<  Back to the Polytechnique Montréal portal

The clearwater consensus: the estimation of metal hazard in fresh water

Miriam L. Diamond, Nilima Gandhi, William J. Adams, John Atherton, Satyendra P. Bhavsar, Cécile Bulle, Peter G. C. Campbell, Alain Dubreuil, Anne Fairbrother, Kevin Farley, Andrew Green, Jeroen Guinee, Michael Z. Hauschild, Mark A. J. Huijbregts, Sébastien Humbert, Karen S. Jensen, Olivier Jolliet, Manuele Margni, James C. McGeer, Willie J. G. M. Peijnenburg, Ralph Rosenbaum, Dik van de Meent and Martina G. Vijver

Article (2010)

Published Version
Terms of Use: Creative Commons Attribution .
Download (1MB)
Cite this document: Diamond, M. L., Gandhi, N., Adams, W. J., Atherton, J., Bhavsar, S. P., Bulle, C., ... Vijver, M. G. (2010). The clearwater consensus: the estimation of metal hazard in fresh water. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15(2), p. 143-147. doi:10.1007/s11367-009-0140-2
Show abstract Hide abstract


Background, aim, and scope : Task Force 3 of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative has been working towards developing scientifically sound methods for quantifying impacts of substances released into the environment. The Clearwater Consensus follows from the Lausanne (Jolliet et al. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:209–212, 2006) and Apeldoorn (Apeldoorn Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(5):334, 2004) statements by recommending an approach to and identifying further research for quantifying comparative toxicity potentials (CTPs) for ecotoxicological impacts to freshwater receptors from nonferrous metals. The Clearwater Consensus describes stages and considerations for calculating CTPs that address inconsistencies in assumptions and approaches for organic substances and nonferrous metals by focusing on quantifying the bioavailable fraction of a substance. Methods : A group of specialists in Life Cycle Assessment, Life Cycle Impact Assessment, metal chemistry, and ecotoxicology met to review advances in research on which to base a consensus on recommended methods to calculate CTPs for metals. Conclusions and recommendations : Consensus was reached on introducing a bioavailability factor (BF) into calculating CTPs where the BF quantifies the fraction of total dissolved chemical that is truly dissolved, assuming that the latter is equivalent to the bioavailable fraction. This approach necessitates calculating the effects factor, based on a HC50EC50, according to the bioavailable fraction of chemical. The Consensus recommended deriving the BF using a geochemical model, specifically WHAM VI. Consensus was also reached on the need to incorporate into fate calculations the speciation, size fractions, and dissolution rates of metal complexes for the fate factor calculation. Consideration was given to the characteristics of the evaluative environment defined by the multimedia model, which is necessary because of the dependence of metal bioavailability on water chemistry.

Uncontrolled Keywords

comparative toxicity potentials; freshwater ecotoxicity, life cycle impact assessment; metal bioavailability; nonferrous metals

Open Access document in PolyPublie
Subjects: 1600 Génie industriel > 1600 Génie industriel
2950 Mathématiques appliquées > 2957 Mathématiques de la biologie et de la physiologie
Department: Département de mathématiques et de génie industriel
Research Center: Non applicable
Date Deposited: 16 Aug 2021 13:36
Last Modified: 17 Aug 2021 01:20
PolyPublie URL: https://publications.polymtl.ca/4844/
Document issued by the official publisher
Journal Title: The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (vol. 15, no. 2)
Publisher: Springer Nature
Official URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0140-2


Total downloads

Downloads per month in the last year

Origin of downloads


Repository Staff Only