Identifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in life cycle impact assessment

PurposeLife cycle impact assessment (LCIA) is a field of active development. The last decade has seen prolific publication of new impact assessment methods covering many different impact categories and providing characterization factors that often deviate from each other for the same substance and impact. The LCA standard ISO 14044 is rather general and unspecific in its requirements and offers little help to the LCA practitioner who needs to make a choice. With the aim to identify the best among existing characterization models and provide recommendations to the LCA practitioner, a study was performed for the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission (JRC).MethodsExisting LCIA methods were collected and their individual characterization models identified at both midpoint and endpoint levels and supplemented with other environmental models of potential use for LCIA. No new developments of characterization models or factors were done in the project. From a total of 156 models, 91 were short listed as possible candidates for a recommendation within their impact category. Criteria were developed for analyzing the models within each impact category. The criteria addressed both scientific qualities and stakeholder acceptance. The criteria were reviewed by external experts and stakeholders and applied in a comprehensive analysis of the short-listed characterization models (the total number of criteria varied between 35 and 50 per impact category). For each impact category, the analysis concluded with identification of the best among the existing characterization models. If the identified model was of sufficient quality, it was recommended by the JRC. Analysis and recommendation process involved hearing of both scientific experts and stakeholders.Results and recommendationsRecommendations were developed for 14 impact categories at midpoint level, and among these recommendations, three were classified as “satisfactory” while ten were “in need of some improvements” and one was so weak that it has “to be applied with caution.” For some of the impact categories, the classification of the recommended model varied with the type of substance. At endpoint level, recommendations were only found relevant for three impact categories. For the rest, the quality of the existing methods was too weak, and the methods that came out best in the analysis were classified as “interim,” i.e., not recommended by the JRC but suitable to provide an initial basis for further development.Discussion, conclusions, and outlookThe level of characterization modeling at midpoint level has improved considerably over the last decade and now also considers important aspects like geographical differentiation and combination of midpoint and endpoint characterization, although the latter is in clear need for further development. With the realization of the potential importance of geographical differentiation comes the need for characterization models that are able to produce characterization factors that are representative for different continents and still support aggregation of impact scores over the whole life cycle. For the impact categories human toxicity and ecotoxicity, we are now able to recommend a model, but the number of chemical substances in common use is so high that there is a need to address the substance data shortage and calculate characterization factors for many new substances. Another unresolved issue is the need for quantitative information about the uncertainties that accompany the characterization factors. This is still only adequately addressed for one or two impact categories at midpoint, and this should be a focus point in future research. The dynamic character of LCIA research means that what is best practice will change quickly in time. The characterization methods presented in this paper represent what was best practice in 2008–2009.

[1]  Olivier Jolliet,et al.  Building a model based on scientific consensus for Life Cycle Impact Assessment of chemicals: the search for harmony and parsimony. , 2008, Environmental science & technology.

[2]  Rolf Frischknecht,et al.  Human health damages due to ionising radiation in life cycle impact assessment , 2000 .

[3]  Best available practice regarding impact categories and category indicators in life cycle impact assessment , 1999 .

[4]  S. Pfister,et al.  The water “shoesize” vs. footprint of bioenergy , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[5]  G. P. Riddler,et al.  What is a mineral resource? , 1994, Geological Society, London, Special Publications.

[6]  Mark A J Huijbregts,et al.  Spatial- and time-explicit human damage modeling of ozone depleting substances in life cycle impact assessment. , 2010, Environmental science & technology.

[7]  Jane C. Bare,et al.  LCIA State-of-Art LCIA : State-of-Art Life Cycle Impact Assessment Sophistication International Workshop , 1999 .

[8]  A. Horvath,et al.  Intake fraction for particulate matter: recommendations for life cycle impact assessment. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.

[9]  H Slaper,et al.  Climate and ozone change effects on ultraviolet radiation and risks (COEUR). Using and validating earth observation , 2008 .

[10]  G. Norris,et al.  TRACI the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts , 2002 .

[11]  Eric Johnson Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment Operational Guide to the ISO Standards , 2003 .

[12]  Almudena Hospido,et al.  Development of regional characterization factors for aquatic eutrophication , 2009 .

[13]  Cesare P. R. Romano OZONE LAYER DEPLETION , 2011 .

[14]  M. Huijbregts,et al.  European characterization factors for human health damage of PM10 and ozone in life cycle impact assessment , 2008 .

[15]  Jean-Paul Hettelingh,et al.  Country-dependent Characterisation Factors for Acidification and Terrestrial Eutrophication Based on Accumulated Exceedance as an Impact Category Indicator (14 pp) , 2006 .

[16]  Cécile Bulle,et al.  LUCAS - A New LCIA Method Used for a Canadian-Specific Context , 2007 .

[17]  Hans-Jürgen Dr. Klüppel,et al.  The Revision of ISO Standards 14040-3 - ISO 14040: Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and framework - ISO 14044: Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and guidelines , 2005 .

[18]  Mark A J Huijbregts,et al.  Implementing groundwater extraction in life cycle impact assessment: characterization factors based on plant species richness for The Netherlands. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.

[19]  P. Christensen,et al.  Impacts of “metals” on human health: a comparison between nine different methodologies for Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) , 2011 .

[20]  M. Hauschild,et al.  USEtox human exposure and toxicity factors for comparative assessment of toxic emissions in life cycle analysis: sensitivity to key chemical properties , 2011 .

[21]  Göran Finnveden,et al.  SETAC-Europe: Second working group on LCIA (WIA-2): Best available practice regarding impact categories and category indicators in life cycle impact assessment: Background document for the second working group on life cycle impact assessment of SETAC-Europe (WIA-2) , 1999 .

[22]  Mark Goedkoop,et al.  Life-Cycle Impact Assessment: Striving towards Best Practice , 2002 .

[23]  Corinne Le Quéré,et al.  Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis , 2013 .

[24]  Michael Zwicky Hauschild,et al.  Comparison of Three Different LCIA Methods: EDIP97, CML2001 and Eco-indicator 99 , 2003 .

[25]  O. Jolliet,et al.  The role of atmospheric dispersion models and ecosystem sensitivity in the determination of characterisation factors for acidifying and eutrophying emissions in LCIA , 2008 .

[26]  A. Chapagain,et al.  Assessing freshwater use impacts in LCA, part 2: case study of broccoli production in the UK and Spain , 2010 .

[27]  S. Humbert Geographically Differentiated Life-cycle Impact Assessment of Human Health , 2009 .

[28]  Olivier Jolliet,et al.  A Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment and ranking method for liquid radioactive and chemical mixtures released by nuclear facilities under normal operating conditions , 2009 .

[29]  Gerald Rebitzer,et al.  The LCIA midpoint-damage framework of the UNEP/SETAC life cycle initiative , 2004 .

[30]  Mark A. J. Huijbregts,et al.  USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment , 2008 .

[31]  S. Pfister,et al.  Assessing the environmental impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA. , 2009, Environmental science & technology.

[32]  Gerald Rebitzer,et al.  IMPACT 2002+: A new life cycle impact assessment methodology , 2003 .

[33]  R. Betts,et al.  Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. Chapter 2 , 2007 .

[34]  H. L. Miller,et al.  Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis , 2007 .

[35]  B. Steen A Systematic Approach to Environmental Priority Strategies in Product Development (EPS) Version 2000- Models and data of the default method , 1999 .

[36]  M. Huijbregts,et al.  Human-Toxicological Effect and Damage Factors of Carcinogenic and Noncarcinogenic Chemicals for Life Cycle Impact Assessment , 2005, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[37]  A. Inaba,et al.  Weighting across safeguard subjects for LCIA through the application of conjoint analysis , 2004 .

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

[39]  Jianfeng Li,et al.  A life cycle impact assessment method based on multi-environmental dimension , 2010 .

[40]  J. Payet,et al.  Assessing Toxic Impacts on Aquatic Ecosystems in LCA , 2005 .

[41]  Manuele Margni,et al.  Assessment of land use impacts on soil ecological functions: development of spatially differentiated characterization factors within a Canadian context , 2011 .

[42]  M. Huijbregts,et al.  Time horizon dependent characterization factors for acidification in life-cycle assessment based on forest plant species occurrence in Europe. , 2007, Environmental science & technology.

[43]  A. Mcculloch Halocarbon Scenarios, Ozone Depletion Potentials, and Global Warming Potentials , 2007 .

[44]  M. Huijbregts,et al.  Characterization factors for inland water eutrophication at the damage level in life cycle impact assessment , 2011 .

[45]  P. Christensen,et al.  Eco-toxicological impact of “metals” on the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem: A comparison between eight different methodologies for Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) , 2011 .

[46]  Martijn Gough Climate change , 2009, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[47]  Manuele Margni,et al.  A framework for assessing off-stream freshwater use in LCA , 2010 .

[48]  John D. Spengler,et al.  Spatial patterns of mobile source particulate matter emissions-to-exposure relationships across the United States , 2007 .

[49]  M. Hauschild,et al.  USEtox fate and ecotoxicity factors for comparative assessment of toxic emissions in life cycle analysis: sensitivity to key chemical properties , 2011 .

[50]  Patrick Hofstetter,et al.  Midpoints versus endpoints: The sacrifices and benefits , 2000 .

[51]  Bengt Steen,et al.  A Systematic Approach to Environmental Priority Strategies in Product Development (EPS) Version 2000-General System Characteristics , 1999 .

[52]  Walter J. Karplus Ozone Layer Depletion , 1992 .

[53]  Margni Manuele,et al.  Recommendations for Life Cycle Impact Assessment in the European context - based on existing environmental impact assessment models and factors (International Reference Life Cycle Data System - ILCD handbook) , 2011 .

[54]  A. Chapagain,et al.  Assessing freshwater use impacts in LCA: Part I—inventory modelling and characterisation factors for the main impact pathways , 2009 .

[55]  Michael Zwicky Hauschild,et al.  Spatial differentiation in life cycle impact assessment - the EDIP-2003 methodology. Guidelines from the Danish EPA , 2004 .

[56]  Llorenç Milà i Canals,et al.  Method for assessing impacts on life support functions (LSF) related to the use of ‘fertile land’ in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) , 2007 .

[57]  Jane C. Bare,et al.  Life cycle impact assessment sophistication , 1999 .

[58]  Lso,et al.  Validation of ultraviolet radiation budgets using satellite observations from the OMI instrument , 2008 .

[59]  Stefanie Hellweg,et al.  Integrating Human Indoor Air Pollutant Exposure within Life Cycle Impact Assessment , 2009, Environmental science & technology.