Life cycle thinking is a necessary component in preventing the shifting of burden along the life cycle and from one impact category to another. For this reason, many have focused on integrating life cycle thinking into occupational risk assessment. The resultant methods have different properties in terms of scope and outcomes. Literature has been reviewed for life cycle occupational risk assessment methodologies, and 3 methods (life cycle inherent toxicity (LCIT) method, work environment characterization factors (WE-CFs) method, and life cycle risk assessment (LCRA) method) have been selected and applied in a case study of electricity production from pyro-oil to identify suitability and research gaps in the existing literature. The results of the LCIT method were highly heterogenous over life cycle of electricity production. For the current case, the major cancer and non-cancer impacts originated from the same life cycles. The results from WE-CFs method were highly heterogenous over the life cycle of electricity production as well. Agriculture contributed the most to the occupational risks. In the LCRA method, averaging caused the information about the frequency of the risks over life cycle to be lost. The method showed the well-known bargaining between accuracy and simplicity when complex systems are considered. Results from this method were quite homogenous among life cycles, due to the averaging effect. Detailed reporting and follow-up of the worker health issues can enable a more accurate application of the WE-CFs method. The overall results showed that it was possible to apply these 3 methodologies for the EU-28 region.
Keywords: Alternatives assessment; Human health; Life cycle risk assessment; Life cycle thinking; Occupational safety; Work environment.