Exploring REACH as a potential data source for characterizing ecotoxicity in life cycle assessment

Toxicity models in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) currently only characterize a small fraction of marketed substances, mostly because of limitations in the underlying ecotoxicity data. One approach to improve the current data situation in LCIA is to identify new data sources, such as the European Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) database. The present study explored REACH as a potential data source for LCIA based on matching reported ecotoxicity data for substances that are currently also included in the United Nations Environment Programme/Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (UNEP/SETAC) scientific consensus model USEtox for characterizing toxicity impacts. Data are evaluated with respect to number of data points, reported reliability, and test duration, and are compared with data listed in USEtox at the level of hazardous concentration for 50% of the covered species per substance. The results emphasize differences between data available via REACH and in USEtox. The comparison of ecotoxicity data from REACH and USEtox shows potential for using REACH ecotoxicity data in LCIA toxicity characterization, but also highlights issues related to compliance of submitted data with REACH requirements as well as different assumptions underlying regulatory risk assessment under REACH versus data needed for LCIA. Thus, further research is required to address data quality, pre-processing, and applicability, before considering data submitted under REACH as a data source for use in LCIA, and also to explore additionally available data sources, published studies, and reports. Environ Toxicol Chem 2017;36:492-500. © 2016 SETAC.

[1]  Mitchell S. Wilbanks,et al.  EUROPEAN CENTRE FOR ECOTOXICOLOGY AND TOXICOLOGY OF CHEMICALS , 2005 .

[2]  Enrico Benetto,et al.  Development of USEtox characterisation factors for dishwasher detergents using data made available under REACH. , 2014, Chemosphere.

[3]  Scott E. Belanger,et al.  Understanding single‐species and model ecosystem sensitivity: Data‐based comparison , 1999 .

[4]  D. Zwart.  Observed Regularities in Species Sensitivity Distributions for Aquatic Species , 2001 .

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

[6]  Thomas Austin,et al.  European Chemicals Agency dossier submissions as an experimental data source: refinement of a fish toxicity model for predicting acute LC50 values. , 2015, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[7]  J. Payet.  Assessing toxic impacts on aquatic ecosystems in life cycle assessment (LCA) , 2004 .

[8]  Michael Zwicky Hauschild.  GM-troph: A Low Data Demand Ecotoxicity Effect Indicator for Use in LCIA (13+3 pp) , 2007 .

[9]  Michael Søgaard Jørgensen,et al.  The USEtox story: a survey of model developer visions and user requirements , 2015, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[10]  D. de Zwart,et al.  Predicted effects of toxicant mixtures are confirmed by changes in fish species assemblages in Ohio, USA, rivers , 2006, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[11]  Mark A. J. Huijbregts,et al.  A bright future for addressing chemical emissions in life cycle assessment , 2011 .

[12]  J. Froines,et al.  UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY , 1995 .

[13]  Impact Assessment in the European Union: The Example of the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) , 2011 .

[14]  M. Hauschild,et al.  Development of Comparative Toxicity Potentials of 14 cationic metals in freshwater. , 2014, Chemosphere.

[15]  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.

[16]  J. Tarazona,et al.  Analysis of the ecotoxicity data submitted within the framework of the REACH Regulation. Part 1. General overview and data availability for the first registration deadline. , 2014, The Science of the total environment.

[17]  G Finnveden,et al.  Life cycle assessment part 2: current impact assessment practice. , 2004, Environment international.

[18]  David R. B. Stockwell,et al.  Effects of sample size on accuracy of species distribution models , 2002 .

[19]  U. Tillmann,et al.  A systematic approach for evaluating the quality of experimental toxicological and ecotoxicological data. , 1997, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[20]  Michael Hauschild,et al.  Aquatic ecotoxicological indicators in life-cycle assessment. , 2004, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[21]  S. Belanger,et al.  Evaluation and comparison of the relationship between NOEC and EC10 or EC20 values in chronic Daphnia toxicity testing , 2015, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[22]  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 .

[23]  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 .

[24]  M. Petró‐Turza,et al.  The International Organization for Standardization. , 2003 .