1. Using PRTR data – First steps towards a national chemical footprint
Vet du att du kan välja olika färg på bakgrunden via Start/Layout
Using PRTR data – First steps towards a national chemical footprint
Louise Sörme Statistics Sweden

2. Is it getting better? Which substances?
Which sectors? Which products?
The research question was, is it getting better? Is the impacts of chemicals in total decreasing?

3. Rockström et al. 2009. Planetary boundaries:exploring the safe operating space for humanity.

4. PRTR data – First steps towards a chemical footprint*
PRTR data for Sweden Emissions to air and water
Life Cycle Impact Analysis (LCIA) USEtox model
Input – Output Relocate from emissions from industries to product groups
Published in Environmental Impact Assessment Review
Sörme et a., 2016.Using E-PRTR data on point source emissions to air and water – First steps towards a national chemical footprint

5. PRTR data Sweden reports 54 substances
All the data from reporting, 2008, emission to air and water
Some are banned, that is why not all 91 substances are reported
Took from database to show that anyone could do this although we hade data from national sources, but work in scientific article should be replicable, therefore from int databases.
Why not 2007?

6. Environmental impact per sector
Characterisation factor* per substance according to USEtox
USEtox recommended by EU in manual for Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)** and UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative***
Sectors of emissions * emission factors = impact
Unit CTU (Comparative toxic units)
* Hauschild et al., 2008; Rosenbaum et al., 2008 ** Hauschild et al., 2013 *** Westh et al., 2015

7. Environmental impact per product group
Input – Output enables impact from consumption
Data from national accounts (by sectors) – supply-use tables
Reallocate from emissions by sectors of chemicals to products and services found in final demand
Life Cycle Impact Assessment
Impact per product group

8. Result - substances For ecotoxicity there is a similar result
Sörme et al., 2016 (cropped table)

9. Result – industry sectors
Fig 1. The largest contributors to the chemical footprint human toxicity (expressed as CTUh kg, log scale) by industry (NACE), emitted from Swedish point sources based on data from E-PRTR in 2008.
Sörme et al., 2016 (cropped diagram)

10. Result – product group
Fig 2. The contribution to the chemical footprint human toxicity from different product groups (emissions reallocated to product groups after IO analysis by industry). Data from E-PRTR in Results expressed as CTUh kg, log scale, calculated using USEtox.
Sörme et al., 2016 (cropped diagram)

11. Discussion Dominance of metals in impact - also with USEtox 2.01*
Agriculture in general is lacking data
Threshold impact? Large coverage** Impact less than results for Europe***
Diffuse emissions lacking
USETox factors - uncertain
Increased use of PRTR data – increase quality
Human toxicity: zinc, mercury and arsenic Eco-toxicity: zinc, fluoranthene and copper
Threshold. We have seen in a study that threre is a large coverage of emissions in Swedish PRTR. Hansson et al, 2012
In line with earlier studies. Metals are persistent, metal emission will have a toxic effect over a long time period. A long-term (infinite) time perspective is used in USEtox. If a shorter time perspective had been chosen, the relative significance of metals would have been decreased.
Also, metals are measured to a higher degree than organic substances. This could be due to that companies are more often legally obliged to report metals, as a condition of their permits. Analyses of organic substances are generally more expensive than analyses of metals. Which form of the metals?! Chromium six was used in the analysis, it is not known in PRTR what the emissions are.
Bioavailability and speciation, work is ongoing to take this into account (Dong et al., 2014)
Agriculture.
*Nordborg et al., Updated indicators of Swedish national human toxicity and ecotoxicity footprints using USEtox **Hansson et al., Diffuse emissions to air and water. *** Laurent et al., Normalization references for Europé and North America for application with USEToxTM characterization factors

12. Use of the study
Low awareness of PRTR data among the research community
Now used in ”Prince” (Policy-Relevant Indicators for Consumption and Environment) Swedish data and other countries
Presentation – for the PRTR community – with country representatives
Unique datasource – can be used more!
All those than have been invlolved in writing of the first article and those that have followed were not aware of the register PRTR, now they are. The data from PRTR and now also beeing used in a project called ”Prince” where there are partners from Norway and the Netherland, apart from Sweden. PRINCE is a cutting-edge research project developing a system to monitor the pressures that Swedish consumption imposes on the natural world, both at home and abroad
And in this project PRTR data from several countries have been downloaded.
Prince? Import is included. Use of pesticides is also included, which was not the case in my first study.

13. Thank you for your attention
Thank you for your attention! Thanks to Swedish EPA – supports my attentence