Updated indicators of Swedish national human toxicity and ecotoxicity footprints using USEtox 2.01

Abstract

Available online xxxxIn a recent paper, Sörme et al. (Environ. Impact Assess. Rev., 56, 2016), took a first step towards an indicator of a national chemical footprint, and applied it to Sweden. Using USEtox 1.01, they calculated national impact potentials for human toxicity and ecotoxicity. The results showed that zinc dominated impacts, both for human toxicity and ecotoxicity. We calculated updated indicators of the Swedish national human toxicity and ecotoxicity footprint using USEtox 2.01. We also compared impact potentials based on USEtox with the mass of chemical emissions. The two model versions produced relatively consistent results. Zinc is still a major contributor to the human toxicity and ecotoxicity impact potentials when characterized with USEtox 2.01. The mass-based indicator pinpoints somewhat different substances than the impact-based indicators.

Advances, Norms, and Perspectives in Product Chemical Footprint Research

“…The quantity-based indicators of chemical pollutants are widely used mainly because data for comparing decision-making units are easily available [ 26 ]. However, mass-based indicators should not be considered a substitute for (ecological) toxicity impact potential, as they do not consider the fate, exposure, and impact of substances; moreover, in the driver-pressure-state-impact-response framework, the mass-based indicators of chemical pollution are stress indicators [ 28 ]. Therefore, Toxicity stress is suitable for calculating and evaluating complex and diverse chemical footprints.…”

“…However, the rate of updating the CFs of chemical substances is much slower than research and development and production of innovative chemical substances. USEtox is developed for organic matter, but some substances cannot be represented, including particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides, chlorides, fluorides, and cyanides, some of which are highly relevant from an (ecological) toxicological point of view (e.g., cyanide) [ 28 ]. The absence of CFs for these chemical substances impedes the evaluation of the toxicity of chemicals to humans and ecosystems.…”

“…As an environmental footprint, the chemical footprint (ChF), which inherits the characteristics of the footprint approach [ 14 ], can be used in evaluating the impact of chemical contamination from human activities on environmental sustainability, facilitates the identification of situations that could enable us to prevent “chemical overshoot” beyond the Earth’s safe operating space [ 15 ], and is one of the most commonly used quantitative methods for assessing toxicological pressure on human and ecological chemicals. It has been applied at different levels, particularly at the product [ 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 ], industry [ 24 ], enterprise [ 25 ], and country [ 26 , 27 , 28 ] levels. This paper reviews the progress of research on chemical footprints worldwide, finds that there is a lack of guiding norms and processes for product chemical footprint calculation and evaluation.…”

An improved method for assessing environmental impacts caused by chemical pollutants: A case study in textiles production

“…Sörme et al (2016) and Nordborg et al (2017) used the USEtox consensus model to calculate the potential hazards of chemical pollutants based on their emissions and toxicity. However, we found that results related to the priority pollutants show obvious differences between quantity and toxicity analysis methods, which highlights the need to consider both analysis methods when setting goals for environmental management and policy (Nordborg et al, 2017;Sö rme et al, 2016). Lim et al (2010) also noted obvious differences between quantity and hazard potential results at the industrial level.…”

Trends and driving forces of China’s virtual land consumption and trade

“…The footprint concept was initially put forward in the early 1990s with the "ecological footprint" indicator (Rees and Wackernagel, 1992). In order to differentiate across resource categories and develop a reliable method, new footprint indicators have been developed on water (Hoekstra and Mekonnen, 2012), carbon dioxide (Hertwich and Peters, 2009), energy (Wiedmann, 2009), materials (Bruckner et al, 2012), land (Ruiter et al, 2017), and nitrogen (Cui et al, 2016); other footprints address biodiversity (Lenzen et al, 2012), particulate matter 2.5 (Yang et al, 2017), human toxicity and eco-toxicity (Nordborg et al, 2017) for monitoring sustainability at varying levels.…”