TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison between three different LCIA methods for aquatic ecotoxicity and a product Environmental Risk Assessment – Insights from a Detergent Case Study within OMNIITOX
AU - Pant, Rana
AU - Van Hoof, Geert
AU - Feijtel, Tom
AU - De Koning, A
AU - Hauschild, Michael Zwicky
AU - Pennington, David W.
AU - Olsen, Stig Irving
AU - Rosenbaum, Ralph K.
PY - 2004
Y1 - 2004
N2 - 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 &
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 the
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 PNECbased
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 situation
of diverging results and to reflect most realistic conditions.
AB - 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 &
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 the
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 PNECbased
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 situation
of diverging results and to reflect most realistic conditions.
M3 - Journal article
SN - 0948-3349
VL - 9
SP - 295
EP - 306
JO - International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
JF - International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
IS - 5
ER -