Marine ecotoxic effect of pulse emissions in life cycle impact assessment

被引:0
|
作者
Pettersen, J [1 ]
Peters, GP
Hertwich, EG
机构
[1] Norwegian Univ Sci & Technol, Ind Ecol Programme, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway
[2] Norwegian Univ Sci & Technol, Dept Energy & Proc Engn, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway
关键词
ecotoxicity; fate; life cycle impact assessment; pulse; transient;
D O I
10.1897/04-510R.1
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Characterization factors for ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment are traditionally calculated as the product of effect and fate factors. Steady-state multiple compartment models are used to calculate the fate factor, while effect factors are derived from species sensitivity distributions (SSDs) for multiple substances using average or marginal gradients. Others have shown that steady-state multicompartment models can be used to calculate characterization factors if linear dose-response functions are used. Average gradients are linear dose-response functions per definition. Marginal gradients are first-order Taylor approximations of the effect function and require marginal exposure at all points of the compartment. Instantaneous mixing, giving marginal exposure within compartments, is an implicit assumption of the multicompartment model. This paper investigates if the assumption of marginal exposure results in significant errors for the characterization factor. Ecotoxic effect of pulse emissions is simulated in a transient three-dimensional single compartment model of the marine aquatic environment. Results show that the error in characterization factors for the Taylor approximation is less than a factor of two for multisubstance SSDs assuming concentration addition only in the aggregation of toxic effect of substances. Assuming a combination of response and concentration addition may result in a deviation of several orders of magnitude.
引用
收藏
页码:297 / 303
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Life cycle impact assessment: A primer
    Curran, Mary Ann
    ABSTRACTS OF PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY, 2014, 248
  • [22] Energy, emissions and environmental impact analysis of wind turbine using life cycle assessment technique
    Uddin, Md. Shazib
    Kumar, S.
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2014, 69 : 153 - 164
  • [23] Comparison of the acidifying impact from emissions with different regional origin in life-cycle assessment
    Potting, J
    Schopp, W
    Blok, K
    Hauschild, M
    JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, 1998, 61 (1-3) : 155 - 162
  • [24] Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Marine Insulation Materials
    Jang, Hayoung
    Jang, Yoonwon
    Jeong, Byongug
    Cho, Nak-Kyun
    JOURNAL OF MARINE SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, 2021, 9 (10)
  • [25] A comparative life cycle assessment of marine power systems
    Ling-Chin, Janie
    Roskilly, Anthony P.
    ENERGY CONVERSION AND MANAGEMENT, 2016, 127 : 477 - 493
  • [26] A COMPARATIVE LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF MARINE DESOX SYSTEMS
    Cui, Mengqi
    Lu, Yingwei
    He, Jiahao
    Ji, Lei
    Wang, Hui
    Liu, Shaojun
    POLISH MARITIME RESEARCH, 2021, 28 (01) : 105 - 115
  • [27] Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Alternative Marine Fuels
    Zincir, Bugra Arda
    Arslanoglu, Yasin
    FUEL, 2024, 358
  • [28] Life cycle assessment of the Seagen marine current turbine
    Department of Engineering and Electronics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    不详
    Proc Inst Mech Eng Part B J Eng Manuf, 2008, 1 (1-12):
  • [29] Life cycle assessment of the Seagen marine current turbine
    Douglas, C. A.
    Harrison, G. P.
    Chick, J. P.
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS PART M-JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR THE MARITIME ENVIRONMENT, 2008, 222 (M1) : 1 - 12
  • [30] LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF DIFFERENT MARINE FUEL TYPES AND POWERTRAIN CONFIGURATIONS FOR FINANCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT IN SHIPPING
    Taghavifar, Hadi
    Perera, Lokukaluge P.
    PROCEEDINGS OF ASME 2022 41ST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON OCEAN, OFFSHORE & ARCTIC ENGINEERING, OMAE2022, VOL 5A, 2022,