USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment

Background, aim and scopeIn 2005, a comprehensive comparison of life cycle impact assessment toxicity characterisation models was initiated by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)–Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Life Cycle Initiative, directly involving the model developers of CalTOX, IMPACT 2002, USES-LCA, BETR, EDIP, WATSON and EcoSense. In this paper, we describe this model comparison process and its results—in particular the scientific consensus model developed by the model developers. The main objectives of this effort were (1) to identify specific sources of differences between the models’ results and structure, (2) to detect the indispensable model components and (3) to build a scientific consensus model from them, representing recommended practice.Materials and methodsA chemical test set of 45 organics covering a wide range of property combinations was selected for this purpose. All models used this set. In three workshops, the model comparison participants identified key fate, exposure and effect issues via comparison of the final characterisation factors and selected intermediate outputs for fate, human exposure and toxic effects for the test set applied to all models.ResultsThrough this process, we were able to reduce inter-model variation from an initial range of up to 13 orders of magnitude down to no more than two orders of magnitude for any substance. This led to the development of USEtox, a scientific consensus model that contains only the most influential model elements. These were, for example, process formulations accounting for intermittent rain, defining a closed or open system environment or nesting an urban box in a continental box.DiscussionThe precision of the new characterisation factors (CFs) is within a factor of 100–1,000 for human health and 10–100 for freshwater ecotoxicity of all other models compared to 12 orders of magnitude variation between the CFs of each model, respectively. The achieved reduction of inter-model variability by up to 11 orders of magnitude is a significant improvement.ConclusionsUSEtox provides a parsimonious and transparent tool for human health and ecosystem CF estimates. Based on a referenced database, it has now been used to calculate CFs for several thousand substances and forms the basis of the recommendations from UNEP-SETAC’s Life Cycle Initiative regarding characterisation of toxic impacts in life cycle assessment.Recommendations and perspectivesWe provide both recommended and interim (not recommended and to be used with caution) characterisation factors for human health and freshwater ecotoxicity impacts. After a process of consensus building among stakeholders on a broad scale as well as several improvements regarding a wider and easier applicability of the model, USEtox will become available to practitioners for the calculation of further CFs.

[1]  Frank Wania,et al.  Assessing the long‐range transport potential of polybrominated diphenyl ethers: A comparison of four multimedia models , 2003, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[2]  W. Shiu,et al.  Handbook of Physical-Chemical Properties and Environmental Fate for Organic Chemicals , 2006 .

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

[4]  M. Huijbregts,et al.  Priority assessment of toxic substances in life cycle assessment. Part I: calculation of toxicity potentials for 181 substances with the nested multi-media fate, exposure and effects model USES-LCA. , 2000, Chemosphere.

[5]  Reinout Heijungs,et al.  Human population intake fractions and environmental fate factors of toxic pollutants in life cycle impact assessment. , 2005, Chemosphere.

[6]  L. Gold,et al.  Supplement to the Carcinogenic Potency Database (CPDB): results of animal bioassays published in the general literature through 1997 and by the National Toxicology Program in 1997-1998. , 2005, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[7]  L. Bernstein,et al.  Summary of carcinogenic potency and positivity for 492 rodent carcinogens in the carcinogenic potency database. , 1989, Environmental health perspectives.

[8]  Olivier Jolliet,et al.  A flexible matrix algebra framework for the multimedia multipathway modeling of emission to impacts. , 2007, Environment international.

[9]  R. Heijungs,et al.  Environmental life cycle assessment of products , 1992 .

[10]  Konrad Hungerbühler,et al.  The OECD software tool for screening chemicals for persistence and long-range transport potential , 2009, Environ. Model. Softw..

[11]  Olivier Jolliet,et al.  Supporting Information: Dose-Response Modeling for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Findings of the Portland Review Workshop , 2006 .

[12]  M. J. Goedkoop The Eco-Indicator 98 Explained , 1998 .

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

[14]  J. Paasiv́irta,et al.  Degradation half-life times of PCDDs, PCDFs and PCBs for environmental fate modeling. , 2000, Chemosphere.

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

[16]  Konrad Hungerbühler,et al.  Investigating the mechanics of multimedia box models: How to explain differences between models in terms of mass fluxes? , 2004, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[17]  D Mackay,et al.  BETR North America: A regionally segmented multimedia contaminant fate model for North America , 2001, Environmental science and pollution research international.

[18]  T. E. McKone,et al.  The Precision of QSAR Methods For Estimating Intermedia Transfer Factors in Exposure Assessments , 1993 .

[19]  T E McKone,et al.  Comparison of multi-media transport and transformation models: regional fugacity model vs. CalTOX. , 1995, Chemosphere.

[20]  Ralph K. Rosenbaum Multimedia and Food Chain Modelling of Toxics for Comparative Risk and Life Cycle Impact Assessment , 2006 .

[21]  M. Hauschild,et al.  Methodology, tools and case studies in product development , 2000 .

[22]  Manuele Margni,et al.  Source to intake modeling in life cycle impact assessment , 2003 .

[23]  Robert S. Boethling,et al.  Improved method for estimating bioconcentration/bioaccumulation factor from octanol/water partition coefficient , 1999 .

[24]  Konrad Hungerbühler,et al.  Inter-comparison of multimedia modeling approaches: modes of transport, measures of long range transport potential and the spatial remote state. , 2004, The Science of the total environment.

[25]  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.

[26]  Mark A J Huijbregts,et al.  A comparison between the multimedia fate and exposure models caltox and uniform system for evaluation of substances adapted for life‐cycle assessment based on the population intake fraction of toxic pollutants , 2005, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[27]  Peter M. J. Bos,et al.  Probabilistic assessment factors for human health risk assessment. A practical guide , 2001 .

[28]  Olivier Jolliet,et al.  Modeling the influence of intermittent rain events on long-term fate and transport of organic air pollutants. , 2005, Environmental science & technology.

[29]  Michael Matthies,et al.  Comparing estimates of persistence and long-range transport potential among multimedia models. , 2005, Environmental science & technology.

[30]  T E McKone,et al.  Human toxicity potentials for life‐cycle assessment and toxics release inventory risk screening , 2001, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[31]  M. Hauschild,et al.  Environmental Assessment of Products: Volume 2: Scientific Background , 1997 .

[32]  Till M. Bachmann Hazardous Substances and Human Health: Exposure, Impact and External Cost Assessment at the European Scale , 2006 .

[33]  O. Jolliet,et al.  Multimedia fate and human intake modeling: spatial versus nonspatial insights for chemical emissions in Western Europe. , 2005, Environmental science & technology.

[34]  Rajesh Seth,et al.  The Role of Mass Balance Modelling in Impact Assessment and Pollution Prevention , 1999 .

[35]  Frank Wania,et al.  A Comparison of Overall Persistence Values and Atmospheric Travel Distances Calculated by Various Multi-Media Fate Models , 2000 .

[36]  Michael R. Overcash Environmental assessment of products, volume 1‐methodology, tools, and case studies in product development. Henrik Wenzel, Michael Hauschild, and Leo Alting, Kluwer Academic Publishers, London, United Kingdom, (1997), 543 pages, [ISBN No. 0‐412‐80800‐5], U.S. List Price $150.00 , 1999 .

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

[38]  C. E. Cowan,et al.  The Multi-Media Fate Model: A Vital Tool for Predicting the Fate of Chemicals, , 1995 .

[39]  M. Hauschild,et al.  Environmental assessment of products , 1997 .

[40]  W. Shiu,et al.  Illustrated handbook of physical-chemical properties and environmental fate for organic chemicals. Volume 5: pesticide chemicals. , 1992 .

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

[42]  T E McKone,et al.  Predicting long-range transport: a systematic evaluation of two multimedia transport models. , 2001, Environmental science & technology.

[43]  Mark A. J. Huijbregts,et al.  Uncertainty in msPAF-Based Ecotoxicological Effect Factors for Freshwater Ecosystems in Life Cycle Impact Assessment , 2007, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[44]  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.

[45]  Olivier Jolliet,et al.  Dose-Response Modeling for Life Cycle Impact Assessment - Findings of the Portland Review Workshop , 2006 .

[46]  C. Travis,et al.  Bioconcentration of organics in beef, milk, and vegetation. , 1988, Environmental science & technology.

[47]  D H Bennett,et al.  Cyclic exchanges and level of coupling between environmental media: intermedia feedback in multimedia fate models. , 2004, Environmental science & technology.

[48]  Robert Boethling,et al.  Estimating biodegradation half-lives for use in chemical screening. , 2006, Chemosphere.

[49]  D Mackay,et al.  Evaluation and comparison of multimedia mass balance models of chemical fate: application of EUSES and ChemCAN to 68 chemicals in Japan. , 2001, Chemosphere.

[50]  Olivier Jolliet,et al.  Establishing a Framework for Life Cycle Toxicity Assessment. Findings of the Lausanne Review Workshop (4 pp) , 2006 .

[51]  Philip H. Howard,et al.  Handbook of Physical Properties of Organic Chemicals , 1997 .