Implications of LCA and LCIA choices on interpretation of results and on decision support

n/

Comparison between three different LCIA methods for aquatic ecotoxicity and a product environmental risk assessment: Insights from a Detergent Case Study within OMNIITOX

Background and Objective: In the OMNIITOX project 11 partners have the common objective to improve environmental management tools for the assessment of (eco)toxicological impacts. The detergent case study aims at: i) comparing three Procter &c Gamble laundry detergent forms (Regular Powder-RP, Compact Powder-CP and Compact Liquid-CL) regarding their potential impacts on aquatic ecotoxicity, ii) providing insights into the differences between various Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) methods with respect to data needs and results and iii) comparing the results from Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) with results from an Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA). Material and Methods: The LCIA has been conducted with EDIP97 (chronic aquatic ecotoxicity) [1], USES-LCA (freshwater and marine water aquatic ecotoxicity, sometimes referred to as CML2001) [2, 3] and IMPACT 2002 (covering freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity) [4]. The comparative product ERA is based on the EU Ecolabel approach for detergents [5] and EUSES [6], which is based on the Technical Guidance Document (TGD) of the EU on Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) of chemicals [7]. Apart from the Eco-label approach, all calculations are based on the same set of physico-chemical and toxicological effect data to enable a better comparison of the methodological differences. For the same reason, the system boundaries were kept the same in all cases, focusing on emissions into water at the disposal stage. Results and Discussion: Significant differences between the LCIA methods with respect to data needs and results were identified. Most LCIA methods for freshwater ecotoxicity and the ERA see the compact and regular powders as similar, followed by compact liquid. IMPACT 2002 (for freshwater) suggests the liquid is equally as good as the compact powder, while the regular powder comes out worse by a factor of 2. USES-LCA for marine water shows a very different picture seeing the compact liquid as the clear winner over the powders, with the regular powder the least favourable option. Even the LCIA methods which result in die same product ranking, e.g. EDIP97 chronic aquatic ecotoxicity and USES-LCA freshwater ecotoxicity, significantly differ in terms of most contributing substances. Whereas, according to IMPACT 2002 and USES-LCA marine water, results are entirely dominated by inorganic substances, the other LCIA methods and the ERA assign a key role to surfactants. Deviating results are mainly due to differences in the fate and exposure modelling and, to a lesser extent, to differences in the toxicological effect calculations. Only IMPACT 2002 calculates the effects based on a mean value approach, whereas all other LCIA methods and the ERA tend to prefer a PNEC-based approach. In a comparative context like LCA the OMNIITOX project has taken the decision for a combined mean and PNEC-based approach, as it better represents the ‘average' toxicity while still taking into account more sensitive species. However, the main reason for deviating results remains in the calculation of the residence time of emissions in the water compartments. Conclusion and Outlook: The situation that different LCIA methods result in different answers to the question concerning which detergent type is to be preferred regarding the impact category aquatic ecotoxicity is not satisfactory, unless explicit reasons for the differences are identifiable. This can hamper practical decision support, as LCA practitioners usually will not be in a position to choose the 'right' LCIA method for their specific case. This puts a challenge to the entire OMNIITOX project to develop a method, which finds common ground regarding fate, exposure and effect modelling to overcome the current situa-tion of diverging results and to reflect most realistic condition

Multicentre evaluation of a new point-of-care test for the determination of NT-proBNP in whole blood

Background: The Roche CARDIAC proBNP point-of-care (POC) test is the first test intended for the quantitative determination of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) in whole blood as an aid in the diagnosis of suspected congestive heart failure, in the monitoring of patients with compensated left-ventricular dysfunction and in the risk stratification of patients with acute coronary syndromes. Methods: A multicentre evaluation was carried out to assess the analytical performance of the POC NT-proBNP test at seven different sites. Results: The majority of all coefficients of variation (CVs) obtained for within-series imprecision using native blood samples was below 10% for both 52 samples measured ten times and for 674 samples measured in duplicate. Using quality control material, the majority of CV values for day-to-day imprecision were below 14% for the low control level and below 13% for the high control level. In method comparisons for four lots of the POC NT-proBNP test with the laboratory reference method (Elecsys proBNP), the slope ranged from 0.93 to 1.10 and the intercept ranged from 1.8 to 6.9. The bias found between venous and arterial blood with the POC NT-proBNP method was ≤5%. All four lots of the POC NT-proBNP test investigated showed excellent agreement, with mean differences of between −5% and +4%. No significant interference was observed with lipaemic blood (triglyceride concentrations up to 6.3mmol/L), icteric blood (bilirubin concentrations up to 582μmol/L), haemolytic blood (haemoglobin concentrations up to 62mg/L), biotin (up to 10mg/L), rheumatoid factor (up to 42IU/mL), or with 50 out of 52 standard or cardiological drugs in therapeutic concentrations. With bisoprolol and BNP, somewhat higher bias in the low NT-proBNP concentration range (<175ng/L) was found. Haematocrit values between 28% and 58% had no influence on the test result. Interference may be caused by human anti-mouse antibodies (HAMA) types 1 and 2. No significant influence on the results with POC NT-proBNP was found using volumes of 140-165μL. High NT-proBNP concentrations above the measuring range of the POC NT-proBNP test did not lead to false low results due to a potential high-dose hook effect. Conclusions: The POC NT-proBNP test showed good analytical performance and excellent agreement with the laboratory method. The POC NT-proBNP assay is therefore suitable in the POC setting. Clin Chem Lab Med 2006;44:1269-7

Assessment of Progressive Product Innovation on Key Environmental Indicators: Pampers® Baby Wipes from 2007–2013

Companies are increasingly conducting life cycle assessments (LCA) of their products to understand potential product impacts on the environment, prioritize areas of innovation to create more sustainable products, and determine valid claims. This case study shows the results of product innovation by comparing an older (2007) and new (2013) version of a common hygiene product in Europe and the U.S. The standard methodology follows the ISO 14040/44 Guidelines for LCA. Results are reported for the impact indicators with high relevance for the product category: primary energy, global warming, particulates, agricultural land occupation, fossil fuel depletion, and solid waste generation. Generally, raw material supply chains for product and packaging contribute most (up to 82%) to the calculated environmental impact indicators. Improvements vs. the 2007 baby wipe range between 4% and 14% in Europe and between 15% and 36% in the U.S. The improvement is driven by a new substrate technology that provides more surface area for cleaning, which results in lower use of resources. This case study illustrates three key environmental drivers behind this innovation: the corporate focus on R&amp;D capability to design for environmentally improved products, the increased interest from retailers and consumers requiring accurate and relevant information on the performance and sustainability of products, and the company’s interest in deeper technical understanding of contributions from upstream material and process innovations on a product’s environmental profile