Clean Techn Environ Policy (2011) 13:687–696

DOI 10.1007/s10098-010-0338-9

ORIGINAL PAPER

TRACI 2.0: the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical
and other environmental impacts 2.0
Jane Bare

Received: 15 April 2010 / Accepted: 22 November 2010 / Published online: 21 January 2011
Ó Springer-Verlag (outside the USA) 2011

Abstract TRACI 2.0, the Tool for the Reduction and and within numerous college curriculums in engineering
Assessment of Chemical and other environmental Impacts and design departments.
2.0, has been expanded and developed for sustainability
metrics, life cycle impact assessment, industrial ecology, Keywords Life cycle impact assessment 
and process design impact assessment for developing Life cycle assessment  Methodology development
increasingly sustainable products, processes, facilities,
companies, and communities. TRACI 2.0 allows the
quantification of stressors that have potential effects, Introduction
including ozone depletion, global warming, acidification,
eutrophication, tropospheric ozone (smog) formation, Impact assessment for environmental decision making in
human health criteria-related effects, human health cancer, areas as sustainability metrics, life cycle assessment
human health noncancer, ecotoxicity, and fossil fuel (LCA), and industrial ecology involve the quantification of
depletion effects. Research is going on to quantify the use a large number of potential impacts. Unfortunately, com-
of land and water in a future version of TRACI. The ori- pleting comprehensive assessments for all potential effects
ginal version of TRACI released in August 2002 (Bare at a high level of simulation, sophistication, and disag-
et al. J Ind Ecol 6:49–78, 2003) has been used in many gregation require excessively large amounts of time, data,
prestigious applications including: the US Green Building knowledge, and resources. It, therefore, follows that every
Council’s LEED Certification (US Green Building Coun- study must be limited in some aspects of sophistication
cil, Welcome to US Green Building Council, 2008), the and/or comprehensiveness.
National Institute of Standards and Technology’s BEES While conducting several LCA case studies, the US
(Building for Environment and Economic Sustainability) Environmental Protection Agency’s (US EPA’s) National
(Lippiatt, BEES 4.0: building for environmental and eco- Risk Management Research Laboratory conducted a liter-
nomic sustainability technical manual and user guide, ature survey of existing methodologies (Goedkoop and
2007) which is used by US EPA for Environmentally Spriensma 1999; Guinée 2002; Hauschild and Wenzel
Preferable Purchasing (US Environmental Protection 1998; Heijungs et al. 1992a, b; Jolliet et al. 2003). As it was
Agency, Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP), apparent that no tool existed that would allow a level of
2008d), the US Marine Corps’ EKAT (Environmental sophistication, comprehensiveness, and applicability to the
Knowledge and Assessment Tool) for military and non- United States, the US EPA decided to develop a software
military uses (US Marine Corps, Environmental knowledge tool to conduct impact assessment with the best applicable
and assessment tool (EKAT): first time user’s guide, 2007), methodologies within each category. This research effort
was called TRACI—the Tool for the Reduction and
Assessment of Chemical and other environmental Impacts
J. Bare (&)
(Bare et al. 2003).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 26 W Martin Luther
King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268, USA As dictated within the ISO 14042 guidance in this area,
e-mail: bare.jane@epa.gov an LCA has several steps, some of which may be iterative:

123
688 J. Bare

inventory, impact assessment, normalization (optional), The traditional pollution categories of ozone depletion,
and either valuation, grouping or weighting (optional) global warming, human health criteria, smog formation,
(International Organization of Standardization (ISO) acidification, and eutrophication were included within
2000). It is critical to consider the importance of each of TRACI due to various programs and regulations within
these stages (e.g., without a strong inventory possessing EPA and recognizing the value of minimizing effects from
high data quality, the results of the impact assessment will these categories. The category of human health was further
be less valuable). In addition, while it is important to show subdivided into cancer, noncancer, and criteria pollutants
as much comprehensiveness as possible within each study, (with an initial focus on particulates) to better reflect the
as was recently demonstrated at a US valuation exercise focus of EPA regulations and to allow methodology
conducted at NIST, some impact category results may development consistent with the US regulations, hand-
receive much more attention (Gloria et al. 2007). books, and guidelines. Smog formation is recognized as a
The first step in developing this tool was to select the significant environmental issue within the US and has
impact categories for analysis and methodology develop- separate regulations which address its prevention. Smog
ment. It was soon recognized the selection of these impact formation effects were kept independent and not further
categories is a normative decision depending on what is aggregated with other human health impacts because
valued to the individual user. In an attempt to be fully environmental effects related to smog formation would
comprehensive in the original selection of impact catego- have become lost in the process of aggregation. Criteria
ries, EPA initiated a taxonomy study of possible impacts pollutants within TRACI are various sizes and forms of
(and impact categories) which could be included (Bare and particulate matter (e.g., PM 2.5 and PM10) and pollutants
Gloria 2008). From this greater list of impact categories, a which lead to respiratory impacts related to particulates
smaller more manageable list of impact categories was (e.g., sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides). Here they were
selected for inclusion into TRACI and subsequently, maintained as a separate human health impact category
TRACI 2.0. This ‘‘manageable’’ list was selected for a allowing a modeling approach that recognizes their unique
variety of reasons, including, consistency with existing characteristics and highlighting the extensive epidemio-
regulations and policies, perceived importance, and ease of logical data associated with these well-studied impacts.
modeling. The resource depletion categories are recognized as

Fig. 1 TRACI 2.0 framework

123
TRACI 2.0: the tool for the reduction and assessment 689

significant in the US, especially for fossil fuel use, land use, As TRACI is an impact assessment tool, the selection of
and water use. Although not included in TRACI 2.0, inventory data source will not be further discussed here.
research is underway to include land use and water use The heart of the TRACI framework is the characterization
impacts. of each of the impact categories.
The categories within TRACI 2.0 are shown in Fig. 1,
with land use and water use being listed for future inclu-
sion. It should be noted, however, that this list of impact Impact assessment methodologies
categories is considered a minimal set that may be
expanded in future versions. Further discussion about the Whether the analysis is being conducted within an LCA,
history and development of TRACI, including the mini- process design, or a sustainability metrics basis, in all
mization of assumptions and value choices by the use of impact categories, the underlying methodologies within
midpoint indicators, and a comparison to other methodol- TRACI utilize the amount of the chemical emission or
ogies may be found in supplemental documentation (Bare resource used and the estimated potency of the stressor.
2006; Bare and Gloria 2006, 2008; Bare et al. 2000, 2003, The estimated potency is based on the best available
1999; Hofstetter et al. 2002; Pennington and Bare 2001; models and data for each impact category. For some impact
Pennington et al. 2000). categories (e.g., ozone depletion potentials, global warm-
ing potentials) there is international consensus on the rel-
ative potency of the chemicals listed. For other impact
Inventory categories, the relative potency may be dependent on
models related to chemical and physical principles and/or
The TRACI framework begins with a user-provided inven- experimental data. Descriptions on individual impact cat-
tory of stressors. Within a gate-to-gate analysis, inventory egories are provided below and give greater detail about
data are often available from the facility or facilities. Within the modeling underlying each category.
an LCA this may be supplemented by inventory data from In some impact categories, the location of the emission
suppliers, and/or publicly available databases such as those or resource used is of importance to the potency of the
listed below: the 2006 US EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions stressor, and the practitioner is encouraged to maintain the
(US Environmental Protection Agency 2008g, h, i), the 2006 location with each stressor. In these cases, the individual
US EPA’s National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for Criteria stressors do not simply have one potency factor, but a
Pollutants (US Environmental Protection Agency 2007b), potency factor at each of the locations. The calculations
the 2002 Hazardous Air Pollutants (US Environmental should then be conducted at each location and then sum-
Protection Agency 2002), the 2006 US Department of med up to see the total impact for the study overall. As an
Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Simulation of Nutrient Losses (US example, if an impact category (i) has a fate factor (F), and
Department of Agriculture—Natural Resources Conserva- potency factor (P), then the site-specific analysis may be
tion Service 2006), the 2005 US Department of Energy’s calculated as follows
(US DOE’s) Energy Consumption Estimates for fossil fuel X XX
depletion (US Department of Energy—Energy Information Ii ¼ i
Fxms Pixms Mxms ð1Þ
s x m
Administration 2008), the 2005 US EPA’s Toxics Release
i
Inventory (TRI) (US Environmental Protection Agency where: I = the potential impact of all chemicals (x) for a
2005a), and the NREL LCI database (US Department of specific impact category of concern (i), Fixms = the fate of
Energy—National Renewable Energy Laboratory 2008). chemical (x) emitted to media (m) at site (s) for impact
Data quality and applicability should be considered when category (i), Pixms = the potency of chemical (x) emitted to
including data sources. media (m) at site (s) for impact category (i), Mxms = the
Supporting data, such as the TRI database, which were mass of chemical (x) emitted to media (m) at site (s).
not originally collected or developed for this intention may There are many times when the site-specific location is
have some shortcomings. (1) Only exceedence of minimal not utilized. For example, for some individual impact
reporting requirements may be included. (2) Groups of categories, location does not influence the fate, transport,
substances may be lumped together (e.g., mercury, mer- and potency to any great extent, and thus only one char-
cury compounds, copper, copper compounds, chromium, acterization factor is presented for global use (e.g., global
chromium compounds, lead, and lead compounds). (3) The climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion). At other
quality of the data may be uncertain and in many cases times, the individual locations of the emissions are not
hard to predict. TRACI users are encouraged to use the known for a specific study and since all impact categories
highest quality data whenever possible for minimal data allow nonsite-specific characterization, the more site-gen-
and modeling uncertainty. eric US average characterization factors may be used. In

123
690 J. Bare

Table 1 Characterization
Impact category Media
factors are available for the
media listed for each impact Ozone depletion Air
category
Global climate Air
Acidification Air
Eutrophication Air, water
Smog formation Air
Human health criteria Air
Human health cancer Urban air, nonurban air, freshwater, seawater, natural soil, agricultural soil
Human health noncancer Urban air, nonurban air, freshwater, seawater, natural soil, agricultural soil
Ecotoxicity Urban air, nonurban air, freshwater, seawater, natural soil, agricultural soil

these situations, the generalized equation without respect to number of factors including: the local buffering capacity,
location would be: the local plant and animal species, and the existing acidity
X within the environment (US Environmental Protection
Ii ¼ i
CFxm  Mxm ð2Þ
xm
Agency 2008c).
TRACI 2.0 utilizes the existing methodology for acidi-
where: Ii = the potential impact of all chemicals (x) for a fication (Bare et al. 2003; Norris 2003) and includes
specific impact category of concern (i), CFixm = the char- additional substances. A recent UNEP SETAC Task Force
acterization factor of chemical (x) emitted to media (m) for 1 analysis considered the original version of TRACI to be a
impact category (i), Mxm = the mass of chemical reasonable starting point for acidification models in North
(x) emitted to media (m). America and stated that TRACI could be used globally if
Although the original version of TRACI was released empirical data were available to support the fate and
with site-specificity available for many of the impact cat- transport (Margni et al. 2008b).
egories, the vast majority of TRACI users have not been
utilizing the site-specific features. This release of TRACI Eutrophication
2.0, as described below, will focus on the US average
characterization. Eutrophication is the ‘‘enrichment of an aquatic ecosystem
For emission-related categories, characterization factors with nutrients (nitrates, phosphates) that accelerate bio-
are available for the media listed in Table 1. logical productivity (growth of algae and weeds) and an
undesirable accumulation of algal biomass’’ (US Environ-
Acidification mental Protection Agency 2008e). Although nitrogen and
phosphorus play an important role in the fertilization of
Acidification is the increasing concentration of hydrogen agricultural lands and other vegetation, excessive releases
ion (H?) within a local environment. This can be the result of any of these substances may provide undesired effects
of the addition of acids (e.g., nitric acid and sulfuric acid) on the waterways in which they travel. While phosphorus
into the environment, or by the addition of other substances usually has a more negative impact on freshwater lakes and
which increase the acidity of the environment due to var- streams (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2008),
ious chemical reactions and/or biological activity, or by nitrogen is often more detrimental to coastal environments
natural circumstances such as the change in soil concen- (Ecological Society of America 2000).
trations because of the growth of local plant species. Some of the major substances which have a role in this
Acidifying substances are often air emissions, which impact category are difficult to characterize including
may travel for hundreds of miles prior to wet deposition as emissions from: wastewater treatment plants, decaying
acid rain, fog, or snow or dry deposition as dust or smoke plant life pulp and paper mills, food processing plants, and
particulate matter on the soil or water. Sulfur dioxide and fertilizers used in agricultural, commercial, and individual
nitrogen oxides from fossil fuel combustion have been the household locations (US Environmental Protection Agency
largest contributors to acidification (US Environmental 1997). The majority of fertilizer (when utilized correctly) is
Protection Agency 2008r). a product and provides the benefits for which it was pur-
Substances which cause acidification can cause damage chased. However, depending on the slope of the fields, the
to building materials, paints, and other human-built struc- precipitation, and volatilization of the fertilizer, some of
tures, lakes, streams, rivers, and various plants and animals. this product may go beyond the original intended bound-
The sensitivity of various environments can depend on a aries and cause unintended consequences downstream. It is

123
TRACI 2.0: the tool for the reduction and assessment 691

these unintended consequences that are considered to be (IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)
the emission in this case; whereas, the portion of the 2001). Consistent with the guidance of the United Nations
application that achieved its aim of fertilizing fields was Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
considered to be the useful product (US Department of (UNFCCC—The United Nations Framework Convention
Energy—National Renewable Energy Laboratory 2008). on Climate Change 2003), the US EPA uses GWPs with
Task Force 1 of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative 100-year time horizons. TRACI 2.0 expands the list of
in collaboration with Task Force 4 recently evaluated the substances found within the original version of TRACI and
eutrophication model within TRACI as well as four other utilizes a hierarchy of data sources consistent with inter-
eutrophication models. TRACI was recognized as ‘‘a good national acceptance. This hierarchy of sources prioritizes
scientific approach for determining characterization factors the most current GWPs published by the IPCC as the
of eutrophying emissions in North America.’’ TRACI was highest priority (IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Cli-
one of the two possible choices for models which could mate Change) 1996, 2001; Solomon et al. 2007).
provide the basis for ‘‘continental values worldwide using
further models and expert estimate’’ (Margni et al. 2008a). Ozone depletion
The original version of TRACI was unique because it
allows the determination of the ultimate fate of all major Ozone within the stratosphere provides protection from
streams, rivers, and lakes within the US. This provides the radiation, which can lead to increased frequency of skin
user with the details needed to conduct detailed site-spe- cancers and cataracts in the human populations. In addi-
cific analysis without requiring a significant effort on the tion, ozone has been documented to have effects on crops,
part of the user. The original methodology utilized in other plants, marine life, and human-built materials. Sub-
TRACI has not been changed (Bare et al. 2003), but stances which have been reported and linked to decreasing
additional substances have been added to TRACI 2.0. the stratospheric ozone level are chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs) which are used as refrigerants, foam blowing
Global climate change agents, solvents, and halons which are used as fire extin-
guishing agents (US Environmental Protection Agency
‘‘Global warming is an average increase in the temperature 2008k). Over 20 years ago, the United States signed the
of the atmosphere near the Earth’s surface and in the tro- Montreal Protocol to reduce CFC production, and later
posphere, which can contribute to changes in global cli- implemented even more stringent reductions which have
mate patterns. Global warming can occur from a variety of led to a complete end of production of CFCs (by 1996) and
causes, both natural and human induced. In common usage, halons (by 1994). Levels of total inorganic chlorine have
‘‘global warming’’ often refers to the warming that can been declining since 1998, and recovery of the ozone layer
occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse is expected in about 50 years (US Environmental Protec-
gases from human activities’’ (US Environmental Protec- tion Agency 2008n).
tion Agency 2008b). The current trend is to use the phrase There is an international consensus on the use of ozone
‘‘climate change’’ instead of global warming to denote the depletion potentials (ODPs), a metric proposed by the
other changes which may occur in addition to temperature World Meteorological Organization (WMO) (Solomon and
change (US Environmental Protection Agency 2008q). Albritton 1992; WMO (World Meteorological Organiza-
During the past 200 years, the sources of greenhouse tion) 1999), for calculating the relative importance of
gases have increased (mostly caused from the increased substances expected to contribute significantly to the
combustion of fossil fuels (US Environmental Protection breakdown of the ozone layer. The US EPA maintains
Agency 2008a), while the sinks have decreased (e.g., websites listing various options for ODPs (US Environ-
deforestation and land use changes). The US is keeping mental Protection Agency 2008l, m). These options are
track of the greenhouse gas emissions (US Environmental consistent with the US and WMO documents used inter-
Protection Agency 2008h, i) and has a policy in place for nationally (US Environmental Protection Agency 1992,
greenhouse gas reductions (US Environmental Protection 2003; WMO (World Meteorological Organization) 1999,
Agency 2008q). 2003). Within TRACI 2.0, the most recent sources of ODPs
Consistent with discussions in the original development were used for each substance.
of TRACI, a midpoint level analysis is utilized to minimize
modeling assumptions and preserve the comprehensiveness
of midpoint modeling (Bare and Gloria 2006; Bare et al. Human health criteria
2000; Bare et al. 2003; Jolliet et al. 2004). TRACI 2.0
utilizes global warming potentials (GWPs) for the calcu- Although this category is commonly called the human
lation of the potency of greenhouse gases relative to CO2 health criteria pollutants category, it deals with a subset of

123
692 J. Bare

the criteria pollutants, i.e., particulate matter and precursors uncertainty and that site-specific parameters had little
to particulates. Particulate matter is a collection of small effect on the relative human toxicity potentials (Hertwich
particles in ambient air, which has the ability to cause et al. 1999). This research supported the theory that it
negative human health effects including respiratory illness would be possible to develop global toxicity potentials for
and death (US Environmental Protection Agency 2008o). human health cancer and noncancer.
Numerous epidemiology studies show an increased mor- Under the Life Cycle Initiative of the United Nations
tality rate with elevated levels of ambient particulate matter Environment Program (UNEP)/Society of Environmental
(US Environmental Protection Agency 2008o). Particulate Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) various international
matter may be emitted as particulates, or may be the multimedia model developers of CalTOX, IMPACT 2002,
product of chemical reactions in the air (secondary par- USES-LCA, BETR, EDIP, WATSON, and EcoSense cre-
ticulates). The most common precursors to secondary ated a global consensus model—USEtox—to address an
particulates are sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides expanded list of substances which might have potential
(NOx). Common sources of primary and secondary par- impacts in human health cancer, noncancer, and ecotox-
ticulates are fossil fuel combustion, wood combustion, and icity (Hauschild et al. 2008; Rosenbaum et al. 2008;
dust particles from roads and fields (US Environmental USEtox Team 2010). Over the course of a series of
Protection Agency 2008o). Particulate matter is divided workshops and numerous communications, model results
into two major groups of concern: ‘‘inhalable coarse par- from the original models were compared to determine the
ticles’’ which are between 2.5 and 10 lm in diameter, like most influential parameters and largest sources of differ-
dust from roadways, and ‘‘fine particles’’ which are smaller ences between the models using 45 organic substances
than or equal to 2.5 lm in diameter, and are often the which were selected for their diversity in environmental
products of combustion (US Environmental Protection partitioning, exposure pathway, persistence, and air trans-
Agency 2008p). Sensitive populations such as children, the port. The USEtox model adopted many of the best features
elderly, and people with asthma are more susceptible to of the above-named models and was used to develop
experiencing higher consequences (US Environmental human health cancer and noncancer toxicity potentials and
Protection Agency 2008j). Although national US standards freshwater ecotoxicity potentials for over 3,000 substances
have existed since 1971, even more stringent standards including organic and inorganic substances.
were placed in 2006 (US Environmental Protection Agency This list of 3,000 substances goes beyond the list
2006). included within the original TRACI, because initially,
The fate and transport of these substances from the point TRACI was focused on covering those chemicals of con-
of emission to human exposure differ depending on the cern within the US (e.g., TRI chemicals). It has since been
source of the emissions. The original methodology utilized recognized that today’s global economy often requires the
in TRACI has not been changed (Bare et al. 2003) except inclusion of suppliers who are outside of the US within
that PM2.5 is now used as a reference substance. countries who may have their own lists of reportable
chemicals. The USEtox expanded set will allow this
Human health cancer, noncancer, and ecotoxicity expansion into chemicals of concern globally. One of the
trade-offs of including more chemicals is the availability of
During the development of the original TRACI, human data to support the models. While expanding this list
health was represented by three impact categories (cancer, increases the global coverage, it also requires the inclusion
noncancer, and criteria pollutants) based on the current of substances which have not been as well studied and
structure of the EPA regulations and the chemical and tested, and the reliance on lower quality data and data
physical behaviors of the pollutants of concern. CalTOX provided by estimation techniques. USEtox also recognizes
was determined to be the best model for human health that the underlying models are better suited for some
cancer and noncancer (McKone 1993), and the input substances (i.e., organics) than other substances (i.e., in-
parameters were selected to be consistent with the EPA organics). It should be noted that some of the character-
Risk Assessment Guidelines and the Exposure Factors ization factors included within the USEtox model are
Handbook (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1997; recommended while others are listed as interim. The
US Environmental Protection Agency 1989a, b). Research interim factors should be used, because in their absence,
was conducted to determine the source of the major these substances would appear to have no impacts, but
uncertainties and influence of site-specific parameters on these interim factors should be recognized as having
the human toxicity potentials (Hertwich et al. 1999). The increased uncertainty and should be used ‘‘with caution.’’
probabilistic research showed that for the majority of the USEtox is developed with two spatial scales: continental
TRI substances, chemical data (e.g., toxicity and half-life) and global. The environmental compartments within the
had the most significant impact on data variability/ continental scale includes: urban air, rural air, agricultural

123
TRACI 2.0: the tool for the reduction and assessment 693

soil, industrial soil, freshwater, and coastal marine water. (Carter 2010b). More chemicals were added and the total
USEtox also includes most of the pathways found in the number of pollutants now quantified in this category is
original EPA Risk Assessment Guidelines, including nearly 1,200 substances. Second, to be consistent with the
inhalation, ingestion of drinking water, produce, meat, milk presentation and units of other impact categories a refer-
and freshwater and marine fish. ence substance was adopted. Third, those 12 substances,
which have a negative MIR, were set to zero. While it may
Photochemical smog formation be true that there is a slightly beneficial effect to the
reduction of ozone concentrations upon increased concen-
Ground-level ozone is created by various chemical reac- tration of these pollutants, it was decided that providing
tions, which occur between nitrogen oxides (NOx) and ‘‘credit’’ for the additional release of pollutants was not
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in sunlight. Human generally a practice which should be encouraged to reduce
health effects can result in a variety of respiratory issues the calculated impacts. This is consistent with other rec-
including increasing symptoms of bronchitis, asthma, and ommendations in which negative MIRs were not given
emphysema. Permanent lung damage may result from credits (Carter 2003).
prolonged exposure to ozone. Ecological impacts include
damage to various ecosystems and crop damage. The pri- Resource depletion
mary sources of ozone precursors are motor vehicles,
electric power utilities, and industrial facilities (US Envi- Resource depletion is an extremely important issue for the
ronmental Protection Agency 2008f). use and development of sustainability metrics and LCA
Within the Leiden University’s CML 2002 Handbook methodologies. Unfortunately, it is one of the most difficult
(Guinée 2002) are listed various options for ‘‘summer issues to quantify while minimizing value choices and
smog’’ modeling including: (1) Photochemical Ozone assumptions. As all of the previously described categories
Creation Potentials (POCPs) (Andersson-Skold et al. 1992; had legislation or international agreements related to their
Derwent et al. 1996, 1998; Derwent and Jenkin 1991; control, it was relatively easy to utilize the models, which
Jenkin and Hayman 1999), and (2) Maximum Incremental were in existence for fate, transport, and potency for each
Reactivity (MIR) (Carter 1994 1997, 2000). A more recent impact category. A parallel track does not exist for these
study is now available from Carter for MIR values. Some resource depletion categories. Therefore, it is recognized
of this study was conducted specifically for TRACI 2.0 up front that the quantification of these impact categories
(Carter 2007, 2008). will be the most controversial.
Carter’s MIRs have been selected for use within TRACI Based on a review performed by the author, a determi-
2.0 for the following reasons. (1) It was developed spe- nation was made that the initial resource depletion cate-
cifically for the US. (2) It is comprehensive in impacts, gories, which would be addressed within TRACI would be
covering human and environmental effects. (3) It has the fossil fuel use, land use, and water use. A nonsite-specific
most comprehensive substance coverage allowing greater recommendation for fossil fuel use characterization was
differentiation of effects when available. The full set of included within the original version of TRACI (Bare et al.
POCPs recently available only cover 128 substances and 2003; Goedkoop and Spriensma 1999) and no changes are
the current MIRs cover nearly 1,200 substances (Carter being made in this category with this release of TRACI 2.0.
2007, 2008, 2010b). (4) It is the method that is used and Over the next few years, the author will be concentrating
recommended by the US EPA and individual states within research efforts in land and water use and should have
the United States for other environmental programs, additional recommendations. In both cases, land and water
including cap and trade programs (US Environmental use recommendations are expected to be site-specific,
Protection Agency 2005b, c, 2007a). because of the high variability in availability, and the
Many of the methods, including MIRs prior to the unique properties of location, meteorology, and existing
TRACI research, did not have a NOx value on the same ecosystems.
scale as the VOCs. This was true for MIRs since the MIR
reflects the degree of reactivity with NOx, a concept that is
not reflective of NOx reactivity with NOx. At the request of Conclusions
this author, Carter was asked to develop and document a
proxy NOx value on the same scale as the MIR. This is now TRACI 2.0 is now available for use in sustainability, life
available for the first time (Carter 2008, 2010a). cycle impact assessment, process design, or pollution pre-
Modifications were made in the development of TRACI vention. All of these applications require quantitative data
2.0 when compared to the original version of TRACI. First, to guide decision making which impacts the current and
the MIRs were updated to include the latest study of Carter future generations. TRACI 2.0 has been updated to include

123
694 J. Bare

additional substances and updated methodologies. Over the Bare JC, Hofstetter P, Pennington DW, Udo de Haes HA (2000) Life
next few years, the US EPA will be continuing to expand cycle impact assessment midpoints vs. endpoints—the sacrifices
and the benefits. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5:319–326
research into the areas of land use and water use. More Bare JC, Norris GA, Pennington DW, McKone T (2003) TRACI–the
information and a request link are available at: tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other
http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/sab/traci/. environmental impacts. J Ind Ecol 6:49–78
Carter W (1994) Development of ozone reactivity scales for volatile
organic compounds. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 44:881–899
Carter W (1997) Summary of status of VOC reactivity estimates
Disclaimer prepared for the California Air Resources Board Consumer
Products Working Group Meeting
Use of TRACI, including but not limited to the impact Carter W (2000) Updated maximum incremental reactivity scale
for regulatory applications. California Air Resources Board,
assessment modeling, does not create regulatory or sci- Sacramento, CA
entific approval by the US EPA on any issues to which it Carter W (2003) Letter to Mr. Richard Corey Chief, Research and
is applied, nor does it release any users from any potential Economics Branch, Research Division, California Air Resources
liability, either administratively or judicially, for any Board, Sacramento, CA Jan 24
Carter W (2007) Development of the SAPRC-07 chemical mecha-
damage to human health or the environment. The US nism and updated ozone reactivity scales, final report, California
EPA does not make any warranty concerning the cor- Air Resources Board
rectness of the database, any actions taken as a result of Carter W (2008) Estimation of the maximum ozone impacts of oxides
using the model, or the merchantability or fitness for a of nitrogen
Carter W (2010a) Email to Jane Bare. Feb 3:2010
particular purpose of the model. The EPA does not Carter W (2010b) SAPRC atmospheric chemical mechanisms and
endorse any products or services. As TRACI is a tool for VOC Reactivity Scales
voluntary use, not intended for regulatory use, the level of Derwent RG, Jenkin ME (1991) Hydrocarbons and the long-range
review is not equivalent to the reviews which are typi- transport of ozone and PAN across Europe. Atmos Environ
25:1661–1678
cally undertaken for regulatory models and data. Cover- Derwent RG, Jenkin ME, Saunders SM (1996) Photochemical ozone
age of a large set of substances, which have not all been creation potentials for a large number of reactive hydrocarbons
well studied and tested, required the use of lower quality under European conditions. Atmos Environ 30:181–199
data which may include estimated data. The character- Derwent RG, Jenkin ME, Saunders SM, Pilling MJ (1998) Photo-
chemical ozone creation potentials for organic compounds in
ization factors which result may not always seem con- Northwest Europe calculated with a master chemical mecha-
sistent with decisions made in other parts of the US EPA, nism. Atmos Environ 32:2429–2441
including carcinogenic classifications. Characterization Ecological Society of America (2000) Nutrient pollution of coastal
factors are meant to indicate the potential for relative rivers, Bays, and Seas. Issues in Ecology, vol 7, pp 1–15
Gloria TP, Lippiatt BC, Cooper J (2007) Life cycle impact assessment
potency within each impact category, but may or may not weights to support environmentally preferable purchasing in the
lead to actual impacts. Some of the characterization fac- United States. Environ Sci Technol 41:7551–7557
tors included within TRACI are recommended while Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (1999) The eco-indicator 99: a damage
others are listed as interim. The interim factors should be orientated method for life cycle impact assessment, the Hague,
the Netherlands
recognized as having increased uncertainty and should be Guinée JGM, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, Koning A de, Oers L
used ‘‘with caution.’’ van, Wegner Sleeswijk A, Suh S, Udo de Haes H, Bruijn H de,
Duin R van, Huijbregts M, Lindeijer E, Roorda A, Ven B van
der, Weidema B (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment:
operational guide to the ISO standards. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Dordrecht
References Hauschild M, Wenzel H (1998) Environmental assessment of
products, v. 2. Chapman & Hall, New York
Andersson-Skold Y, Grennfelt P, Pleijel K (1992) Photochemical Hauschild M, Huijbregts M, Jolliet O, Margni M, MacLeod M, van de
ozone creation potentials. J Air Waste Manag 42:1152–1158 Meent D, Rosenbaum R, McKone T (2008) Building a model
Bare JC (2006) Risk assessment and life-cycle impact assessment based on scientific consensus for life cycle impact assessment of
(LCIA) for human health cancerous and noncancerous emis- chemicals: the search for harmony and parsimony. Environ Sci
sions: integrated and complementary with consistency within the Technol 42:7032–7036
USEPA. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 12:439–509 Heijungs R, Guinée JB, Huppes G, Lankreijer RM, Udo De Haes HA,
Bare JC, Gloria TP (2006) Critical analysis of the mathematical Wegener Sleeswijk A, Ansems AMM, Eggels PG, van Duin R,
relationships and comprehensiveness of life cycle impact de Goede HP (1992a) Environmental life cycle assessment of
assessment approaches. Environ Sci Technol 40:1104–1113 products: guide and backgrounds (Part 1). CML, Leiden, The
Bare JC, Gloria TP (2008) Environmental impact assessment Netherlands
taxonomy providing comprehensive coverage of midpoints, Heijungs R, Guinée JB, Huppes G, Lankreijer RM, Udo De Haes HA,
endpoints, damages, and areas of protection. J Clean Prod Wegener Sleeswijk A, Ansems AMM, Eggels PG, van Duin R,
16:1021–1035 de Goede HP (1992b) Environmental life cycle assessment of
Bare JC, Udo de Haes HA, Pennington DW (1999) Life cycle impact products: guide and backgrounds (Part 2). In CML edn. CML,
assessment sophistication. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4:299–306 Leiden, The Netherlands

123
TRACI 2.0: the tool for the reduction and assessment 695

Hertwich E, McKone T, Pease W (1999) Parameter uncertainty and Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Alley RB, Berntsen T, Bindoff NL,
variability in evaluative fate and exposure models. Risk Anal Chen Z, Chidthaisong A, Gregory JM, Hegerl GC, Heimann M,
19:1193–1204 Hewitson B, Hoskins BJ, Joos F, Jouzel J, Kattsov V, Lohmann
Hofstetter P, Bare JC, Hammitt JK, Murphy PA, Rice GE (2002) U, Matsuno T, Molina M, Nicholls N, Overpeck J, Raga G,
Tools for the comparative analysis of alternatives: competing or Ramaswamy V, Ren J, Rusticucci M, Somerville R, Stocker TF,
complementary perspectives? Risk Anal 22:833–851 Whetton P, Wood RA, Wratt D (2007) Technical Summary. In:
International Organization of Standardization (ISO) (2000) Environ- Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB,
mental management—life cycle assessment—life cycle impact Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical
assessment. International Standard ISO14042:2000(E), Geneva, science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the fourth
Switzerland assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (1996) Climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United King-
change 1995: the science of climate change. In: Houghton JT, dom and New York, NY, USA, pp 33–34
Meira Filho LG, Callander BA, Harris N, Kattenberg A, Maskell UNFCCC—The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
K (eds) Report of intergovernmental panel on climate change. Change (2003) Review of the implementation of commitments
Cambridge, UK and of other provisions of the convention, National Communi-
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2001) Climate cations: Greenhouse gas inventories from parties included in
change 2001: the scientific basis: Contribution of Working Annex 1 to the convention, UNFCCC guidelines on reporting
Group I to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental and review
panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cam- US Department of Agriculture—Natural Resources Conservation
bridge, UK Service (2006) Model simulation of soil loss, nutrient loss, and
Jenkin ME, Hayman GD (1999) Photochemical ozone creation change in soil organic carbon associated with crop production,
potentials for oxygenated volatile organic compounds: sensitiv- pp 114, 171
ity to variations in kinetic and mechanistic parameters. Atmos US Department of Energy—Energy Information Administration
Environ 33:1275–1293 (2008) Total US energy consumption, state energy data, Table 7.
Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles R, Humbert S, Payet J, Rebitzer G, Energy Consumption Estimates by Source, 1960–2005
Rosenbaum R (2003) IMPACT 2002?: a new life cycle impact US Department of Energy—National Renewable Energy Laboratory
assessment methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8:324–330 (2008) US life-cycle inventory database
Jolliet O, Müller-Wenk R, Bare J, Brent A, Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, US Environmental Protection Agency (1989a) Exposure factors
Itsubo N, Peña C, Potting J, Pennington D, Rebitzer G, Schenck handbook. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
R, Stewart M, Udo de Haes H, Weidema B (2004) The LCIA Washington, DC
midpoint-damage framework of the UNEP-SETAC life cycle US Environmental Protection Agency (1989b) Risk assessment
initiative. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9:394–404 guidance for superfund, vol I. Human health evaluation manual
Lippiatt BC (2007) BEES 4.0: building for environmental and (Part A). Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Wash-
economic sustainability technical manual and user guide, in ington, DC
National Institute of Standards and Technology edn. National US Environmental Protection Agency (1992) Electronic code of
Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD federal regulations, title 40—protection of environment, chapter
Margni M, Gloria T, Bare J, Seppälä J, Steen B, Struijs J, Toffoletto 1—environmental protection agency, subchapter C—air pro-
L, Jolliet O (2008a) Evaluation of category indicators and grams, Part 82—Protection of Stratospheric Ozone
characterization models: application to eutrophication, Task US Environmental Protection Agency (1997) Exposure factors
Force 1 of the UNEP SETAC Life Cycle Initiative handbook. Washington, DC
Margni M, Gloria T, Bare J, Seppälä J, Steen B, Struijs J, Toffoletto US Environmental Protection Agency (1997) Technical guidance
L, Jolliet O (2008b) Guidance on how to move from current manual for performing wasteload allocations, Book II: streams
practice to recommended practice in life cycle impact assess- and rivers—part 1: biochemical oxygen demand/dissolved
ment, task force 1 of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative oxygen and nutrients/eutrophication, p F-6
McKone TE (1993) CalTOX, a multimedia total exposure model for US Environmental Protection Agency (2002) Custom developed
hazardous-waste sites. Lawrence Livermore National Labora- spreadsheet provided by Anne Pope which included all NEI HAP
tory, Livermore, CA emissions for 2002. Provided in email to Jane Bare on Aug 24,
Norris G (2003) Impact characterization in the tool for the reduction 2007
and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts— US Environmental Protection Agency (2003) Electronic code of
methods for acidification, eutrophication, and ozone formation. federal regulations, title 40: protection of environment, part 82—
J Ind Ecol 6:79–101 protection of stratospheric ozone, subpart A—production and
Pennington DW, Bare JC (2001) Comparison of chemical screening consumption controls
and ranking approaches: the waste minimization prioritization US Environmental Protection Agency (2005a) 2005 toxic release
tool (WMPT) vs. toxic equivalency potentials (TEPs). Risk Anal inventory (TRI): public data release
21:897–912 US Environmental Protection Agency (2005b) Federal register, vol
Pennington DW, Norris G, Hoagland T, Bare JC (2000) Environ- 70, no. 176, 13 Sept 2005 rules and regulations, 53930, 40 CFR
mental comparison metrics for life cycle impact assessment and Parts 51 and 52. Revisions to the California state implementation
process design. Environ Prog 19:83–91 plan and revision to the definition of volatile organic compounds
Rosenbaum R, Bachmann T, Huijbregts M, Jolliet O, Juraske R, (VOC)—removal of VOC exemptions for California’s aerosol
Koehler A, Larsen H, MacLeod M, Margni M, McKone T, Payet coating products reactivity-based regulation
J, Schuhmacher M, van de Meent D, Hauschild M (2008) US Environmental Protection Agency (2005c) Federal register: 5 Oct
USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended 2005, vol 70, no. 192, proposed rules, pp 58138–58146. 40 CFR
characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater Part 52. Approval and promulgation of air quality implementa-
ecotoxicity. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7:532–546 tion plans, Texas, highly reactive volatile organic compound
Solomon S, Albritton DL (1992) Time-dependent ozone depletion emissions cap and trade program for the Houston/Galveston/
potentials for short- and long-term forecasts. Nature 357:33–37 Brazoria Ozone Nonattainment Area

123
696 J. Bare

US Environmental Protection Agency (2006) Particulate matter, PM US Environmental Protection Agency (2008j) National ambient air
standards revision quality standards (NAAQS)
US Environmental Protection Agency (2007a) Federal register, vol US Environmental Protection Agency (2008k) Ozone layer deple-
72, no. 135, 38952, 16 Jul 2007, US EPA, Part IV, 40 CFR Parts tion—science
51 and 59, National volatile organic compound emission US Environmental Protection Agency (2008l) Ozone layer deple-
standards for aerosol coatings; proposed rule tion—science, class I Ozone-depleting substances
US Environmental Protection Agency (2007b) National Emissions US Environmental Protection Agency (2008m) Ozone layer deple-
Inventory (NEI) air pollutant emissions trends data and estima- tion—science, Class II Ozone-depleting substances
tion procedures, 1970–2006 Average annual emissions, all US Environmental Protection Agency (2008n) Ozone science: the
criteria pollutants in MS EXCEL facts behind the phaseout
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2008) Why is phosphorus US Environmental Protection Agency (2008o) Particulate matter
important? research
US Environmental Protection Agency (2008a) Climate change— US Environmental Protection Agency (2008p) Particulate matter,
Greenhouse gas emissions—human-related sources and sinks of basic information
carbon dioxide US Environmental Protection Agency (2008q) U.S. climate policy
US Environmental Protection Agency (2008b) Climate change: basic and actions
Information US Environmental Protection Agency (2008r) What is acid rain?
US Environmental Protection Agency (2008c) Effects of acid rain USEtox Team (2010) Background of the USEtox model
US Environmental Protection Agency (2008d) Environmentally US Green Building Council (2008) Welcome to US Green building
preferable purchasing (EPP) council
US Environmental Protection Agency (2008e) EPA’s report on the US Marine Corps (2007) Environmental knowledge and assessment
environment, indicators presenting data for EPA region 5, tool (EKAT): first time user’s guide
pp 51–53 WMO (World Meteorological Organization) (1999) Scientific assess-
US Environmental Protection Agency (2008f) Ground-level ozone, ment of ozone depletion: 1998. Global ozone research and
basic information monitoring project—report no. 44, Geneva, Switzerland
US Environmental Protection Agency (2008g) Inventory of U.S. WMO (World Meteorological Organization) (2003) Scientific assess-
Greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2006 ment of ozone depletion: 2002, global ozone research and
US Environmental Protection Agency (2008h) Inventory of U.S. monitoring project—report no. 47, Geneva, Switzerland, p 498,
Greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2006, Annex 6 Table 1.6–1.7
US Environmental Protection Agency (2008i) Inventory of U.S.
Greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2006, 15 April 2008.
Executive summary: table ES-1

123