Page 250 - Materials Chemistry, Second Edition
P. 250

236                                               R.K. Rosenbaum et al.

            providing cardinal impact measures. Among these methods are IMPACT 2002
            (used in IMPACT 2002+) and USES-LCA (used in CML and ReCiPe). All these
            methods adopt environmental multimedia, multipathway models employing
            mechanistic cause–effect chains to account for the environmental fate, exposure and
            effects processes. However, they do not necessarily agree on how these processes
            are to be modelled, leading to variations in results of LCA studies related to the
            choice of LCIA method. Based on an extensive comparison of these models fol-
            lowed by a consensus-building process, the scientific consensus model USEtox
            (UNEP/SETAC toxicity consensus model) was developed with the intention to
            solve this situation by representing a scientifically agreed consensus approach to the
            characterisation of human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity (Hauschild et al.
            2008; Rosenbaum et al. 2008; Henderson et al. 2011). It has been recommended
            and used by central international organisations like the United Nations Environment
            Program UNEP, Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry SETAC, the
            European Commission and US-EPA to characterise human and ecotoxicity in
            LCIA.
              Among the existing characterisation models on midpoint level, three main
            groups can be distinguished: (1) mechanistic, multimedia fate, exposure and effect
            models, (2) key property-based partial fate models and (3) non-fate models
            (EC-JRC 2011). According to ISO 14044 (2006b) “Characterisation models reflect
            the environmental mechanism by describing the relationship between the LCI
            results, category indicators and, in some cases, category endpoints. […] The
            environmental mechanism is the total of environmental processes related to the
            characterisation of the impacts.” Therefore, ecotoxicity characterisation models
            falling into categories (2) and (3) do not completely fulfil this criterion. Caution is
            advised regarding their use and most importantly the interpretation of their results,
            which should not be employed without prior in-depth study of their respective
            documentation. Having said that, depending on the goal and scope of the LCA, they
            may still be an adequate choice in some applications, and indeed may agree quite
            well with the more sophisticated multimedia-based models.
              Ecotoxicity endpoint modelling is still in an early state and much research needs
            to be performed before maturity is reached. The authors of the ILCD LCIA
            handbook concluded that “For all the three evaluated endpoint methods (EPS2000,
            ReCiPe, IMPACT 2002+), there is little or no compliance with the scientific and
            stakeholder acceptance criteria, as the overall concept of the endpoint effect factors
            is hardly validated and the endpoint part of the methods is not endorsed by an
            authoritative body. […] No method is recommended for the endpoint assessment of
            ecotoxicity, as no method is mature enough.” (EC-JRC 2011).
              When interpreting the results of existing methods, it is important to keep in mind
            that many aspects are not or only very insufficiently covered. This includes ele-
            ments like terrestrial and marine ecotoxicity as well as toxicity of pesticides in
            pollinators.
              For further details see Chap. 40 and Hauschild and Huijbregts (2015).
   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255