Freshwater ecotoxicity characterization factors for aluminum

LCA AND CHEMISTRY
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Aluminum (Al) is an abundant, non-essential element with complex geochemistry and aquatic toxicity. Considering its complex environmental behavior is critical for providing a reasonable estimate of its potential freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity in the context of Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA).

Methods

Al characterization factors (CFs) are calculated using the following: (1) USEtox model version 2.1 for environmental fate, (2) MINEQL+ to estimate the distribution of Al between the solid phase precipitate and total dissolved Al, (3) WHAM 7 for Al speciation within the total dissolved phase, and (4) Biotic Ligand Model (BLM) and Free Ion Activity Model (FIAM) for ecotoxicity estimation for seven freshwater archetypes and default landscape properties for the European continent. The sensitivity of the CFs to aquatic chemistry parameters is calculated. New CFs are compared with Dong et al. (Chemosphere 112:26–33, 2014) and default CF calculated by USEtox 2.1.

Results and discussion

Al CFs vary over 5 orders of magnitude between the seven archetypes, with an arithmetic average CFave of 0.04 eq 1,4-DCB (recommended for use), geometric mean CFgeo of 0.0014 eq 1,4-DCB, and weighted average CFwt of 0.026 eq 1,4-DCB. These values are lower (less toxic) than those for Cu, Ni, Zn, and Pb (with one exception). The effect factor (EF) contributed most to this variability followed by the bioavailability factor (BF), varying over 8 and 4 orders of magnitude, respectively. These revised CFs are 2–6 orders of magnitude lower than those presented by Dong et al. (Chemosphere 112:26–33, 2014) mainly because of consideration of Al precipitation.

Conclusions

Freshwater archetype-specific Al CFs for freshwater ecotoxicity that address the effect of Al speciation on bioavailability (BF) and ecotoxicity (EF) have been calculated, and a CF of 0.04 eq 1,4-DCB is recommended for use in generic LCA. For site-specific LCA, the choice of water chemistry and, in particular, pH, and consideration of metal precipitation could significantly influence results.

Practical implications

Incorporating estimates of metal speciation and its effect on aquatic toxicity is essential when conducting LCIA. Along with metal speciation estimates, the values derived from the definition of water chemistry parameters must also be included into LCIA. For site-generic assessments, we recommend using the arithmetic average of metal CFs. We also recommend using FIAM as a suitable alternative to BLM to estimate EF if the latter is not available. Consideration of metal speciation is essential for providing more realistic estimates of Al freshwater ecotoxicity in the context of LCIA.

Keywords

Aluminum Ambient chemistry Bioavailability Characterization factor (CF) Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) Metal speciation-complexation Metals 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Bob Santore (HydroQual Inc.) and his group for sharing BLM parameters and chronic ecotoxicity test data for Al exposure to aquatic organisms. We also thank Eirik Nordheim (EAA), and Chris Bayliss and Pernelle Nunez (International Aluminium Institute) for support throughout the project, and for facilitating data for model calculations. Bill Adams (Rio Tinto) provided the FOREGS stream water monitoring data for EU.

Supplementary material

11367_2018_1451_MOESM1_ESM.docx (931 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 930 kb)

References

  1. Bowen HJM (1966) Trace elements in biochemistry. Academic Press, London, p 241Google Scholar
  2. Burton TM, Allan JW (1986) Influence of pH, aluminium and organic matter on stream invertebrates. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 43:1285–1289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Campbell PGC (1995) Interactions between trace metals and aquatic organisms: a critique of the free-ion activity model. In: Tessier A, Turner DR (eds) Metal speciation and bioavailability in aquatic systems, vol 1. John Wiley, New York, pp 45–102Google Scholar
  4. Cullen JM, Allwood JM (2013) Mapping the global flow of aluminum: from liquid aluminum to end-use goods. Environ Sci Technol 47:3057–3064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Di Toro D, Allen H, Bergman H, Meyer J, Paquin P (2001) Biotic Ligand Model of the acute toxicity of metals: 1. Technical basis. Environ Toxicol Chem 20:2383–2396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Diamond ML, Mackay D, Cornett RJ, Chant L (1990) A model of the exchange of inorganic chemicals between water and sediments. Environ Sci Technol 24:713–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Diamond M, Gandhi N, Adams W, Atherton J, Bhavsar S, Bullé C, Campbell P, Dubreuil A, Fairbrother A, Farley K, Green A, Guinée J, Hauschild M, Huijbregts M, Humbert S, Jensen K, Jolliet O, Margni M, McGeer J, Peijnenburg W, Rosenbaum R, van de Meent D, Vijver M (2010) The Clearwater consensus: the estimation of metal hazard in fresh water. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:143–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dong Y, Gandhi N, Hauschild MZ (2014) Development of comparative toxicity potentials of 14 cationic metals in freshwater. Chemosphere 112:26–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Driscoll CT, Schecher WD (1990) The chemistry of aluminum in the environment. Environ Geochem Health 12:28–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Forbes VE, Calow P (2002) Applying weight-of-evidence in retrospective ecological risk assessment when quantitative data are limited. Human Ecol Risk Assess 8:1625–1639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gandhi N, Diamond ML, van de Meent D, Huijbregts MAJ, Peijnenburg WJGM, Guinée J (2010) New method for calculating comparative toxicity potential of cationic metals in freshwater: application to copper, nickel, and zinc. Environ Sci Technol 44:5195–5201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gandhi N, Huijbregts MAJ, van de Meent D, Peijnenburg WJGM, Guinée J, Diamond ML (2011a) Implications of geographic variability on ecotoxicity potentials of Cu, Ni and Zn in freshwaters of Canadian ecoregions. Chemosphere 82:268–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gandhi N, Diamond ML, Huijbregts MAJ, Guinée J, Peijnenburg WJGM, van de Meent D (2011b) The improvement in freshwater ecotoxicity methods for metals: examination of case studies to show implications of varying ambient chemistry. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:774–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gandhi N, Huijbregts MAJ, van de Meent D, Peijnenburg WJGM, Guinée J, Diamond ML (2011c) Revised method of hazard and ecological risk assessments for calculating Comparative Toxicity Potentials of metals for which BLMs are not available. SETAC Europe, Milan, May 2011. Poster presentationGoogle Scholar
  15. Gensemer RW (1991) The effects of pH and aluminum on the growth of the acidophilic diatom Asterionella ralfsii var. americana. Limnol Oceanogr 36:123–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gensemer RW, Playle RC (1999) The bioavailability and toxicity of aluminum in aquatic environments. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 29:315–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hauschild MZ, Huijbregts M, Jolliet O, Macleod M, Margni M, van de Meent D, Rosenbaum RK, McKone TE (2008) Building a model based on scientific consensus for Life Cycle Impact Assessment of chemicals: the search for harmony and parsimony. Environ Sci Technol 42:7032–7037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hem JD (1986) Geochemistry and aqueous chemistry of aluminium. Kidney Int 18:S3–S7Google Scholar
  19. Huijbregts MAJ, Thissen U, Guinée J, Jager T, Kalf D, van de Meent D, Ragas AMJ, Sleeswijk AW, Reijnders L (2000) Priority assessment of toxic substances in life cycle assessment. Part I: Calculation of toxicity potentials for 181 substances with the nested multi-media fate, exposure and effects model USES-LCA. Chemosphere 41:541–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. IAI (2015) Global Mass Flow Model. http://www.world-aluminium.org/publications/tagged/mass%20flow%20model/. Accessed 13 October 2015
  21. Parent L, Campbell PGC (1994) Aluminum bioavailability to the green alga Chlorella pyrenoidosa in acidified synthetic soft water. Environ Toxicol Chem 13:587–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Payet J, Jolliet O (2002) Comparative assessment of the toxic impact of metals on aquatic ecosystems: the AMI method. International Workshop on Life-Cycle Assessment and Metals, pp 188–191Google Scholar
  23. Rosenbaum RK, Bachmann TM, Swirsky Gold L, Huijbregts MAJ, Jolliet O, Juraske R, Koehler A, Larsen HF, MacLeod M, Margni M, McKone TE, Payet J, Schuhmacher M, van de Meent D, Hauschild MZ (2008) USEtox—the UNEP/SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:532–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Salazar J, Sowlati T (2008) Life cycle assessment of windows for the North American residential market: case study. Scand J For Res 23:121–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schecher WD, McAvoy DC (1998) MINEQL1—a chemical equilibrium modeling system, Ver 4.0. Environmental Research Software, HallowellGoogle Scholar
  26. Stumm W, Morgan JJ (1996) Aquatic chemistry. Wiley Interscience, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Tipping E (1998) Humic ion-binding model VI: an improved description of the interactions of protons and metal ions with humic substances. Aquat Geochem 4:3–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tipping E, Lofts S, Sonke JE (2011) Humic ion-binding model VII: a revised parameterisation of cation-binding by humic substances. Environ Chem 8:225–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Earth SciencesUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of Physical and Environmental SciencesUniversity of Toronto ScarboroughScarboroughCanada

Personalised recommendations