Geographically Differentiated Life-Cycle Impact Assessment of Human Health
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Geographically Differentiated Life-cycle Impact Assessment of Human Health by Sebastien Humbert A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Engineering-Civil and Environmental Engineering in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Arpad Horvath, Chair Professor William W Nazaroff Professor Catherine P Koshland Professor Thomas E McKone Fall 2009 The dissertation of Sebastien Humbert, title Geographically Differentiated Life-cycle Impact Assessment of Human Health, is approved: University of California, Berkeley Geographically Differentiated Life-cycle Impact Assessment of Human Health Copyright 2009 by Sebastien Humbert ([email protected]) ABSTRACT Geographically Differentiated Life-cycle Impact Assessment of Human Health by Sebastien Humbert Doctor of Philosophy in Engineering-Civil and Environmental Engineering University of California, Berkeley Professor Arpad Horvath, Chair In this dissertation, I explore how life-cycle assessment (LCA) results can potentially be influenced by the location of emissions, also called regionalization. The current practice in life- cycle assessment increasingly stresses the importance of being “geographically differentiated” or “regionalized.” Regionalization can be important for cases that have extended supply chains distributed across different regions or for processes situated in locations with environmental conditions and population densities far from “average”. A spatially resolved model for North America, called IMPACT North America, is developed here. Geographically differentiated intake fractions and characterization factors are evaluated for the North American continent for human toxicity. Special attention is given to the modeling of intake fractions and characterization factors for particulate matter. These factors can be used to adapt damage-oriented impact assessment methods. Parameters influencing intake fractions and characterization factors are identified, such as population densities and agricultural production. The importance of modeling an “urban box” and a “remote area” is also shown. The case of fly ash concrete is studied through the lens of regionalization, and critical parameters influencing the environmental trade- offs between fly ash concrete and Portland cement concrete are identified. Through the development of the new model, along with the different applications, various questions related to spatial life-cycle assessment can be studied, and several conclusions can be drawn about what is important to consider when performing regionalization in life-cycle assessment. I show that particulate matter dominates damage to human health and therefore the importance of devoting more detailed attention to the character of particulate matter when modeling the fate, exposure and effect of pollutants. I also demonstrate that when addressing the issue of regionalization in inventory and impact assessment, priority should be placed on the development of the archetype-based (i.e., situation-dependent) regionalization; spatialization (geography-based regionalization) should only be used secondarily and in occasional cases when results from key processes need to be expanded. 1 To my entire family, And especially to my aunt and godmother, Madeline, who enabled me to enter the world of studies, As well as to the future generations A toute ma famille, Et particulièrement à ma tante et marraine Madeline, qui m’a permis d’entrer le monde des études, Ainsi qu’aux générations futures i Acknowledgments I would like to thank: • Professor Dr. Arpad Horvath, my supervisor, for the personal, intellectual and financial support that he provided me throughout my years at Berkeley. • My entire Qualifying and Reading committees: Professor Dr. William Nazaroff, Professor Dr. Thomas McKone, Professor Dr. Catherine Koshland and Professor Dr. Iris Tommelein, for their precious feedback and input on my dissertation. • A special thought for late Professor Dr. Alexander Farrell who was part of my Qualifying Examination committee and who helped me learn to be critical and scientifically rigorous. • The people who supported me in my academic life previous to and outside of Berkeley, especially Professor Dr. Olivier Jolliet, Dr. Manuele Margni, Professor Dr. Ralph Rosenbaum, Dr. Gerald Rebitzer, Dr. Yves Loerincik, Dr. Jerome Payet, Dr. Myriam Saade, Dr. Shanna Shaked, Dr. Cedric Wannaz, Dr. Rima Manneh, Professor Dr. Julian Marshall, Dr. Yurika Nishioka, Dr. Philipp Preiss, and Dr. Joseph Spadaro for their precious academic support and input, but more importantly, for the personal joy and enrichment they provided me throughout all these years. • Professor Dr. Thomas McKone, Professor Dr. Julian Marshall as well as Professor Dr. Stefanie Hellweg for the positive image they gave me of UC Berkeley and the motivation to apply for graduate studies in 2003. • Professor Dr. Olivier Jolliet as well as his entire team from the University of Michigan Risk Science Center (Ann Arbor, Michigan) for the numerous opportunities they gave me to exchange ideas throughout my academic career. A special thanks to Dr. Shanna Shaked, Dr. Cedric Wannaz, Dr. Yvan Wenger and Dr. Megan Milbrath for the great atmosphere they always created, making my academic life so enjoyable. • Professor Dr. Réjean Samson, Professor Dr. Louise Deschênes, Daniel Normandin as well as the entire CIRAIG team from the Ecole Polytechnique de Montréal (Canada) for the numerous opportunities they gave me to exchange ideas with them throughout my academic career. I would like to thank them, and especially Dr. Manuele Margni, Professor Dr. Ralph Rosenbaum, Jean-Francois Menard, Professor Dr. Pascal Lesage, Renee Michaud and Dr. Rima Manneh for the great atmosphere they always created, making my academic life so enjoyable. • Dr. Matthew Macleod, Professor Dr. Stefanie Hellweg and Professor Dr. Konrad Hungerbühler, as well as their entire team and especially Dr. Urs Schenker, Dr. Gegor Wernet, Dr. Annette Köhler and Dr. Evangelia Demou from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich (ETH Zurich, Switzerland) for the opportunity they gave me to exchange ideas throughout my academic career. • My colleagues Professor Dr. Zofia Rybkowski, Professor Dr. Farook Hamzeh, Dr. Kofi Inkabi, Dr. Long Nguyen and Dr. Peter Feng from the AGRAPHIA group for their feedback on my work in progress, as well as Dr. Pedro Vieira and Dr. Cristiano Facanha for their helpful advice as I completed my dissertation. • Holly Fox and Elizabeth Tilley, independent English editors, and Naomi Lubick, associate editor at Environmental Science and Technology for their help improving the quality of my various papers and my dissertation. ii • I would like also to thank my colleagues at Quantis and Praxis Energia who supported me while completing my dissertation, and especially Dr. Yves Loerincik, Richard Pfister and Diana Carrillo, who always helped me putting the completion of my dissertation as a first priority. • I would also like to thank the “early birds” who were influential in shaping my intellectual life, especially Fabien Curchod, Professor Michel Joyet, Professor Etienne Honoré, Professor Eric Lindemann, Professor Jean Ulrich and Professor Jean Lassueur. • My colleagues at EPFL (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne, Switzerland), at Iowa State University, at UC Berkeley, as well as the great friends I have met throughout my academic career for the rich life they have shared with me. • And finally to my entire family who always encouraged me to study and financially supported me. A special thanks to my aunt and godmother, Madeline, who has generously supported my entire studies since my childhood. iii Table of contents Acronyms and Nomenclature ....................................................................................................... vii Summary ........................................................................................................................................ ix 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. Introduction to life-cycle assessment .............................................................................. 1 1.1.1. Basics of life-cycle assessment ............................................................................... 1 1.2. Introduction to and state of the art of life-cycle impact assessment ............................... 3 1.2.1. Life-cycle impact assessment ................................................................................. 3 1.2.2. Characterization versus life-cycle impact assessment methods.............................. 4 1.2.3. Impact categories .................................................................................................... 5 1.2.4. Midpoint categories versus damage categories ....................................................... 6 1.2.5. Chronological development in life-cycle impact assessment ................................. 8 1.2.6. Evaluation of the different life-cycle impact assessment methods ......................... 8 1.2.7. Methods sometimes described as life-cycle impact assessment ........................... 11 1.2.8. Recommendations ................................................................................................. 11 1.3. Scope of work of this dissertation ................................................................................