Peter Fantke1, Weihsueh A Chiu2, Lesa Aylward3, Richard Judson4, Lei Huang5, Suji Jang2, Todd Gouin6, Lorenz Rhomberg7, Nicolò Aurisano1, Thomas McKone8, Olivier Jolliet5. 1. Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Technology, Management and Economics, Technical University of Denmark, Produktionstorvet 424, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark. 2. Department of Veterinary Integrative Biosciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA. 3. Queensland Alliance for Environmental Health Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 4. National Center for Computational Toxicology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA. 5. Department of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, USA. 6. TG Environmental Research, Sharnbrook, MK44 1PL, UK. 7. Gradient, Boston, Massachusetts 02108, USA. 8. School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Reducing chemical pressure on human and environmental health is an integral part of the global sustainability agenda. Guidelines for deriving globally applicable, life cycle based indicators are required to consistently quantify toxicity impacts from chemical emissions as well as from chemicals in consumer products. In response, we elaborate the methodological framework and present recommendations for advancing near-field/far-field exposure and toxicity characterization, and for implementing these recommendations in the scientific consensus model USEtox. METHODS: An expert taskforce was convened by the Life Cycle Initiative hosted by UN Environment to expand existing guidance for evaluating human toxicity impacts from exposure to chemical substances. This taskforce evaluated advances since the original release of USEtox. Based on these advances, the taskforce identified two major aspects that required refinement, namely integrating near-field and far-field exposure and improving human dose-response modeling. Dedicated efforts have led to a set of recommendations to address these aspects in an update of USEtox, while ensuring consistency with the boundary conditions for characterizing life cycle toxicity impacts and being aligned with recommendations from agencies that regulate chemical exposure. The proposed framework was finally tested in an illustrative rice production and consumption case study. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: On the exposure side, a matrix system is proposed and recommended to integrate far-field exposure from environmental emissions with near-field exposure from chemicals in various consumer product types. Consumer exposure is addressed via submodels for each product type to account for product characteristics and exposure settings. Case study results illustrate that product-use related exposure dominates overall life cycle exposure. On the effect side, a probabilistic dose-response approach combined with a decision tree for identifying reliable points of departure is proposed for non-cancer effects, following recent guidance from the World Health Organization. This approach allows for explicitly considering both uncertainty and human variability in effect factors. Factors reflecting disease severity are proposed to distinguish cancer from non-cancer effects, and within the latter discriminate reproductive/developmental and other non-cancer effects. All proposed aspects have been consistently implemented into the original USEtox framework. CONCLUSIONS: The recommended methodological advancements address several key limitations in earlier approaches. Next steps are to test the new characterization framework in additional case studies and to close remaining research gaps. Our framework is applicable for evaluating chemical emissions and product-related exposure in life cycle assessment, chemical alternatives assessment and chemical substitution, consumer exposure and risk screening, and high-throughput chemical prioritization.
PURPOSE: Reducing chemical pressure on human and environmental health is an integral part of the global sustainability agenda. Guidelines for deriving globally applicable, life cycle based indicators are required to consistently quantify toxicity impacts from chemical emissions as well as from chemicals in consumer products. In response, we elaborate the methodological framework and present recommendations for advancing near-field/far-field exposure and toxicity characterization, and for implementing these recommendations in the scientific consensus model USEtox. METHODS: An expert taskforce was convened by the Life Cycle Initiative hosted by UN Environment to expand existing guidance for evaluating human toxicity impacts from exposure to chemical substances. This taskforce evaluated advances since the original release of USEtox. Based on these advances, the taskforce identified two major aspects that required refinement, namely integrating near-field and far-field exposure and improving human dose-response modeling. Dedicated efforts have led to a set of recommendations to address these aspects in an update of USEtox, while ensuring consistency with the boundary conditions for characterizing life cycle toxicity impacts and being aligned with recommendations from agencies that regulate chemical exposure. The proposed framework was finally tested in an illustrative rice production and consumption case study. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: On the exposure side, a matrix system is proposed and recommended to integrate far-field exposure from environmental emissions with near-field exposure from chemicals in various consumer product types. Consumer exposure is addressed via submodels for each product type to account for product characteristics and exposure settings. Case study results illustrate that product-use related exposure dominates overall life cycle exposure. On the effect side, a probabilistic dose-response approach combined with a decision tree for identifying reliable points of departure is proposed for non-cancer effects, following recent guidance from the World Health Organization. This approach allows for explicitly considering both uncertainty and human variability in effect factors. Factors reflecting disease severity are proposed to distinguish cancer from non-cancer effects, and within the latter discriminate reproductive/developmental and other non-cancer effects. All proposed aspects have been consistently implemented into the original USEtox framework. CONCLUSIONS: The recommended methodological advancements address several key limitations in earlier approaches. Next steps are to test the new characterization framework in additional case studies and to close remaining research gaps. Our framework is applicable for evaluating chemical emissions and product-related exposure in life cycle assessment, chemical alternatives assessment and chemical substitution, consumer exposure and risk screening, and high-throughput chemical prioritization.
Entities:
Keywords:
Life cycle impact assessment; characterization factors; chemical toxicity; dose-response modelling; global guidance; human toxicity impacts; near-field exposure
Authors: Caroline L Ring; Jon A Arnot; Deborah H Bennett; Peter P Egeghy; Peter Fantke; Lei Huang; Kristin K Isaacs; Olivier Jolliet; Katherine A Phillips; Paul S Price; Hyeong-Moo Shin; John N Westgate; R Woodrow Setzer; John F Wambaugh Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2018-12-24 Impact factor: 9.028
Authors: Joshua A Salomon; Juanita A Haagsma; Adrian Davis; Charline Maertens de Noordhout; Suzanne Polinder; Arie H Havelaar; Alessandro Cassini; Brecht Devleesschauwer; Mirjam Kretzschmar; Niko Speybroeck; Christopher J L Murray; Theo Vos Journal: Lancet Glob Health Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 26.763
Authors: Jessica A Wignall; Eugene Muratov; Alexander Sedykh; Kathryn Z Guyton; Alexander Tropsha; Ivan Rusyn; Weihsueh A Chiu Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2018-05-29 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: Lauren Zeise; Frederic Y Bois; Weihsueh A Chiu; Dale Hattis; Ivan Rusyn; Kathryn Z Guyton Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2012-10-19 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Céline Gentil-Sergent; Claudine Basset-Mens; Christel Renaud-Gentié; Charles Mottes; Carlos Melero; Arthur Launay; Peter Fantke Journal: Integr Environ Assess Manag Date: 2021-07-26 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Werner Brack; Damia Barcelo Culleres; Alistair B A Boxall; Hélène Budzinski; Sara Castiglioni; Adrian Covaci; Valeria Dulio; Beate I Escher; Peter Fantke; Faith Kandie; Despo Fatta-Kassinos; Félix J Hernández; Klara Hilscherová; Juliane Hollender; Henner Hollert; Annika Jahnke; Barbara Kasprzyk-Hordern; Stuart J Khan; Andreas Kortenkamp; Klaus Kümmerer; Brice Lalonde; Marja H Lamoree; Yves Levi; Pablo Antonio Lara Martín; Cassiana C Montagner; Christian Mougin; Titus Msagati; Jörg Oehlmann; Leo Posthuma; Malcolm Reid; Martin Reinhard; Susan D Richardson; Pawel Rostkowski; Emma Schymanski; Flurina Schneider; Jaroslav Slobodnik; Yasuyuki Shibata; Shane Allen Snyder; Fernando Fabriz Sodré; Ivana Teodorovic; Kevin V Thomas; Gisela A Umbuzeiro; Pham Hung Viet; Karina Gin Yew-Hoong; Xiaowei Zhang; Ettore Zuccato Journal: Environ Sci Eur Date: 2022-03-08 Impact factor: 5.893
Authors: Yuri Bruinen de Bruin; Antonio Franco; Andreas Ahrens; Alick Morris; Hans Verhagen; Stylianos Kephalopoulos; Valeria Dulio; Jaroslav Slobodnik; Dick T H M Sijm; Theo Vermeire; Takaaki Ito; Koki Takaki; Jonathas De Mello; Jos Bessems; Maryam Zare Jeddi; Celia Tanarro Gozalo; Kevin Pollard; Josephine McCourt; Peter Fantke Journal: J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol Date: 2021-10-25 Impact factor: 6.371