Advertisement

Sensitivity-based research prioritization through stochastic characterization modeling

  • Ben A. Wender
  • Valentina Prado
  • Peter Fantke
  • Dwarakanath Ravikumar
  • Thomas P. Seager
LCIA OF IMPACTS ON HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOSYSTEMS

Abstract

Purpose

Product developers using life cycle toxicity characterization models to understand the potential impacts of chemical emissions face serious challenges related to large data demands and high input data uncertainty. This motivates greater focus on model sensitivity toward input parameter variability to guide research efforts in data refinement and design of experiments for existing and emerging chemicals alike. This study presents a sensitivity-based approach for estimating toxicity characterization factors given high input data uncertainty and using the results to prioritize data collection according to parameter influence on characterization factors (CFs). Proof of concept is illustrated with the UNEP-SETAC scientific consensus model USEtox.

Methods

Using Monte Carlo analysis, we demonstrate a sensitivity-based approach to prioritize data collection with an illustrative example of aquatic ecotoxicity CFs for the vitamin B derivative niacinamide, which is an antioxidant used in personal care products. We calculate CFs via 10,000 iterations assuming plus-or-minus one order of magnitude variability in fate and exposure-relevant data inputs, while uncertainty in effect factor data is modeled as a central t distribution. Spearman’s rank correlation indices are used for all variable inputs to identify parameters with the largest influence on CFs.

Results and discussion

For emissions to freshwater, the niacinamide CF is near log-normally distributed with a geometric mean of 0.02 and geometric standard deviation of 8.5 PAF m3 day/kg. Results of Spearman’s rank correlation show that degradation rates in air, water, and soil are the most influential parameters in calculating CFs, thus benefiting the most from future data refinement and experimental research. Kow, sediment degradation rate, and vapor pressure were the least influential parameters on CF results. These results may be very different for other, e.g., more lipophilic chemicals, where Kow is known to drive many fate and exposure aspects in multimedia modeling. Furthermore, non-linearity between input parameters and CF results prevents transferring sensitivity conclusions from one chemical to another.

Conclusions

A sensitivity-based approach for data refinement and research prioritization can provide guidance to database managers, life cycle assessment practitioners, and experimentalists to concentrate efforts on the few parameters that are most influential on toxicity characterization model results. Researchers can conserve resources and address parameter uncertainty by applying this approach when developing new or refining existing CFs for the inventory items that contribute most to toxicity impacts.

Keywords

Characterization factor Sensitivity analysis Uncertainty USEtox 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors have benefitted from personal communications with Igor Linkov, Paul Westerhoff, Mark A. Huijbregts, and Lise Laurin, as well as java programming performed by Mukund Manikarnike and Vignesh Soundararajan, both in the School of Computing, Informatics, and Decision Systems Engineering at ASU. This work was funded in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Science to Achieve Results program through grant #FP1144616 and assistance agreement #RD83558001-0, the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) through cooperative agreement W912HZ-14-P-0130, the National Science Foundation (NSF) through grant #1140190 and #0937591, and the Marie Curie project Quan-Tox (GA No. 631910) funded by the European Commission under the Seventh Framework Programme. This work has not been formally reviewed by the EPA, NSF, or ERDC and the views expressed in this document are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the EPA, NSF, or ERDC.

Supplementary material

11367_2017_1322_MOESM1_ESM.docx (220 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 220 kb)

References

  1. Alfonsín C, Hospido A, Omil F, Moreira MT, Feijoo G (2014) PPCPs in wastewater—update and calculation of characterization factors for their inclusion in LCA studies. J Clean Prod 83:245–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bare J, Young D, QAM S, Hopton M, Chief SAB (2012) Tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts (TRACI) version 2.1 user manual. EPA/600/R-12/554 2012Google Scholar
  3. Bissett DL, Oblong JE, Berge CA (2006) Niacinamide: a B vitamin that improves aging facial skin appearance. Derm Surg 31:860–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cellura M, Longo S, Mistretta M (2011) Sensitivity analysis to quantify uncertainty in life cycle assessment: the case study of an Italian tile. Renew Sust En Rev 15:4697–4705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. CIREP (Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel) (2005) Final report of the safety assessment of niacinamide and niacin. Int J Tox 24:1–31Google Scholar
  6. Cucurachi S, Heijungs R (2014) Characterisation factors for life cycle impact assessment of sound emissions. Sci Tot Env 468–469:280–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dawson DA, Wilke TS (1991) Evaluation of the frog embryo teratogenesis assay: Xenopus (FETAX) as a model system for mixture toxicity hazard assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 10:941–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. EC (European Commission) (2011) International reference life cycle data system (ILCD) handbook—recomendations for life cycle impact assessment in the European context, First edn. Office of the European Union, LuxemburgGoogle Scholar
  9. ECOTox database (2015) User Guide: ECOTOX Database System. Version 4.0 http:/www.epa.gov/ecotox
  10. Fantke P, Jolliet O (2016) Life cycle human health impacts of 875 pesticides. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:722–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fantke P, Wieland P, Juraske R, Shaddick G, Itoiz ES, Friedrich R, Jolliet O (2012) Parameterization models for pesticide exposure via crop consumption. Env Sci Techol 46:12864–12872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fantke P, Arnot JA, Doucette WJ (2016) Improving plant bioaccumulation science through consistent reporting of experimental data. J Env Man 181:374–384Google Scholar
  13. Gauthier TD (2001) Detecting trends using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. Env Forens 2:359–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Golsteijn L, Hendriks HWM, van Zelm R, Ragas AMJ, Huijbregts MAJ (2012) Do interspecies correlation estimations increase the reliability of toxicity estimates for wildlife? Ecotox Env Safe 80:238–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gust KA, Collier ZA, Mayo M, Stanley JK, Gong P, Chappell M (2016) Limitations of toxicity characterization in life cycle assessment—can adverse outcome pathways provide a new foundation? Integ Env Assess Manage 12:580–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hauschild MZ, Huijbregts MA (2015) Life cycle impact assessment. LCA Compendium–The Complete World of Life Cycle Assessment. Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-9744-3
  17. Hauschild MZ et al (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
  18. Hauschild M et al (2013) Identifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:683–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Henderson A et al (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
  20. Huijbregts MA, Hauschild M Jolliet O, Margni M, McKone T, Rosenbaum RK, van de Meent D (2010a) USEtox User Manual Available at: http://www.usetox.org/sites/default/files/support-tutorials/user_manual_usetox.pdf
  21. Huijbregts MM, van de Meent D, Jollier O, Rosenbaum RK, McKone T, Hauschild M (2010b) USEtox chemcial-specific database: Organics Available at: http://www.usetox.org/sites/default/files/support-tutorials/database_organics.pdf
  22. Jolliet O, Fantke P (2015) Human toxicity, In: Life cycle impact assessment. Springer, pp 75–96Google Scholar
  23. Lloyd SM, Ries R (2007) Characterizing, Propagating, and Analyzing Uncertainty in Life-Cycle Assessment: A Survey of Quantitative Approaches. J Ind Econ 11:161–179. doi: 10.1162/jiec.2007.1136
  24. MacLeod M, Fraser AJ, Mackay D (2002) Evaluating and expressing the propagation of uncertainty in chemical fate and bioaccumulation models. Environ Toxicol Chem 21:700–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Müller N, de Zwart D, Hauschild M, Kijko G, Fantke P (2017) Exploring REACH as potential data source for characterizing ecotoxicity in life cycle assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 36:492–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pennington DW, Margni M, Ammann C, Jolliet O (2005) Multimedia fate and human intake modeling: spatial versus nonspatial insights for chemical emissions in western Europe. Environ Sci Technol 39:1119–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Prado-Lopez V, Wender BA, Seager TP et al (2015) Tradeoff evaluation improves comparative life cycle assessment: a photovoltaic case study. J Ind Ecol 20(4):1–9Google Scholar
  28. PubChem (2015) Compound summary for nicotinamide. National Center for Biotechnology Information. Available from: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/936.Google Scholar
  29. Ravikumar D, Wender B, Seager TP, Fraser MP (2013) Towards anticipatory life cycle assessment of photovoltaics. 39th IEEE Photovolt Spec Conf (PVSC). doi: 10.1109/PVSC.2013.6744956
  30. Ravikumar D, Sinha P, Seager TP, Fraser MP (2016) An anticipatory approach to quantify energetics of recycling CdTe photovoltaic systems. Prog Photovoltaics 24(5):735–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ravikumar D, Wender B, Seager TP, Fraser MP, Tao M (2017) A climate rationale for research and development on photovoltaics manufacture. Appl Eng 189:245–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. REACH (2017) Registered dossier for nicotinamide (EC# 202–713-4; CAS# 98–92-0). Accessed February 2017, available at: https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier/-/registered-dossier/14571/6/2/8
  33. RIVM (2015) e-ToxBase National Institute for Public Health and the Environment. http://www.ru.nl/environmentalscience/research/themes-0/risk-assessment/e-toxbase/
  34. Rosenbaum RK (2015) Ecotoxicity. In: Life cycle impact assessment. Springer, pp 139–162Google Scholar
  35. Rosenbaum R et al (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
  36. Saltelli A et al (2008) Global sensitivity analysis: the primer. John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  37. Sonnemann GW, Schuhmacher M, Castells F (2003) Uncertainty assessment by a Monte Carlo simulation in a life cycle inventory of electricity produced by a waste incinerator. J Clean Prod 11:279–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. UNEP (United Nations Environment Program) (2002) OECD SIDS Initial Assessment Report - nicotinamide Available at: http://www.inchem.org/documents/sids/sids/98920.pdf
  39. USEPA (2015) Estimation programs Interface suite™ for Microsoft® Windows, v 4.11. United State Enivronmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  40. Van Zelm R, Huijbregts MA, Harbers JV, Wintersen A, Struijs J, Posthuma L, Van de Meent D (2007) Uncertainty in msPAF-based ecotoxicological effect factors for freshwater ecosystems in life cycle impact assessment. Integ Environ Assess Manag 3:e6–e37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weidema BP, Bauer Ch, Hischier R, Mutel Ch, Nemecek T, Reinhard J, Vadenbo CO, Wernet G (2013) The ecoinvent database: overview and methodology, Data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3Google Scholar
  42. Wender BA et al (2014a) Illustrating anticipatory life cycle assessment for emerging photovoltaic technologies. Environ Sci Technol 48:10531–10538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wender BA et al (2014b) Anticipatory life-cycle assessment for responsible research and innovation. J Resp Innov 1:200–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Westh T, Hauschild M, Birkved M, Jørgensen M, Rosenbaum R, Fantke P (2015) The USEtox story: a survey of model developer visions and user requirements. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:299–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. van Zelm R, Huijbregts MAJ (2013) Quantifying the trade-off between parameter and model structure uncertainty in life cycle impact assessment. Environ Sci Technol 47:9274–9280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. van Zelm R, Huijbregts MJ, van de Meent D (2009) USES-LCA 2.0—a global nested multi-media fate, exposure, and effects model. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:282–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ben A. Wender
    • 1
  • Valentina Prado
    • 2
  • Peter Fantke
    • 3
  • Dwarakanath Ravikumar
    • 4
  • Thomas P. Seager
    • 4
  1. 1.National Academies of SciencesEngineering, and MedicineWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Institute of Environmental Sciences CMLLeiden UniversityLeidenthe Netherlands
  3. 3.Quantitative Sustainability Assessment Division, Department of Management EngineeringTechnical University of DenmarkKgs. LyngbyDenmark
  4. 4.School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built EnvironmentArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations