IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v22y2002i5p931-946.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing Human Health Response in Life Cycle Assessment Using ED10s and DALYs: Part 1—Cancer Effects

Author

Listed:
  • Pierre Crettaz
  • David Pennington
  • Lorenz Rhomberg
  • Kevin Brand
  • Olivier Jolliet

Abstract

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a framework for comparing products according to their total estimated environmental impact, summed over all chemical emissions and activities associated with a product at all stages in its life cycle (from raw material acquisition, manufacturing, use, to final disposal). For each chemical involved, the exposure associated with the mass released into the environment, integrated over time and space, is multiplied by a toxicological measure to estimate the likelihood of effects and their potential consequences. In this article, we explore the use of quantitative methods drawn from conventional single‐chemical regulatory risk assessments to create a procedure for the estimation of the cancer effect measure in the impact phase of LCA. The approach is based on the maximum likelihood estimate of the effect dose inducing a 10% response over background, ED10, and default linear low‐dose extrapolation using the slope βED10 (0.1/ED10). The calculated effects may correspond to residual risks below current regulatory compliance requirements that occur over multiple generations and at multiple locations; but at the very least they represent a “using up” of some portion of the human population's ability to accommodate emissions. Preliminary comparisons are performed with existing measures, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (U.S. EPA's) slope factor measure q1*. By analyzing bioassay data for 44 chemicals drawn from the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database, we explore estimating ED10 from more readily available information such as the median tumor dose rate TD50 and the median single lethal dose LD50. Based on the TD50, we then estimate the ED10 for more than 600 chemicals. Differences in potential consequences, or severity, are addressed by combining βED10 with the measure disability adjusted life years per affected person, DALYp. Most of the variation among chemicals for cancer effects is found to be due to differences in the slope factors (βED10) ranging from 10−4 up to 104 (risk of cancer/mg/kg‐day).

Suggested Citation

  • Pierre Crettaz & David Pennington & Lorenz Rhomberg & Kevin Brand & Olivier Jolliet, 2002. "Assessing Human Health Response in Life Cycle Assessment Using ED10s and DALYs: Part 1—Cancer Effects," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(5), pages 931-946, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:22:y:2002:i:5:p:931-946
    DOI: 10.1111/1539-6924.00262
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1539-6924.00262
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1539-6924.00262?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. D. Krewski & D .W. Gaylor & A. P. Soms & M. Szyszkowicz, 1993. "An Overview of the Report: Correlation Between Carcinogenic Potency and the Maximum Tolerated Dose: Implications for Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 383-398, August.
    2. Bernhard Metzger & Edmund Crouch & Richard Wilson, 1989. "On the Relationship Between Carcinogenicity and Acute Toxicity," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(2), pages 169-177, June.
    3. Lauren Zeise & Richard Wilson & Edmund Crouch, 1984. "Use of Acute Toxicity to Estimate Carcinogenic Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(3), pages 187-199, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Joseph V. Spadaro & Ari Rabl, 2004. "Pathway Analysis for Population‐Total Health Impacts of Toxic Metal Emissions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1121-1141, October.
    2. Wouter Fransman & Harrie Buist & Eelco Kuijpers & Tobias Walser & David Meyer & Esther Zondervan‐van den Beuken & Joost Westerhout & Rinke H. Klein Entink & Derk H. Brouwer, 2017. "Comparative Human Health Impact Assessment of Engineered Nanomaterials in the Framework of Life Cycle Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(7), pages 1358-1374, July.
    3. Jessica Kratchman & Bing Wang & John Fox & George Gray, 2018. "Correlation of Noncancer Benchmark Doses in Short‐ and Long‐Term Rodent Bioassays," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 1052-1069, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fumie Yokota & George Gray & James K. Hammitt & Kimberly M. Thompson, 2004. "Tiered Chemical Testing: A Value of Information Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(6), pages 1625-1639, December.
    2. Mehdi Razzaghi & David W. Gaylor, 1996. "On the Correlation Coefficient Between the TD50 and the MTD," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), pages 107-113, February.
    3. D. Krewski & D .W. Gaylor & A. P. Soms & M. Szyszkowicz, 1993. "An Overview of the Report: Correlation Between Carcinogenic Potency and the Maximum Tolerated Dose: Implications for Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 383-398, August.
    4. Wilson, James D., 1996. "Thresholds for Carcinogens: A Review of the Relevant Science and Its Implications for Regulatory Policy," Discussion Papers 10470, Resources for the Future.
    5. Leslie Bernstein & Lois S. Gold & Bruce N. Ames & Malcolm C. Pike & David G. Hoel, 1985. "Toxicity and Carcinogenic Potency," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(4), pages 263-264, December.
    6. Viay K. Gombar & Kurt Enslein & Jeffrey B. Hart & Benjamin W. Blake & Harold H. Borgstedt, 1991. "Estimation of Maximum Tolerated Dose for Long‐Term Bioassays from Acute Lethal Dose and Structure by QSAR," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(3), pages 509-517, September.
    7. Wilson, James, 1996. "Thresholds for Carcinogens: A Review of the Relevant Science and It's Implications for Regulatory Policy," RFF Working Paper Series dp-96-21, Resources for the Future.
    8. Gay Goodrnan & Richard Wilson, 1992. "Comparison of the Dependence of the TD50 on Maximum Tolerated Dose for Mutagens and Nonmutagens," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(4), pages 525-533, December.
    9. Walter W. Piegorsch & Gregory J. Carr & Christopher J. Portier & David G. Hoel, 1992. "Concordance of Carcinogenic Response between Rodent Species: Potency Dependence and Potential Underestimation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 115-121, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:22:y:2002:i:5:p:931-946. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.