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 into 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 scientific advances since the original release of USEtox and 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 updated USEtox framework was 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 sub-models for each product type to account for product type-specific 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 toxicity effect factors. Factors reflecting disease severity are proposed to distinguish cancer from non-cancer effects and within the latter to 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.

No abstract

Background: Regulatory toxicity values used to assess and manage chemical risks rely on the determination of the point of departure (POD) for a critical effect, which results from a comprehensive and systematic assessment of available toxicity studies. However, regulatory assessments are only available for a small fraction of chemicals. Objectives: Using in vivo experimental animal data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Toxicity Value Database, we developed a semiautomated approach to determine surrogate oral route PODs, and corresponding toxicity values where regulatory assessments are unavailable. Methods: We developed a curated data set restricted to effect levels, exposure routes, study designs, and species relevant for deriving toxicity values. Effect levels were adjusted to chronic human equivalent benchmark doses ( ). We hypothesized that a quantile of the distribution could serve as a surrogate POD and determined the appropriate quantile by calibration to regulatory PODs. Finally, we characterized uncertainties around the surrogate PODs from intra- and interstudy variability and derived probabilistic toxicity values using a standardized workflow. Results: The distribution for each chemical was adequately fit by a lognormal distribution, and the 25th percentile best predicted the available regulatory PODs [ , units]. We derived surrogate PODs for 10,145 chemicals from the curated data set, differentiating between general noncancer and reproductive/developmental effects, with typical uncertainties (at 95% confidence) of a factor of 10 and 12, respectively. From these PODs, probabilistic reference doses (1% incidence at 95% confidence), as well as human population effect doses (10% incidence), were derived. Discussion: In providing surrogate PODs calibrated to regulatory values and deriving corresponding toxicity values, we have substantially expanded the coverage of chemicals from 744 to 8,023 for general noncancer effects, and from 41 to 6,697 for reproductive/developmental effects. These results can be used across various risk assessment and risk management contexts, from hazardous site and life cycle impact assessments to chemical prioritization and substitution. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP11524

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.

No abstract