Towards integrating toxicity characterization into environmental studies: case study of bromine in soils.

AbstractPollution from bromine and some of its related compounds is currently unregulated in soil from Russia and other countries, and tools for sound assessment of environmental impacts of bromine contamination are largely missing. Hence, assessing potential implications for humans and ecosystems of bromine soil contamination is urgently needed, which requires the combination of measured soil concentrations from environmental studies and quantified potential toxicity impacts. To address this need, we used data from an experimental study assessing bromine in soils (384 samples) of Tomsk oblast, Russia, starting from measured concentrations obtained by Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis in an earlier study. From these data, we calculated the bromine mass in soils and used these as starting point to characterize related cumulative impacts on human health and ecosystems in the Tomsk region, using a global scientific consensus model for screening-level comparative toxicity characterization of chemical emissions. Results show that the combination of sampling methodology with toxicity characterization techniques presents a new approach to be used in environmental studies aimed at environmental assessment and analysis of a territory. Our results indicate that it is important to account for substance-specific chemical reaction pathways and transfer processes, as well as to consider region-specific environmental characteristics. Our approach will help complement environmental assessment results with environmental sustainability elements, to consider potential tradeoffs in impacts, related to soil pollution, in support of improved emission and pollution reduction strategies.

Advancements in Life Cycle Human Exposure and Toxicity Characterization.

BACKGROUND: The Life Cycle Initiative, hosted at the United Nations Environment Programme, selected human toxicity impacts from exposure to chemical substances as an impact category that requires global guidance to overcome current assessment challenges. The initiative leadership established the Human Toxicity Task Force to develop guidance on assessing human exposure and toxicity impacts. Based on input gathered at three workshops addressing the main current scientific challenges and questions, the task force built a roadmap for advancing human toxicity characterization, primarily for use in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). OBJECTIVES: The present paper aims at reporting on the outcomes of the task force workshops along with interpretation of how these outcomes will impact the practice and reliability of toxicity characterization. The task force thereby focuses on two major issues that emerged from the workshops, namely considering near-field exposures and improving dose­response modeling. DISCUSSION: The task force recommended approaches to improve the assessment of human exposure, including capturing missing exposure settings and human receptor pathways by coupling additional fate and exposure processes in consumer and occupational environments (near field) with existing processes in outdoor environments (far field). To quantify overall aggregate exposure, the task force suggested that environments be coupled using a consistent set of quantified chemical mass fractions transferred among environmental compartments. With respect to dose­response, the task force was concerned about the way LCIA currently characterizes human toxicity effects, and discussed several potential solutions. A specific concern is the use of a (linear) dose­response extrapolation to zero. Another concern addresses the challenge of identifying a metric for human toxicity impacts that is aligned with the spatiotemporal resolution of present LCIA methodology, yet is adequate to indicate health impact potential. CONCLUSIONS: Further research efforts are required based on our proposed set of recommendations for improving the characterization of human exposure and toxicity impacts in LCIA and other comparative assessment frameworks. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP3871.