Manuele Margni

IMPACT 2002+: A New Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methodology

The new IMPACT 2002+ life cycle impact assessment methodology proposes a feasible implementation of a combined midpoint/damage approach, linking all types of life cycle inventory results (elementary flows and other interventions) via 14 midpoint categories to four damage categories. For IMPACT 2002+, new concepts and methods have been developed, especially for the comparative assessment of human toxicity and ecotoxicity. Human Damage Factors are calculated for carcinogens and non-carcinogens, employing intake fractions, best estimates of dose-response slope factors, as well as severities. The transfer of contaminants into the human food is no more based on consumption surveys, but accounts for agricultural and livestock production levels. Indoor and outdoor air emissions can be compared and the intermittent character of rainfall is considered. Both human toxicity and ecotoxicity effect factors are based on mean responses rather than on conservative assumptions. Other midpoint categories are adapted from existing characterizing methods (Eco-indicator 99 and CML 2002). All midpoint scores are expressed in units of a reference substance and related to the four damage categories human health, ecosystem quality, climate change, and resources. Normalization can be performed either at midpoint or at damage level. The IMPACT 2002+ method presently provides characterization factors for almost 1500 different LCI-results, which can be downloaded at http://www.epfl.ch/impact

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.

Considering time in LCA: dynamic LCA and its application to global warming impact assessments.

The lack of temporal information is an important limitation of life cycle assessment (LCA). A dynamic LCA approach is proposed to improve the accuracy of LCA by addressing the inconsistency of temporal assessment. This approach consists of first computing a dynamic life cycle inventory (LCI), considering the temporal profile of emissions. Then, time-dependent characterization factors are calculated to assess the dynamic LCI in real-time impact scores for any given time horizon. Although generally applicable to any impact category, this approach is developed here for global warming, based on the radiative forcing concept. This case study demonstrates that the use of global warming potentials for a given time horizon to characterize greenhouse gas emissions leads to an inconsistency between the time frame chosen for the analysis and the time period covered by the LCA results. Dynamic LCA is applied to the US EPA LCA on renewable fuels, which compares the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of different biofuels with fossil fuels including land-use change emissions. The comparison of the results obtained with both traditional and dynamic LCA approaches shows that the difference can be important enough to change the conclusions on whether or not a biofuel meets some given global warming reduction targets.

Life cycle impact assessment of pesticides on human health and ecosystems

Abstract The development of methodologies to assess the effects of pesticides in a consistent way and to enable comparison with the impacts from other agricultural practices is urgently needed. This paper describes a life cycle assessment method to determine the impact of pesticides on human health and ecosystems. The approach considers a full-fate analysis and the exposure to toxic pollutants through different media and pathways, including residues in food, based on the behavior of the pesticides in air and the importance of transfers between soil and surface or ground waters. For human toxicity, estimates of pesticide residues show that food intake results in the highest toxic exposure, about 10 3 to 10 5 times higher than that induced by drinking water or inhalation. Better evaluation practices of pesticide residues in food need to be established in priority. For the “no effect concentration (NEC)” used as a reference for both terrestrial and aquatic ecotoxicity, extrapolation methods are developed on the basis of experimental data. Extrapolation coefficients for risk assessment are to be used with caution; an intra-species extrapolation factor of 10 explained the relationship between acute (LC 50 ) and chronic (NOEC) ecotoxicity, whereas it was not suitable for inter-species extrapolation. The method is applied to a case study of five fungicides that have the same function on wheat. Results obtained for the 100 most commonly used pesticides in Switzerland are presented. It is demonstrated that the comparison of pesticides is feasible, the pollution sources of highest concern being identifiable and the best environmental management practices thereby promoted without penalizing the crop itself.

Review of methods addressing freshwater use in life cycle inventory and impact assessment

PurposeIn recent years, several methods have been developed which propose different freshwater use inventory schemes and impact assessment characterization models considering various cause–effect chain relationships. This work reviewed a multitude of methods and indicators for freshwater use potentially applicable in life cycle assessment (LCA). This review is used as a basis to identify the key elements to build a scientific consensus for operational characterization methods for LCA.MethodsThis evaluation builds on the criteria and procedure developed within the International Reference Life Cycle Data System Handbook and has been adapted for the purpose of this project. It therefore includes (1) description of relevant cause–effect chains, (2) definition of criteria to evaluate the existing methods, (3) development of sub-criteria specific to freshwater use, and (4) description and review of existing methods addressing freshwater in LCA.Results and discussionNo single method is available which comprehensively describes all potential impacts derived from freshwater use. However, this review highlights several key findings to design a characterization method encompassing all the impact pathways of the assessment of freshwater use and consumption in life cycle assessment framework as the following: (1) in most of databases and methods, consistent freshwater balances are not reported either because output is not considered or because polluted freshwater is recalculated based on a critical dilution approach; (2) at the midpoint level, most methods are related to water scarcity index and correspond to the methodological choice of an indicator simplified in terms of the number of parameters (scarcity) and freshwater uses (freshwater consumption or freshwater withdrawal) considered. More comprehensive scarcity indices distinguish different freshwater types and functionalities. (3) At the endpoint level, several methods already exist which report results in units compatible with traditional human health and ecosystem quality damage and cover various cause–effect chains, e.g., the decrease of terrestrial biodiversity due to freshwater consumption. (4) Midpoint and endpoint indicators have various levels of spatial differentiation, i.e., generic factors with no differentiation at all, or country, watershed, and grid cell differentiation.ConclusionsExisting databases should be (1) completed with input and output freshwater flow differentiated according to water types based on its origin (surface water, groundwater, and precipitation water stored as soil moisture), (2) regionalized, and (3) if possible, characterized with a set of quality parameters. The assessment of impacts related to freshwater use is possible by assembling methods in a comprehensive methodology to characterize each use adequately.

UNEP-SETAC guideline on global land use impact assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services in LCA

PurposeAs a consequence of the multi-functionality of land, the impact assessment of land use in Life Cycle Impact Assessment requires the modelling of several impact pathways covering biodiversity and ecosystem services. To provide consistency amongst these separate impact pathways, general principles for their modelling are provided in this paper. These are refinements to the principles that have already been proposed in publications by the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. In particular, this paper addresses the calculation of land use interventions and land use impacts, the issue of impact reversibility, the spatial and temporal distribution of such impacts and the assessment of absolute or relative ecosystem quality changes. Based on this, we propose a guideline to build methods for land use impact assessment in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA).ResultsRecommendations are given for the development of new characterization models and for which a series of key elements should explicitly be stated, such as the modelled land use impact pathways, the land use/cover typology covered, the level of biogeographical differentiation used for the characterization factors, the reference land use situation used and if relative or absolute quality changes are used to calculate land use impacts. Moreover, for an application of the characterisation factors (CFs) in an LCA study, data collection should be transparent with respect to the data input required from the land use inventory and the regeneration times. Indications on how generic CFs can be used for the background system as well as how spatial-based CFs can be calculated for the foreground system in a specific LCA study and how land use change is to be allocated should be detailed. Finally, it becomes necessary to justify the modelling period for which land use impacts of land transformation and occupation are calculated and how uncertainty is accounted for.DiscussionThe presented guideline is based on a number of assumptions: Discrete land use types are sufficient for an assessment of land use impacts; ecosystem quality remains constant over time of occupation; time and area of occupation are substitutable; transformation time is negligible; regeneration is linear and independent from land use history and landscape configuration; biodiversity and multiple ecosystem services are independent; the ecological impact is linearly increasing with the intervention; and there is no interaction between land use and other drivers such as climate change. These assumptions might influence the results of land use Life Cycle Impact Assessment and need to be critically reflected.Conclusions and recommendationsIn this and the other papers of the special issue, we presented the principles and recommendations for the calculation of land use impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services on a global scale. In the framework of LCA, they are mainly used for the assessment of land use impacts in the background system. The main areas for further development are the link to regional ecological models running in the foreground system, relative weighting of the ecosystem services midpoints and indirect land use.

Regional Characterization of Freshwater Use in LCA: Modeling Direct Impacts on Human Health

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a methodology that quantifies potential environmental impacts for comparative purposes in a decision-making context. While potential environmental impacts from pollutant emissions into water are characterized in LCA, impacts from water unavailability are not yet fully quantified. Water use can make the resource unavailable to other users by displacement or quality degradation. A reduction in water availability to human users can potentially affect human health. If financial resources are available, there can be adaptations that may, in turn, shift the environmental burdens to other life cycle stages and impact categories. This paper proposes a model to evaluate these potential impacts in an LCA context. It considers the water that is withdrawn and released, its quality and scarcity in order to evaluate the loss of functionality associated with water uses. Regionalized results are presented for impacts on human health for two modeling approaches regarding affected users, including or not domestic uses, and expressed in disability-adjusted life years (DALY). A consumption and quality based scarcity indicator is also proposed as a midpoint. An illustrative example is presented for the production of corrugated board with different effluents, demonstrating the importance of considering quality, process effluents and the difference between the modeling approaches.

Intake fraction for multimedia pollutants: A tool for life cycle analysis and comparative risk assessment

We employ the intake fraction (iF) as an effective tool for expressing the source-to-intake relationship for pollutant emissions in life cycle analysis (LCA) or comparative risk assessment. Intake fraction is the fraction of chemical mass emitted into the environment that eventually passes into a member of the population through inhalation, ingestion, or dermal exposure. To date, this concept has been primarily applied to pollutants whose primary route of exposure is inhalation. Here we extend the use of iF to multimedia pollutants with multiple exposure pathways. We use a level III multimedia model to calculate iF for TCDD and compare the result to one calculated from measured levels of dioxin toxic equivalents in the environment. We calculate iF for emissions to air and surface water for 308 chemicals. We correlate the primary exposure route with the magnitudes of the octanol-water partition coefficient, Kow, and of the air-water partitioning coefficient (dimensionless Henry constant), Kaw. This results in value ranges of Kow and Kaw where the chemical exposure route can be classified with limited input data requirements as primarily inhalation, primarily ingestion, or multipathway. For the inhalation and ingestion dominant pollutants, we also define empirical relationships based on chemical properties for quantifying the intake fraction. The empirical relationships facilitate rapid evaluation of many chemicals in terms of the intake. By defining a theoretical upper limit for iF in a multimedia environment we find that iF calculations provide insight into the multimedia model algorithms and help identify unusual patterns of exposure and questionable exposure model results.

Principles for life cycle inventories of land use on a global scale

PurposeTo assess the diverse environmental impacts of land use, a standardization of quantifying land use elementary flows is needed in life cycle assessment (LCA). The purpose of this paper is to propose how to standardize the land use classification and how to regionalize land use elementary flows.Materials and methodsIn life cycle inventories, land occupation and transformation are elementary flows providing relevant information on the type and location of land use for land use impact assessment. To find a suitable land use classification system for LCA, existing global land cover classification systems and global approaches to define biogeographical regions are reviewed.Results and discussionA new multi-level classification of land use is presented. It consists of four levels of detail ranging from very general global land cover classes to more refined categories and very specific categories indicating land use intensities. Regionalization is built on five levels, first distinguishing between terrestrial, freshwater, and marine biomes and further specifying climatic regions, specific biomes, ecoregions and finally indicating the exact geo-referenced information of land use. Current land use inventories and impact assessment methods do not always match and hinder a comprehensive assessment of land use impact. A standardized definition of land use types and geographic location helps to overcome this gap and provides the opportunity to test the optimal resolution of land cover types and regionalization for each impact pathway.Conclusions and recommendationThe presented approach provides the necessary flexibility to providers of inventories and developers of impact assessment methods. To simplify inventories and impact assessment methods of land use, we need to find archetypical situations across impact pathways, land use types and regions, and aggregate inventory entries and methods accordingly.

Biogenic Carbon and Temporary Storage Addressed with Dynamic Life Cycle Assessment

A growing tendency in policy making and carbon footprint estimation gives value to temporary carbon storage in biomass products or to delayed greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Some life cycle‐based methods, such as the British publicly available specification (PAS) 2050 or the recently published European Commissions International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook, address this issue. This article shows the importance of consistent consideration of biogenic carbon and timing of GHG emissions in life cycle assessment (LCA) and carbon footprint analysis. We use a fictitious case study assessing the life cycle of a wooden chair for four end‐of‐life scenarios to compare different approaches: traditional LCA with and without consideration of biogenic carbon, the PAS 2050 and ILCD Handbook methods, and a dynamic LCA approach. Reliable results require accounting for the timing of every GHG emission, including biogenic carbon flows, as soon as a benefit is given for temporarily storing carbon or delaying GHG emissions. The conclusions of a comparative LCA can change depending on the time horizon chosen for the analysis. The dynamic LCA approach allows for a consistent assessment of the impact, through time, of all GHG emissions (positive) and sequestration (negative). The dynamic LCA is also a valuable approach for decision makers who have to understand the sensitivity of the conclusions to the chosen time horizon.