文章基本信息

标题：Relevance of life cycle analysis (LCA) for assessing health impacts: Comparison with quantitative health risk assessments (QHRA)
本地全文：下载
作者：Magali Boize ; Anne-laure Borie ; Anne Landrin 等
期刊名称：Environnement, Risques & Santé
印刷版ISSN：1635-0421
电子版ISSN：1952-3398
出版年度：2008
卷号：7
期号：4
页码：265-277
DOI：10.1684/ers.2008.0159
出版社：John Libbey Eurotext
摘要：Figures See all figures Authors Magali Boize , Anne-laure Borie , Anne Landrin , Marion Papadopoulo , Denis Le Boulch , Romain Richard Service des études médicales d’EDF et de Gaz de France, 22-28, rue Joubert, 75 009 Paris, Direction départementale des Affaires sanitaires et sociales des Yvelines, Service Santé environnement, 143, boulevard de la Reine, 78000 Versailles, Direction de la recherche de Gaz de France, 361, avenue du Président Wilson, BP 33, 93211 St Denis-La Plaine, St Denis La Plaine cedex, EDF Recherche et Développement, Site des Renardières, Avenue des Renardières, Ecuelles, BP 46, 77818 Moret-sur-Loing cedex Key words: health risks assessment (QHRA), life cycle analysis (LCA), toxicology DOI : 10.1684/ers.2008.0159 Page(s) : 265-77 Published in: 2008 Introduction: Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) is a global method for assessing the environmental burdens (greenhouse effect, acidification, resource depletion, etc.) associated with a product or activity over its entire life cycle. Today LCA methods for environmental impact assessment are being extended to the evaluation of the human health effects of these products and activities. These results, however, are very uncertain in view of the scale of evaluation – over the entire life cycle of the system – and the many assumptions and uncertainties associated with it. The aim of this article is to determine the validity and limitations of LCA as applied to health impact (health damage, in LCA terminology) assessment by Impact 2002+, the most recent LCA method. Methods: LCA of health will be compared to the quantitative health risk assessment (QHRA), a validated and widely used assessment tool. After a comparison of the nature of both methodologies, their differences will be illustrated by a case study of coal power plants in France. Results: Despite their similar structures, LCA and QHRA often produce divergent results and differ in many ways, including ease of updating data (epidemiological, toxicological, and exposure), number of substances considered, population characteristics and the space-time scale. The case study also highlighted the risks inherent in the practice of LCA, including the double-counting of substances and the importance of the reliability of databases. Other weaknesses are more specific to Impact 2002+. They include a lack of consistency and transparency in the development of certain effect factors, which limits their scientific relevance. Conclusion: LCA appears to be a tool complementary to QHRA that can be used for pre-diagnoses or to assess pollution transfers. LCA findings, however, must be applied cautiously (that is, interpreted by an expert) for they cannot in any case be considered comparable to health risk scores.
关键词：health risks assessment (QHRA); life cycle analysis (LCA); toxicology