Intake fraction for particulate matter: recommendations for life cycle impact assessment.

Particulate matter (PM) is a significant contributor to death and disease globally. This paper summarizes the work of an international expert group on the integration of human exposure to PM into life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), within the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. We review literature-derived intake fraction values (the fraction of emissions that are inhaled), based on emission release height and "archetypal" environment (indoor versus outdoor; urban, rural, or remote locations). Recommended intake fraction values are provided for primary PM(10-2.5) (coarse particles), primary PM(2.5) (fine particles), and secondary PM(2.5) from SO(2), NO(x), and NH(3). Intake fraction values vary by orders of magnitude among conditions considered. For outdoor primary PM(2.5), representative intake fraction values (units: milligrams inhaled per kilogram emitted) for urban, rural, and remote areas, respectively, are 44, 3.8, and 0.1 for ground-level emissions, versus 26, 2.6, and 0.1 for an emission-weighted stack height. For outdoor secondary PM, source location and source characteristics typically have only a minor influence on the magnitude of the intake fraction (exception: intake fraction values can be an order of magnitude lower for remote-location emission than for other locations). Outdoor secondary PM(2.5) intake fractions averaged over respective locations and stack heights are 0.89 (from SO(2)), 0.18 (NO(x)), and 1.7 (NH(3)). Estimated average intake fractions are greater for primary PM(10-2.5) than for primary PM(2.5) (21 versus 15), owing in part to differences in average emission height (lower, and therefore closer to people, for PM(10-2.5) than PM(2.5)). For indoor emissions, typical intake fraction values are ∼1000-7000. This paper aims to provide as complete and consistent an archetype framework as possible, given current understanding of each pollutant. Values presented here facilitate incorporating regional impacts into LCIA for human health damage from PM.

The public health benefits of insulation retrofits in existing housing in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Methodological limitations make it difficult to quantify the public health benefits of energy efficiency programs. To address this issue, we developed a risk-based model to estimate the health benefits associated with marginal energy usage reductions and applied the model to a hypothetical case study of insulation retrofits in single-family homes in the United States. METHODS: We modeled energy savings with a regression model that extrapolated findings from an energy simulation program. Reductions of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions and particle precursors (SO2 and NOx) were quantified using fuel-specific emission factors and marginal electricity analyses. Estimates of population exposure per unit emissions, varying by location and source type, were extrapolated from past dispersion model runs. Concentration-response functions for morbidity and mortality from PM2.5 were derived from the epidemiological literature, and economic values were assigned to health outcomes based on willingness to pay studies. RESULTS: In total, the insulation retrofits would save 800 TBTU (8 x 10(14) British Thermal Units) per year across 46 million homes, resulting in 3,100 fewer tons of PM2.5, 100,000 fewer tons of NOx, and 190,000 fewer tons of SO2 per year. These emission reductions are associated with outcomes including 240 fewer deaths, 6,500 fewer asthma attacks, and 110,000 fewer restricted activity days per year. At a state level, the health benefits per unit energy savings vary by an order of magnitude, illustrating that multiple factors (including population patterns and energy sources) influence health benefit estimates. The health benefits correspond to 1.3 billion dollars per year in externalities averted, compared with 5.9 billion dollars per year in economic savings. CONCLUSION: In spite of significant uncertainties related to the interpretation of PM2.5 health effects and other dimensions of the model, our analysis demonstrates that a risk-based methodology is viable for national-level energy efficiency programs.

Integrating risk assessment and life cycle assessment: a case study of insulation.

Increasing residential insulation can decrease energy consumption and provide public health benefits, given changes in emissions from fuel combustion, but also has cost implications and ancillary risks and benefits. Risk assessment or life cycle assessment can be used to calculate the net impacts and determine whether more stringent energy codes or other conservation policies would be warranted, but few analyses have combined the critical elements of both methodologies In this article, we present the first portion of a combined analysis, with the goal of estimating the net public health impacts of increasing residential insulation for new housing from current practice to the latest International Energy Conservation Code (IECC 2000). We model state-by-state residential energy savings and evaluate particulate matter less than 2.5 microm in diameter (PM2.5), NOx, and SO2 emission reductions. We use past dispersion modeling results to estimate reductions in exposure, and we apply concentration-response functions for premature mortality and selected morbidity outcomes using current epidemiological knowledge of effects of PM2.5 (primary and secondary). We find that an insulation policy shift would save 3 x 10(14) British thermal units or BTU (3 x 10(17) J) over a 10-year period, resulting in reduced emissions of 1,000 tons of PM2.5, 30,000 tons of NOx, and 40,000 tons of SO2. These emission reductions yield an estimated 60 fewer fatalities during this period, with the geographic distribution of health benefits differing from the distribution of energy savings because of differences in energy sources, population patterns, and meteorology. We discuss the methodology to be used to integrate life cycle calculations, which can ultimately yield estimates that can be compared with costs to determine the influence of external costs on benefit-cost calculations.