1
|
Liu X, Bakshi BR, Rugani B, de Souza DM, Bare J, Johnston JM, Laurent A, Verones F. Quantification and valuation of ecosystem services in life cycle assessment: Application of the cascade framework to rice farming systems. Sci Total Environ 2020; 747:141278. [PMID: 32795796 PMCID: PMC7944463 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141278] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/21/2020] [Revised: 07/08/2020] [Accepted: 07/25/2020] [Indexed: 06/11/2023]
Abstract
The integration of ecosystem service (ES) assessment with life cycle assessment (LCA) is important for developing decision support tools for environmental sustainability. A prequel study has proposed a 4-step methodology that integrates the ES cascade framework within the cause-effect chain of life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) to characterize the physical and monetary impacts on ES provisioning due to human interventions. We here follow the suggested steps in the abovementioned study, to demonstrate the first application of the integrated ES-LCIA methodology and the added value for LCA studies, using a case study of rice farming in the United States, China, and India. Four ES are considered, namely carbon sequestration, water provisioning, air quality regulation, and water quality regulation. The analysis found a net negative impact for rice farming systems in all three rice producing countries, meaning the detrimental impacts of rice farming on ES being greater than the induced benefits on ES. Compared to the price of rice sold in the market, the negative impacts represent around 2%, 6%, and 4% of the cost of 1 kg of rice from China, India, and the United States, respectively. From this case study, research gaps were identified in order to develop a fully operationalized ES-LCIA integration. With such a framework and guidance in place, practitioners can more comprehensively assess the impacts of life cycle activities on relevant ES provisioning, in both physical and monetary terms. This may in turn affect stakeholders' availability to receive such benefits from ecosystems in the long run.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xinyu Liu
- William G. Lowrie Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States
| | - Bhavik R Bakshi
- William G. Lowrie Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.
| | - Benedetto Rugani
- Environmental Research & Innovation (ERIN) Department, Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology (LIST), Belvaux, Luxembourg
| | - Danielle Maia de Souza
- Département de Stratégie, Responsabilité Sociale et Environnementale, Université du Québec à Montréal (UQÀM), Montréal, QC, Canada
| | - Jane Bare
- Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, United States Environmental Protection Agency (United States EPA), Cincinnati, OH, United States
| | - John M Johnston
- Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory, United States Environmental Protection Agency (United States EPA), Athens, GA, United States
| | - Alexis Laurent
- Quantitative Sustainability Assessment (QSA) Group, Department of Technology, Management and Economics, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
| | - Francesca Verones
- Industrial Ecology Programme, Norwegian University of Science and Technology NTNU, Trondheim, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Laurent A, Weidema BP, Bare J, Liao X, de Souza DM, Pizzol M, Sala S, Schreiber H, Thonemann N, Verones F. Methodological review and detailed guidance for the life cycle interpretation phase. J Ind Ecol 2020; 24:986-1003. [PMID: 33746505 PMCID: PMC7970486 DOI: 10.1111/jiec.13012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/15/2023]
Abstract
Life cycle interpretation is the fourth and last phase of life cycle assessment (LCA). Being a "pivot" phase linking all other phases and the conclusions and recommendations from an LCA study, it represents a challenging task for practitioners, who miss harmonized guidelines that are sufficiently complete, detailed, and practical to conduct its different steps effectively. Here, we aim to bridge this gap. We review available literature describing the life cycle interpretation phase, including standards, LCA books, technical reports, and relevant scientific literature. On this basis, we evaluate and clarify the definition and purposes of the interpretation phase and propose an array of methods supporting its conduct in LCA practice. The five steps of interpretation defined in ISO 14040-44 are proposed to be reorganized around a framework that offers a more pragmatic approach to interpretation. It orders the steps as follows: (i) completeness check, (ii) consistency check, (iii) sensitivity check, (iv) identification of significant issues, and (v) conclusions, limitations, and recommendations. We provide toolboxes, consisting of methods and procedures supporting the analyses, computations, points to evaluate or check, and reflective processes for each of these steps. All methods are succinctly discussed with relevant referencing for further details of their applications. This proposed framework, substantiated with the large variety of methods, is envisioned to help LCA practitioners increase the relevance of their interpretation and the soundness of their conclusions and recommendations. It is a first step toward a more comprehensive and harmonized LCA practice to improve the reliability and credibility of LCA studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexis Laurent
- Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
| | - Bo P. Weidema
- Danish Centre for Environmental Assessment, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
| | - Jane Bare
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio
| | - Xun Liao
- Industrial Process and Energy Systems EngineeringÉcole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Sion, Switzerland
| | - Danielle Maia de Souza
- Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
- Département de stratégie, responsabilité sociale et environnementale, Université du Quebec a Montreal, Montreal, Canada
| | - Massimo Pizzol
- Danish Centre for Environmental Assessment, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
| | - Serenella Sala
- European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy
| | - Hanna Schreiber
- Environment Agency Austria, Spittelauer Lände 5, Vienna, Austria
| | - Nils Thonemann
- Fraunhofer Institute for Environmental, Safety, and Energy Technology UMSICHT, Osterfelder Straße 3, Oberhausen, Germany
| | - Francesca Verones
- Industrial Ecology Programme, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Rugani B, Maia de Souza D, Weidema BP, Bare J, Bakshi B, Grann B, Johnston JM, Pavan ALR, Liu X, Laurent A, Verones F. Towards integrating the ecosystem services cascade framework within the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) cause-effect methodology. Sci Total Environ 2019; 690:1284-1298. [PMID: 31470491 PMCID: PMC7791572 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/04/2019] [Revised: 06/19/2019] [Accepted: 07/02/2019] [Indexed: 05/06/2023]
Abstract
The assessment of ecosystem services (ES) is covered in a fragmented manner by environmental decision support tools that provide information about the potential environmental impacts of supply chains and their products, such as the well-known Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology. Within the flagship project of the Life Cycle Initiative (hosted by UN Environment), aiming at global guidance for life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) indicators, a dedicated subtask force was constituted to consolidate the evaluation of ES in LCA. As one of the outcomes of this subtask force, this paper describes the progress towards consensus building in the LCA domain concerning the assessment of anthropogenic impacts on ecosystems and their associated services for human well-being. To this end, the traditional LCIA structure, which represents the cause-effect chain from stressor to impacts and damages, is re-casted and expanded using the lens of the ES 'cascade model'. This links changes in ecosystem structure and function to changes in human well-being, while LCIA links the effect of changes on ecosystems due to human impacts (e.g. land use change, eutrophication, freshwater depletion) to the increase or decrease in the quality and/or quantity of supplied ES. The proposed cascade modelling framework complements traditional LCIA with information about the externalities associated with the supply and demand of ES, for which the overall cost-benefit result might be either negative (i.e. detrimental impact on the ES provision) or positive (i.e. increase of ES provision). In so doing, the framework introduces into traditional LCIA the notion of "benefit" (in the form of ES supply flows and ecosystems' capacity to generate services) which balances the quantified environmental intervention flows and related impacts (in the form of ES demands) that are typically considered in LCA. Recommendations are eventually provided to further address current gaps in the analysis of ES within the LCA methodology.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Benedetto Rugani
- Environmental Research & Innovation (ERIN) department, Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology (LIST), Belvaux, Luxembourg.
| | - Danielle Maia de Souza
- Département de stratégie, responsabilité sociale et environnementale, Université du Québec à Montréal (UQÀM), Montréal, QC, Canada
| | - Bo P Weidema
- Danish Centre for Environmental Assessment, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
| | - Jane Bare
- Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Cincinnati, OH, USA
| | - Bhavik Bakshi
- William G. Lowrie Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
| | | | - John M Johnston
- Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory, United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Athens, GA, USA
| | - Ana Laura Raymundo Pavan
- Center for Water Resource and Environmental Studies, São Carlos School of Engineering, University of São Paulo, São Carlos 13566-590, SP, Brazil
| | - Xinyu Liu
- William G. Lowrie Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - Alexis Laurent
- Quantitative Sustainability Assessment (QSA) Group, Sustainability Division, DTU Management, Technical University of Denmark (DTU), Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
| | - Francesca Verones
- Industrial Ecology Programme, Norwegian University of Science and Technology NTNU, Trondheim, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Huang L, Anastas N, Egeghy P, Vallero DA, Jolliet O, Bare J. Integrating exposure to chemicals in building materials during use stage. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2019; 24:1009-1026. [PMID: 32632341 PMCID: PMC7336532 DOI: 10.1007/s11367-018-1551-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/03/2023]
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lei Huang
- School of Public Health, Department of Environmental Health Sciences, University of Michigan, 1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA
| | - Nicholas Anastas
- National Risk Management Research Laboratory, US EPA Office of Research and Development, 5 Post Office Square, Boston, MA, 02109, USA
| | - Peter Egeghy
- National Exposure Research Laboratory, US EPA Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711, USA
| | - Daniel A Vallero
- National Exposure Research Laboratory, US EPA Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711, USA
| | - Olivier Jolliet
- School of Public Health, Department of Environmental Health Sciences, University of Michigan, 1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA
| | - Jane Bare
- National Risk Management Research Laboratory, US EPA, Office of Research and Development, 26 West MLK Dr, Cincinnati, OH, 45268, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Mutel C, Liao X, Patouillard L, Bare J, Fantke P, Frischknecht R, Hauschild M, Jolliet O, de Souza DM, Laurent A, Pfister S, Verones F. Overview and recommendations for regionalized life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2019; 24:856-865. [PMID: 33122880 PMCID: PMC7592718 DOI: 10.1007/s11367-018-1539-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/14/2018] [Accepted: 10/05/2018] [Indexed: 05/05/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Regionalized life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) has rapidly developed in the past decade, though its widespread application, robustness, and validity still faces multiple challenges. Under the umbrella of UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, a dedicated cross-cutting working group on regionalized LCIA aims to provides an overview of the status of regionalization in LCIA methods. We give guidance and recommendations to harmonize and support regionalization in LCIA for developers of LCIA methods, LCI databases, and LCA software. METHOD A survey of current practice among regionalized LCIA method developers was conducted. The survey included questions on chosen method spatial resolution and scale, the spatial resolution of input parameters, choice of native spatial resolution and limitations, operationalization and alignment with life cycle inventory data, methods for spatial aggregation, the assessment of uncertainty from input parameters and model structure, and variability due to spatial aggregation. Recommendations are formulated based on the survey results and extensive discussion by the authors. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Survey results indicate that majority of regionalized LCIA models have global coverage. Native spatial resolutions are generally chosen based on the availability of global input data. Annual modelled or measured elementary flow quantities are mostly used for aggregating characterization factors (CFs) to larger spatial scales, although some use proxies, such as population counts. Aggregated CFs are mostly available at the country level. Although uncertainty due to input parameter, model structure, and spatial aggregation are available for some LCIA methods, they are rarely implemented for LCA studies. So far, there is no agreement if a finer native spatial resolution is the best way to reduce overall uncertainty. When spatially differentiated models CFs are not easily available, archetype models are sometimes developed. CONCLUSIONS Regionalized LCIA methods should be provided as a transparent and consistent set of data and metadata using standardized data formats. Regionalized CFs should include both uncertainty and variability. In addition to the native-scale CFs, aggregated CFs should always be provided, and should be calculated as the weighted averages of constituent CFs using annual flow quantities as weights whenever available. This paper is an important step forward for increasing transparency, consistency and robustness in the development and application of regionalized LCIA methods.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chris Mutel
- Paul Scherrer Institute, 5232 PSI Villigen, Switzerland
| | - Xun Liao
- Industrial Process and Energy Systems Engineering, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, EPFL Valais Wallis, Rue de l'Industrie 17, CH-1951 Sion, Switzerland
- Quantis, EPFL Innovation Park (EIP-D), Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Laure Patouillard
- CIRAIG, Polytechnique Montréal, P.O. Box 6079, Montréal, Québec H3C 3A7, Canada
- IFP Energies nouvelles, 1-4 avenue de Bois-Préau, 92852 Rueil-Malmaison, France
- UMR 0210 INRA-AgroParisTech Economie publique, INRA, Thiverval-Grignon, France
| | - Jane Bare
- US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH 45268, USA
| | - Peter Fantke
- Quantitative Sustainability Assessment Division, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Bygningstorvet 116B, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
| | | | - Michael Hauschild
- Quantitative Sustainability Assessment Division, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Bygningstorvet 116B, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
| | - Olivier Jolliet
- Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Danielle Maia de Souza
- Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, T6G 2P5, AB, Canada
- Département de Stratégie, Responsabilité Sociale et Environnementale, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montreal, H3C 3P8, QC, Canada
| | - Alexis Laurent
- Quantitative Sustainability Assessment Division, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Bygningstorvet 116B, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
| | - Stephan Pfister
- Institute of Environmental Engineering, ETH Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Francesca Verones
- Industrial Ecology Programme, Department of Energy and Process Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491 Trondheim, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Pradinaud C, Northey S, Amor B, Bare J, Benini L, Berger M, Boulay AM, Junqua G, Lathuillière MJ, Margni M, Motoshita M, Niblick B, Payen S, Pfister S, Quinteiro P, Sonderegger T, Rosenbaum RK. Defining freshwater as a natural resource: A framework linking water use to the area of protection natural resources. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2019; 24:960-974. [PMID: 31501640 PMCID: PMC6733276 DOI: 10.1007/s11367-018-1543-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/17/2018] [Accepted: 10/25/2018] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE While many examples have shown unsustainable use of freshwater resources, existing LCIA methods for water use do not comprehensively address impacts to natural resources for future generations. This framework aims to (1) define freshwater resource as an item to protect within the Area of Protection (AoP) natural resources, (2) identify relevant impact pathways affecting freshwater resources, and (3) outline methodological choices for impact characterization model development. METHOD Considering the current scope of the AoP natural resources, the complex nature of freshwater resources and its important dimensions to safeguard safe future supply, a definition of freshwater resource is proposed, including water quality aspects. In order to clearly define what is to be protected, the freshwater resource is put in perspective through the lens of the three main safeguard subjects defined by Dewulf et al. (2015). In addition, an extensive literature review identifies a wide range of possible impact pathways to freshwater resources, establishing the link between different inventory elementary flows (water consumption, emissions and land use) and their potential to cause long-term freshwater depletion or degradation. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Freshwater as a resource has a particular status in LCA resource assessment. First, it exists in the form of three types of resources: flow, fund, or stock. Then, in addition to being a resource for human economic activities (e.g. hydropower), it is above all a non-substitutable support for life that can be affected by both consumption (source function) and pollution (sink function). Therefore, both types of elementary flows (water consumption and emissions) should be linked to a damage indicator for freshwater as a resource. Land use is also identified as a potential stressor to freshwater resources by altering runoff, infiltration and erosion processes as well as evapotranspiration. It is suggested to use the concept of recovery period to operationalize this framework: when the recovery period lasts longer than a given period of time, impacts are considered to be irreversible and fall into the concern of freshwater resources protection (i.e. affecting future generations), while short-term impacts effect the AoP ecosystem quality and human health directly. It is shown that it is relevant to include this concept in the impact assessment stage in order to discriminate the long-term from the short-term impacts, as some dynamic fate models already do. CONCLUSION This framework provides a solid basis for the consistent development of future LCIA methods for freshwater resources, thereby capturing the potential long-term impacts that could warn decision makers about potential safe water supply issues in the future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Charlotte Pradinaud
- ITAP, Irstea, Montpellier SupAgro, Univ Montpellier, ELSA-PACT Industrial Chair, Montpellier, France
- LGEI, IMT Mines Ales, Univ Montpellier, Ales, France
| | - Stephen Northey
- Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Clayton, Australia
| | - Ben Amor
- LIRIDE, Sherbrooke University, Sherbrooke (QC) Canada
| | - Jane Bare
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, USA
| | - Lorenzo Benini
- European Environment Agency, Kongens Nytorv 6, 1400 Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Markus Berger
- Technische Universität Berlin, Chair of Sustainable Engineering, Berlin, Germany
| | - Anne-Marie Boulay
- LIRIDE, Sherbrooke University, Sherbrooke (QC) Canada
- CIRAIG, Polytechnique Montreal, Montreal (QC) Canada
| | | | - Michael J Lathuillière
- Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, Vancouver, B.C., V6T 1Z4, Canada
- Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
| | | | - Masaharu Motoshita
- National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, 16-1 Onogawa, 3058569 Tsukuba, Japan
| | - Briana Niblick
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, USA
| | - Sandra Payen
- AgResearch Ruakura Research Centre, Hamilton, 3240, New Zealand
| | - Stephan Pfister
- ETH Zurich, Chair of Ecological Systems Design, John-von-Neumann-Weg 9, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Paula Quinteiro
- Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies, University of Aveiro, Portugal
| | - Thomas Sonderegger
- ETH Zurich, Chair of Ecological Systems Design, John-von-Neumann-Weg 9, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Ralph K Rosenbaum
- ITAP, Irstea, Montpellier SupAgro, Univ Montpellier, ELSA-PACT Industrial Chair, Montpellier, France
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Fantke P, Aylward L, Bare J, Chiu WA, Dodson R, Dwyer R, Ernstoff A, Howard B, Jantunen M, Jolliet O, Judson R, Kirchhübel N, Li D, Miller A, Paoli G, Price P, Rhomberg L, Shen B, Shin HM, Teeguarden J, Vallero D, Wambaugh J, Wetmore BA, Zaleski R, McKone TE. Advancements in Life Cycle Human Exposure and Toxicity Characterization. Environ Health Perspect 2018; 126:125001. [PMID: 30540492 PMCID: PMC6371687 DOI: 10.1289/ehp3871] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/07/2018] [Revised: 11/06/2018] [Accepted: 11/15/2018] [Indexed: 05/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The Life Cycle Initiative, hosted at the United Nations Environment Programme, selected human toxicity impacts from exposure to chemical substances as an impact category that requires global guidance to overcome current assessment challenges. The initiative leadership established the Human Toxicity Task Force to develop guidance on assessing human exposure and toxicity impacts. Based on input gathered at three workshops addressing the main current scientific challenges and questions, the task force built a roadmap for advancing human toxicity characterization, primarily for use in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). OBJECTIVES The present paper aims at reporting on the outcomes of the task force workshops along with interpretation of how these outcomes will impact the practice and reliability of toxicity characterization. The task force thereby focuses on two major issues that emerged from the workshops, namely considering near-field exposures and improving dose–response modeling. DISCUSSION The task force recommended approaches to improve the assessment of human exposure, including capturing missing exposure settings and human receptor pathways by coupling additional fate and exposure processes in consumer and occupational environments (near field) with existing processes in outdoor environments (far field). To quantify overall aggregate exposure, the task force suggested that environments be coupled using a consistent set of quantified chemical mass fractions transferred among environmental compartments. With respect to dose–response, the task force was concerned about the way LCIA currently characterizes human toxicity effects, and discussed several potential solutions. A specific concern is the use of a (linear) dose–response extrapolation to zero. Another concern addresses the challenge of identifying a metric for human toxicity impacts that is aligned with the spatiotemporal resolution of present LCIA methodology, yet is adequate to indicate health impact potential. CONCLUSIONS Further research efforts are required based on our proposed set of recommendations for improving the characterization of human exposure and toxicity impacts in LCIA and other comparative assessment frameworks. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP3871.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peter Fantke
- Quantitative Sustainability Assessment Division, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
| | - Lesa Aylward
- National Centre for Environmental Toxicology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Jane Bare
- U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
| | - Weihsueh A Chiu
- Department of Veterinary Integrative Biosciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA
| | - Robin Dodson
- Silent Spring Institute, Newton, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Robert Dwyer
- International Copper Association, New York, New York, USA
| | | | | | - Matti Jantunen
- Department of Environmental Health, National Institute for Health and Welfare, Kuopio, Finland
| | - Olivier Jolliet
- School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | | | - Nienke Kirchhübel
- Quantitative Sustainability Assessment Division, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
| | - Dingsheng Li
- School of Community Health Sciences, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, USA
| | - Aubrey Miller
- National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Greg Paoli
- Risk Sciences International, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Paul Price
- U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
| | | | - Beverly Shen
- School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA
| | | | - Justin Teeguarden
- Health Effects and Exposure Science, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, USA
| | | | - John Wambaugh
- U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
| | | | - Rosemary Zaleski
- ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc., Annandale, New Jersey, USA
| | - Thomas E McKone
- School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Fantke P, Aurisano N, Bare J, Backhaus T, Bulle C, Chapman PM, De Zwart D, Dwyer R, Ernstoff A, Golsteijn L, Holmquist H, Jolliet O, McKone TE, Owsianiak M, Peijnenburg W, Posthuma L, Roos S, Saouter E, Schowanek D, van Straalen NM, Vijver MG, Hauschild M. Toward harmonizing ecotoxicity characterization in life cycle impact assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 2018; 37:2955-2971. [PMID: 30178491 PMCID: PMC7372721 DOI: 10.1002/etc.4261] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/04/2018] [Revised: 08/16/2018] [Accepted: 08/28/2018] [Indexed: 05/03/2023]
Abstract
Ecosystem quality is an important area of protection in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). Chemical pollution has adverse impacts on ecosystems on a global scale. To improve methods for assessing ecosystem impacts, the Life Cycle Initiative hosted by the United Nations Environment Programme established a task force to evaluate the state-of-the-science in modeling chemical exposure of organisms and the resulting ecotoxicological effects for use in LCIA. The outcome of the task force work will be global guidance and harmonization by recommending changes to the existing practice of exposure and effect modeling in ecotoxicity characterization. These changes will reflect the current science and ensure the stability of recommended practice. Recommendations must work within the needs of LCIA in terms of 1) operating on information from any inventory reporting chemical emissions with limited spatiotemporal information, 2) applying best estimates rather than conservative assumptions to ensure unbiased comparison with results for other impact categories, and 3) yielding results that are additive across substances and life cycle stages and that will allow a quantitative expression of damage to the exposed ecosystem. We describe the current framework and discuss research questions identified in a roadmap. Primary research questions relate to the approach toward ecotoxicological effect assessment, the need to clarify the method's scope and interpretation of its results, the need to consider additional environmental compartments and impact pathways, and the relevance of effect metrics other than the currently applied geometric mean of toxicity effect data across species. Because they often dominate ecotoxicity results in LCIA, we give metals a special focus, including consideration of their possible essentiality and changes in environmental bioavailability. We conclude with a summary of key questions along with preliminary recommendations to address them as well as open questions that require additional research efforts. Environ Toxicol Chem 2018;37:2955-2971. © 2018 SETAC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peter Fantke
- Quantitative Sustainability Assessment Division, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Bygningstorvet 116, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
- Corresponding author: Tel.: +45 45254452, fax: +45 45933435.
| | - Nicolo Aurisano
- Quantitative Sustainability Assessment Division, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Bygningstorvet 116, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
| | - Jane Bare
- United States Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH 45268, United States
| | - Thomas Backhaus
- Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Gothenburg, 40530 Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Cécile Bulle
- Department of Strategy and Corporate Social Responsibility, CIRAIG, ESG UQAM, C.P. 8888, Succ. Centre Ville, Montréal (QC), H3C 3P8, Canada
| | - Peter M. Chapman
- Chapema Environmental Strategies Ltd, 1324 West 22nd Avenue, North Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | | | - Robert Dwyer
- International Copper Association, 10016 New York, United States
| | - Alexi Ernstoff
- Quantis, EPFL Innovation Park, Bât. D, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Laura Golsteijn
- PRé Sustainability, Stationsplein 121, 3818 Amersfoort, The Netherlands
| | - Hanna Holmquist
- Department of Technology Management and Economics, Chalmers University of Technology, SE- 412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Olivier Jolliet
- School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, United States
| | - Thomas E. McKone
- School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, United States
| | - Mikołaj Owsianiak
- Quantitative Sustainability Assessment Division, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Bygningstorvet 116, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
| | - Willie Peijnenburg
- National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, 3720 Bilthoven, The Netherlands
| | - Leo Posthuma
- National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, 3720 Bilthoven, The Netherlands
- Department of Environmental Science, Radboud University, 6525 AJ Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Sandra Roos
- Swerea IVF AB, P. O. Box 104, 431 22 Mölndal, Sweden
| | - Erwan Saouter
- European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Directorate D - Sustainable Resources, 21027 Ispra, Italy
| | - Diederik Schowanek
- Procter & Gamble, Brussels Innovation Center, 1853 Strombeek-Bever, Belgium
| | - Nico M. van Straalen
- Department of Ecological Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherland
| | - Martina G. Vijver
- Institute of Environmental Sciences, Leiden University, P.O. Box 9518, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Michael Hauschild
- Quantitative Sustainability Assessment Division, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Bygningstorvet 116, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Woods JS, Damiani M, Fantke P, Henderson AD, Johnston JM, Bare J, Sala S, de Souza DM, Pfister S, Posthuma L, Rosenbaum RK, Verones F. Ecosystem quality in LCIA: status quo, harmonization, and suggestions for the way forward. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2018; 23:1995-2006. [PMID: 31097881 PMCID: PMC6516497 DOI: 10.1007/s11367-017-1422-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/23/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) results are used to assess potential environmental impacts of different products and services. As part of the UNEP-SETAC life cycle initiative flagship project that aims to harmonize indicators of potential environmental impacts, we provide a consensus viewpoint and recommendations for future developments in LCIA related to the ecosystem quality area of protection (AoP). Through our recommendations, we aim to encourage LCIA developments that improve the usefulness and global acceptability of LCIA results. METHODS We analyze current ecosystem quality metrics and provide recommendations to the LCIA research community for achieving further developments towards comparable and more ecologically relevant metrics addressing ecosystem quality. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION We recommend that LCIA development for ecosystem quality should tend towards species-richnessrelated metrics, with efforts made towards improved inclusion of ecosystem complexity. Impact indicators-which result from a range of modeling approaches that differ, for example, according to spatial and temporal scale, taxonomic coverage, and whether the indicator produces a relative or absolute measure of loss-should be framed to facilitate their final expression in a single, aggregated metric. This would also improve comparability with other LCIA damage-level indicators. Furthermore, to allow for a broader inclusion of ecosystem quality perspectives, the development of an additional indicator related to ecosystem function is recommended. Having two complementary metrics would give a broader coverage of ecosystem attributes while remaining simple enough to enable an intuitive interpretation of the results. CONCLUSIONS We call for the LCIA research community to make progress towards enabling harmonization of damage-level indicators within the ecosystem quality AoP and, further, to improve the ecological relevance of impact indicators.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John S Woods
- Industrial Ecology Programme, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Sem Sælands vei 7, 7491 Trondheim, Norway
| | - Mattia Damiani
- ITAP, Irstea, Montpellier SupAgro, Univ Montpellier, ELSA Research Group and ELSA-PACT Industrial Chair, 361 rue Jean-François Breton, BP 5095, F-34196 Montpellier, France
| | - Peter Fantke
- Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Bygningstorvet 116, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
| | - Andrew D Henderson
- University of Texas School of Public Health, Austin, TX 78701, USA
- Noblis, Inc., San Antonio, TX 78232, USA
| | - John M Johnston
- US EPA, Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory, 960 College Station Rd, Athens, GA 30605, USA
| | - Jane Bare
- US EPA, Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, 26 West MLK Dr, Cincinnati, OH 45268, USA
| | - Serenella Sala
- European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Directorate D: Sustainable Resource, Bioeconomy unit, Via E. Fermi, 2749 Ispra, VA, Italy
| | - Danielle Maia de Souza
- Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, T6G 2P5, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
| | - Stephan Pfister
- ETH Zurich, Institute of Environmental Engineering, 8093 Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Leo Posthuma
- RIVM (Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment), Centre for Sustainability, Environment and Health, P.O. Box 1, 3720, BA Bilthoven, the Netherlands
- Department of Environmental Science, Institute for Water and Wetland Research, Radboud University Nijmegen, Heyendaalseweg 135, 6525, AJ Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Ralph K Rosenbaum
- ITAP, Irstea, Montpellier SupAgro, Univ Montpellier, ELSA Research Group and ELSA-PACT Industrial Chair, 361 rue Jean-François Breton, BP 5095, F-34196 Montpellier, France
| | - Francesca Verones
- Industrial Ecology Programme, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Sem Sælands vei 7, 7491 Trondheim, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Verones F, Bare J, Bulle C, Frischknecht R, Hauschild M, Hellweg S, Henderson A, Jolliet O, Laurent A, Liao X, Lindner JP, de Souza DM, Michelsen O, Patouillard L, Pfister S, Posthuma L, Prado V, Ridoutt B, Rosenbaum RK, Sala S, Ugaya C, Vieira M, Fantke P. LCIA framework and cross-cutting issues guidance within the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. J Clean Prod 2017; 161:957-967. [PMID: 32461713 PMCID: PMC7252522 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.206] [Citation(s) in RCA: 45] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/03/2023]
Abstract
Increasing needs for decision support and advances in scientific knowledge within life cycle assessment (LCA) led to substantial efforts to provide global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) indicators under the auspices of the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. As part of these efforts, a dedicated task force focused on addressing several LCIA cross-cutting issues as aspects spanning several impact categories, including spatiotemporal aspects, reference states, normalization and weighting, and uncertainty assessment. Here, findings of the cross-cutting issues task force are presented along with an update of the existing UNEP-SETAC LCIA emission-to-damage framework. Specific recommendations are provided with respect to metrics for human health (Disability Adjusted Life Years, DALY) and ecosystem quality (Potentially Disappeared Fraction of species, PDF). Additionally, we stress the importance of transparent reporting of characterization models, reference states, and assumptions, in order to facilitate cross-comparison between chosen methods and indicators. We recommend developing spatially regionalized characterization models, whenever the nature of impacts shows spatial variability and related spatial data are available. Standard formats should be used for reporting spatially differentiated models, and choices regarding spatiotemporal scales should be clearly communicated. For normalization, we recommend using external normalization references. Over the next two years, the task force will continue its effort with a focus on providing guidance for LCA practitioners on how to use the UNEP-SETAC LCIA framework as well as for method developers on how to consistently extend and further improve this framework.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francesca Verones
- Industrial Ecology Programme, Department of Energy and Process Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), No-7491, Trondheim, Norway
| | - Jane Bare
- US EPA, Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, 26 W West MLK Dr., Cincinnati, OH, 45268, USA
| | - Cécile Bulle
- CIRAIG, Ecole des Sciences de la Gestion, Université du Québec À Montréal, 315, rue Sainte-Catherine Est, Montréal, QC, Canada
| | | | - Michael Hauschild
- Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Bygningstorvet 116B, 2800, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
| | - Stefanie Hellweg
- ETH Zurich, Institute of Environmental Engineering, 8093, Zürich, Switzerland
| | | | - Olivier Jolliet
- School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Alexis Laurent
- Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Bygningstorvet 116B, 2800, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
| | - Xun Liao
- Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
| | | | - Danielle Maia de Souza
- University of Alberta, Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, T6G 2P5, Edmonton, A Alberta, Canada
| | - Ottar Michelsen
- NTNU Sustainability, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), NO-7491, Trondheim, Norway
| | - Laure Patouillard
- CIRAIG, École Polytechnique de Montréal, P.O. Box 6079, Montréal, Québec, H3C 3A7, Canada
| | - Stephan Pfister
- ETH Zurich, Institute of Environmental Engineering, 8093, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Leo Posthuma
- RIVM (Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment), Centre for Sustainability, Environment and Health, P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands
- Radboud University Nijmegen, Department of Environmental Science, Institute for Water and Wetland Research, Heyendaalseweg 135, 6525 AJ, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Valentina Prado
- Institute of Environmental Sciences CML, Leiden University, Einsteinweg 2, 2333 CC, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Brad Ridoutt
- Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Agriculture and Food, Private Bag 10, Clayton South, Victoria, 3169, Australia
- University of the Free State, Department of Agricultural Economics, Bloemfontein, 9300, South Africa
| | - Ralph K Rosenbaum
- IRSTEA, UMR ITAP, ELSA-PACT - Industrial Chair for Environmental and Social Sustainability Assessment, 361 rue Jean-François Breton, BP 5095, 34196, Montpellier, France
| | - Serenella Sala
- European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Directorate D: Sustainable Resource, Bioeconomy Unit, Via E. Fermi, 2749, Ispra, VA, Italy
| | - Cassia Ugaya
- Federal University of Technology, Avenida Sete de Setembro, Rebouças Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
| | - Marisa Vieira
- PRé Consultants B.V., Stationsplein 121, 3818 LE, Amersfoort, The Netherlands
| | - Peter Fantke
- Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Bygningstorvet 116B, 2800, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Ridoutt B, Fantke P, Pfister S, Bare J, Boulay AM, Cherubini F, Frischknecht R, Hauschild M, Hellweg S, Henderson A, Jolliet O, Levasseur A, Margni M, McKone T, Michelsen O, Milà i Canals L, Page G, Pant R, Raugei M, Sala S, Saouter E, Verones F, Wiedmann T. Making sense of the minefield of footprint indicators. Environ Sci Technol 2015; 49:2601-2603. [PMID: 25675252 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b00163] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/04/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Bradley Ridoutt
- Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Clayton, Victoria 3169, Australia
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
Lautier A, Rosenbaum RK, Margni M, Bare J, Roy PO, Deschênes L. Development of normalization factors for Canada and the United States and comparison with European factors. Sci Total Environ 2010; 409:33-42. [PMID: 20937518 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.09.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/02/2010] [Revised: 09/09/2010] [Accepted: 09/13/2010] [Indexed: 05/30/2023]
Abstract
In Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), normalization calculates the magnitude of an impact (midpoint or endpoint) relative to the total effect of a given reference. The goal of this work is to calculate normalization factors for Canada and the US and to compare them with existing European normalization factors. The differences between geographical areas were highlighted by identifying and comparing the main contributors to a given impact category in Canada, the US and Europe. This comparison verified that the main contributors in Europe and in the US are also present in the Canadian inventory. It also showed that normalized profiles are highly dependent on the selected reference due to differences in the industrial and economic activities. To meet practitioners' needs, Canadian normalization factors have been calculated using the characterization factors from LUCAS (Canadian), IMPACT 2002+ (European), and TRACI (US) respectively. The main sources of uncertainty related to Canadian NFs are data gaps (pesticides, metals) and aggregated data (metals, VOC), but the uncertainty related to CFs generally remains unknown. A final discussion is proposed based on the comparison of resource extraction and resource consumption and raises the question of the legitimacy of defining a country by its geographical borders.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anne Lautier
- CIRAIG, École Polytechnique de Montréal, Department of Chemical Engineering, 2900 Édouard-Montpetit, P.O. Box 6079, Stn. Centre-ville, Montréal (Québec) H3C 3A7, Canada.
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
13
|
Bare J, Gloria T, Norris G. Development of the method and U.S. normalization database for Life Cycle Impact Assessment and sustainability metrics. Environ Sci Technol 2006; 40:5108-15. [PMID: 16955915 DOI: 10.1021/es052494b] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/11/2023]
Abstract
Normalization is an optional step within Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) that may be used to assist in the interpretation of life cycle inventory data as well as life cycle impact assessment results. Normalization transforms the magnitude of LCI and LCIA results into relative contribution by substance and life cycle impact category. Normalization thus can significantly influence LCA-based decisions when tradeoffs exist. The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed a normalization database based on the spatial scale of the 48 continental U.S. states, Hawaii, Alaska, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico with a one-year reference time frame. Data within the normalization database were compiled based on the impact methodologies and lists of stressors used in TRACI-the EPA's Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other environmental Impacts. The new normalization database published within this article may be used for LCIA case studies within the United States, and can be used to assist in the further development of a global normalization database. The underlying data analyzed for the development of this database are included to allow the development of normalization data consistent with other impact assessment methodologies as well.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jane Bare
- US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, USA.
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
14
|
Abstract
Hip resurfacing arthroplasty is an old orthopedic concept that has undergone a resurgence of interest in the past decade. Because of the rapid increase in the number of procedures being performed, previously recognized complications have begun to recur. This article focuses on complications that are related to the hip resurfacing procedure such as femoral neck fractures, avascular necrosis, raised metal ion levels, and sound initial and durable long-term fixation of an all-metal monoblock cobalt/chrome acetabular component. Dislocation rates after resurfacing and other complications are briefly discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A J Shimmin
- The Melbourne Orthopaedic Group, 33 The Avenue Windsor, 3181 Melbourne, Australia.
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
15
|
Bare J. Making sense of health plan denials. Fam Pract Manag 2001; 8:39-44. [PMID: 11547395] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [MESH Headings] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/21/2023]
|
16
|
Xie J, Quinn A, Zhang X, Bare J, Rothman A, Collins C, Cutone S, Rutter M, McCormick MK, Epstein E. Physical mapping of the 5 Mb D9S196-D9S180 interval harboring the basal cell nevus syndrome gene and localization of six genes in this region. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 1997. [PMID: 9087571 DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1098-2264(199704)18:4<305::aid-gcc9>3.0.co;2-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
The basal cell nevus syndrome (Gorlin syndrome) is characterized by multiple basal cell carcinomas and diverse developmental defects. The gene responsible for this syndrome has been mapped previously to a 2 cM interval between D9S196 and D9S 180 at 9q22.3, and very recently mutations of a candidate gene in this region--the human homolog of the Drosophila patched gene have been identified. We report here on physical mapping studies integrating a contig of yeast artificial chromosomes and bacterial artificial chromosomes with a long-range map spanning approximately 5 Mb between the recombination-determined flanking markers. Six genes have been mapped to this interval.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Xie
- Department of Dermatology, San Francisco General Hospital, California 94110, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
17
|
Abstract
A new low frequency antigen, Rba, has been found in three blood donors. Studies on their families show that the antigen is inherited as a Mendelian autosomal dominant character. Rba segregates independently from ABO, MNSs P1, Rh, Kell, Duffy, Kidd, ACP1 and PGM1. Anti-Rba is not common in sera containing multiple antibodies ot low frequency antigens.
Collapse
|
18
|
Moullec J, Muller A, Garretta M, Kerouanton F, Bare J. [Pk antigen in 3 members of the same family]. Ann Genet 1974; 17:95-8. [PMID: 4547946] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [MESH Headings] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/11/2023]
|