See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/314207282

LIFE CYCLE IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF PESTICIDES: CURRENT ISSUES AND

PERSPECTIVES

Article · January 2009

CITATIONS READS

0 1,970

7 authors, including:

Laura Apostol Raluca Hlihor

Stefan cel Mare University of Suceava Ion Ionescu de la Brad University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine…
24 PUBLICATIONS   199 CITATIONS    48 PUBLICATIONS   486 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Camelia Betianu Lucian Vasile Pavel

Gheorghe Asachi Technical University of Iasi Gheorghe Asachi Technical University of Iasi
33 PUBLICATIONS   425 CITATIONS    28 PUBLICATIONS   771 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Biosorption and bioaccumulation in the bioremediation of environmental compartments contaminated with persistent pollutants (BIOSACC) View project

10th International Conference on Environmental Engineering and Management ICEEM10 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Raluca Hlihor on 03 March 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 BULETINUL INSTITUTULUI POLITEHNIC DIN IAŞI
Publicat de
Universitatea Tehnică „Gheorghe Asachi” din Iaşi
Tomul LV (LIX), Fasc. 2, 2009
SecŃia
CHIMIE ŞI INGINERIE CHIMICĂ

LIFE CYCLE IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF PESTICIDES:

CURRENT ISSUES AND PERSPECTIVES
BY

LAURA CARMEN APOSTOL, RALUCA MARIA HLIHOR, CAMELIA

SMARANDA, VASILE LUCIAN PAVEL, BRINDUSA MIHAELA ROBU,
FLORENTINA ANCA CĂLIMAN and MARIA GAVRILESCU

Abstract. The paper analyses some aspects concerning the Life Cycle
Assessment as a tool for assessing the comprehensive environmental impacts of
products, processes and activities within environmental management and decision
making process. A special emphasis has been paid to pesticides impacts, risks and
toxicity for environment and human health. Pesticides are biologically active
substances that are directly released to the environment during the use phase of
their life cycle. Pesticides are widely used and play an important role in the
production of vital goods such as food, feedstuffs and others, so that pesticide life
cycle analysis (PLCA) as a new procedure to discover concrete deficiencies in the
production, international trade, national distribution, local application and storage.
PLCA can be used for accounting the effects of application and lack of application
of pesticides.

Key words: environment, human health, impact, inventory analysis,

modelling, pesticides, risk.

1. Introduction

Pesticides are biologically active substances that are directly released to

the environment during the use phase of their life cycle. Pesticides are
specifically used in agriculture for the control of pests, weeds or plant diseases.
Their application is still the most effective and accepted means for the
protection of plants from pests, and has contributed significantly to enhanced
agricultural productivity and high crop yields [1] (Bolognesi, 2003).
68 Laura Carmen Apostol, Raluca Maria Hlihor, Camelia Smaranda, Vasile Lucian Pavel,
Brindusa Mihaela Robu, Florentina Anca Căliman and Maria Gavrilescu

LCA is an environmental management tool for assessing the comprehensive

environmental impacts of products, processes and activities [2], [3]. (SETAC,
1993; UNEP, 1996). LCA focuses on the entire life cycle of a product: from the
extraction of resources and processing of raw material, through the
manufacture, distribution, and use of the product, to the final processing of the
disposed product.
The most important applications are as follows [4] (Goedkoop et al., 2008):
- analysis of the contribution of the life cycle stages to the overall
environmental load, usually with the aim to prioritize improvements on
products or processes.
- comparison between products for internal or internal communications.
Finnveden (2000) [5] evaluated the potential and limitations of life cycle
assessment and environmental systems analysis tools by exploring the limits of
what can be shown by LCA and other tools. He used experiences from current
LCAs and methodology discussions on the type of impacts typically included,
quality of inventory data, methodological choices in relation to time aspects,
allocation, characterization and weighting methods and uncertainties in
describing the real world. It is expected that in this decision making process
LCA can be a useful input, since it is the only tool that can be used for product
comparisons over the whole life cycle.

2. Short overview of LCA methodology

Life cycle assessment comprises an inventory phase and an impact assessment

phase. In the inventory phase (LCI) information is gathered about input and
emissions for all processes in the studied system (Fig. 1). Each life cycle stage
comprises a number of processes, typically modeled as unit processes. The
exchanges with the environment occurring in each unit process are quantified in
LCI [6],…, [8] (Curran, 1996; Vigon,; Birkveda, 2006).

Fig. 1 – Life cycle or product system [2] (Birkveda and Hauschild, 2006)
 Bul. Inst. Polit. Iasi, t. LV (LIX), f. 2, 2009 69

LCA is a relatively young technique; it became popular in the early

nineties. Initially, many thought that LCA would be a very good tool to support
environmental claims that could directly be used in marketing [4] (Goedkoop et
al., 2008). Life-cycle inventory analysis had its beginnings in the 1960s, as a
result of concerns of the limitations of material resources and energy,
highlighted and discussed in global modeling studies published by Dennis
Meadows in his book The Limits to Growths, as well as in the publication A
Blueprint for Survival of the Club of Rome [7] (Vigon et al., 1994). In 1969, the
fundaments of life-cycle inventory analysis were laid in the United States as a
result of a study within a soft drinks company. The process of quantifying the
resource use and environmental releases of products became known in USA as
Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis (REPA), while in Europe it was
recognized as an ecobalance. Among 1975-1980s the importance of these
comprehensive studies decreased because of the fading influence of the oil
crisis, while the interest shifted towards hazardous waste management. After
1988, the life-cycle inventory analysis emerged again as a tool for analyzing
environmental problems. Over the past 20 years, most life-cycle inventories
have examined different forms of activities, regarding actual consumer
products, alternative industrial processes etc.
In recent years life cycle thinking has become a key focus in environmental
policy making. A clear example is the concept of IPP (Integrated Product
Policy) as communicated by the EU, but also the America’s many countries
develop strategies that promote life cycle thinking as a key concept. Another
development is the sustainability reporting movement [4] (Goedkoop et al.,
2008).
The impact assessment phase (LCIA) follows the LCI and performs an
assessment of all relevant environmental impacts associated with the input and
emissions mapped in the LCI [9] (Hellweg and Geisler, 2003). LCIA thus also
covers other chemical-related impacts like global warming and tropospheric
ozone formation, as well as physical impacts on land and input-related impacts
on the availability of resources [10], [11] (Wenzel et al., 1997; Hauschild and
Wenzel, 1998).
Through all these stages, extractions and consumptions or resources (including
energy) and releases to air, water and soil are identified and quantified.
Subsequently, the potential contribution of these resource extractions and
consumptions, and environmental releases to several important types of
environmental impact are assessed and evaluated [6] (Curran, 1996).
There are four ISO standards specifically designed for LCA application:
ISO 14040: Principles and framework
ISO 14041: Goal and Scope definition and inventory analysis
ISO 14042: Life Cycle Impact assessment
ISO 14043: Interpretation
70 Laura Carmen Apostol, Raluca Maria Hlihor, Camelia Smaranda, Vasile Lucian Pavel,
Brindusa Mihaela Robu, Florentina Anca Căliman and Maria Gavrilescu

Currently (early 2006) two draft standards have been published that will replace
these four standards:
ISO/DIS 14040: Principles and Framework
ISO/DIS 14044: Requirements and Guidelines
The new 14044 standard replaces the 14041, 14042 and 14043, but there have
been no major changes in the contents [4] (Goedkoop et al., 2008).
The technical framework for the Life Cycle Assessment methodology has been
standardized by the International Standards Organization (ISO). According to
ISO 14040 (1997, 2006) LCA consists of four phases, as presented in Fig. 2:
1. goal and scope definition
2. inventory analysis
3. impact assessment
4. improvement assessment (interpretation)
Their contents are illustrated in Table 1.
Table 1
Description of phases constituting LCA methodology [12] (Cowell, 1999)
Phase Description
Goal Definition and Scoping defining the purpose of the study, its scope, data
quality goals, and functional unit (which is the unit of
analysis defined for the study, according to the service
delivered by the system under analysis)

Inventory Analysis the environmental problems (or “interventions”

according to ISO 14040 terminology) associated with
the life cycle for the functional unit are quantified:
these are the material and energy inputs and product,
waste, and emission outputs to air, water, and land.

Impact Assessment the environmental burdens calculated in the analysis

are “translated” into environmental impacts;
the environmental impacts of the system under
analysis are presented in a form that is useful for the
purpose of the study and that can be understood by
users of the study results
types of impact assessment categories considered
include depletion of abiotic resources, global
warming, acidification, eutrophication and toxicity.

Improvement Assessment or the study results are evaluated and options for
Interpretation reducing the environmental impacts of the functional
unit are identified
 Bul. Inst. Polit. Iasi, t. LV (LIX), f. 2, 2009 71

Fig. 2 – The phases of LCA according to ISO 14040 [2], [6] (SETAC, 1993;
Curran, 1996)

The basis of any LCA is the creation of a model that contains the amounts of all
inputs and outputs of processes that occur during the life cycle of a product.
Three types of models are used [4], [13] (Goedkoop et al., 2008; Consoli,
1993):
- Modeling of TECHNOSPHERE: in the inventory phase (the modelling
of technical systems, such as production processes, transport processes etc.;
usually, uncertainties in technosphere are not greater than a factor 2, while
almost all measurements are verifiable and repeatable).
- Modeling of ECOSPHERE: in the impact assessment phase (the
modelling of environmental mechanisms:"what happens with an emission?";
uncertainties are often one to three orders of magnitude, and often verification is
difficult or impossible, for example one cannot test-run climate change and
repeat this several times to get good measurements).
- Modeling of VALUESPHERE: in weighting and ranking, and to deal
with unavoidable value choices (this includes weighting of impact categories;
value sphere is typically in the area of social sciences and one cannot really
speak of uncertainties, as one can say a "single" truth does not exist).
In the inventory phase, a model is made of the complex technical system that is
used to produce, transport use and dispose of a product. This results in a flow
sheet or process tree with all the relevant processes. For each process, all the
relevant inflows and the outflows are collected. The result is usually a very long
list of inflows and outflows that is often difficult to interpret [4] (Goedkoop et
al., 2008), since the most demanding task in performing LCAs is data
72 Laura Carmen Apostol, Raluca Maria Hlihor, Camelia Smaranda, Vasile Lucian Pavel,
Brindusa Mihaela Robu, Florentina Anca Căliman and Maria Gavrilescu

collection. Depending on the available time and budget, there are a number of
strategies to collect such data. Two types of data can be distinguished:
1. foreground data
2. background data
Foreground data refers to very specific necessary to model the system, and is
typically data that describes a particular product system and particular
specialized production system.
Background data is data for generic materials, energy, transport and waste
management systems. This is typically data can be found in databases and
literature.
Questionnaires are often used as a means to collect data [3], [4], [6] (Goedkoop
et al., 2008).
The area of protection in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) contains human
health in addition to natural environment. This is equivalent to the fact that
main risks in RA are health risks and environmental (ecological) risks.
For this, a model of an environmental mechanism is used. For example, an
emission of SO2 could result in an increased acidity. Increased acidity can
cause changes in the soil that result in dying trees etc. By using several
environmental mechanisms, the LCI result can be translated into a number of
impact categories such as acidification, climate change etc. (Fig. 3).
Another possibility is the use of Eco-Indicators 95 and 99 [14]. The evaluation
method for calculating the Eco-Indicator 95 strongly focuses on the effects of
emissions on the ecosystem. For the valuation, the distance to target principle is
used, but the targets are based on scientific data on environmental damage and
not on policy statements.

Fig. 3 – Evaluating the magnitude and significance of the potential

environmental impacts by selecting impact categories and defining the
endpoints (illustration of the grouping option on the Eco-indicator 99 method).
 Bul. Inst. Polit. Iasi, t. LV (LIX), f. 2, 2009 73

The targets values are related to three types of environmental damage (Fig. 3):
- deterioration of ecosystems (a target level has been chosen at which
“only” 5% ecosystem degradation will still occur over several decades)
- deterioriation of human health (this refers in particular to winter and
summer smog and the acceptable level set is that smog periods should hardly
ever occur again)
- human deaths (the level chosen as acceptable is 1 fatality per million
inhabitants per year)
The choice of the impact assessment method depends largely on the addressed
audience (eco-designers, product managers, environmental management
experts).

3. LCA for pesticides

A comprehensive environmental evaluation of pesticides requires a thorough

analysis of impacts associated with pesticides life-cycles. Such an evaluation
specifically allows determining whether the current development of pesticides
leads to increased environmental performance from a life-cycle perspective.
LCA has only recently started to develop tools to estimate the emissions of
pesticides, their fate in the environment, and their effects on humans and
ecosystems. Most of these approaches are based on models developed for Risk
Assessment [9] (Hellweg and Geissler, 2003).

3.1. Context

Pesticide life cycle analysis (PLCA) is a new procedure to discover concrete

deficiencies in the production, international trade, national distribution, local
application and storage, effects of application and lack of application of
pesticides.
There are several reasons why pesticides as a substance group need special
attention in the Life Cycle Assessment.
Firstly, they are distinguished by the fact that most other chemicals reach the
environment as an unintentional consequence of their application, pesticides are
spread on purpose in parts of the biosphere to control certain life forms.
Secondly, pesticides have been designed to have strong and rather specific
effects on selected groups of organisms in the environment while chemicals at
large often have weaker and more unspecific effects.
Thirdly, the use of pesticides is one of the main differences between
conventional and organic agriculture.
To quantify impacts within a life cycle assessment (LCA) of a product or
service, characterization factors are applied in the impact phase.
Characterization factors for ecotoxicity quantify the effects of a chemical on the
74 Laura Carmen Apostol, Raluca Maria Hlihor, Camelia Smaranda, Vasile Lucian Pavel,
Brindusa Mihaela Robu, Florentina Anca Căliman and Maria Gavrilescu

environment caused by its emission (http://www.americana.org/tiki-

index.php?page=Life_Cycle_Analysis). They consist of:
- a fate part, dealing with the steady-state concentration change in a
compartment due to an environmental emission change, which is generally
determined by applying a multimedia fate and exposure model that calculates
steady-state concentrations in various environmental compartments from
chemical emissions into the environment.
- an effect part, addressing the affected fraction of species due to the
concentration change, is commonly derived from toxicity data based on
laboratory experiments.
The impact assessment components of pesticides in LCA can be resumed as is
presented in Table 2 [9].

Table 2.
Stage Actions
Fate modeling relates the emission in the Life
Cycle Inventory with the increase
in concentration in a given
medium.
Impact modeling Exposure quantifies the amount of substances
modeling absorbed by the organism
depending on the concentration in
the different media
Impact modeling relates the amount absorbed to the
effect on the organism
Damage modeling translating the effect on the
organisms in a change integrated
over time and space for a group of
organisms (humans or
biodiversity).

In LCA, the site may be considered as part of the whole technical process (Fig.
1). The fractions of the applied dose which reach the environment surrounding
the field, including the groundwater under it are represented by the emissions of
pesticides from this unit process. Considering the site to be part of the technical
process (technosphere) (Birkveda and Hauschild) leads to the fact that
environmental impacts on ecosystems in the field will be not considered in the
impact assessment, since the reason for applying pesticides in the field is to
reduce populations of unwanted organisms (weeds, insects or fungi) [8], …[15].
Toxicity potentials are standard values used in life cycle assessment (LCA) to
 Bul. Inst. Polit. Iasi, t. LV (LIX), f. 2, 2009 75

enable a comparison of toxic impacts between substances [16] (Huijbregts et al.,

2000). Therefore, the ecotoxic impacts occurring in the field would be
spectacular they were included in the LCA and would probably dominate all the
other determined environmental impacts [17].
Toxicological characterization factors for human health are calculated
by taking into account the time integrated fate, exposure of a unit mass of
chemical released into the environment (including, in many cases, the size of
the exposed population), toxicological potency (a quantitative measure related
to the dose–response of a chemical, such as the LOEL – the Lowest Observable
Effect Level in a test) and toxicological severity (a measure or description,
qualitative or quantitative, of the effect incurred, such as bladder cancer or skin
irritation). These stages are illustrated in Fig. 4 [17] (Krewitt et al., 2002;
Hertwich, 1999).
The fate and exposure measure in LCIA is a predicted daily intake, i.e. a daily
dose (ingested or inhaled). More recently, this has been expressed as an
exposure efficiency or dose-fraction (e.g. fraction of mass released that is either
inhaled or ingested).

Fig. 4 – Stages for the calculation of factors which characterize the human
health in LCIA [17] (Krewitt et al., 2002).
76 Laura Carmen Apostol, Raluca Maria Hlihor, Camelia Smaranda, Vasile Lucian Pavel,
Brindusa Mihaela Robu, Florentina Anca Căliman and Maria Gavrilescu

The approach of Margni et al. (2002) [18] considers a full-fate analysis and the
exposure to toxic pollutants through different media and pathways, including
residues in food, based on the behavior of the pesticides in air and the
importance of transfers between soil and surface or ground waters. For human
toxicity, estimates of pesticide residues show that food intake results in the
highest toxic exposure, about 103 to 105 times higher than that induced by
drinking water or inhalation. For the “no effect concentration (NEC)” used as a
reference for both terrestrial and aquatic ecotoxicity, extrapolation methods are
developed on the basis of experimental data. Extrapolation coefficients for risk
assessment are to be used with caution; an intra-species extrapolation factor of
10 explained the relationship between acute (LC50) and chronic (NOEC)
ecotoxicity, whereas it was not suitable for inter-species extrapolation [18]
(Margin et al., 2002)
Sometimes, LCA practitioners not to include ecotoxicity in their LCA owing to
a large uncertainty attached to the characterization factors due to uncertain input
data, and due to model choices and simplifications.

3.2. Description of impact modelling

Characterization factors for ecotoxicity quantify the effects of a chemical on the

environment caused by its emission (http://www.americana.org/tiki-
index.php?page=Life_Cycle_Analysis) (Eq. 1)

(1) Impact = Source x Fate x Effect

where:
(1a) Effect model = 0.5/HC50
(1b) PEC proportional to F pest. Water x 1/ Ktot water

In these conditions, the equation describing impact components could be written

as (2) [19]:

(2) Ipest = Spest x Fpest. water x 1/ Ktot water x 0.5/HC50

where:
Ipest = impact of pesticide
Spest = quantity of pesticide applied
F pest. water = fraction of pesticide transferred in the aquatic ecosytesm
Ktot water = residence time in water

0.5/HC50 = fraction of affected species per increasing unit of concentration

The inclusion of fate and exposure is a central issue in Life Cycle Impact
Assessment (LCIA). According to the framework developed by the Society of
 Bul. Inst. Polit. Iasi, t. LV (LIX), f. 2, 2009 77

Environmental Toxicity and Chemistry (SETAC), fate and exposure route are
included through a fate coefficient which makes the link between an emission
and the related increase in concentration [20] (Jolliet and Crettaz, 1007).
Toxicity evaluation is particularly important in Life Cycle Assessment of
agricultural products in order to assess the potential side-effects of pesticides.
Usually, two methodologies were used to evaluate potential toxic impacts of the
pesticides applied in Chemical Pest Management (CPM) and Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) [19] (Antón et al., 2003):
- the empirical method, Critical Surface-Time (CST),
- the nested multi-media fate, exposure and effects model, USES-LCA

3.3. The case of Pentachlorophenol

It is widely assumed that stressors such as toxicants affect organisms by

impairment of those life-cycle variables that are most sensitive to these
toxicants.
Pentachlorophenol (PCP) has been used in the past as a pesticide, herbicide,
antifungal agent, bactericide and wood preservative [21] and part of PCP is also
produced from the bleaching process with chlorine gas in pulp and paper
industry.
Production and use of pentachlorophenol (PCP) has been restricted in Europe
since the early 1980s. As a result, PCP usage has been declining since the early
1980s.
PCP is acutely toxic to a variety of microorganisms and mammals, as it is an
inhibitor of oxidative phosphorylation [22]. Furthermore, it disrupts the proton
gradient across membranes in cells [23], [24]. PCP appears to accumulate
within the food chains, and is thought to be mutagenic or at least comutagenic
[25]. Thus, human exposure to PCP is considered to pose significant health
hazards (Table 3) [26].
Due to its environmental significance, it has been the focus of numerous
environmental investigations [27],…,[29].
People may be exposed to PCP in occupational areas during the
inhalation of contaminated workplace air and dermal contact or with wood
products treated with the chemical. Some other important routes of exposure
seem to be the inhalation of contaminated air, ingestion of contaminated ground
water used as a source of drinking water, ingestion of contaminated food, and
dermal contact with soils or products treated with the chemical. Applying a
mathematical model for partitioning of PCP in the environment researchers
calculated that 96.5 percent is in soil, 2.5 percent in water, 1 percent in air, and
less than 1 percent in suspended sediments and organisms in aquatic
environments [30], …, [32] (Fisher, 1991).
78 Laura Carmen Apostol, Raluca Maria Hlihor, Camelia Smaranda, Vasile Lucian Pavel,
Brindusa Mihaela Robu, Florentina Anca Căliman and Maria Gavrilescu

Table 3.
Routes of exposure for PCP
Route Effects
Oral PCP is readily absorbed by the gastro intestinal tract and reaches
peak plasma levels in 4 h. Absorption is faster when PCP is
dissolved in alcohol
Measurements of PCP in the air, water, food, drugs, and
consumer products confirm that nearly every environmental area
is contaminated with low levels of PCP.
For workers using PCP, the major routes of absorption are
dermal and inhalation.
Inhalation Inhalation is one of the two major routes of absorption in the
workplace.
Dermal absorption is the other major route.
Although no experimental data are available on absorption by
inhalation, the cases of acute intoxication reported are almost
exclusively due to inhalation and dermal contact with high doses
of PCP.
Fine dusts and sprays of PCP or chlorophenate cause painful
irritation to the upper respiratory tract and eyes. This intense
pain is an excellent warning sign. If it affects the nose, it will
alert the person to avoid further exposure which might produce
adverse systemic effects. Workers exposed to concentrations of
1 mg/m3 or more have reported painful nasal irritation.
Dermal Dermal absorption is the major route of absorption in the
workplace. (Inhalation is the other major route). PCP is readily
absorbed through the skin.
A case of skin absorption was reported where a high PCP level in
the urine was found after a worker had cleaned a paintbrush for
only 10 min in a can that contained a 4% solution of PCP
(Benvenue et al 1967). Workers handling PCP-treated lumber
absorb from one-half to two-thirds of the total PCP accumulation
through the skin.
These exposures result in low quantities of PCP in the serum and
urine of occupationally exposed persons. Improvements in
industrial hygiene can reduce PCP concentrations in the urine.
Eye PCP causes painful irritation of the eyes. No data are available
on the importance of the eyes as a route of entry.
Parenteral The subcutaneous or intraperitoneal injection of C14-PCP has
been used in autoradiographic studies of PCP distribution in
animals.
 Bul. Inst. Polit. Iasi, t. LV (LIX), f. 2, 2009 79

Also, general population exposure may happen through contact with

contaminated environment media, predominantly in the vicinity of wood
treatment facilities and hazardous wastes sites.
The Ecological Effects and Environmental Risk Characterization
demonstrates that PCP is moderately to very highly acutely toxic to many
animals including birds, mammals, freshwater fish, freshwater invertebrates,
estuarine and marine fish, estuarine and marine invertebrates.
However, numerous studies show that PCP is everywhere in the environment
and that it leaching out of treated wood into soil and water.

4. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) as part of sustainability assessment

In order to answer to even more complex objectives, LCA is more and

more coupled with other tools integrating the different dimensions of
sustainable development: social and economic.
Evaluating the sustainability of processes, products and their interactions
through the economy presents challenges to practitioners of Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA) and Industrial Ecology (IE). These challenges arise from the
normally large scale of these problems and the need for defining the meaning of
“sustainable” [32], [33] (Andersson et al., 1998). Identifying the environmental
impacts of manufacturing activities and products, including the impact of
disposal and attempts to quantify qualitative assessments is the primary focus of
LCA. Sustainability analysis, which examines the components of a service or
system to determine the ability of the service or system to be continued
indefinitely, is focused on the potential sustainable continuation of those
activities without harming the environment or depleting a resource. It has been
developed using concepts from LCA and sustainability indicators but focusing
on the sustainability of the activity.

5. Conclusions

The basis of any LCA is the creation of a model that contains the
amounts of all inputs and outputs of processes that occur during the life cycle of
a product. LCA studies can help to focus attention on those parts of the life
cycle contributing the greatest environmental impacts.
In comparing alternative systems with environmental impacts at
different life cycle stages, the assessment gives a comprehensive overview of
the trade-offs between the systems.
Toxicity evaluation is particularly important in Life Cycle Assessment
of agricultural products for assessing the potential side-effects of pesticides, in
order to develop the best available practice in fate and the exposure assessment
of pesticides for evaluating their impacts on human health and ecosystems.
80 Laura Carmen Apostol, Raluca Maria Hlihor, Camelia Smaranda, Vasile Lucian Pavel,
Brindusa Mihaela Robu, Florentina Anca Căliman and Maria Gavrilescu

LCA provides the more quantitative and scientific basis for all these
new concepts and future studies on pesticides transfer to food will be necessary
to improve this situation.
*
Received, June 3, 2009 “Gheorghe Asachi” Technical University of Iaşi, Faculty
of Chemical Engineering and Environment Protection,
Department of Environmental Engineering and
Management
e-mails: apo.laura@ch.tuiasi.ro
raluca.hlihor@ch.tuiasi.ro
betianuc@ch.tuiasi.ro
lpav@ch.tuiasi.ro
brobu@ch.tuiasi.ro
anca_chem@yahoo.com
mgav@ch.tuiasi.ro

Acknowledgement
This paper was elaborated with the support of BRAIN project Doctoral scholarships as an
investment in intelligence - ID 6681, financed by the European Social Found and Romanian
Government and ID_595 Project within the National Program for Research, Development and
Innovation, PN-II, contract 132/2007.

REFERENCES

1. Bolognesi C., Genotoxicity of pesticides: A review of human biomonitoring

studies. Mutation Research - Reviews in Mutation Research, 543, 251-
272 (2003).
2. SETAC, Guidelines for Life-Cycle Assessment - A Code of Practice,
Workshop Report, Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry,
Sesimbra/ Portugal SETAC Press, Pensacola, Florida, 1993.
3. UNEP, LCA - What it is and how to use it? Technical Report, United Nations
Environment Programme, Paris, 1996.
4. Goedkoop M., De Schryver A., Oele M., Introduction to LCA with SimaPro
7, SimaPRO 7, 2008, On line at:
http://www.pre.nl/download/manuals/SimaPro7IntroductionToLCA.pdf
5. Finnveden G., On the limitations of life cycle assessment and environmental
systems analysis tools in general, The International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment, 5, 229-238 (2000).
6. Curran M.A., Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment, McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1996.
7. Vigon B.W., Tolle D.A., Cornaby B.W., Latham H.C., Harrison C.L.,
Bogusky T.L., Hunt R.G., Sellers J.D., Life-Cycle Assessment. Inventory
 Bul. Inst. Polit. Iasi, t. LV (LIX), f. 2, 2009 81

Guidelines and Principles, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Ann Arbor,

London, Tokyo.
8. Birkveda M., Hauschild M.Z., PestLCI - A model for estimating field
emissions of pesticides in agricultural LCA, Ecological Modelling, 198,
433–451 (2006).
9. Hellweg S., Geissler G., Life Cycle Impact of pesticides when active
substances are spread into the environment, The International Journal of
Life Cycle Assessment, 8, 310-312 (2003).
10. Wenzel H., Hauschild M.Z., Alting L., Environmental Assessment of
Products. Vol. 1-Methodology, Tools, Techniques and Case Studies,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Hingham, USA, 1997.
11. Hauschild M.Z., Wenzel H., Environmental Assessment of Products. Vol. 2-
Scientific Background. Chapman and Hall/Kluwer Academic Publishers,
United Kingdom/Hingham, 1998.
12. Cowell S.J., Use of environmental life cycle assessment to evaluate
alternative agricultural production systems, 52nd Conference Proceedings
of The New Zealand Plant Protection Society Incorporated, Palmerston
North, New Zealand, 40-44, 1999.
13. Consoli F., Allen D., Boustead I., Fava J., Franklin W., Jensen A.A., de
Oude N., Parrish R., Perriman R., Postlethwaite D., Quay B., Seguin J.,
Vigon B., Guidelines for Life-Cycle Assessment: A ‘Code of Practice,
SETAC, Brussels and Pensacola, 1993.
14. Goldkoop M., Effling S., Collignon M., The Eco-Indicator 99. A damage
oriented method for Life Cycle Impact assessment. Manual for designers,
Pre Consultants B.V., Amersfoort, 2000.
15. Juraske R., Advances In Life Cycle Impact Assessment of Pesticides:
Methodological Improvements and Experimental Studies, PhD Thesis,
University Rovira i Virgili, Taragona, Spain, 2007.
16. Huijbregts M. A. J., Thissenb U., Jagerc T., van de Meentc D., Ragas A. M.
J., Priority assessment of toxic substances in life cycle assessment. Part II:
Assessing parameter uncertainty and human variability in the calculation
of toxicity potentials, Chemosphere, 41, 575-588 (2000).
17. Krewitt W., Pennington D.W., Olsen S.I., Crettaz P., Jolliet O., Indicators
for human toxicity in Life Cycle Impact Assessment, Position paper for
SETAC-Europe WIA2 Task Group on Human toxicity, Version: January
7, 2002.
18. Margni M., Rossierb D., Crettaza P., Jolliet O., Life cycle impact
assessment of pesticides on human health and ecosystems, Agriculture,
Ecosystems & Environment, 93, 379-392 (2002).
19. Antón A., Castells F., Montero J.I., Huijbregts M.A., Pesticides effect
evaluation in life cycle evaluation in life cycle assessment of tomato crop,
DF19: LCA forum, Zurich, 2003.
82 Laura Carmen Apostol, Raluca Maria Hlihor, Camelia Smaranda, Vasile Lucian Pavel,
Brindusa Mihaela Robu, Florentina Anca Căliman and Maria Gavrilescu

20. Jolliet O., Crettaz P., Fate coefficients for the toxicity assessment of air
pollutants, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2, 104-
110 (1997).
21. Kaoa C.M., Chaib C.T., Liub J.K., Yehc T.Y., Chena K.F., Chend S.C.,
Evaluation of natural and enhanced PCP biodegradation at a former
pesticide manufacturing plant, Water Research, 38, 663-672 (2004).
22. Shen D.-S., Liu X.-W., Feng H.-J., Effect of easily degradable substrate on
anaerobic degradation of pentachlorophenol in an upflow anaerobic
sludge blanket (UASB) reactor, J. Hazard. Mater. B119, 239-243 (2005).
23. Ye F.-X., Shen D.-S., Feng X.-S., Anaerobic granule development for
removal of pentachlorophenol in an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket
(UASB) reactor, Process Biochem., 39, 1249-1256 (2004)
24. Escher B.I., Snozzi M., Schwarzenbach R.P., Uptake, speciation and
uncoupling activity of substituted phenols in energy transducing
membranes, Environ. Sci. Technol. 30, 3071-3079 (1996).
25. Lu P., Metcalf R.L., Cole L.K., The environmental fate of
14Cpentachlorophenol in laboratory model ecosystems. In: Rao R. (Ed.),
Pentachlorophenol: Chemistry, Pharmacology and Environmental
Toxicology, Plenum Press, New York, 1997, 53-65.
26. Dougherty R.C., Human exposure to pentachlorophenol. In: Rao R. (Ed.),
Pentachlorophenol: Chemistry, Pharmacology and Environmental
Toxicology, Plenum Press, New York, 1977, 53-65.
27. Wang J.L., Qian Y., Horan N., Stentiford E., Bioadsorption of
pentachlorophenol (PCP) from aqueous solution by activated sludge
biomass, Bioresour. Technol., 75 157-161 (2000).
28. Kennedy K.J., Pham T.T., Effect of anaerobic sludge source and condition
on biosorption of PCP, Water Res., 29, 2360-2366 (1995).
29. Cort T.L., Song M.-S., Bielefeldt A.R., Nonionic surfactant effects on
pentachlorophenol biodegradation, Water Res., 36, 1253-1261 (2002).
30. Shen D.-S., Liu X.-W., He Y.-H., Studies on adsorption, desorption and
biodegradation of pentachlorophenol by the anaerobic granular sludge in
an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor, Journal of
Hazardous Materials, B125 231-236 (2005).
31. Fisher B., Pentachlorophenol: toxicology and environmental fate, Journal of
pesticide reform, 11, 1-6, (1991).
32. Andersson K., Eide M.H., Lundqvist U., Mattsson B., The feasibility of
including sustainability in LCA for product development, Journal of
Cleaner Production 6, 289-298 (1998).
33. Hertwich E.G., Toxic Equivalency: Addressing Human Health Effects in
Life Cycle Impact Assessment, Thesis, U.C. Berkeley, 1999.
 Bul. Inst. Polit. Iasi, t. LV (LIX), f. 2, 2009 83

EVALUAREA IMPACTULUI CICLULUI DE VIAłĂ AL PESTICIDELOR:

PROBLEME ACTUALE ŞI DE PERSPECTIVĂ

(Rezumat)

Evaluarea ciclului de viaŃă este percepută ca un instrument al

managementului mediului şi luare a deciziilor în raport cu mediul înconjurător,
prin evaluarea impactului produselor, proceselor şi activităŃilor. În lucrare se
acordă o atenŃie aparte impactului, riscului şi toxicităŃii pesticidelor în mediul
înconjurător şi în raport cu sănătatea umană. Pesticidele sunt substanŃe biologic
active introduse în mod deliberat în mediuîn faya de utilizare a ciclului lor de
viaŃă. Pesticidele pot avea o largă utilitate şi joacă un rol important în producŃia
unor bunuri vitale cum sunt alimentele, materiile prime ec., astfel încât analiza
ciclului de viaŃă a pesticidelor (PLCA) poate fi aplicată ca o procedură avansată
ce permite punerea în evidenŃă a unor deficienŃe în producŃie, pe piaŃa
internaŃională a pesticidelor, distribuŃia la nivel naŃional, aplicarea lor la nivel
local şi în timpul depozitării. PLCA este fi aplicată şi pentru cuantificarea
efectelor utilizării sau neutilizării pesticidelor.
 84 Laura Carmen Apostol, Raluca Maria Hlihor, Camelia Smaranda, Vasile Lucian Pavel,
Brindusa Mihaela Robu, Florentina Anca Căliman and Maria Gavrilescu

View publication stats