaum RK, Hauschild MZ, Olsen S, Molander S, Bachmann TM, Pant R (2004) Bringing science and pragmatism together: a tiered approach for modelling toxicological impacts in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9:320–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harty C (2010) Implementing innovation: designers, users and actor-networks. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 22:297–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harvey F (2001) Constructing GIS: actor networks of collaboration. J Urban Reg Inf Syst Assoc 13:29–37Google Scholar
  23. Hauschild MZ (2005) Assessing environmental impacts in a life cycle perspective. Environ Sci Technol 39:81A–88ACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hauschild M (2006a) Comparison of characterisation models for toxic impacts in LCIA and development of consensus model, UNEP-SETAC life cycle initiative task force 3: toxic impacts. workshop in Montreal 4–5 November 2006. UNEP-SETAC life cycle initiative, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  25. Hauschild M (2006b) Comparison of characterisation models for toxic impacts in LCIA, UNEP-SETAC life cycle initiative task force 3: toxic impacts. Workshop in Paris 31 August - 2 September 2006. UNEP-SETAC life cycle initiative, BilthovenGoogle Scholar
  26. Hauschild MZ, Potting J (2005) Spatial differentiation in life cycle impact assessment-the EDIP2003 methodology. Danish Ministry of the Environment, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  27. Hauschild M, Jolliet O, Adams B, Margni M (2006) Comparison of characterisation models for toxic impacts in LCIA, UNEP-SETAC life cycle initiative task force 3: toxic impacts. Workshop in Bilthoven 5–6 May 2006. UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, ParisGoogle Scholar
  28. Hauschild MZ, Huijbregts MAJ, Jolliet O, Macleod M, Margni MD, van de Meent D, Rosenbaum RK, McKone TE (2008) Building a model based on scientific consensus for life cycle impact assessment of chemicals: the search for harmony and parsimony. Environ Sci Technol 42:7032–7037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hauschild MZ, Jolliet O, Huijbregts MAJ (2011) A bright future for addressing chemical emissions in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:697–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Henderson AD, Hauschild MZ, 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 16:701–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Huijbregts M, Hauschild M, Jolliet O, Margni M, McKone T, Rosenbaum RK, van de Meent D (2010) USEtoxTM user manual. Version 1.01Google Scholar
  32. ILCB (2013) 23rd international life cycle initiative board meeting organized by the UNEP/SETAC life cycle initiative: minutes. International Life Cycle Initiative Board, GlasgowGoogle Scholar
  33. Itsubo N, Inaba A (2012) LIME2 life-cycle impact assessment method based on endpoint modeling. Summary. Life Cycle Assessment Society of Japan, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  34. Jolliet O, McKone TE (2012) Rapid exposure-based prioritization of environmental chemicals using USEtox. Society of Toxicology (SOT) 51st Annual Meeting and ToxExpoTM, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  35. Jolliet O, Rosenbaum RK, Chapman PM, McKone TE, Margni MD, Scheringer M, Straalen NV, Wania F (2006) Establishing a framework for life cycle toxicity assessment: findings of the Lausanne review workshop. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:209–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kvale S (1996) InterViews: an introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  37. Latour B (2007) Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  38. McKone TE, Kyle AD, Jolliet O, Olsen S, Hauschild MZ (2006) Dose–response modeling for life cycle impact assessment: findings of the Portland review workshop. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:137–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mitchell J, Arnot JA, Jolliet O, Georgopoulos PG, Isukapalli S, Dasgupta S, Pandian M, Wambaugh J, Egeghy P, Cohen Hubal EA, Vallero DA (2013) Comparison of modeling approaches to prioritize chemicals based on estimates of exposure and exposure potential. Sci Total Environ 458–460:555–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Molander S, Lidholm P, Schowanek D, Recasens MDM, Palmer PFI, Christensen F, Guinée JB, Hauschild MZ, Jolliet O, Carlson R, Pennington DW, Bachmann TM (2004) OMNIITOX—operational life cycle impact assessment models and information tools for practitioners. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9:282–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nuseibeh B, Easterbrook SM (2007) Fundamentals of requirements engineering. Pearson Education, HarlowGoogle Scholar
  42. Oscarson S, Hauschild M (2010) USEtoxTM: a consensus model for characterization of human and ecotoxic impacts in LCIA. Press release. UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, SevilleGoogle Scholar
  43. Pant R, Hoof G, Schowanek D, Feijtel TCJ, Koning A, Hauschild M, Olsen SI, Pennington DW, Rosenbaum R (2004) Comparison between three different LCIA methods for aquatic ecotoxicity and a product environmental risk assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9:295–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Quantis (2011) Comparative full life cycle assessment of B2C cup of espresso made using a packaging and distribution system from Nespresso Espresso and three generic products. Lausanne, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  45. Rabionet SE (2011) How I learned to design and conduct semi-structured interviews: an ongoing and continuous journey. Qual Rep 16:563–566Google Scholar
  46. Rohracher H (2003) The role of users in the social shaping of environmental technologies. Innov (Abingdon) 16:177–192Google Scholar
  47. Rosenbaum RK, Bachmann TM, Gold LS, Huijbregts MAJ, Jolliet O, Juraske R, Koehler A, Larsen HF, MacLeod M, Margni MD, 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 13:532–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rosenbaum RK, Huijbregts MAJ, Henderson AD, Margni M, McKone TE, van de Meent D, Hauschild MZ, Shaked S, Li DS, Gold LS, Jolliet O (2011) USEtox human exposure and toxicity factors for comparative assessment of toxic emissions in life cycle analysis: sensitivity to key chemical properties. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:710–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sismondo S (2010) An introduction to science and technology studies, 2nd edn. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  50. Sommerville I (2011) Software engineering, 9th edn. Addison-Wesley, BostonGoogle Scholar
  51. Takhteyev Y (2009) Networks of practice as heterogeneous actor-networks. Inf Comm Soc 12:566–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Udo de Haes HA (1996) Towards a methodology for life cycle impact assessment. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Europe, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  53. Udo de Haes HA, Jolliet O, Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Krewitt W, Müller-Wenk R (1999a) Best available practice regarding impact categories and category indicators in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4:66–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Udo de Haes HA, Jolliet O, Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Krewitt W, Müller-Wenk R (1999b) Best available practice regarding impact categories and category indicators in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4:167–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Udo de Haes HA, Finnveden G, Goedkoop M, Hauschild MZ, Hertwich E, Hofstetter P, Jolliet O, Klöpffer W, Krewitt W, Lindeijer E, Müller-Wenk R, Olsen S, Pennington DW, Potting J, Steen B (2002) Life-cycle impact assessment: striving towards best practice. SETAC Press, Pensacola, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  56. Van Hoof G, Schowanek D, Franceschini H, Muñoz I (2011) Ecotoxicity impact assessment of laundry products: a comparison of USEtox and critical dilution volume approaches. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:803–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. van Vliet H (2008) Software engineering: principles and practice, 3rd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  58. Wambaugh JF, Setzer RW, Reif DM, Gangwal S, Mitchell-Blackwood J, Arnot JA, Jolliet O, Frame A, Rabinowitz J, Knudsen TB, Judson RS, Egeghy P, Vallero D, Cohen Hubal EA (2013) High-throughput models for exposure-based chemical prioritization in the ExpoCast project. Environ Sci Technol 47:8479–8488Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Torbjørn Bochsen Westh
    • 1
  • Michael Zwicky Hauschild
    • 1
  • Morten Birkved
    • 1
  • Michael Søgaard Jørgensen
    • 2
  • Ralph K. Rosenbaum
    • 3
  • Peter Fantke
    • 1
  1. 1.Quantitative Sustainability Assessment Division, Department of Management EngineeringTechnical University of DenmarkKgs. LyngbyDenmark
  2. 2.Center for Design, Innovation and Sustainable Transition, Department of Development and PlanningAalborg UniversityKøbenhavnDenmark
  3. 3.Irstea, UMR ITAP, ELSA-PACT—Industrial Chair for Environmental and Social Sustainability AssessmentMontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations