Performance indicator for potential health impact analysis within LCA framework and for environmental product declaration (EPD)

  • Fritz KalberlahEmail author
  • Eva Schmincke
  • Peter Saling
  • Quentin de Hults



This article proposes an approach describing relative potential toxicological performances of products and allows for comparisons with other products with identical functions. The scores derived at the substance level may be aggregated to the product level for each of the life cycle stages of the product. This approach is intended to become a tool for performance assessment of products. It provides complementary information in addition to results from LCA for environmental product declarations (EPD). This article focuses on describing the impact on human health from exposure to construction products and to their ingredients, compatible with “life cycle thinking”. Ingredient substances can be part of the intended composition or can be relevant residues like monomers in plastics or defined contaminants. The proposed approach can also describe the toxicological impact for other than construction products.


The method describes a dimensionless score suitable for ranking with three characteristics: (1) By a hazard score, it describes chemical products for different applications, e.g. for construction, with regard to the inherent toxicity for humans of their ingredients. (2) It considers exposure potentials to the product’s ingredients by a generic adjustment factor, which may modify potential health impacts. (3) It addresses not only the use stage of a product and its ingredients (e.g. as construction material in a building), but it also includes other life cycle stages of the product’s ingredients.

Results and discussion

The specific method is described which is still under testing. Therefore, no results of any application can be published so far. Since the method provides a scalable, dimensionless score of potential toxicological impacts, independent of time and location, these scores can in principle be aggregated to the building level, comparable to the life cycle assessment (LCA)-based information in an EPD. The different factors make use of the extensive toxicological and exposure data generated under REACH regulation but are not limited to these. Interpretation of such data differs from REACH.


The method can be further developed into a tool for product and building assessment and be provided as (voluntary) additional information in an EPD. It is recommended that the basic concept be adapted to the needs of the users of the information generated with this method (e.g. architects, building assessment) and the providers of information (manufacturers). An intense consultation process with other stakeholders should be organised to establish a final method into a guidance document for unambiguous application.


Assessment Environmental product declaration EPD Health impact Life cycle assessment REACH Toxicological performance indicator 



Essential contributors to the discussion were Uwe Blumenstein and Dirk Funhoff at BASF SE and Markus Schwarz at FoBiG.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The development of the methodology was funded by BASF SE. The content of this publication is a first idea that requires a further development and consensus building within a larger group in order to establish a widely applicable methodology. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of BASF.


  1. AGS, Ausschuss für Gefahrstoffe (2015) Technische Regeln für Gefahrstoffe – Arbeitsplatzgrenzwerte (TRGS 900). Ausgabe: Januar 2006. BArBl Heft 1/2006 S. 41–55. Zuletzt geändert und ergänzt: GMBl 2015 S. 139–140 [Nr. 7] (v. 02.03.2015) Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin.
  2. Askham C (2012) REACH and LCA—methodological approaches and challenges. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:43–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. EC, European Commission (2011) Recommendations for Life Cycle Impact Assessment in the European context—based on existing environmental impact assessment models and factors. First edition November 2011. EUR 24571 EN. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
  4. ECETOC (European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals) (2014) Technical Report No. 124. Addendum to TR114: Technical Basis for the TRA v3.1. Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  5. ECHA (European Chemicals Agency) (2010) Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment. Chapter R.12: Use Descriptor System. Helsinki, Finland
  6. ECHA (European Chemicals Agency) (2012) Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment. Chapter R.8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health. Version 2.1, November 2012.
  7. Jolliet O, Alexi SE, Susan AC, Peter F (2015) Defining Product Intake Fraction to Quantify and Compare Exposure to Consumer Products. Environ. Sci Technol 49(15):8924–8931.
  8. Jørgensen A, Hauschild M (2011) The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. Special issue: LCIA of impacts on human health and ecosystems (USEtox). Vol. 16, Iss. 8, September 2011.
  9. Kalberlah F, Wriedt H (1998) Bewertung und Fortentwicklung der Regelsetzung: Anwendbarkeit der TRGS 440. Fb 784. Schriftenreihe der Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin DortmundGoogle Scholar
  10. Landsiedel R, Saling P (2002) Assessment of toxicological risks for life cycle assessment and eco-efficiency analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7:261–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lasvaux S, Schiopu N, Habert G, Chevalier J, Peuportier B (2014) Influence of simplification of life cycle inventories on the accuracy of impact assessment: application to construction products. J Clean Prod 79:142–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lee EG, Slaven J, Bowen RB, Harper M (2011) Evaluation of the COSHH essentials model with a mixture of organic chemicals at a medium-sized paint producer. Ann Occup Hyg 55:16–29Google Scholar
  13. Oppl R, Kalberlah F, Evans PG, van Hemmen JJ (2003) A toolkit for dermal risk assessment and management: an overview. Ann Occup Hyg 47:629–640Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.FoBiG, Forschungs- und Beratungsinstitut GefahrstoffeFreiburgGermany
  2. 2.THINKSTEPTübingenGermany
  3. 3.BASF SELudwigshafenGermany

Personalised recommendations