Lei Huang1, Nicholas Anastas2, Peter Egeghy3, Daniel A Vallero3, Olivier Jolliet1, Jane Bare4. 1. School of Public Health, Department of Environmental Health Sciences, University of Michigan, 1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. 2. National Risk Management Research Laboratory, US EPA Office of Research and Development, 5 Post Office Square, Boston, MA, 02109, USA. 3. National Exposure Research Laboratory, US EPA Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711, USA. 4. National Risk Management Research Laboratory, US EPA, Office of Research and Development, 26 West MLK Dr, Cincinnati, OH, 45268, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: There do not currently exist scientifically defensible ways to consistently characterize the human exposures (via various pathways) to near-field chemical emissions and associated health impacts during the use stage of building materials. The present paper thus intends to provide a roadmap which summarizes the current status and guides future development for integrating into LCA the chemical exposures and health impacts on various users of building materials, with a focus on building occupants. METHODS: We first review potential human health impacts associated with the substances in building materials and the methods used to mitigate these impacts, also identifying several of the most important online data resources. A brief overview of the necessary steps for characterizing use stage chemical exposures and health impacts for building materials is then provided. Finally, we propose a systematic approach to integrate the use stage exposures and health impacts into building material LCA and describe its components, and then present a case study illustrating the application of the proposed approach to two representative chemicals: formaldehyde and methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) in particleboard products. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Our proposed approach builds on the coupled near-field and far-field framework proposed by Fantke et al. (Environ Int 94:508-518, 2016), which is based on the product intake fraction (PiF) metric proposed by Jolliet et al. (Environ Sci Technol 49:8924-8931, 2015), The proposed approach consists of three major components: characterization of product usage and chemical content, human exposures, and toxicity, for which available methods and data sources are reviewed and research gaps are identified. The case study illustrates the difference in dominant exposure pathways between formaldehyde and MDI and also highlights the impact of timing and use duration (e.g., the initial 50 days of the use stage vs. the remaining 15 years) on the exposures and health impacts for the building occupants. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed approach thus provides the methodological basis for integrating into LCA the human health impacts associated with chemical exposures during the use stage of building materials. Data and modeling gaps which currently prohibit the application of the proposed systematic approach are discussed, including the need for chemical composition data, exposure models, and toxicity data. Research areas that are not currently focused on are also discussed, such as worker exposures and complex materials. Finally, future directions for integrating the use stage impacts of building materials into decision making in a tiered approach are discussed.
PURPOSE: There do not currently exist scientifically defensible ways to consistently characterize the human exposures (via various pathways) to near-field chemical emissions and associated health impacts during the use stage of building materials. The present paper thus intends to provide a roadmap which summarizes the current status and guides future development for integrating into LCA the chemical exposures and health impacts on various users of building materials, with a focus on building occupants. METHODS: We first review potential human health impacts associated with the substances in building materials and the methods used to mitigate these impacts, also identifying several of the most important online data resources. A brief overview of the necessary steps for characterizing use stage chemical exposures and health impacts for building materials is then provided. Finally, we propose a systematic approach to integrate the use stage exposures and health impacts into building material LCA and describe its components, and then present a case study illustrating the application of the proposed approach to two representative chemicals: formaldehyde and methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) in particleboard products. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Our proposed approach builds on the coupled near-field and far-field framework proposed by Fantke et al. (Environ Int 94:508-518, 2016), which is based on the product intake fraction (PiF) metric proposed by Jolliet et al. (Environ Sci Technol 49:8924-8931, 2015), The proposed approach consists of three major components: characterization of product usage and chemical content, human exposures, and toxicity, for which available methods and data sources are reviewed and research gaps are identified. The case study illustrates the difference in dominant exposure pathways between formaldehyde and MDI and also highlights the impact of timing and use duration (e.g., the initial 50 days of the use stage vs. the remaining 15 years) on the exposures and health impacts for the building occupants. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed approach thus provides the methodological basis for integrating into LCA the human health impacts associated with chemical exposures during the use stage of building materials. Data and modeling gaps which currently prohibit the application of the proposed systematic approach are discussed, including the need for chemical composition data, exposure models, and toxicity data. Research areas that are not currently focused on are also discussed, such as worker exposures and complex materials. Finally, future directions for integrating the use stage impacts of building materials into decision making in a tiered approach are discussed.
Authors: Mark A J Huijbregts; Linda J A Rombouts; Ad M J Ragas; Dik van de Meent Journal: Integr Environ Assess Manag Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 2.992
Authors: John F Wambaugh; Anran Wang; Kathie L Dionisio; Alicia Frame; Peter Egeghy; Richard Judson; R Woodrow Setzer Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2014-10-24 Impact factor: 9.028
Authors: Richard S Judson; Keith A Houck; Robert J Kavlock; Thomas B Knudsen; Matthew T Martin; Holly M Mortensen; David M Reif; Daniel M Rotroff; Imran Shah; Ann M Richard; David J Dix Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Peter Fantke; Lesa Aylward; Jane Bare; Weihsueh A Chiu; Robin Dodson; Robert Dwyer; Alexi Ernstoff; Brett Howard; Matti Jantunen; Olivier Jolliet; Richard Judson; Nienke Kirchhübel; Dingsheng Li; Aubrey Miller; Greg Paoli; Paul Price; Lorenz Rhomberg; Beverly Shen; Hyeong-Moo Shin; Justin Teeguarden; Daniel Vallero; John Wambaugh; Barbara A Wetmore; Rosemary Zaleski; Thomas E McKone Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Rachel B Smith; Susan C Edwards; Nicky Best; John Wright; Mark J Nieuwenhuijsen; Mireille B Toledano Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2015-09-04 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Peter Fantke; Weihsueh A Chiu; Lesa Aylward; Richard Judson; Lei Huang; Suji Jang; Todd Gouin; Lorenz Rhomberg; Nicolò Aurisano; Thomas McKone; Olivier Jolliet Journal: Int J Life Cycle Assess Date: 2021-04-05 Impact factor: 4.141