Regionalized aquatic ecotoxicity characterization factor for zinc emitted to soil accounting for speciation and the transfer through groundwater

  • Rifat-Ara KarimEmail author
  • Louise Deschênes
  • Cécile Bulle



The goal of this study is to calculate regionalized fate and characterization factors for zinc (Zn) emitted to soil considering the Zn transfer through groundwater in USETox and Zn speciation in soil, groundwater, and surface water using regionalized soil, subsoil, and freshwater parameters.


Partition coefficients for Zn in soil and water and effect factors (EF) are calculated using the WHAM7 software. Soil and watershed maps are intersected with a geographic information system software to obtain native geographic resolution. USETox is modified by linking (a) the soil with subsoil and groundwater compartment and (b) subsoil and groundwater compartment to the freshwater compartment. Soil to water fate factors (FFsw) for each native resolution cell are calculated using these soil, subsoil, and watershed partition coefficients with the modified version of USETox. These specific FFsw’s are multiplied with bioavailability factors (BF) and effect factors (EF) to generate characterization factors (CFsw) for all the native resolution cells. The results obtained at the native resolution scale are aggregated at different more operational regionalization scales: country, continent, and global level, with the corresponding spatial variability determination. The newly obtained results are compared with the default values of USETox.

Results and discussion

Regionalized freshwater ecotoxicity characterization factors for Zn emitted to soil have a global spatial variability of 3 orders of magnitude. The aggregated global value is in the same order of magnitude with the default USETox value. The spatial variability of soil to water fate (FFsw) and the characterization factors (CFsw) for Zn within each watershed are quantified. The results are illustrated on a world map for all the native resolution cells. With the exception of Europe, all the regional and continental FFsw and CFsw varied over 2 orders of magnitude.


The inclusion of the transfer through groundwater for Zn soil emissions in fate and in characterization calculation along with the Zn speciation allow better prediction of the potential impacts in freshwater systems. The spatial variability of Zn CFsw at continental scale is close to the uncertainty of USEtox’s CFsw (2 orders of magnitude), meaning that using a continental level CFsw seems a reasonable compromise between a too intensive data collection and imprecise impact assessment.


Characterization factors Freshwater ecotoxicity Groundwater Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) Life cycle assessment (LCA) Metal speciation Subsoil Zn 



The authors would like to thank Dr. Genevieve Plouffe and Lycia Aziz from CIRAIG, Dmytro Lisniak from UNESCO, and Dr. Yan Dong from DTU for providing their shares of expertise, data, and their very much appreciated contribution. The International Life Cycle Chair (a research unit of the CIRAIG) would like to thank its industrial partners for their financial support: ArcelorMittal, Bombardier, Mouvement des caisses Desjardins, Hydro-Québec, LVMH, Michelin, Nestlé, RECYC-QUÉ-BEC, RONA, SAQ, Solvay, Total, Umicore, and Veolia Environment.

Supplementary material

11367_2019_1633_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (781 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 780 kb)
11367_2019_1633_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (1.2 mb)
ESM 2 (XLSX 1218 kb)
11367_2019_1633_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx (4.1 mb)
ESM 3 (XLSX 4183 kb)


  1. ATSDR (2005) Toxicological Profile For ZincGoogle Scholar
  2. BGS_NERC (2017) British Geological Survey—Natural Environment Research Council. Retrieved from Accessed 10 Oct 2017
  3. Boulay AM, Bouchard C, Bulle C, Deschenes L, Margni M (2011) Categorizing water for LCA inventory. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(7):639–651Google Scholar
  4. CCME (2016) Canadian water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life: zinc. Canadian Council of the Ministers of the EnvironmentGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheng T, Allen HE (2006) Comparison of zinc complexation properties of dissolved natural organic matter from different surface waters. J Environ Manag 80(3):222–229Google Scholar
  6. Cheng T, Schamphelaere KD, Lofts S, Janssen C, Allen HE (2005) Measurement and computation of zinc binding to natural dissolved organic matter in European surface waters. Anal Chim Acta 542(2):230–239Google Scholar
  7. De Schamphelaere KA, Lofts S, Janssen CR (2004) Bioavailability models for predicting actue and chronic toxicity of zinc to algae, daphnids, and fish in natural surface waters. Environ Toxicol Chem 24(5):1190–1197Google Scholar
  8. de Souza Machado AA, Spencer K, Kloas W, Toffolon M, Zarfl C (2016) Metal fate and effects in estuaries: a review and conceptual model for better understanding of toxicity. Sci Total Environ 541:268–281Google Scholar
  9. Degryse F, Smolders E, Parker DR (2009) Partitioning of metals (Cd, Co, Cu, Ni, Pb, Zn) in soils: concepts, methodologies, prediction and applications—a review. Eur J Soil Sci 60:590–612Google Scholar
  10. Di Toro DM, Allen HE, Bergman HL, Meyer JS, Paquin PR, Santore RC (2001) Biotic ligand model of the acute toxicity of metals. 1. Technical basis. Environ Toxicol Chem 20(10):2383–2396Google Scholar
  11. Diamond ML, Gandhi N, Adams WJ, Atherton J, Bhavsar SP, Bulle C, Campbell PG, Dubreuil A, Fairbrother A, Farley K (2010) The Clearwater consensus: the estimation of metal hazard in fresh water. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(2):143–147Google Scholar
  12. Döll P, Kaspar F, Lehner B (2003) A global hydrological model for deriving water availability indicators: model tuning and validation. J Hydrol 270(1):105–134Google Scholar
  13. Dong Y, Gandhi N, Hauschild MZ (2014) Development of comparative toxicity potentials of 14 cationic metals in freshwater. Chemosphere 112:26–33Google Scholar
  14. Fleckenstein JH, Krause S, Hannah DM, Boano F (2010) Groundwater-surface water interactions: new methods and models to improve understanding of processes and dynamics. Adv Water Resour 33(11):1291–1295Google Scholar
  15. Fulton JW, Koerkle EH, McAuley SD, Hoffman SA, Zarr LF (2005) Hydrogeologic setting and conceptual hydrologic model of the Spring Creek Basin, Centre County, Pennsylvania, June 2005Google Scholar
  16. Gandhi N (2011) Improvements in hazard & life cycle impact assessment method for metals in freshwaters-addressing issues of metal, speciation, fate, exposure and ecotoxicityGoogle Scholar
  17. Gandhi N, Diamond ML, van de Meent D, Huijbregts MAJ, Peijnenburg WJGM, Guinée J (2010) New method for calculating comparative toxicity potential of cationic metals in freshwater: application to copper, nickel, and zinc. Environ Sci Technol 44(13):5195–5201Google Scholar
  18. Gandhi N, Diamond M, Huijbregts MJ, Guinée J, Peijnenburg WGM, van de Meent D (2011a) Implications of considering metal bioavailability in estimates of freshwater ecotoxicity: examination of two case studies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(8):774–787Google Scholar
  19. Gandhi N, Huijbregts MAJ, van de Meent D, Peijnenburg WJGM, Guinée J, Diamond ML (2011b) Implications of geographic variability on comparative toxicity potentials of Cu, Ni and Zn in freshwaters of Canadian ecoregions. Chemosphere 82(2):268–277Google Scholar
  20. GEMStatPortal (2017) International Centre for Water Resources and Global Change (ICWRGC)Google Scholar
  21. Hassan S, Garrison A, Allen H, Di Toro D, Ankley G (1996) Estimation of partition coefficients for five trace metals in sandy sediments and application to sediment quality criteria. Environ Toxicol Chem 15(12): 2198–2208Google Scholar
  22. Haye S, Slaveykova VI, Payet J (2007) Terrestrial ecotoxicity and effect factors of metals in life cycle assessment (LCA). Chemosphere 68(8):1489–1496Google Scholar
  23. Hellweg S, Fischer U, Hofstetter TB, Hungerbühler K (2005) Site-dependent fate assessment in LCA: transport of heavy metals in soil. J Clean Prod 13(4):341–361Google Scholar
  24. Helmes RJ, Huijbregts MA, Henderson AD, Jolliet O (2012) Spatially explicit fate factors of phosphorous emissions to freshwater at the global scale. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(5):646–654Google Scholar
  25. Henderson A, Hauschild M, van de Meent D, Huijbregts MJ, Larsen H, Margni M, McKone T, Payet J, Rosenbaum R, 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(8):701–709Google Scholar
  26. Humbert S, Schryver AD, Bengoa X, Margni M, Jolliet O (2014) IMPACT 2002+: user guide (version adapted by Quantis). Lausanne, Switzerland, Quantis International. Q 2.21Google Scholar
  27. HWSD-database (2014) 2015, from Accessed 8 Mar 2015
  28. Iqbal MZ (1999) Role of macropores in solute transport under ponded water condition produced by laboratory simulated intense storms. Groundwater 37(5):674–681Google Scholar
  29. Jyrkama MI, Sykes JF (2007) The impact of climate change on spatially varying groundwater recharge in the grand river watershed (Ontario). J Hydrol 338(3):237–250Google Scholar
  30. Kabata-Pendias A (2010) Trace elements in soils and plants. CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  31. Lautier A, Rosenbaum RK, Margni M, Bare J, Roy P-O, Deschênes L (2010) Development of normalization factors for Canada and the United States and comparison with European factors. Sci Total Environ 409(1):33–42Google Scholar
  32. Lofts S (2012) User’s guide to WHAM7, WHAM7 Windermere Humic Aqueous Model, version 7Google Scholar
  33. Lofts S, Tipping E (1998) An assemblage model for cation binding by natural particulate matter. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 62:2609–2625Google Scholar
  34. Margat J (2008) Les eaux souterraines dans le mondeGoogle Scholar
  35. Menció A, Mas-Pla J (2008) Assessment by multivariate analysis of groundwater–surface water interactions in urbanized Mediterranean streams. J Hydrol 352(3–4):355–366Google Scholar
  36. Niyogi S, Wood CM (2004) Biotic ligand model, a flexible tool for developing site-specific water quality guidelines for metals. Environ Sci Technol 38(23):6177–6192Google Scholar
  37. Owsianiak M, Rosenbaum RK, Huijbregts MA, Hauschild MZ (2013) Addressing geographic variability in the comparative toxicity potential of copper and nickel in soils. Environ Sci Technol 47(7):3241–3250Google Scholar
  38. Owsianiak M, Holm PE, Fantke P, Christiansen KS, Borggaard OK, Hauschild MZ (2015) Assessing comparative terrestrial ecotoxicity of Cd, Co, Cu, Ni, Pb, and Zn: the influence of aging and emission source. Environ Pollut 206:400–410Google Scholar
  39. Pizzol M, Christensen P, Schmidt J, Thomsen M (2011) Eco-toxicological impact of “metals” on the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem: a comparison between eight different methodologies for life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). J Clean Prod 19(6):687–698Google Scholar
  40. Plouffe G (2015) Intégrer la spéciation des métaux en écotoxicité terrestre pour l’analyse du cycle de vie: le cas du zinc PhD Thesis, Université de montrealGoogle Scholar
  41. Plouffe G, Bulle C, Deschênes L (2015) Assessing the variability of the bioavailable fraction of zinc at the global scale using geochemical modeling and soil archetypes. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:527–540Google Scholar
  42. Plouffe G, Bulle C, Deschênes L (2016) Characterization factors for zinc terrestrial ecotoxicity including speciation. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:523–535Google Scholar
  43. Rosenbaum RK, Margni M, Jolliet O (2007) A flexible matrix algebra framework for the multimedia multipathway modeling of emission to impacts. Environ Int 33(5):624–634Google Scholar
  44. Rosenbaum RK, Bachmann TM, Gold LS, Huijbregts MA, Jolliet O, Juraske R, Koehler A, Larsen HF, MacLeod M, Margni M (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(7):532–546Google Scholar
  45. Sauvé S, Hendershot W, Allen HE (2000) Solid-solution partitioning of metals in contaminated soils: dependence on pH, total metal burden, and organic matter. Environ Sci Technol 34(7):1125–1131Google Scholar
  46. Sauvé S, Manna S, Turmel M-C, Roy AG, Courchesne F (2003) Solid−solution partitioning of Cd, Cu, Ni, Pb, and Zn in the organic horizons of a forest soil. Environ Sci Technol 37(22):5191–5196Google Scholar
  47. Shiller AM, Boyle E (1985) Dissolved zinc in rivers. Nature 317(6032):49–52Google Scholar
  48. Tipping E (1998) Humic ion-binding model VI: an improved description of the interactions of protons and metal ions with humic substances. Aquat Geochem 4(1):3–47Google Scholar
  49. U. S. D. o. t. Interior and U. S. G. Survey, US Geol Surv Sci Investig Rep: 2005–5091, 2083pGoogle Scholar
  50. UN-Global (2016) CEO Water Mandate: interactive database of the world’s river basins, UN Global CompactGoogle Scholar
  51. Wiken EB (1996) Perspective on Canada’s ecosystems: an overview of the terrestrial and marine ecozones. Canadian Council on Ecological AreasGoogle Scholar
  52. Winter TC (1998) Ground water and surface water: a single resource. DIANE Publishing Inc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CIRAIGÉcole Polytechnique of MontrealMontrealCanada
  2. 2.CIRAIGÉcole Polytechnique of MontréalMontrealCanada
  3. 3.ESGUniversité du Quebec à MontréalMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations