Global spatial analysis of toxic emissions to freshwater: operationalization for LCA
- 103 Downloads
There is increasing interest in using fate and exposure models to spatially differentiate the impacts of chemical emissions. This work aims at exploring the operationalization in life cycle assessment (LCA) of spatially differentiated models for toxic emissions into freshwater. We analyse and compare the variability of fate and exposure factors at high resolution with aggregated factors at different levels of lower resolution.
We developed a spatially resolved fate and exposure characterization model and factors for toxic emissions into freshwater with global coverage at 0.5° × 0.5° resolution, extending a global hydrological model to account for removal processes, namely chemical and biological degradation, sedimentation, and volatilization. We analysed the variation in fate and exposure factors for water ingestion, identifying the main factors of influence. We then developed archetypes for ecosystems and human fate and exposure. Using a case study of emissions of arsenic from red mud disposal as a waste from alumina production, we tested practical solutions to apply spatial characterization factors aggregated at different resolution in LCA, comparing archetype-based with region-based approaches.
Results and discussion
World maps show up to 5 orders of magnitude variation for chemical fate in fresh water across all 0.5° × 0.5° grid cells and up to 15 orders of magnitude for human intake fractions. The freshwater residence time to the sea and the equivalent depth—over all downstream cells—were the most influential landscape parameters. They were used to define four freshwater landscape archetypes. These archetypes capture variation in fate well, better than country or continent-aggregated values, but are not able to reflect variation in intake fraction. The case study on arsenic from alumina production shows that the determination of industry-specific weighted average represents a pragmatic way to account for sector-specific location of emissions. The population-weighted approach is primarily applicable for emissions that are related to population density, such as household emissions.
The developed global freshwater model demonstrates large spatial variations in fate and exposure. Archetypes for fate in fresh water provide substantial reductions in variability compared to country or continental averages, but are more difficult to apply to LCA than rural or urban archetypes for air emissions. The 0.5° × 0.5° grid model and the fate archetypes may also be used in the context of ecological scenarios to identify hotspots. In practice, population-weighted and sector-specific average characterization factors may represent the most operational way to account for specific distribution patterns of toxic emissions in LCA.
KeywordsChemical fate Ecotoxicity Freshwater Global modeling Human toxicity Intake fractions Life cycle assessment Spatial differentiation
The authors would like to thank Cedric Wannaz for his support for the use of the ArcGIS software and Yan Dong for discussions on metal speciation, as well as Francis Gasser and Dr. Yoshihide Wada for providing spatialized hydrological data.
This work is financially supported by the project Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods for Improved Sustainability Characterisation of Technologies (LC-IMPACT), contract no. 243827, funded by the European Commission under the Seventh Framework Programme, as well as by the International Aluminium Institute through a grant given to University of Michigan.
- Allison JD, Allison TL (2005) Partition coefficients for metals in surface water, soil, and waste. US EPA, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
- Bourgault G (2014) Gestion de l’incertitude causée par l’incohérence d’échelle spatiale à l’interface de l’inventaire et de l’analyse des impacts en ACV. PhD thesis at Ecole Polytechnique de Montréal, pp 1–243Google Scholar
- CIESIN (2005) Gridded Population of the World (GPW), v3. Population density grid. University. Columbio University. Accessed at: http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/data/collection/gpw-v3. Columbia, USA
- Den Hollander H, Van Eijkeren J, Van de Meent D (2004) SimpleBox 3.0: Multimedia mass balance model for evaluating the fate of chemicals in the environment. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven. Report no. 601200003. Bilthoven, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
- Dzombak DA, Morel FMM (1990) Surface complexation modeling: hydrous ferric oxide. Wiley, New York, pp 1–416Google Scholar
- FAO (2014) AQUASTAT database, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Accessed at: http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/main/indexfra.stm
- Helmes RJK, Huijbregts M a. J, Henderson AD, Jolliet O (2012) Spatially explicit fate factors of phosphorous emissions to freshwater at the global scale. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:646–654Google Scholar
- Huijbregts M, Margni M, Jolliet O et al (2010) USEtoxTM chemical database: inorganics. USEtoxTM team publication, pp 1–11Google Scholar
- Lehner B, Verdin K, Jarvis A (2006) HydroSHEDS technical documentation. Accessed at: http://hydrosheds.cr.usgs.gov/HydroSHEDS_TechDoc_v10.doc
- National Environmental Research Institute (2010) Heavy metal emissions for Danish road transport. NERI Technical Report No. 780, pp 1–103Google Scholar
- Parekh NA (2012) Assessment of phosphorus fractions in streams draining different land use and development of new monitoring method. Master thesis at the University of Oslo, pp 1–155Google Scholar
- Pistocchi A, Zulian G, Vizcaino P, Marinov D (2010) Multimedia assessment of pollutant pathways in the environment, European scale model. JRC scientific and technical reports, pp 1–55Google Scholar
- Quantis (2012) Quantis Water Database v1.3. Accessed at: www.quantis-intl.com/waterdatabase.php
- Rosenbaum RK, Bachmann TM, 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 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
- Schwarzenbach RP, Gschwend PM, Imboden DM (2003) Environmental organic chemistry. John Wiley, pp 1327Google Scholar
- Sedlbauer VK, Braune A, Humbert S et al (2007) Spatial differentiation in LCA: moving forward to more operational sustainability. Technikfolgenabschätzung Theorie Prax 3:24–31Google Scholar
- Stumm W, Morgan JJ (1995) Aquatic chemistry: chemical equilibria and rates in natural waters. Wiley, New York, p 1040Google Scholar
- Tabereaux AT, Peterson RD (2014) Aluminum production. In: Treatise on process metallurgy: industrial processes, volume 3: industrial processes, pp 839–917Google Scholar
- U.S. Census Bureau (2014) https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urban-rural-2000.html. In: Census 2000 Urban and Rural Classification. https://www.census.gov/geo/reference
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2012) EPI SuiteTM v4.11. Accessed at: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/exposure/pubs/episuitedl.htm
- Water systems analysis group (2014) World water development report II. Indicators for world water assessment programme. Accessed at: http://wwdrii.sr.unh.edu/index.html