Advertisement

Including pathogen risk in life cycle assessment: the effect of modelling choices in the context of sewage sludge management

  • Robin HarderEmail author
  • Gregory M. Peters
  • Sverker Molander
  • Nicholas J. Ashbolt
  • Magdalena Svanström
LCIA OF IMPACTS ON HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOSYSTEMS

Abstract

Purpose

Recent attempts to include adverse effects of pathogens on human health in life cycle assessment (LCA) have focused on integrating results obtained through quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) as an impact category in LCA. This study aimed to investigate whether the use of QMRA can be an adequate way of integrating pathogen impact potential in LCA and to quantify how pathogen impact potential is affected by choices regarding model structure and mathematical relationships used.

Methods

This study was performed for the context of sewage sludge management and is based on pathogen concentrations in treated sludge reported in the literature. Eight reference pathogens were included in order to address important microbial groups. The pathogen impact potential associated with land application of sewage sludge was quantified based on a QMRA model for eight distinct exposure pathways. The modelling choices investigated were linearisation of dose-response and severity assessment and different modelling approaches and parameter choices in fate and exposure assessment.

Results and discussion

The linearisation of effect and severity assessment had a minor impact on the results for exposure pathways where pathogen doses were low but had a major impact where pathogen doses were high. The assumptions regarding fate and exposure conditions, such as pathogen decay time, number of individuals exposed and frequency of exposure, had a significant effect on overall pathogen impact potential. If pathogen impact potential is to be integrated in LCA, a range of different parameterisations for each exposure event may be warranted rather than only the one with the highest risk per individual exposed as commonly reported for QMRAs. This is also in line with the ordinary LCA practice of focusing on average rather than extreme conditions.

Conclusions

This study suggests that the use of QMRA can be an adequate way of integrating adverse effects of pathogens on human health in LCA. However, analysts should be careful when choosing model parameters such as the number of people exposed or the frequency of exposure, as LCA may require a different parameterisation than an ordinary risk assessment (RA). Therefore, a direct integration of the results of a QMRA study into LCA may be problematic. Also, in order to avoid potential bias, analysts should carefully consider whether or not pathogen impact potential and human toxicity potential need to be estimated based on a similar set of exposure pathways.

Keywords

Biosolids Human toxicity LCA LCIA Microbial risks QMRA 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Programme for research, technological development, and demonstration under grant agreement no. 265156 ROUTES and from the Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (FORMAS) under grant agreement no. 2012-1122.

Supplementary material

11367_2015_996_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (947 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 946 KB)

References

  1. Aramaki T, Galal M, Hanaki K (2006) Estimation of reduced and increasing health risks by installation of urban wastewater systems. Water Sci Technol 53(9):247–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bengtsson M, Tillman A-M (2004) Actors and interpretations in an environmental controversy: the Swedish debate on sewage sludge use in agriculture. Resour Conserv Recycl 42:65–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bofill-Mas S, Albinana-Gimenez N, Clemente-Casares P, Hundesa A, Rodriguez-Manzano J, Allard A, Calvo M, Girones R (2006) Quantification and stability of human adenoviruses and polyomavirus JCPyV in wastewater matrices. Appl Environ Microbiol 72(12):7894–7896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brooks JP, McLaughlin MR, Gerba CP, Pepper IL (2012) Land application of manure and class B biosolids: an occupational and public quantitative microbial risk assessment. J Environ Qual 41:2009–2023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Corominas L, Foley J, Guest JS, Hospido A, Larsen HF, Morera S, Shaw A (2013) Life cycle assessment applied to wastewater treatment: state of the art. Water Res 47:5480–5492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eisenberg JN, Brookhart A, Rice G, Brown M, Colford JM Jr (2002) Disease transmission models for public health decision making: analysis of epidemic and endemic conditions caused by waterborne pathogens. Environ Health Perspect 110(8):783–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eisenberg JN, Soller JA, Scott J, Eisenberg DM, Colford JM Jr (2004) A dynamic model to assess microbial health risks associated with beneficial uses of biosolids. Risk Anal 24(1):221–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eisenberg JN, Moore K, Soller JA, Eisenberg DM, Colford JM Jr (2008) Microbial risk assessment framework for exposure to amended sludge projects. Environ Health Perspect 116(6):727–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gale P (2005) Land application of treated sewage sludge: quantifying pathogen risks from consumption of crops. J Appl Microbiol 98:380–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gao T, Wang XC, Chen R, Ngo HH, Guo W (2015) Disability adjusted life year (DALY): a useful tool for quantitative assessment of environmental pollution. Sci Total Environ 511:268–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goedkoop MJ, 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. First edition Report I: CharacterisationGoogle Scholar
  12. Haas CN, Rose JB, Gerba CP (2014) Quantitative microbial risk assessment, 2nd edn. WileyGoogle Scholar
  13. Harder R, Heimersson S, Svanström M, Peters GM (2014) Including pathogen risk in life cycle assessment of wastewater management—part 1: estimating the burden of disease associated with pathogens. Environ Sci Technol 48(16):9338–9445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harder R, Schoen M, Peters G (2015) Including pathogen risk in life cycle assessment of wastewater management. Implications for the choice of functional unit. Environ Sci Technol 49:14−15Google Scholar
  15. Hauschild MZ, Goedkoop M, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, Jolliet O, Margni M, De Schryver A, Humbert S, Laurent A, Sala S, Pant R (2013) Identifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(3):683–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heimersson S, Harder R, Peters GM, Svanström M (2014) Including pathogen risk in life cycle assessment of wastewater management—part 2: quantitative comparison of potential impacts of pathogens to other impacts on human health. Environ Sci Technol 48(16):9446–9453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Henderson AD, Hauschild MZ, Van de Meent D, Huibregts 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 Ass 16:701–709Google Scholar
  18. Huijbregts M, Hauschild M, Jolliet O, Margni M, McKone T, Rosenbaum RK, van de Meent D (2010) USEtox™ user manualGoogle Scholar
  19. Kobayashi Y, Peters GM, Ashbolt NJ, Heimersson S, Svanström M, Khan SJ (2015) Global and local health burden trade-off through the hybridisation of quantitative microbial risk assessment and life cycle assessment to aid water management. Water Res 79:26–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Larsen HF, Olsen SI, Hauschild M, Laurent A (2009) NEPTUNE, new sustainable concepts and processes for optimization and upgrading municipal wastewater and sludge treatment, Work Package 4—Assessment of environmental sustainability and best practice, Deliverable 4.2—Methodology for including specific biological effects and pathogen aspects into LCA. Lyngby, Denmark: Technical University of DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  21. Murray C (1994) Quantifying the burden of disease: the technical basis for disability-adjusted life years. B World Health Organ 72:429–445Google Scholar
  22. 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 analysis to key chemical properties. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:710–727Google Scholar
  23. Sales-Ortells H, Medema G (2015) Microbial health risks associated with exposure to stormwater in a water plaza. Water Res 74:34–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schoen ME, Xue X, Hawkins TR, Ashbolt NJ (2014) Comparative human health risk analysis of coastal community water and waste service options. Environ Sci Technol 48(16):9728–9736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Soller JA (2009) The potential implications of person-to-person transmission of viral infection for US EPA’s Groundwater Rule. J Water Health 7(2):208–223Google Scholar
  26. Westrell T, Schönning C, Stenström TA, Ashbolt NJ (2004) QMRA (quantitative microbial risk assessment) and HACCP (hazard analysis and critical control points) for management of pathogens in wastewater and sewage sludge treatment and reuse. Water Sci Technol 50(2):23–30Google Scholar
  27. Yoshida H, Christensen TH, Scheutz C (2013) Life cycle assessment of sewage sludge management: a review. Waste Manag Res 31(11):1083–1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robin Harder
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gregory M. Peters
    • 1
  • Sverker Molander
    • 2
  • Nicholas J. Ashbolt
    • 3
  • Magdalena Svanström
    • 1
  1. 1.Chemical Environmental Science, Department of Chemistry and Chemical EngineeringChalmers University of TechnologyGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.Environmental Systems Analysis, Department of Energy and EnvironmentChalmers University of TechnologyGothenburgSweden
  3. 3.School of Public HealthUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations