Thailand Characterization Factors for Human Health and Biodiversity Damage of Chemical Substances in Life Cycle Impact Assessment
American Journal of Environmental Protection
Volume 2, Issue 6, December 2013, Pages: 154-160
Received: Sep. 27, 2013; Published: Nov. 10, 2013
Views 2934      Downloads 126
Authors
Chantima Rewlay-ngoen, Energy Engineering Program, Faculty of Engineering, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, 50200 Thailand
Seksan Papong, National Metal and Materials Technology Center, National Science and Technology Development Agency, Pathumthani, 12120 Thailand
Toshiaki Kubo, Mizuho Information & Research Institute, Inc. 2-3 Kanda–Nishikicho, Chiyoda–ku, Tokyo 101–8443, Japan
Norihoro Itsubo, Department of Environmental and Information Studies, Tokyo City University 3-3-1 Ushikubo–nishi, Tsuzuku Ward, Yokohama, Japan
Pomthong Malakul, The Petroleum and Petrochemical College, Chulalongkorn University, 10330 Bangkok
Sate Sampattgul, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, 50200 Thailand
Article Tools
PDF
Follow on us
Abstract
The environmental impact assessment for chemical substances on human health damage has been of significant interest sometime in the EU, USA, and Japan. In Thailand, such an environmental impact is now receiving more attention. The present study focuses on developing the damage factors of chemical substances on human health based on the multi-media box type fate and exposure model via IMPACT 2002, with the model adapted to Thailand. Human health damage factors are expressed in terms of disability–adjusted life year (DALY) per kg emission. The development method includes four steps: fate analysis, exposure analysis, potency, and severity analysis. This study derived new damage factors of 144 chemical substances that quantify the impact damage of an emission change on human health damage. It was found that the characterization factors for human health damage range from 7.3410-9 to 1.30103 DALY per kg emitted. This work provides new information for damage factors on human health in Thailand based on the IMPACT 2002 model, modified for Thailand. Future research should include uncertainty analysis of the major relevant parameters, which could provide information on the reliability of the damage function.
Keywords
Human Toxicity, Impact Assessment, Endpoint Damage
To cite this article
Chantima Rewlay-ngoen, Seksan Papong, Toshiaki Kubo, Norihoro Itsubo, Pomthong Malakul, Sate Sampattgul, Thailand Characterization Factors for Human Health and Biodiversity Damage of Chemical Substances in Life Cycle Impact Assessment, American Journal of Environmental Protection. Vol. 2, No. 6, 2013, pp. 154-160. doi: 10.11648/j.ajep.20130206.16
References
[1]
ISO (International Organization for Standardization). ISO 14040: Environmental management–life cycle assessment–principals and framework. (2006a).
[2]
ISO. ISO 14044: Environmental management–life cycle assessment–requirements and guidelines. (2006b).
[3]
Bare, J., Hofstetter, P., Pennington, D.W., and Udo de Haes, H.A. Midpoint versus endpoint: The sacrifices and benefits. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess 5(6), 319–326. 2000.
[4]
Jolliet, O., Müller-Wenk, R., Bare, J., Brent, A., Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., Itsubo, N., Pefia, C., Pennington, D., Potting, J., Rebitzer, G., Stewart, M., Udo de Haes, H., and Weidema, B. The LCIA midpoint-damge framework of the UNEP/SETAC life cycle initiative. Int J LCA 9 (6), 394–404. 2004.
[5]
Bare, J.C. Life cycle impact assessment research developments and needs. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 12(4), 341–351. 2010.
[6]
European Commission, Joint Research Centre and Institute for Environmental and Sustainability. International Reference Life Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) handbook: Analysis of existing Environmental Impact Assessment methodologies for use in Life Cycle Assessment. 2010. Available online: http://europa.eu
[7]
SETAC. Life Cycle Impact Assessment: Striving Towards Best Practice. Report by SETAC Europe Second Working Group on Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Edited by Udo de Haes, Finnveden, Goedkoop, Hauschild, Hertwich, Hofste. 2002.
[8]
Pennington, D.W., Margni, M., Payet, J., and Jolliet, O. Risk and regulatory hazard-based toxicological effect indicators in life-cycle assessment (LCA). Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal 12(3), 450-475. 2012.
[9]
de Koning, A., Guinée, J.B., Pennington, D.W., Sleeswijk, A., Hauschild, M.Z., Molander, S., Nyström, B., Pant, R., Schowanek, D. Methods and typology report Part A. Inventory and classification of LCA characterization methods for assessing toxic releases. OMNIITOX Deliverable D11A. 2002.
[10]
Jolliet, O., Margni, M., Charles, R., Humbert, S., Payet, J., Rebitzer, G. and Rosenbaum, R. IMPACT 2002+: A new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess 8(6), 324–330. 2003.
[11]
Rosenbaum, R.K., Margni, M., and Jolliet, O. A flexible matrix algebra framework for the multimedia multipathway modeling of emission to impacts. Environment International 33, 624-634. 2007.
[12]
Humbert, S., Margni, M., Charles, R., Torres Salazar, O.M., QuirÓs, A.L., and Jolliet, O. Toxicity assessment of the main pesticides used in Costa Rica. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 118, 183–190. 2007.
[13]
Hauschild, M.Z., Huijbregts, M.A.J., Jolliet, O., MacLeod, M., Margni, M., van de Meent,, Rosenbaum, R.K., and McKone, T.E. Building a model based on scientific consensus for life cycle impact assessment of chemicals: The search for harmony and parsimony. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 7032–7037. 2008.
[14]
Henderson, A.D., Hauschild, M.Z., van de Meent, D., Huijbregts, M.A.J., Larsen, H.F., Margni, M., McKone, T.E., Payet, J., Rosenbaum, R.K., and Jolliet, O. USEtox fate and ecotoxicity factors for comparative assessment of toxic emissions in life cycle analysis: Sensitivity to key chemical properties. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16, 701–709. DOI 10.1007/s11367-011-0294-6. 2010.
[15]
Rosenbaum, R.K., Bachmann, T.M., Gold, L.S., Huijbregts, M.A.J., Jolliet, O., Juraske, R., Koehler, A., Larsen, H.F., MacLeod, M., Manuele, M., McKone, T.E., Payet, J., Schuhmacher, M., van de Meent, D., and Hauschild, M.Z. USEtox–the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: Recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess. DOI 10.1007/s11367-008-0038-4. 2008.
[16]
Rosenbaum, R.K., Huijbregts, M.A.J., Henderson, A.D., Margni, M., McKone, T.E., van de Meent, Hauschild, M.Z., Shaked, S., Li, D.S., Gold, L.S., and Jolliet, O. USEtox human exposure and toxicity factors for comparative assessment of toxic emissions in life cycle analysis: sensitivity to key chemical properties. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16, 710–727. DOI 10.1007/s11367-011-0316-4. 2010.
[17]
Itsubo, N., and Inaba, A. A new LCIA method: LIME has been completed. Int J LCA 8(5), 305. 2003.
[18]
Kubo, T. and Itsubo, N. Development of damage functions on human health caused by heavy metals in LIME. The Seventh International Conference on EcoBalance Designing Our Future Society Using Systems Thinking, 14–16 November 2006, EPOCHAL TSUKUBA, Tsukuba, Japan. 2006.
[19]
US EPA. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2012. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/iris
[20]
IPCS (International Programme on Chemical Safety). Environmental Health Criteria Monographs (EHCS). 2012. Available online: http://www.inchem.org/ehc.html
[21]
The Office of Scientific Affairs Department of Toxic Substances Control California Environmental Protection Agency Sacramento. CalTOXTM, A Multimedia Total Exposure Model for Hazardous–Waste Sites: Spreadsheet User’s Guide, Version 1.5. 1994.
[22]
Crettaz, P., Pennington, D., Rhomberg, L., Brand, B., Jolliet, O. Assessing human health response in life cycle assessment using ED10s and DALYs: Part 1- Cancer effects. Risk Analysis 22(5), 931–946. 2002
[23]
Crettaz, P., Pennington, D.W., Tauxe, A., and Jolliet, O. Assessing human health response in life cycle assessment using ED10s and DALYs, Part 2: Non-cancer effects, Risk Analysis 22(5), 947–963. 2002.
[24]
Andrae, A.S.G. Chapter 3: Environmental Life Cycle Assessment from a LIME Perspective. In: Global Life Cycle Impact Assessments of Material Shifts Global Life Cycle Impact Assessments of Material Shifts. Springer London, 23–58. 2010.
[25]
TMD (Thai Meteorological Department). Climatological Data of Thailand for 30 Year Period (1971–2000). Meteorological Data Report No. 551.5–03–2003. ISBN: 974–9616–03–0. 2003.
[26]
TMD. Average Temperature. 2012. Available online: http://www.tmd.go.th
[27]
ONEP (Office of Natural Resource and Environmental Policy and Planning). Environmental Situation Report 2010. Office of Natural Resource and Environmental Policy and Planning, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. 2011. Available online: http://www.onep.go.th
[28]
THAICID (Thai National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage). Thailand. 2012. Available online: http://www.rid.go.th/thaicid
[29]
PCD (Pollution Control Department). Environmental Emergency Reporting. 2012. Available online: http://www.pcd.go.th
[30]
OAE (Office of Agricultural Economics). Agricultural Statistics of Thailand 2011. Office of Agricultural Economics, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Bangkok. 2011. Available online: http://www.oae.go.th
[31]
WHO/UNICEF. Joint Monitoring programme for water supply and sanitation–estimates for the use of improved drinking–water sources, Thailand. 2012.
[32]
WHO. Dioxin there effects on human health. 2010
[33]
Mudgal. V., Madaan, N., Mudgal, A., Singh, R.B., and Mishra, S. Effect of toxic metals on human health. The open nutraceuticals (3), 94-99. 2010.
[34]
Eco-invent, ReCiPe (H). 2013.
ADDRESS
Science Publishing Group
1 Rockefeller Plaza,
10th and 11th Floors,
New York, NY 10020
U.S.A.
Tel: (001)347-983-5186