Spatial differentiation of chemical removal rates from air in life cycle impact assessment

Abstract

Purpose Spatial differentiation is a topic of increasing interest within life cycle assessment (LCA). For chemicalrelated impacts, in this paper, we evaluate the relative influence of substance properties and of environmental characteristics on the variability in the environmental fate of chemicals using an advanced, spatially resolved model. The goal of this study is to explore spatial distribution and spatial variability of organic chemicals, assessing the variability of the removal rate from air with a multimedia spatially explicit model Multimedia Assessment of Pollutant Pathways in the Environment (MAPPE) Global with a resolution of 1×1°. This provides basis to help identify chemicals for which spatial differentiation will be important in LCAs, including whether differentiation will have added benefits over the use of global generic default values, such as those provided by the USEtox model. Methodology A methodology was developed to explore spatial distribution and spatial variability of the fate of organic chemicals. Firstly, guidelines were developed to assign a hypothetical spatial distribution to chemicals which were clustered on the basis of their physical-chemical properties and persistence. Secondly, a test set of 34 representative organic chemicals was used to run MAPPE Global and USEtox model. The results of MAPPE Global were used to highlight spatial variability of removal rate from air amongst different chemicals and their related patterns of variability. A comparison between USEtox and MAPPE Global removal rates from air was performed for each chemical in order to highlight whether spatial differentiation is relevant for the assessment or not. Results and discussion Hypothetical spatial distribution of chemical fate was assigned to each combination of physical-chemical properties and persistence. Besides, spatial variability of removal rates from air was assessed running MAPPE model for the test set of 34 chemicals. The variability of results spans from less than one to over four orders of magnitude, showing differences in variability for each cluster of chemicals. Furthermore, different patterns of spatial variability are associated to each cluster of chemical as the spatial pattern is driven by a specific component of the overall removal rate. The comparison between MAPPE and USEtox removal rates from air shows that for 14 out of 34 chemicals within the test set, USEtox values are close to the median of the results of MAPPE. For 11 out of 34, USEtox underestimates the removal rate from air and the results are close to the fifth percentile of MAPPE ones. This is mainly related to how wet/dry deposition and gas exchange are accounted in the two models. Conclusions and outlook This work has made further progress towards understanding and implementing how to develop a tailored-made guidance for assessing spatial differentiation in LCA. Results on spatial distribution and spatial variability of chemical are presented as a basis for defining patterns of variability and supporting further development...

Chemical footprint: A methodological framework for bridging life cycle assessment and planetary boundaries for chemical pollution

“…According to Schering et al (2012), there is probably not a single tipping point for the global system that would have to be reflected by a planetary boundary. The different tipping points should be related to: 1) spatial differentiation, because of the local or regional nature of many exposures and effects caused by chemicals, 2) different classes of chemicals (Sala, Monti et al ) as well as different clusters of physic chemical properties (Sala et al ), 3) different targets of the effects: human health versus different ecosystems (freshwater, marine, terrestrial hypogean and epigean), 4) different toxicological endpoints (acute vs long‐term toxicity as well as bioaccumulation, biomagnification, endocrine disruption, carcinogenic effects, mutagenesis, and teratogenesis), and 5) different time frames, short‐ versus long‐term carrying capacity evaluation. Should spatial differentiation be taken into account from chemical emission up to effect? ChF might be affected by significant variability in space and time related to chemical fate (Sala et al ), but also spatial variability of targets of the effect (Hope et al ; Wickwire et al ). Which level of uncertainty could be considered acceptable?…”

“…Should spatial differentiation be taken into account from chemical emission up to effect? ChF might be affected by significant variability in space and time related to chemical fate (Sala et al 2011), but also spatial variability of targets of the effect Wickwire et al 2011). 7.…”

A bright future for addressing chemical emissions in life cycle assessment

“…Over the last decade, it has become clear that for some impacts, differences in geographical conditions and spatial emission characteristics can be quite influential, and this is now an important field of new research in LCIA. Sala et al (2011) developed guidelines to help decide the appropriate spatial resolution to address the environmental fate of chemicals and compared the results of a highly spatially differentiated model with USEtox for air removal rates. The study demonstrates the potential relevance of considering spatial variability in chemical fate and supports further development of spatial scenarios and archetypes.…”

Improvement of Agricultural Life Cycle Assessment Studies through Spatial Differentiation and New Impact Categories: Case Study on Greenhouse Tomato Production

“…Unlike the so-called global impact categories, such as global warming and ozone depletion, regional impact categories (e.g., acidification, eutrophication, toxicity) need to have spatially differentiated models because evidence shows that differences in fate and effect factors such as exposure mechanisms and sensitivity can vary significantly in different geographical contexts. 4,5 This article focuses on the impact categories that are significant for agricultural case studies, linked to water consumption, land use, and pesticide and fertilizer use, and that are also related to the importance of site-specific detailed characterization factors (CFs). These impact categories have frequently been ignored because of their complexity or tend to be overly simplified.…”

“…First, an updated approach was used for coldblooded species that took into account the influence of the spatial variability of chemicals causing ecotoxicity. 37 The CFs used in USEtox were calculated for different continental and subcontinental regions and different emission compartments. In our case study, we applied CFs for the region of continental Europe in the rural air, freshwater and agriculture soil emission compartments for human and ecosystem toxicity.…”