Goal, Scope and BackgroundThe aim of this study has been to come up with recommendations on how to develop a selection method (SM) within the method development research of the OMNHTOX project. An SM is a method for prioritization of chemical emissions to be included in a Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) characterisation, in particular for (eco)toxicological impacts. It is therefore designed for pre-screening to support a characterisation method. The main reason why SMs are needed in the context of LCIA is the high number of chemical emissions that potentially contribute to the impacts on ecosystems and human health. It will often not be feasible to cover all emissions with characterisation factors and, therefore, there exists a need to focus the effort on the most significant chemical emissions in the characterisation step. Until now not all LCA studies include tox-icity-related impact categories, and when they do there are typically many gaps. This study covers the only existing methods explicitly designed as SMs (EDIP-selection, Priofactor and CPM-selection), the dominating Chemical Ranking and Scoring (CRS) method in Europe (EURAM) and in the USA (WMPT) that can be adapted for this purpose, as well as methods presenting novel approaches which could be valuable in the development of improved SMs (CART analysis and Hasse diagram technique).MethodsThe included methods are described. General guidance principles established for CRS systems are applied to SMs and a set of criteria for good performance of SMs is developed. The included methods are finally evaluated against these criteria.Results and DiscussionTwo of the most important performance criteria include providing consistent results relative to the more detailed, associated characterisation methods and the degree of data availability to ensure broader chemical coverage. Applicability to different chemical groups, user friendliness, and transparency are also listed amongst the important criteria. None of the evaluated methods currently fulfil all of the proposed criteria to a degree that excludes the need for development of improved selection methods.Conclusion and RecommendationsFor the development of SMs it is recommended that the general principles for CRS systems are taken into account. Furthermore, special attention should be paid to some specific issues, i.e. the emitted amount should be included, data availability should enable broad chemical coverage, and when identifying priority chemicals for the characterisation, the developed SM should generate few false positives (chemical emissions classified wrongly as being of high concern) and no (significant) false negatives (classified wrongly as being of low concern) as compared to the associated characterisation method. These recommendations are not only relevant for a stand alone SM, but also valuable when dealing with simple characterisation methods associated with a more detailed characterisation method.OutlookThere are several questions that need to be answered before an optimal SM can be developed, inter alia: Is it optimal to just use simple measured data with high availability or are QSAR estimates of more complex, relevant data better? Which key parameters to include and how? Is a statistical approach, like linear regression of characterisation factors or CART analysis, the best solution?
[1]
Thomas E. McKone,et al.
Evaluating multimedia chemical persistence: Classification and regression tree analysis
,
2000
.
[2]
Martin Möller,et al.
Assessment of toxicological risks due to hazardous substances: Scoring of risk phrases
,
2003
.
[3]
Thomas E. McKone,et al.
Decision Tree Method for the Classification of Chemical Pollutants: Incorporation of Across-Chemical Variability and Within-Chemical Uncertainty
,
1998
.
[4]
Rainer Brüggemann,et al.
Improved Estimation of the Ranking Probabilities in Partial Orders Using Random Linear Extensions by Approximation of the Mutual Ranking Probability
,
2003,
J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..
[5]
Thomas E. McKone,et al.
CART Screening Level Analysis of Persistence: A Case Study
,
2001
.
[6]
Rainer Brüggemann,et al.
Selection of priority properties to assess environmental hazard of pesticides
,
1996
.
[7]
M. Hauschild,et al.
Environmental assessment of products
,
1997
.
[8]
Jeroen B. Guinée,et al.
Bringing science and pragmatism together a tiered approach for modelling toxicological impacts in LCA
,
2004
.
[9]
Michael Zwicky Hauschild,et al.
LCIA selection methods for assessing toxic releases
,
2002
.
[10]
Todd Martin,et al.
Evaluating Pollution Prevention Progress (P2P)
,
2003
.
[11]
Rainer Brüggemann,et al.
Application of the Concept of Partial Order on Comparative Evaluation of Environmental Chemicals
,
1999
.
[12]
Ole John Nielsen,et al.
Comparison of the combined monitoring-based and modelling-based priority setting scheme with partial order theory and random linear extensions for ranking of chemical substances.
,
2002,
Chemosphere.
[13]
B. Hansen,et al.
Priority setting for existing chemicals: European Union risk ranking method
,
1999
.
[14]
Rainer Brüggemann,et al.
Applying the Concept of Partially Ordered Sets on the Ranking of Near-Shore Sediments by a Battery of Tests
,
2001,
J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..
[15]
Jeroen B. Guinée,et al.
Methods and typology report Part A: Inventory and classification of LCA characterization methods for assessing toxic releases
,
2002
.
[16]
B. Mogensen,et al.
Pesticide leaching assessment method for ranking both single substances and scenarios of multible substance use
,
1998
.
[17]
J C Bare,et al.
Comparison of Chemical Screening and Ranking Approaches: The Waste Minimization Prioritization Tool versus Toxic Equivalency Potentials
,
2001,
Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.
[18]
Jeroen B. Guinée,et al.
OMNIITOX - Operational Life-Cycle Impact Assessment Models and Information Tools for Practitioners.
,
2004
.