Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

Integrate life-cycle assessment and risk analysis results, not methods

Abstract

Two analytic perspectives on environmental assessment dominate environmental policy and decision-making: risk analysis (RA) and life-cycle assessment (LCA). RA focuses on management of a toxicological hazard in a specific exposure scenario, while LCA seeks a holistic estimation of impacts of thousands of substances across multiple media, including non-toxicological and non-chemically deleterious effects. While recommendations to integrate the two approaches have remained a consistent feature of environmental scholarship for at least 15 years, the current perception is that progress is slow largely because of practical obstacles, such as a lack of data, rather than insurmountable theoretical difficulties. Nonetheless, the emergence of nanotechnology presents a serious challenge to both perspectives. Because the pace of nanomaterial innovation far outstrips acquisition of environmentally relevant data, it is now clear that a further integration of RA and LCA based on dataset completion will remain futile. In fact, the two approaches are suited for different purposes and answer different questions. A more pragmatic approach to providing better guidance to decision-makers is to apply the two methods in parallel, integrating only after obtaining separate results.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bare, J. C. Risk assessment and life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA) for human health cancerous and noncancerous emissions: integrated and complementary with consistency within the USEPA. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 12, 493–509 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. National Research Council Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment (National Academies Press, 2009).

  3. National Research Council Sustainability at the US EPA (National Academies Press, 2011).

  4. Environmental Protection Agency Nanomaterials Research Strategy (Office of Research and Development, 2009).

  5. National Research Council A Research Strategy for Environmental, Health, and Safety Aspects of Engineered Nanomaterials (National Academies Press, 2012).

  6. Matthews, H. S., Lave, L. & MacLean, H. Life cycle impact assessment: a challenge for risk analysts. Risk Anal. 22, 853–860 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cowell, S. J., Fairman, R. & Lofstedt, R. E. Use of risk assessment and life cycle assessment in decision making: a common policy research agenda. Risk Anal. 22, 879–894 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Harder, R., Holmquist, H., Molander, S., Svanström, M. & Peters, G. M. Review of environmental assessment case studies blending elements of risk assessment and life cycle assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 13083–13093 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kijko, G., Margni, M., Partovi-Nia, V., Doudrich, G. & Jolliet, O. Impact of occupational exposure to chemicals in life cycle assessment: a novel characterization model based on measured concentrations and labor hours. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 8741–8750 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Walser, T., Juraske, R., Demou, E. & Hellweg, S. Indoor exposure to toluene from printed matter matters: complementary views from life cycle assessment and risk assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 689–697 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Rosenbaum, R. K. et al. Indoor air pollutant exposure for life cycle assessment: regional health impact factors for households. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 12823–12831 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Praetorius, A. et al. The road to nowhere: equilibrium partition coefficients for nanoparticles. Environ. Sci. Nano 1, 317–323 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Mitrano, D. M., Motellier, S., Clavaguera, S. & Nowack, B. Review of nanomaterial aging and transformations through the life cycle of nano-enhanced products. Environ. Int. 77, 132–147 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Henderson, A. D. et al. USEtox fate and ecotoxicity factors for comparative assessment of toxic emissions in life cycle analysis: sensitivity to key chemical properties. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 16, 701–709 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Huijbregts, M. A. J., Hellweg, S. & Hertwich, E. Do we need a paradigm shift in life cycle impact assessment? Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 3833–3834 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Huijbregts, M. A. et al. USEtox User Manual (USEtox Team, 2010); http://go.nature.com/2u7Q3YD

    Google Scholar 

  17. van Zelm, R., Huijbregts, M. J. & van de Meent, D. USES-LCA 2.0 — a global nested multi-media fate, exposure, and effects model. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 14, 282–284 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Shatkin, J. A. Informing environmental decision making by combining life cycle assessment and risk analysis. J. Ind. Ecol. 12, 278–281 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hellweg, S. et al. Integrating human indoor air pollutant exposure within life cycle impact assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 1670–1679 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Linkov, I. & Seager, T. P. Coupling multi-criteria decision analysis, life-cycle assessment, and risk assessment for emerging threats. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 5068–5074 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Linkov, I. & Moberg, E. Multi-criteria Decision Analysis: Environmental Applications and Case Studies (CRC Press, 2011).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. Bates, M. E. et al. Emerging technologies for environmental remediation: integrating data and judgment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 349–358 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Scott, R., Cullen, A., Fox-Lent, C. & Linkov, I. Can carbon nanomaterials improve CZTS photovoltaic devices? Applications of LCA-MCDA to improve performance and manage impacts. Risk Anal. 36, 1916–1935 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Trump, B., Cummings, C., Kuzma, J. & Linkov, I. A decision analytic model to guide early-stage government regulatory action: applications for synthetic biology. Regul. Gov. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12142 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kurth, M. H., Larkin, S., Keisler, J. M. & Linkov, I. Trends and applications of multi-criteria decision analysis: use in government agencies. Environ. Syst. Decis. 37, 134–143 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Cegan, J. C., Filion, A. M., Keisler, J. M. & Linkov, I. Trends and applications of multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: literature review. Environ. Sys. Decis. 37, 123–133 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Heimersson, S., Harder, R., Peters, G. M. & Svanström, M. Including pathogen risk in life cycle assessment of wastewater management. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 9446–9453 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Rowley, H. V., Peters, G., Lundie, S. & Moore, S. Aggregating sustainability indicators: beyond the weighted sum. J. Environ. Manag. 111, 24–33 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Collier, Z. A., Bates, M. E., Wood, M. D. & Linkov, I. Stakeholder engagement in dredged material management decisions. Sci. Total Environ. 496, 248–256 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. National Research Council Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society (The National Academies Press, 1996).

  31. Mohan, M., Trump, B. D., Bates, M. E., Monica J. C. Jr & Linkov, I. Integrating legal liabilities in nanomanufacturing risk management. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 7955–7962 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported in parts by the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Army Environmental Quality Research Program (E. Ferguson, Technical Director) and Assistance Agreement No. RD83558001 awarded by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It has not been formally reviewed by the EPA. The views expressed in this document are solely those of the authors. Neither the EPA nor the US Army endorse any products or commercial services mentioned in this publication. Thanks to G. Shephard for his illustrative support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Igor Linkov.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Linkov, I., Trump, B., Wender, B. et al. Integrate life-cycle assessment and risk analysis results, not methods. Nature Nanotech 12, 740–743 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2017.152

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2017.152

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing