Life Cycle Impact Assessment of chemicals: relevance and feasibility of spatial differentiation for ecotoxicity and human toxicity impact assessment

Environmental implications of the whole supply-chain of products, both goods and services, their use, and waste management, i.e. their entire life cycle from “cradle to grave” have to be considered to achieve more sustainable production and consumption patterns. Historically, Life Cycle Management (LCM), Assessment (LCA) and the related Impact Assessment (LCIA) methods have mostly relied on site-generic, not spatially resolved, models. In recent years, the relevance of accounting for spatial differentiation has been increasingly discussed in the context of LCA. Thus, several spatially distributed fate and transport models of chemicals, i.e. models allowing spatially explicit assessment of contaminants from a given spatial distribution of emission, were developed. The present paper presents an overview of these models, and discusses the relevance and feasibility of spatial differentiation of LCIA results in a Life Cycle Management perspective. Example of application of the models for human and ecotoxicity impact categories at various scales are presented.JRC.H.8-Sustainability Assessmen

Risk-Based Indicators of Cumulative Contributions to Toxicological Effects for LCA.

Abstract not availableJRC.H-Institute for environment and sustainability (Ispra

Characterizing honey bee exposure and effects from pesticides for chemical prioritization and life cycle assessment

Agricultural pesticides are key contributors to pollinator decline worldwide. However, methods for quantifying impacts associated with pollinator exposure to pesticides are currently missing in comparative risk screening, chemical substitution and prioritization, and life cycle impact assessment methods. To address this gap, we developed a method for quantifying pesticide field exposure and ecotoxicity effects of honey bees as most economically important pollinator species worldwide. We defined bee intake and dermal contact fractions representing respectively oral and dermal exposure per unit mass applied, and tested our model on two pesticides applied to oilseed rape. Our results show that exposure varies between types of forager bees, with highest dermal contact fraction of 59 ppm in nectar foragers for lambda-cyhalothrin (insecticide), and highest oral intake fractions of 32 and 190 ppm in nectar foragers for boscalid (fungicide) and lambda-cyhalothrin, respectively. Hive oral exposure is up to 115 times higher than forager oral exposure. Combining exposure with effect estimates yields impacts, which are three orders of magnitude higher for the insecticide. Overall, nectar foragers are the most affected forager type for both pesticides, dominated by oral exposure. Our framework constitutes an important step toward integrating pollinator impacts in chemical substitution and life cycle impact assessment, and should be expanded to cover all relevant pesticide-crop combinations.JRC.D.1-Bio-econom

Area of Concern: A new paradigm in life cycle assessment for the development of footprint metrics

Purpose As a class of environmental metrics, footprints have been poorly defined, have shared an unclear relationship to life cycle assessment (LCA), and the variety of approaches to quantification have sometimes resulted in confusing and contradictory messages in the marketplace. In response, a task force operating under the auspices of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative project on environmental life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) has been working to develop generic guidance for developers of footprint metrics. The purpose of this paper is to introduce a universal footprint definition and related terminology as well as to discuss modelling implications. Methods The task force has worked from the perspective that footprints should be based on LCA methodology, underpinned by the same data systems and models as used in LCA. However, there are important differences in purpose and orientation relative to LCA impact category indicators. Footprints have a primary orientation toward society and nontechnical stakeholders. They are also typically of narrow scope, having the purpose of reporting only in relation to specific topics. In comparison, LCA has a primary orientation toward stakeholders interested in comprehensive evaluation of overall environmental performance and trade-offs among impact categories. These differences create tension between footprints, the existing LCIA framework based on the area of protection paradigm and the core LCA standards ISO14040/44. Results and discussion In parallel to area of protection, we introduce area of concern as the basis for a universal footprint definition. In the same way that LCA uses impact category indicators to assess impacts that follow a common cause-effect pathway toward areas of protection, footprint metrics address areas of concern. The critical difference is that areas of concern are defined by the interests of stakeholders in society rather than the LCA community. In addition, areas of concern are stand-alone and not necessarily part of a framework intended for comprehensive environmental performance assessment. The area of concern paradigm is needed to support the development of footprints in a way that fulfils their distinctly different purpose. It is also needed as a mechanism to extricate footprints from some of the provisions of ISO 14040/44 which are not considered relevant. Specific issues are identified in relation to double counting, aggregation and the selection of relevant indicators. Conclusions The universal footprint definition and related terminology introduced in this paper create a foundation that will support the development of footprint metrics in parallel with LCA.JRC.H.8-Sustainability Assessmen

LCIA framework and cross-cutting issues guidance within the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative

Increasing needs to provide decision support and advances in scientific knowledge in the area of life cycle assessment (LCA) led to a multi-year effort to provide global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) indicators under the auspices of the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. As part of this effort, a specific task force focuses on improving and harmonizing LCIA cross-cutting issues as aspects spanning over several or all impact categories including spatiotemporal aspects, reference states, normalization and weighting, and uncertainties. Findings of the cross-cutting issues task force are presented along with an update of the existing UNEP-SETAC LCIA emission-to-damage framework. Specific recommendations are made for metrics for human health (Disability Adjusted Life Years, DALY) and ecosystem quality (Potentially Disappeared Fractions of Species, PDF). Additionally, we stress the importance for transparent reporting of models, reference states and assumptions, in order to facilitate cross-comparison between models. We recommend developing spatially regionalized models, if the nature of the impact shows spatial variability. Standard formats should be used for reporting spatially differentiated models and shoices regarding spatial and temporal scales need to be clearly communicated. For normalization, we recommend to use external normalization references. Over the next two years, the task force will continue its effort with focus on providing guidance for LCA practitioners on how to use the UNEP-SETAC LCIA framework as well as for method developers on how to consistently extend or improve this framework.JRC.D.1-Bio-econom