Linking chemical risk information with life cycle assessment in product development

Abstract This paper presents a prototype model developed for a case study linking chemical risk information with a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach to product development. Standard LCA software was used to develop a tool combining LCA and Risk Phrase information for health and environmental hazards encompassed by new European chemicals directives. Real product development cases are used based on Ostfold Research's collaboration with industry – specifically a coatings company. The principal objective of the work was to investigate the degree to which hazardous risk information could be combined with elements of LCA methodology to better inform product development. The work also shows how the tool equips product developers to move beyond the limited insight provided by the pure hazardous risk information approach, to also consider health and environmental hazard aspects in a functional perspective typical of LCA. This allows the identification of differences in product development priorities resulting from the two approaches. Some results from testing the prototype tool are presented and its application in product development within the coatings company and for other companies is discussed. The work presented in this paper falls short of the aim of including the full life cycle perspective, but represents an important first step towards achieving this. The work demonstrates that some integration of hazardous risk and LCA approaches is practicable, and indicates that such integration gives rise to changes in product development priorities. Combining hazardous risk information with LCA is valuable for decision makers, including product designers. The tool presented in this paper makes it possible for decision makers to combine LCA functional unit information with hazardous risk information, enabling designers to reduce a product's hazardous risk.

[1]  J. J. Breen,et al.  Design for the environment and Green Chemistry: The heart and soul of industrial ecology , 1997 .

[2]  Dirk Bunke,et al.  Indicators for Chemicals: Sources, impacts and policy performance (5 pp) , 2005, Environmental science and pollution research international.

[3]  Mary Ann Curran,et al.  Life cycle assessment as a tool to enhance the environmental performance of carbon nanotube products: a review , 2012 .

[4]  Henrikke Baumann,et al.  The hitch hiker's guide to LCA : an orientation in life cycle assessment methodology and application , 2004 .

[5]  Cecilia Askham,et al.  Environmental Product Development Combining the Life Cycle Perspective with Chemical Hazard Information. , 2011 .

[6]  Peter Saling,et al.  Assessing the Environmental-Hazard Potential for Life Cycle Assessment, Eco-Efficiency and SEEbalance (8 pp) , 2005 .

[7]  Andreas Kicherer,et al.  Eco-efficiency analysis by basf: the method , 2002 .

[8]  Rosa García Couto Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) , 2009 .

[9]  Paul T. Anastas,et al.  Frontiers in Green Chemistry: meeting the grand challenges for sustainability in R&D and manufacturing , 2008 .

[10]  Martin Möller,et al.  Assessment of toxicological risks due to hazardous substances: Scoring of risk phrases , 2003 .

[11]  Kathryn H. Winnebeck An abbreviated alternatives assessment process for product designers: a children’s furniture manufacturing case study , 2011 .

[12]  Joseph R. Fiksel Design for environment : a guide to sustainable product development , 2009 .

[13]  Peter Saling,et al.  Assessment of toxicological risks for life cycle assessment and eco-efficiency analysis , 2002 .

[14]  Tuomas Mattila,et al.  Comparing priority setting in integrated hazardous substance assessment and in life cycle impact assessment , 2011 .

[15]  Thomas T Samaras,et al.  Less is better. , 2002, Journal of the National Medical Association.

[16]  Sissel A. Waage,et al.  Re-considering product design: a practical “road-map” for integration of sustainability issues , 2007 .

[17]  Tom C. J. Feijtel,et al.  Comparison between three different LCIA methods for aquatic ecotoxicity and a product environmental risk assessment , 2004 .

[18]  Cecilia Askham,et al.  REACH and LCA—methodological approaches and challenges , 2011, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[19]  Han Brezet,et al.  Ecodesign : a promising approach to sustainable production and consumption , 1997 .

[20]  Ole Jørgen Hanssen,et al.  Combining REACH, environmental and economic performance indicators for strategic sustainable product development , 2012 .

[21]  Michael Zwicky Hauschild,et al.  “Less is better” and “only above threshold”: Two incompatible paradigms for human toxicity in life cycle assessment? , 1999 .