1/84 COMPARATIVE LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT STUDY 3 CLEANING PRODUCTS FOR KITCHEN SURFACES FRENCH STUDY AN ISO-COMPLIANT LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT STUDY OF HARD SURFACE CLEANING PRODUCTS USED IN THE KITCHEN STUDY COMMISSIONED BY: AFISE : Association Française des Industries de la détergence, de l’entretien, de l’hygiène et des produits d’hygiène industrielle PREPARED BY: PROCTER & GAMBLE, BRUSSELS INNOVATION CENTER, CENTRAL PRODUCT SAFETY; Joost Dewaele, Diederik Schowanek, Rana Pant, Valerie Jaspers, Gert Van Hoof, Claudine Baron GUIDANCE AND AUDITING BY: PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS (ECOBILAN); Hélène Lelievre, Philippe Osset PEER REVIEW BY: Mr. Henri Lecouls as independent LCA consultant assisted by Mrs. Nadia Boeglin of ADEME (Agence de l’Environnement et de la Maitrise de l’Energie)
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1/84
COMPARATIVE LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT STUDY
3 CLEANING PRODUCTS FOR KITCHEN SURFACES FRENCH STUDY
AN ISO-COMPLIANT LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT STUDY
OF HARD SURFACE CLEANING PRODUCTS USED IN THE KITCHEN
STUDY COMMISSIONED BY: AFISE : Association Française des Industries de la détergence, de l’entretien, de
l’hygiène et des produits d’hygiène industrielle
PREPARED BY: PROCTER & GAMBLE, BRUSSELS INNOVATION CENTER, CENTRAL PRODUCT
SAFETY;
Joost Dewaele, Diederik Schowanek, Rana Pant, Valerie Jaspers, Gert
Van Hoof, Claudine Baron
GUIDANCE AND AUDITING BY: PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS (ECOBILAN); Hélène Lelievre, Philippe Osset
PEER REVIEW BY: Mr. Henri Lecouls as independent LCA consultant assisted by Mrs. Nadia Boeglin of
ADEME (Agence de l’Environnement et de la Maitrise de l’Energie)
2/84
December 2004
Executive summary
Today, consumers are offered a range of product alternatives for regular maintenance of their hard
surfaces in the kitchen. Although these products are not used for identical cleaning exercises only, a
life-cycle-assessment (LCA) study was performed on three market relevant kitchen cleaning products:
kitchen cleaning wipes, kitchen cleaning spray and liquid household cleaner (LHC) product in a bottle.
An important driver for this study was the increased pan-European concern related to solid waste
generated by disposable (household) products.
Main methodological challenges for this study were the choices related to the functional unit (FU) and
the selection of relevant environmental indicators.
The FU was defined as ‘product used for 1 year of surface cleaning for one household (floors
excluded)’. For each product variant, the FU was based on actual consumer habits-and-practices
studies, subsequently recalibrated with sales figures relevant to France. Considering all variables and
making best use of the data available, 1 base scenario was identified to best represent the situation in
France.
The environmental evaluation was based on a broad set of 10 environmental indicators. This LCA
study evaluated in-depth the different waste aspects of the three product systems in a cradle-to-grave
perspective, with particular focus on household waste and total residual solid waste (after waste
treatment). In parallel to the waste parameters, primary energy and water consumption were selected
as life cycle inventory (LCI) based indicators. Climate change, acidification (air), photochemical smog
creation, human toxicity, aquatic eco-toxicity and eutrophication were evaluated as life cycle impact
assessment (LCIA) indicators.
The end result shows a mixed pattern for the base scenario, where none of the product systems
considered can be seen as environmentally superior on all indicators.
With regards to solid waste, the study confirms that spray or liquid household cleaner product produce
less household waste than wipes (spray produces 3 times less, LHC 6 times less household waste). It
should be noted however, that after treatment of the total solid waste with the current infrastructure in
France (i.e., in the true ‘cradle-to-grave’ sense), the difference in total residual solid waste left by the
three products becomes much smaller (spray and LHC produce 35% less compared to wipes).
With respect to resource consumption, the spray and wipe product are consuming significantly lower
water quantities (3 times) compared to LHC product (mix of dilute and pure use). This is directly linked
to the assumption on water consumption during the use phase. The spray product is consuming the
lowest amount of primary energy (26 and 48% less than wipes, LHC).
3/84
Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) indicators have shown no significant1 differences in the three
products for their potential contribution to climate change, air acidification and human toxicity.
Significant differences have been identified for the following impact categories:
-The study has revealed the household cleaner to be the most preferred systems with respect to its
potential contribution to photochemical oxidant formation (potential contribution of LHC is only 7% that
of the other 2 product alternatives).
-Environmental benefits for the wipe product were revealed with respect to lower contributions to
aquatic eco-toxicity (potential contribution is only 67% that of Spray and LHC).
-Furthermore, lower contribution of wipe product is noticed for its eutrophication potential, when
compared to both spray product (4 times that of wipes) and LHC (7 times that of wipes).
To evaluate both uncertainty in data and potential effects of alternative product design scenario’s, 10
sensitivity analyses have been performed on the most critical parameters in the study.
Although the sensitivity analyses significantly affect many of the environmental categories, the overall
conclusion that none of the products is overall environmentally superior (better in all environmental
categories) was always confirmed.
2 sensitivity analyses deserve particular interest. The first is related to uncertainty in product
equivalence (or how much spray and LHC product is required to perform the equivalent task of 1 wipe).
Due to data uncertainty in habits and practices studies, a sensitivity analyses was developed where one
assumes equal lotion volume requirement for all products. This extreme and penalizing-to-wipes
scenario would result in the wipe product alternative to score the worst on 7 and 8 indicators versus
LHC and spray product respectively.
A second scenario addressed the uncertainty in volume and temperature of the water used in the
cleaning phase of the LHC product. The available data, which was not specific to kitchen surfaces only,
was replaced by assumptions to develop another conservative-to-wipes sensitivity analysis. This
scenario did not change the conclusion that the LHC product remains the product with the highest water
consumption. It did however affect the energy consumption: rather than being the product alternative
that used the most energy, this scenario would predict LHC product users to use the least amount of
energy.
Further building on information retrieved from both the base scenario and the sensitivity analyses,
improvement opportunities were identified, which could be realized through changing consumer habits
(e.g. using less and colder water), and/or through improved eco-design of the products themselves (e.g.
refill bottles without trigger for the spray).
1 Differences in environmental indicators values > 20% are considered to be significant.
4/84
This LCA study has followed the guidelines as described by the ISO14040-series. The report contains
3 parts: a public report, public annexes, and a confidential annex containing product information
proprietary to Procter & Gamble. All parts have been made available to the peer review.
Key words⎯ eco-design, home care, household cleaning products, kitchen cleaning, life-cycle inventory, life-
Table of Content 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................8
1.1. Context of the Study.......................................................................................................................................................9
1.2. Structure and Use of the report ....................................................................................................................................10
2. Goal and Scope Definition .............................................................................................................................................11 2.1. Goal Definition..............................................................................................................................................................11
2.1.1. Definition of the Objectives..................................................................................................................................11
2.2.5. Coverage of environmental indicators.................................................................................................................15
2.3.1. Description of the Functional Unit .......................................................................................................................17
2.4. System Boundaries ......................................................................................................................................................19
2.4.1. Economy-environment system boundary: Flow diagrams...................................................................................19
2.4.2. Unit Processes excluded from the life cycle assessment....................................................................................23
2.4.3. Allocation (boundaries with other systems).........................................................................................................24
2.4.4. Modeling of energy recovery and recycling.........................................................................................................24
3. Life Cycle Inventories.....................................................................................................................................................25 3.1. Data sources and main assumptions ...........................................................................................................................25
3.1.1. Data sources related to Energy and Transport ...................................................................................................25
3.1.2. Data sources related to packaging and wipe materials production .....................................................................27
3.1.3. Data sources for chemical product ingredients ...................................................................................................28
3.1.4. Data sources for wipe manufacturing..................................................................................................................28
3.1.5. Distribution phase................................................................................................................................................28
3.1.6. Use phase ...........................................................................................................................................................29
3.1.7.1. Waste infrastructure in France: .................................................................................................................... 31
1323.1.7.2. Energy recovery ....................................................................................................................................... 32
3.1.7.3. Material recycling.......................................................................................................................................... 33
3.2. Results of the Life Cycle Inventories ............................................................................................................................33
3.2.1. Overview of results (see Annex 5) ......................................................................................................................33
3.2.2. Calculation with respect to indoor air emissions of VOC.....................................................................................34
3.3. Environmental indicators based on LCI values ............................................................................................................35
4. Life Cycle Impact Assessment ......................................................................................................................................36 4.1. Comparison of three product systems..........................................................................................................................36
4.2. LCIA for Wipe product system......................................................................................................................................37
4.3. LCIA for Spray product system ....................................................................................................................................37
4.4. LCIA for LHC product system.......................................................................................................................................37
5.1.1. Waste throughout the kitchen cleaning life-cycle ................................................................................................38
5.1.1.1. Summary of the results................................................................................................................................. 38
5.1.2.1. Water consumption over the life cycle.......................................................................................................... 41
5.1.2.2. Primary Energy consumption over the life cycle .......................................................................................... 42
5.1.3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment ............................................................................................................................43
5.1.3.1. Summary of results....................................................................................................................................... 43
5.2.2. Temperature and volume of water consumed in the use phase .........................................................................49
5.2.2.1. Low water volume used in cleaning phase of LHC ...................................................................................... 49
5.2.2.2. Cold water for LHC during cleaning ............................................................................................................. 51
5.2.2.3. Warm water usage for rinsing ...................................................................................................................... 52
5.2.2.4. Energy source for heating of water .............................................................................................................. 53
5.2.3. Percentage of lotion that evaporates from wipes (during use and in the bin) .....................................................55
5.2.3.1. Full evaporation of wipe lotion...................................................................................................................... 55
5.2.3.2. Zero evaporation of wipe lotion .................................................................................................................... 56
5.2.6. Summary of the Sensitivity analyses...................................................................................................................60
5.3. Assumptions and uncertainty .......................................................................................................................................65
5.4. Limitations of the study.................................................................................................................................................66
6. Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................................................67 6.1. Product comparison based on the base scenario ........................................................................................................67
6.2. Conclusions from the sensitivity analyses....................................................................................................................68
6.3. Potential improvement areas with respect to consumer habits ....................................................................................70
6.4. Potential improvement areas for development of future products................................................................................71
7. Critical review performed by Mr. Henri Lecouls, assisted by ADEME.......................................................................72
7/84
Annexes
ANNEXES PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE:
Annex 1: Life Cycle Impact assessment methodologies (3pages)
Annex 5: Life Cycle Inventories of the three product systems (41pages)
Annex 9: Calculation method of energy usage and environmental emissions of the waste water treatment plants (8 pages)
Annex 10: Landfill of household waste with leachates and landfill gas treatment (5 pages)
Annex 11: Revue critique de l’ ACV comparative de trois produits de nettoyage domestique (8 pages)
CONFIDENTIAL ANNEXES - AVAILABLE FOR THE PEER REVIEW:
Annex 3: Description of kitchen cleaning Habits & Practices (5pages)
Annex 4: Wipe evaporation profile (2pages)
Annex 6: Wipe manufacturing (5 pages)
Annex 7: Process flow charts (3 pages)
Annex 8: Life cycle inventories for chemical ingredients (2 pages)
List of Figures
Figure 1: Process flow diagram of life-cycle stages for delivery of Mr. Propre Spray ....................................................................20
Figure 2: Process flow diagram of the life-cycle stages for delivery of Mr. Propre Wipes..............................................................21
Figure 3: Process flow diagram of the life-cycle stages for delivery of Mr. Propre LHC product ...................................................22
Figure 4: Consideration of energy recovery for incinerated waste .................................................................................................33
Figure 9: Relative environmental impact of three assessed product systems ...............................................................................44
Figure 10: Sensitivity analysis: effect of alternative product consumption scenario.......................................................................48
Figure 11: Sensitivity analysis: effect of cold water cleaning water................................................................................................51
Figure 12: Sensitivity analysis: Effect of warm water rinse ............................................................................................................53
Figure 14: Sensitivity analysis: Effect of full evaporation ...............................................................................................................56
Figure 15: Sensitivity analysis: Effect of zero evaporation .............................................................................................................57
Figure 16: Sensitivity analysis: Effect of increased energy consumption.......................................................................................58
Figure 17: Sensitivity analysis: Effect of refill bottles for spray product..........................................................................................58
8/84
List of Tables
Table 1: Product information: three kitchen cleaning products assessed ......................................................................................13
Table 2: Overview of the selected environmental indicators ..........................................................................................................15
Table 3: Product consumption based on Habits & Practices study................................................................................................18
Table 4: Product consumption scaled to sales numbers for the functional unit & rinsing habits....................................................18
Table 5: Unit Processes excluded from the life cycle assessment.................................................................................................23
Table 6: LCI databases for energy and transport ...........................................................................................................................25
Table 7: Electricity Grid France vs. Europe (2000) ........................................................................................................................26
Table 8: LCI databases for production of materials........................................................................................................................27
Table 9: LCI databases for production of chemicals (see Annex 8 for more detail).......................................................................28
Table 10: LCI databases for end-of-life ..........................................................................................................................................31
Table 12: Treatment of Municipal Solid Waste...............................................................................................................................32
Table 13: Inventory of maximum VOC's released into the environment during the use phase only ..............................................34
Table 14: Total LCIA for 1 year of kitchen cleaning in France (Wipes vs. Spray vs. LHC) ............................................................36
Table 15: LCIA for Wipes: contribution per life cycle stage............................................................................................................37
Table 16: LCIA for Spray: contribution per life cycle stage ............................................................................................................37
Table 17: LCIA for LHC: contribution per life cycle stage...............................................................................................................37
Table 18: Waste produced during 1 year of kitchen cleaning in France per household.................................................................39
Table 19: Total Residual solid waste throughout the life-cycle stages...........................................................................................39
Table 20: Relative water consumption throughout the kitchen cleaning life cycle .........................................................................41
Table 21: Relative energy consumption throughout the kitchen cleaning life cycle .......................................................................42
Table 22: Absolute LCIA values for 1 year of kitchen cleaning with 3 alternative product systems...............................................43
Table 23: comparison of three product systems (compared to the average impact value)............................................................46
Table 24: alternative scenario for product consumption.................................................................................................................47
Table 26: Water volume and temperature sensitivity analysis .......................................................................................................49
Table 38: Comparison of the averaged sensitivity analysis to base scenario results ....................................................................61
Table 39: Minimum category values for the 10 SA's and the corresponding scenario...................................................................61
Table 40: Maximum category values for the 10 SA's and the corresponding scenario..................................................................61
Table 41: Clarification of the corresponding sensitivity analysis ....................................................................................................61
Table 42: Overview of the 10 SA's and the changed variables ......................................................................................................64
Table 43: Overview of main assumptions in the study ...................................................................................................................65
Table 44: Potential development areas for three compared kitchen cleaning products.................................................................71
1
9/84
Introduction
1.1. Context of the Study
Today, wipes are present on the consumer goods market in a wide variety of executions (e.g. baby care,
home care, fabric care, personal hygiene, facial care, deodorants, etc…). These products are developed
based on a specific consumer interest and therefore provide a set of benefits not matched by product
alternatives. This study was focused on wipes used for cleaning of kitchen surfaces, excluding cleaning
of floor surfaces.
The fundamental consumer need in the surface cleaning category is, and always has been, better end
results with less effort. The recognition that this can be achieved beyond just the chemistry of the
cleaner, as it is the case for the sprays introduced a few years ago, is now driving the penetration of non-
woven substrates. Thanks to the combination of non-woven substrates together with the industry’s
traditional expertise in chemistry, the consumer is now being presented with solutions to his / her
cleaning needs: reduced job complexity, versatility of the use, convenience, hygiene, less effort and
better end results.
A typical aspect of wipes is the limited number of uses (single or a few), and disposal to the grey (i.e.
non-recycled) fraction of the household solid waste. Because of an increased awareness and concern
for solid waste generated in European countries, it is important to develop a good understanding of the
solid waste aspect, and even more importantly a broad picture of the entire environmental fingerprint of
wipes in comparison with more conventional product alternatives.
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), as a reputed environmental tool, can provide more insight into the different
dimensions of the environmental profile of products, processes and services. It is highly suitable to
compare potential environmental impacts of alternative product options. In combination with societal and
economic considerations, LCA can be used to assess the sustainability of a product.
Procter & Gamble is routinely executing LCA studies on its main products and technologies, with the aim
of developing a thorough environmental understanding and to guide product design towards solutions
with reduced environmental impacts. This comparative ISO LCA study on kitchen cleaning was
developed for AFISE, based on an existing study developed in 2003 by the P&G ETC LCA Team. The
LCA consultant bureau Ecobilan-PwC was involved by AFISE in the study to coach and audit the LCA
model and database selection, and to provide the most suitable and up-to-date datasets for France, as to
best represent the market situation.
10/84
1.2. Structure and Use of the report
First part of the document is the overall study report. It comprises the background of the study along with
the study itself in accordance with the guidelines as described by ISO 14040 series, i.e. Goal and Scope
definition, Inventory Analyses, Life Cycle Impact Assessment and Interpretation of the results.
The Second part of the study comprises a series of Annexes as referred to in the study report. This
complementary information is provided to both peer reviewer and the public audience (Annex 1, 5, 9, 10,
11).
A Third part of the report is a series of Annexes that provides detailed technical information with respect
to product formulation and consumer habits of the tested products. As being part of Procter & Gamble’s
Intellectual Property, this information is not disclosed to the public audience. All information herein
described however, is accessible to persons involved in the peer review process (Annex 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8).
The LCA study report and disclosed annexes are publicly accessible via AFISE under conditions as laid
out in a separate agreement between AFISE and Procter & Gamble EUROCOR.
11/84
2. Goal and Scope Definition
2.1. Goal Definition
2.1.1. Definition of the Objectives
The objective of this study is to quantify the potential environmental impacts of various kitchen
cleaning products (floors excluded) in France relative to one another.
The results of this in depth LCI and LCIA analysis are intended to provide broad perspective on
environmental information to an audience including product designers, the detergent sector
management, suppliers, interested consumers and non-governmental organizations.
This study can be used to outline the differences in environmental profile associated with the
choice of a certain product type, the relevance of its underlying processes as well as to identify
key improvement areas.
The strength of LCA is in providing a way of evaluating the entire life cycle of products
covering multiple environmental indicators, rather than to focus on one single aspect of interest.
Thus, a problem shifting from one environmental area to another can be identified and tackled.
2.1.2. Parties Involved
This ISO-compliant LCA study was performed on behalf of the French Detergent Industry
Association (AFISE), as a response to a number of media articles on waste related to wipes
usage. The information contained in the LCA can be used to further analyze the sustainability
proposition of different product categories.
Member companies of AFISE were involved in the study design, and support the outcome as
generally representative for the market of wipes, sprays and Classical Liquid Household
Cleaners in France.
The present report was released in december 2004. Summary of parties involved:
• LCA commissioner: French Detergent Industry Association (AFISE); represented by
Herein, the estimated weekly product consumption is an overestimation of the real-life product
consumption pattern since products are given for free in the tests. However, as the
overestimation is considered equal for a product with similar function, the relative product
consumption can be considered as accurate.
In order to re-scale to actual product consumption in the market, we need to take into account
actual sales numbers. As we know the LHC bottle product is being used beyond the scope of
kitchen cleaning only, we cannot estimate the actual consumption based on sales numbers for
this product. The wipes however are mainly used in kitchen only (except for bathroom wipes
which are not taken into account). As sales numbers in France correspond to usage of 7
wipes/(week.household) amongst wipe users, all other numbers (spray and LHC) are scaled
relative to this number (i.e. for a full replacement scenario).
Reference flows for rinsing habits show the number of rinses performed per 100 cleaning jobs
(%). This number is also based on P&G habits and practices studies.
Table 4: Product consumption scaled to sales numbers for the functional unit & rinsing habits
Product Consumption per Wipes Spray LHC Consumption scaled to wipe sales/yr 365 wipes/yr 6049 ml/yr 5840 ml/yr
Expressed in volume units/yr4 4070 ml/yr 6049 ml/yr 5840 ml/yr
Rinsing habits (rinses per 100 jobs) 9% 48% 70%
To note: more information on Habits & Practices study (Procter & Gamble) are described in Annex 3.
3 Wipe product consumption in the habit and practices studies is expressed as a number of wipes used per time unit,
whereas spray and LHC product consumption is typically expressed as the volume of product used per time unit. 4 Wipe product consumption can also be expressed as the volume of wipe lotion used per time unit (see table 3)
19/84
2.4. System Boundaries
2.4.1. Economy-environment system boundary: Flow diagrams
The objective of the following schemes is to present the considered system and its boundaries
for each of the products assessed. The systems have been structured similarly and comprise
following stages in the life cycle of kitchen cleaning:
• Production of the primary product: sourcing and production of raw materials &
ingredients + processing of the raw materials into a product.
• Production of the packaging material.
• Transport of the products to the shop.
• Usage of this product in consumer homes. In the use phase, three steps are to be
differentiated for all 3 compared products: cleaning, rinsing and drying of the hard
surface. Although drying habits have a potential impact on a variety of
environmental impact indicators, absence of relevant LCI-data and material
information (paper, cloth…) have led to not including this in the study. As drying
is mostly done in combination with products that leave surfaces wet after cleaning
or rinsing (mainly LHC and spray), the environmental impact of this additional step
should be the highest for these two product categories (annex 3 describes the drying
habits & practices). The use phase also includes the life cycle of the sponge (spray
and LHC) and the heating of the water for LHC. The waste water treatment of
products that go down-the-drain is considered to be part of the cleaning or rinsing
step and is therefore also accounted for in the use phase in this LCA.
• End-of-life stage of the product materials. This takes into account the recycling
figures and solid waste infrastructure in France.
Following flow charts shows the unit- or aggregated processes and the economic flows in
between them. The environmental interventions5 are not shown. Energy/fuel flows are omitted
because of readability (more detailed flow charts are captured in Annex 7).
5 Environmental interventions are flows crossing the boundary between the economy (product system) and the
environment. Hence, they are flows of materials leaving the product system which are discarded into the environment
without subsequent human transformation [38]
20/84
Figure 1: Process flow diagram of life-cycle stages for delivery of Mr. Propre Spray
21/84
Figure 2: Process flow diagram of the life-cycle stages for delivery of Mr. Propre Wipes
22/84
Figure 3: Process flow diagram of the life-cycle stages for delivery of Mr. Propre LHC product
23/84
2.4.2. Unit Processes excluded from the life cycle assessment
With respect to production of chemical ingredients, at least 99.3% of the product composition
was taken into account. The ingredient production not accounted for in this life cycle
assessment were perfume and dye materials. In addition to these product ingredients, some unit
processes were excluded from the life cycle analysis. The description of the unit processes
excluded from the study and the rationale behind this is detailed in below table:
Table 5: Unit Processes excluded from the life cycle assessment
System Excluded Rationale Relevant to all systems
• All contributions from production infrastructure
• Transportation of product ingredients from
production site to manufacturing site. • Transportation of packaging parts from
production site to manufacturing site of products
• Assembly of the packaging (bottles and
flow-wrap) • Consumer transportation to retailer
• Drying step in use phase
• Dye and perfume is not taken into account
for raw material production (the sum of the two ingredients represents a maximum level in the formulae of 0.7%)
• Printing of the packaging (plastic film or
paper label)
• Capital goods for production are excluded in LCA
• To be neglected for this study
• To be neglected for this study
• No information available
• To be neglected (as combined
with other shopping) • Insufficient LCI data and
information on consumer habits available
• No LCI data available related to production of these ingredients
• Quantities assumed to be very
low
Relevant to Wipes product
• Transport of fibers to wipe manufacturing • Use of biocide ingredients in production of
the wipe material (pulp).
• No information available • Each of the 3 biocides
ingredients used are present at very low concentration and no information was available (when calculated as product ingredients, they represent only <0.003% in the product formulation)
Relevant to LHC product
• Production and use of a bucket
• No information available + assumed to have a long lifetime
24/84
2.4.3. Allocation (boundaries with other systems)
Allocation has been avoided as much as possible. The single process which needs an allocation
rule is the use of the polyurethane sponge in the rinsing step. 50% of the sponge usage is
allocated to kitchen cleaning while other 50% is allocated to dish washing (outside the system
boundaries).
2.4.4. Modeling of energy recovery and recycling
The modeling of sub-systems related to end of life of wipes, packaging and sponge is detailed
in section 3.1.7. In particular, the methodological choices regarding energy recovery when a
waste is incinerated with energy recovery and regarding material recycling (HDPE bottle,
cardboard…) are presented.
2.4.5. Calculation software
The data are entered in TEAM™, commercial software developed by Ecobilan-
PricewaterhouseCoopers. Individual data modules for each unit process or series of unit
processes (see ISO 14040 definition 3.18) are available from DEAM™, the database delivered
with TEAM™ or from internal data. The format of these modules is compliant with the
recently developed SPOLD 99 format (Society for the Promotion of Life Cycle Development
[6]) and can be exported as such. Information on the origin of the data, the time period of data
collection, the geography, how representative, judgements and assumptions, type of
technology, literature or private sources, etc. may be entered as a reference in each module.
2.5. Critical review considerations
An external critical review was carried out by an independent LCA expert Mr. Henri Lecouls,
assisted by Mrs. Nadia Bouglin of ADEME (Agence de l’Environnement et de la Maitrise de
l’Energie). The peer reviewer comments and the author’s answers to these remarks are
presented in section 7 of this report. The French version of this review report is available in
Annex 11.
25/84
3. Life Cycle Inventories
3.1. Data sources and main assumptions
In this chapter, the choices, decisions and data quality related to unit processes are discussed in
more detail.
3.1.1. Data sources related to Energy and Transport
Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) studies collected from the literature or provided by suppliers or
consultants have relied upon a number of different energy databases for calculation of the
demand of energy and related environmental emissions [8].
For processes that required calculation of energy and related environmental emissions (i.e.
”transport” and ”manufacturing” stage), the ETH Energy Database was used consistently.
Country grid infrastructure data are representative of 2000 year, are from the International
Energy Agency (IEA) and include distribution losses. In limited cases, where no other data was
available, other LCI data was sourced: Franklin Associates, (US)-Environmental Protection
Agency or Ecobilan (calculated method for steam production).
Table 5 describes the sources of the different energy and transport processes used. Table 6
summarizes characteristics of the 2 electricity grids used in this study.
Water production Procter&Gamble (Project Cyclaupe, theoretical calculation), PWMI
[24], ETH [8]
Compact liquid : Production Franke, M. [20]
29/84
3.1.6. Use phase
The use phase of the 3 products includes the cleaning and rinse step (includes consumption of
water and the life cycle of a sponge) followed by the treatment of the waste water by a standard
municipal facility.
• Detailed information related to cleaning and rinsing habits are captured in table 1 p.11 and
Annex 3. These sources of information list the conditions and assumptions per product category
with relation to: -The volume, temperature of tap water used (if any), and the percentage of people that use water
during the cleaning step
-The volume, temperature of tap water used (if any), and the percentage of people that use water
during the rinsing step
For domestic water heating during the use phase, the share of electric water heaters was
estimated at 41.9% in France in 1993 [40]. Therefore, in the study scenario, a mix of 50%-50%
was assumed for electric to natural gas driven water heaters. The energy needed to do so is
calculated based on the specific heat of pure water: to heat 1g of water with 1°C, 4,18Joule is
required. For electric water heaters the French electricity model was used (see table 6).
• Waste water treatment: It is considered that all products along with the rinsing water that ends
up onto the cleaned surface finally is discharged to the sewer (via sponge and rinsing water).
The waste water treatment model for France assumes wastewater handling by primary (35%)
and/or secondary treatment (62%) possibly followed by tertiary treatment (3%) [41]. Both the
removal through biodegradation and sorption (to calculate chemical discharge), and the removal
through sorption on the sludge only (calculate dry sludge production) are taken into account.
Removal by primary treatment was estimated using various sources of information [42;43] or
was estimated with the mathematical model SIMPLETREAT [44]. Removal by secondary
treatment was derived from the EU ecolabel Detergent Ingredient Database [45]. It was
assumed that removals in secondary and tertiary treatment would be the same. The amount of
sludge formed in each type of treatment was assumed to equal the amount of ingredient
removed by sorption. For more detailed information on the waste water treatment model, see
[45]. For more information on the energy feedstock, energy requirements and environmental
emissions (CH4 and CO2) associated with the treatment of organic and inorganic ingredients,
see Annex 9.
• For those product formulations with VOC-ingredients, it is assumed that 100% of the VOC
ingredients are emitted into the air during the use phase. Hence, no VOC-ingredient will be
treated in the waste water treatment. This way, the untreated VOC-ingredients are fully
accounted for in the photochemical smog parameter. Therefore, the calculation can be seen as a
30/84
worst case scenario calculation. Except for the VOC-ingredients, all LHC and Spray product is
assumed to go to the cleaned surface and is thus treated in the waste water treatment. For the
wipe product, the situation is somehow different. It is considered that some part of the wipe
lotion stays on the wipe after usage (50% of remaining lotion quantity). After disposal of the
wipe, further evaporation of that lotion fraction will occur in the dust bin (25% of total lotion
quantity). The effects of these processes are taken into account both in disposal (lotion on wipe
treated as municipal solid waste) and the use phase (emissions to air) (more information on
wipe evaporation is described in Annex4).
3.1.7. End-of-life treatment
The WISARD6 software, developed by Ecobilan was used to model the incineration and
landfilling of a given material. This software is a life cycle tool for waste management that
allows the modeling of the treatment of a waste fraction based on its composition and net
calorific value characteristics.
The WISARD software has been successfully critically-reviewed in France and England &
Wales in 1999. More than 40 representatives from waste management companies, local
authorities and environmental groups as well as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) experts took part
to this 6-month long exercise. The tool is based on Ecobilan’s 10-year experience of the field
with different waste operators, local communities and official bodies in Europe, New-Zealand
and the United States. For information related to landfilling, see Annex 10.
6 WISARD: Waste – Integrated Systems Assessment for Recovery and Disposal
31/84
Table 10: LCI databases for end-of-life
3.1.7.1. Waste infrastructure in France:
The data related to the split between incineration and landfilling as main treatment options of
domestic waste derive from statistics published by the French Environment Agency (ADEME)
and correspond to year 2000 (see Table 11).
The recycling rates for LDPE film (used as a secondary packaging), HDPE bottle (packaging of
spray and LHC), cardboard boxes and tiesheets (cardboard sheets used as secondary packaging)
Material Database Where used Cardboard: Incineration with energy recovery Wisard [29] Wipe, Spray, LHC Cardboard: Incineration without energy recovery Wisard [29] Wipe, Spray, LHC Cardboard: Landfilling Wisard [29] Wipe, Spray, LHC HDPE: recycling Wisard [29] Spray, LHC Kraftliner (FEFCO, 2000): Production FEFCO [30] Wipe, Spray, LHC LDPE film: recycling Ecobilan: confidential source Wipe, Spray, LHC Lotion: Incineration with energy recovery Wisard [29] Wipe Lotion: Incineration without energy recovery Wisard [29] Wipe Lotion: Landfilling Wisard [29] Wipe Paper: Incineration with energy recovery Wisard [29] Spray, LHC Paper: Incineration without energy recovery Wisard [29] Spray, LHC Paper: Landfilling Wisard [29] Spray, LHC PE: Incineration with energy recovery Wisard [29] Wipe, Spray, LHC PE: Incineration without energy recovery Wisard [29] Wipe, Spray, LHC PE: Landfilling Wisard [29] Wipe, Spray, LHC PET: Incineration with energy recovery Wisard [29] Wipe PET: Incineration without energy recovery Wisard [29] Wipe PET: Landfilling Wisard [29] Wipe PP: Incineration with energy recovery Wisard [29] Wipe, Spray, LHC PP: Incineration without energy recovery Wisard [29] Wipe, Spray, LHC PP: Landfilling Wisard [29] Wipe, Spray, LHC Semichemical Fluting (FEFCO, 2000): FEFCO [30] Wipe, Spray, LHC Steel: Incineration BUWAL [10] Spray Steel: Landfill BUWAL [10] Spray Testliner (FEFCO, 2000): Production FEFCO [30] Wipe, Spray, LHC Cellulose derived fiber: Incineration with energy Wisard [29] Wipe Cellulose derived fiber : Incineration without Wisard [29] Wipe Cellulose derived fiber : Landfilling Wisard [29] Wipe Wellenstoff (FEFCO, 2000): Production FEFCO [30] Wipe, Spray, LHC
32/84
that were used for this study are presented in table 10. The data correspond to Eco-Emballages
statistics for year 2003.
Table 11: Recycling rates
LDPE HDPE Cardboard PP
32% 32% 61% 0%
Table 12: Treatment of Municipal Solid Waste
Landfilling Incineration with energy
recovery
Incineration without
Energy Recovery
51% 43.1% 5.9%
3.1.7.2. Energy recovery
Energy is recovered during the incineration of waste during the end-of-life phase of the
products (wipes themselves and packaging of the 3 products). Energy is also recovered during
the incineration of secondary packaging of the 3 products (cardboard and LDPE film).
The assumptions of the method are explained below for the incineration of wipes and have been
applied in the same way for the incineration of the packaging parts of the 3 products.
It is assumed that the incineration of 1 kg of wipes leads to the production of Y MJ in the form
of electricity and X MJ in the form of steam.
The overall energy demand in France is assumed to be constant. This energy thus replaces the Y
MJ of electricity and X MJ of steam that would need to be produced by a classic energy source
if the incineration of household waste were not in place.
As a result, the system under study that is producing the electricity and steam should be
completed by subtracting the environmental impacts from the production of Y MJ of electricity
and X MJ of steam by the standard means of electricity or steam generation in France (2000
year). The following diagram illustrates this differential approach:
33/84
Figure 4: Consideration of energy recovery for incinerated waste Incineration of waste
Y MJ of electricity X MJ of steam
Production of electricity by standard process
average French model (2000 year)
avoiding (minus)
Production of steam by standard process
32.3 % heavy fuel oil 30.2% %
coal 37.5 % natural gas
X MJ of steam Y MJ of electricity
avoiding (minus)
The standard process of production of steam in France corresponds to an average breakdown of
32.3% heavy fuel oil, 30.2% coal and 37.5% natural gas.
3.1.7.3. Material recycling
For material recycling (HDPE bottle, LDPE film and cardboard), the modeling takes into
account the collection of the waste, the recycling process and the avoided environmental
impacts related to the economy of virgin material. The recycling system is modeled by figure 5.
Figure 5: Recycling modeling
The Wisard tool was used to model the recycling systems of LDPE film and HDPE bottle. FEFCO [39]
data were used to model the recycling of cardboard.
3.2. Results of the Life Cycle Inventories
3.2.1. Overview of results (see Annex 5)
Transport of used material
Recycling process
Production of x kg of virgin material
Avoiding (minus)
x kg of secondary material
34/84
3.2.2. Calculation with respect to indoor air emissions of VOC
Although VOC emissions by building materials, paints, wood burning and tobacco smoke are
considered as the major contributors to indoor air quality problems such as Sick-Building-Syndrome,
VOC emissions by household products also are in the public debate. Therefore, this LCA will address
the maximum quantity of VOC-chemicals released into the environment during the use phase (in the
consumer’s home) over the total functional unit and per single cleaning job (Table 13).
By assuming that all VOC’s in the products will be emitted spontaneously into the kitchen indoor air
when the products are used, a worst case scenario is assumed: In reality at least some of the emissions
will not take place indoor (e.g. in the case of wipes when the dust bin is collected and emptied and the
waste is disposed off on a landfill or for spray/LHC after partially being disposed off down the drain).
Table 13: Inventory of maximum VOC's released into indoor air during the use phase only
Wipes Spray LHC
VOC ingredients Per FU Per job (*2) Per FU Per job (*2) Per FU Per job (*2)
Solvent 1 (g) 324.69 0.89 / / / /
Solvent 2 (g) 81.17 0.22 302.33 0.90 / /
Perfume (*1) 7.31 0.020 24.18 0.072 35.19 0.096
Total VOC’s 413 1.13 327 0.97 35 0.096 *1In the other parts of the LCA, it was assumed that during the use phase, perfume materials are discharged in the sewer with
the cleaning and rinsing water. Hence, the amount of perfume not removed by the waste water treatment plant is considered as
water emission. The emissions of the other solvents are considered as fully evaporating during the use phase, and hence are
fully considered as air emissions. For more details on the used solvents, see Annex 2.
*2 Although LCA results are typically reported over the entire functional unit, for indoor air pollution exposure is important.
Therefore, it was chosen to also report the VOC’s released during the use phase per job. It is during the occasion of a cleaning
job that the consumers are exposed to the cleaning ingredients. The definition of what is a job and how much product is used
per job can be found in Annex 3.
The highest quantities of VOC-ingredients are released during use of wipes and spray products. Hereby
wipes are releasing 25% more VOC’s over one year when compared to spray. VOC’s released into the
environment during use of LHC is only 10% of that of wipes or spray.
Whether VOC emissions in the reported quantities and qualities are capable to affect indoor air quality
is best addressed in the context of classical consumer and/or occupational safety assessments, with the
appropriate tools used in these disciplines. In order to facilitate such potential future exposure modelling
and risk assessment calculations, this LCA wanted to contribute to the debate by providing conservative
data based on product composition and worst case assumptions on the release scenario. The assessment
of the indoor air quality lies beyond the scope of this LCA.
35/84
3.3. Environmental indicators based on LCI values
3.3.1. Waste indicators
Household waste is the result of the waste produced during the use phase, with the exception of
the waste produced in the waste water treatment step. The results for Wipes, Spray and LHC
product as full replacement scenario over the entire functional unit are 2.07kg, 0.74kg and
0.34kg respectively.
Total residual solid waste is the sum of waste produced in all life-cycle stages, including that
of the disposal phase. Hence, here the household waste produced in the use phase is considered
as an internal flow. The values for Wipe, Spray and LHC product are 1.35kg, 0.94 kg and
1.02kg.
With respect to total solid waste, the calculation is performed by summing the individual LCI
values for the relevant life cycle stages, i.e. waste produced during the production of product
materials, packaging production, manufacturing, transport and use phase and the untreated
waste fractions that go to the disposal phase (cradle-to-gate). Wipe, Spray and LHC product
usage produce respectively 2.82 kg, 1.68kg and 1.40kg of total solid waste.
The total sum of the used packaging materials also represents the packaging waste. Wipe,
Spray and LHC product usage produce respectively 0.52kg, 1.13kg and 0.55kg of packaging
waste.
3.3.2. Resource indicators
For the base scenario, consumption of primary energy over the entire life-cycle for Wipes,
Spray and LHC product is respectively 186MJ, 148MJ and 220MJ.
The volume of water used for the three products over the entire life-cycle is respectively
312liter, 237liter and 829liter (Wipe – Spray – LHC).
36/84
4. Life Cycle Impact Assessment
Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) pools individual emissions together into environmental themes.
The potential impact calculated from impact assessment methodologies helps to determine to what
extent a particular product or process may contribute to a particular type of impact. As all impact
categories calculate potential impacts, the “potential”-phrase is mostly emitted from tables for
simplification. Among the various LCIA methods that are available, CML92 was selected because of
the extensive experience of P&G with this method [34]. Characterization factors for global warming
are from IPPC, and for ozone depletion and photochemical ozone creation from WMO. Emissions
reported in the inventory analysis undergo classification and characterization [1; 4]. Among the various
impact categories that can be used in LCA, the ones reported in this study are:
• Air acidification potential (g eq. H+) (CML 1992)
• Aquatic toxicity potential (m3 polluted water) (derived from CML 1992 / adapted version by P&G
as described in Annex 1)
• Eutrophication potential (g eq. PO43-) (derived from CML 1992) (for water releases only)
• Human toxicity potential (kg bodyweight) (CML 1992)
• Global warming potential (g eq. CO2) (IPPC, direct, 100 years, 1998)
The contributing flows to the above impact categories and their characterization factors are given in
Annex 1. The results of the ”cradle-to-grave” life cycle impact assessment, reported on the basis of 1
year of kitchen cleaning in France for 1 household are presented in Table 10. Table 11 to 13 present the
distribution over the various stages in the life cycle in absolute figures and relative to the total.
4.1. Comparison of three product systems
Table 14: Total LCIA for 1 year of kitchen cleaning in France (Wipes vs. Spray vs. LHC)
Life Cycle Impact categories Units Wipe Spray LHC Climate Change g eq. CO2 7399 6462 6912 Air Acidification g eq. H+ 1.02 0.85 0.96 Ozone Depletion g eq. CFC-11 0.000545 0.000565 0.000514 Photochemical Smog g eq. Ethylene 122.33 122.98 8.00 Human Toxicity kg bodyweight 42.73 37.73 39.83 Aquatic Eco-toxicity m3 polluted water 0.58 0.86 0.86 Eutrophication g eq. PO4
3- 1.23 4.59 8.31
7 Ozone depletion indicator was calculated for all three product alternatives but evaluated as non-relevant to this product
category. It will therefore not be handled in the interpretation of the results. For justification of decision see 5.1.3.
37/84
4.2. LCIA for Wipe product system
Table 15: LCIA for Wipes: contribution per life cycle stage
LCIA category Units Wipe 1.1 Non-woven
ingredients manufacturing
1.2 Lotion
Formula
1.3. Wipe manufacturing
2. Packaging
3. Distribution
4. Use
5. Disposal
Climate Change g eq. CO2 7399 48.28% 15.11% 8.90% 7.58% 5.07% 0.90% 14.17%
Air Acidification g eq. H+ 1.02 51.81% 22.06% 4.37% 9.26% 9.24% 0.78% 2.48%
Eutrophication g eq. PO43- 1.23 4.59 8.31 1.23 4.41 8.31
.
Clearly most of the indicator results of
the spray system have been impacted
significantly. More specifically to this
product category, having spray refill
system available in the market could
potentially lead to significant reduction
in waste and energy related parameters.
5.2.6. Summary of the Sensitivity analyses
Sensitivity analyses were developed in order to evaluate both uncertainty in data and potential
effects of alternative product design scenarios. Hence, the relevance of each scenario should be
evaluated on a case by case situation. In order to compare the results of the sensitivity analysis
to the base scenario results, following data tables indicate both the spread and mean values of
the sensitivity analyses (SA’s). The mean is given by averaging all values of the 10 SA´s. A
measure for the spread is given by showing the minimum and maximum values for all 10 SA´s
performed for any of the 10 category indicators. Along with those data, the sensitivity scenario
responsible for the minimum and maximum values is presented. These tables immediately
indicate that it is often 1 sensitivity scenario that is responsible for many of the min and/or max
values for a given product.
Figure 17: Sensitivity analysis: effect of refill bottles for spray product
Environmental Impact indicators
0%50%
100%150%200%Climate Change
Air Acidification
PhotochemicalSmog
Human Toxicity
Aquatic Toxicity
Eutrophication
Wipes
Spray
LHC
61/84
Table 38: Comparison of the averaged sensitivity analysis to base scenario results
Base Scenario Average of 10 Sensitivity Analysis* Indicator unit
Wipe Spray LHC Wipe Spray LHC
Household waste kg 2.07 0.74 0.34 2.069 0.69 0.329 Total Residual Solid kg 1.35 0.94 1.02 1.355 0.904 0.989 Water Usage Liter 312.21 236.86 829.29 309.559 229.497 767.258 Energy Usage MJ 186.11 148.04 219.59 189.365 145.456 205.208 Climate Change g eq. CO2 7399 6462 6912 7529.9 6244.1 6323 Air Acidification g eq. H+ 1.02 0.85 0.96 1.039 0.823 0.919 Photochemical Smog g eq. C2H4 122.33 122.98 8 122.376 118.937 7.637 Human Toxicity kg bodyw. 42.73 37.73 39.83 43.659 36.509 38.224 Aquatic Toxicity m3 poll.wat. 0.58 0.86 0.86 0.571 0.822 0.834 Eutrophication g eq. PO4
3- 1.23 4.59 8.31 1.235 4.429 8.066
Table 39: Minimum category values for the 10 SA's and the corresponding scenario
Minimum category values (10 SA) Respective sensitivity Analysis* Indicator unit
Wipe Spray LHC Wipe Spray LHC
Household waste kg 1.05 0.48 0.23 6 10 1 Total Residual Solid kg 0.82 0.69 0.74 6 1 1 Water Usage Liter 282.17 161.83 447.49 9 1 2 Energy Usage MJ 185.57 103.16 108.85 6 1 3 Climate Change g eq. CO2 7269 4514 4380 6 1 3 Air Acidification g eq. H+ 1.01 0.61 0.69 6 1 1 Photochemical Smog g eq. C2H4 122.29 82.68 5.58 9 1 1 Human Toxicity kg bodyw. 42.43 27.25 28.8 6 1 1 Aquatic Toxicity m3 poll.wat. 0.5 0.58 0.6 9 1 1 Eutrophication g eq. PO4
3- 1.22 3.16 5.81 6 1 1
Table 40: Maximum category values for the 10 SA's and the corresponding scenario
Maximum category values (10 SA) Respective sensitivity Analysis* Indicator unit
Wipe Spray LHC Wipe Spray LHC
Household waste kg 3.08 0.74 0.34 7 2;9 2;10 Total Residual Solid kg 1.89 1 1.17 7 4 5 Water Usage Liter 315.02 243.02 845.31 8 4 5 Energy Usage MJ 211.82 191.18 285.72 8 4 4 Climate Change g eq. CO2 8694 7450 8428 8 4 4 Air Acidification g eq. H+ 1.17 0.93 1.08 8 4 4 Photochemical Smog g eq. C2H4 122.78 123.32 8.54 8 4 4 Human Toxicity kg bodyw. 50.04 41.07 44.98 8 4 4 Aquatic Toxicity m3 poll.wat. 0.58 0.86 0.87 8 4 4,5 Eutrophication g eq. PO4
3- 1.29 4.59 8.33 9 2;9 5 Table 41: Clarification of the corresponding sensitivity analysis
Nr Description Reference chapter 1 equivalent product consumption (g/yr) 5.2.1 2 Less water used in cleaning (Liter) 5.2.2.1 3 Cold water during cleaning (°C) 5.2.2.2 4 Heated water during rinsing (°C) 5.2.2.3 5 Energy source (ratio gas-electricity) 5.2.2.4 6 Full evaporation rate of wipes 5.2.3.1 7 Zero evaporation rate of wipes 5.2.3.2 8 Fiber making energy (MJ) 5.2.4.1 9 Ratio of cellulose / PP fiber 5.2.4.2 10 Use of refill for spray bottles 5.2.5
62/84
Next to the extremes (min/max values) as a measure of the spread, the standard deviation was
calculated as well. Following charts shows how the average sensitivity analysis (Average of
10SA´s and the standard deviation) for all category indicators is compared to the base scenario.
1.
Household Waste (kg)
00.5
11.5
22.5
3
Wipe Spray LHC
Average scenar io
Base scenr io
2.
Total Residual Solid Waste (kg)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Wipe Spray LHC
Average scenar io
Base scenrio
3.
Energy Consumption (MJ)
050
100150200250300
Wipe Spray LHC
Average scenar io
Base scenr io
4.
Water Consumption (L)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Wipe Spray LHC
Average scenario
Base scenrio
5.
Climate Change (g eq. CO2)
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
Wipe Spray LHC
Average scenario
Base scenrio
6.
Air Acid. (g eq. H+)
00.20.40.60.8
11.2
Wipe Spray LHC
Average scenar io
Base scenr io
7.
Photochemical Smog (g eq. C2H4)
020406080
100120140
Wipe Spray LHC
Average scenar io
Base scenr io
8.
Eutrophication (g eq. PO43-)
0
2
4
6
8
10
Wipe Spray LHC
Average scenario
Base scenr io
63/84
9.
Human Tox. (kg bw)
0
10
20
30
40
50
Wipe Spray LHC
Average scenar io
Base scenr io
10.
Aquatic Eco-tox. (m3 pw)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Wipe Spray LHC
Average scenario
Base scenrio
The spread for some of the category indicators -for one or more products- indicates some level
of uncertainty in the developed base scenario. In most cases, the end conclusion based on the
base scenario is not affected. In two cases, where the base scenario predicts a significant
difference based on an arbitrary chosen significance interval of 20%, the averaged sensitivity
analysis turns this into not significant differences:
• Where the base scenario predicts 32% more Total Residual solid waste for wipes versus
LHC product, the difference becomes non-significant.
• Where the base scenario predicts a 48% difference in energy consumption between
LHC and the spray product, this approach indicates the difference to be non-significant.
Following paragraph further clarifies the decisions taken with respect to data uncertainty. For
all study parameters where no or uncertain data was available, an alternative scenario was
performed based on best availability data. Where no data was available (realistic assumptions
are made for the base scenario), a sensitivity scenario was developed with large range (e.g. 0-
100%). Where data was based on uncertain study material, a sensitivity scenario was
performed in concurrence with the critical review consultants and Ecobilan-PwC. Some of the
scenarios developed were not designed to evaluate the sensitivity of the uncertain parameter as
a full range. Therefore, the choices made are unidirectionally affecting the environmental
impacts of one or more particular products. Hereby, the sensitivity analysis is intended to
demonstrate the sensitivity of the parameter affected and not to show the absolute minimum or
maximum values for the different products for each of the category indicators. Following table
summarizes how the base scenario variables are affected for development of the 10 sensitivity
scenarios. The color coding indicates how the parameter is likely to under (green)- or
overestimate (red) the environmental impact based on value judgment of the authors reflecting
the best available data at hand. The yellow color indicates a level of uncertainty in the data
(unclear whether it under- or overestimates).
64/84
Table 42: Overview of the 10 SA's and the changed variables
Base Scenario Sensitivity Analysis SA Description Indicators
Affected Wipes Spray LHC Wipes Spray LHC
1* equivalent product
consumption (g/yr)
10/10 4070 5840 6049 4070 4070 4070
2* Less water used in
cleaning (Liter)
5/10 0 0 4 0 0 1
3* Cold water during
cleaning (°C)
6/10 na na 41.5 na na 12
4* Heated water during
rinsing (°C)
5/10 12 12 12 41.5 41.5 41.5
5* Energy source (ratio
gas-electricity)
5/10 50-50 50-50 50-50 0-100 0-100 0-100
6-7
*
Full/zero evaporation
rate of wipes
2/10 50 na na 0/100 na na
8* Fiber making energy
(MJ)
4/10 21 na na 47 na na
9* Ratio of cellulose / PP
fiber
2/10 40 / 60 none none 60 / 40 none none
10* Use of refill for spray
bottles
2/10 na No refill na na 90%
refill
na
1. This sensitivity scenario assumes equal volume of product needed for the same job. This scenario has
therefore considered a best case scenario for Spray and LHC as it underestimates the measured market data.
2. The only set of data available for water usage during the cleaning job was for all surfaces in the kitchen (high
uncertainty). However, the arbitrary assumption of 1 liter water consumption is likely to underestimate the
environmental burdens caused by LHC.
3. Although consumer data indicates that people tend to use heated water for cleaning, this SA evaluates what is
the impact of using cold water only as a best case scenario for LHC.
4. As no data is available on rinsing water temperature, the assumption was made that cold water is used. In case
hot water is used -which is likely to be the case in some households- the environmental profile of products that
use most rinsing water (mainly LHC, but also spray) would become significantly worse. By this sensitivity analysis,
where cleaning water T is set at 41.5°C, we likely overestimate the environmental impact for LHC /spray.
5. A mixed scenario of electricity and gas is used as energy source for water heating (French data). An SA was
performed with respect to 100% electricity (overestimates primary energy, but underestimates CO2).
6-7. The base scenario assumed 50% of the wipe lotion to evaporate in the dust bin based on evaporation data
and worst case calculations. Due to uncertainty, the SA explored the extreme 0-100% evaporation of lotion.
8. Data on cellulose fiber making is scarcely available. A non-optimized pilot plant process consumes 47MJ per
material unit produced whilst 21MJ is estimated for an optimal process on a large production scale plant.
Although 21MJ is uncertain due to data unavailability, 47MJ is to be seen as overestimated for wipes.
9. Alternative for wipe composition does not change impact.
10. The SA does not reflect the current market situation and hence is not relevant for the environmental
comparison of products in France today. Clearly, this scenario underestimates the impact of spray product
option. Today, but shows the potential of product development improvements in that area.
65/84
5.3. Assumptions and uncertainty
No uncertainty measures, like standard deviations and distribution patterns, are available on the
data related to consumer habits and practices. Following tables once more lists the key
assumptions made. Most of them have been dealt with through setup of alternative (worst case)
scenario’s in the sensitivity analysis. Those not dealt with are not expected to change overall
results of the study.
Table 43: Overview of main assumptions in the study
System Assumption Effect on results For all
three
systems
• Habits and practices studies overestimate
the product consumption of the three
systems in an equal manner.
• Rinsing is done with 1Liter of water at 12°C
and assumed equal for all three systems
• Rinsing implement: Sponge of 6g PU is
assumed / 50% is allocated to dish cleaning
• All product applied on the surface is
assumed to go to waste water treatment
• See sensitivity analysis (5.2.1
equivalent prod consumption)
• Temperature of 41.5°C on
rinsing: see sensitivity analysis.
Volume is not analyzed.
• Rinsing implement has never
shown significant impact on the
environmental profile.
• Not further assessed
Wipes • Based on evaporation rates in lab test, it is
assumed the wipes contains 25% of the
lotion at moment of waste collection
• Wipe making from the wipe materials is
assumed to cause 5% loss of material
• Further addressed in sensitivity
analysis. (5.2.3 Percentage of
lotion that evaporates from
wipes)
• Worst case scenario leads to
limited effect in the life-cycle
Spray • Cleaning implement is assumed the same as
the rinsing implement (equal for all 3
systems
• Cleaning implement (sponge) has
never shown significant impact
on the environmental profile.
LHC • Cleaning implement is assumed the same as
the rinsing implement
• Cleaning water for cleaning of kitchen
cleaning surfaces w/o floors is considered
equal to that as for kitchen cleaning in
general (floors included.)
• Cleaning implement (sponge) has
never shown significant impact
on the environmental profile.
• Water temperature and volume
for LHC cleaning has been
evaluated in sensitivity analysis.
(5.2.2 Temperature and volume
of water)
66/84
5.4. Limitations of the study
Because of unavailability of appropriate and standardized test methods, it was not possible to
precisely quantify the performance of each product (i.e. the surface that a product can clean)
and that consequently an approach based on habits and practice was used by default.
The drying habits (e.g. by wiping with a dry cloth or paper towel after cleaning and rinsing)
have not been included within the scope of this study. Specifically, as wipe users leave the
surface rather dry after the cleaning step, the drying step is mostly relevant to the Spray and
LHC product execution. Therefore, the environmental impact of last two products may have
been somewhat underestimated.
As indicated in the sensitivity study 5.2.2.1 and the assumptions in 5.3, the volume of the
cleaning water used for the LHC product is based on habits and practices information that is
based on the overall LHC product usage, i.e. including the usage for floor cleaning.
The present study remains a technical assessment of the environmental profile of various
kitchen cleaning products due to limitations related to LCA. Other aspects, e.g. performance
and cost, were ignored. These aspects however play an essential role in consumer preference. A
sustainability assessment, including economical and social (consumer benefits) aspects
associated with kitchen cleaning may be another tool for assessing these product alternatives.
Eco-toxicity and human toxicity parameter: the LCA methodology for these two toxicity
parameters is under fast scientific evolution and cannot be considered as fully mature. Results
should be interpreted with great caution.
Only those parameters from the life cycle inventory that are considered are most important to
the various stakeholders or have the biggest potential impact on the environment are considered.
There is no intent to deliberately not show potential LCI-values that would favour any of the
three products assessed (Annex 5).
67/84
6. Conclusions
The base scenario has demonstrated that none of the three kitchen cleaning products evaluated –floor
cleaning excluded- are significantly better or worse for all of the 10 environmental indicators assessed.
This has led us to conclude that none of the products assessed can be labeled as overall better or worse
for the environment. The base scenario is designed to represent the consumer habits of the average
consumer in France based on the best data available today. To take into account varying consumer
habits and other uncertainties in the data used, several sensitivity analyses were conducted.
The sensitivity analyses have revealed that data uncertainty with respect to product consumption,
cleaning habits, lotion evaporation from the wipe and cellulose production could significantly impact
the result of the study. However, none of the sensitivity analyses resulted in a situation where one
product would be the best with respect to all environmental indicators.
6.1. Product comparison based on the base scenario
The 3 products systems - although very different in delivery method and product formulation – show
both strengths and weaknesses with respect to the various environmental indicators. Due to data
uncertainty, a 20% margin is chosen as arbitrary cut-off rule to define what is similar or what is
different when indicator values of individual products are compared.
Those indicators with similar results are climate change potential, air acidification potential and
human toxicity potential. Yet, different life cycle stages contribute differently for the 3 products.
Next to the similarities there are some noteworthy differences in the impact assessment categories:
• Photochemical smog creation potential: Although wipes and spray behave similarly, LHC
contributes much less to this indicator. This is very much related to 2 chemical ingredients that
are considered as VOC in the spray and wipe products which are not present in the LHC
product execution. Hence, contribution to photochemical oxidant formation of LHC is only 7%
of that of the other 2 products.
• Aquatic eco-toxicity potential: Due to a lower fraction of chemicals that goes down the drain
with wipes, the potential effect is only 67% of the potential impact of Spray and LHC product.
• Eutrophication potential: For the same reason as mentioned for aquatic toxicity indicator, the
potential impact of Spray and LHC product is almost 4 and 7 times that of the wipe product.
68/84
Regarding the inventory indicator results, the following differences can be observed:
• Household waste for wipes –not surprisingly- is higher when compared to the Spray product (3
times) and even more so when compared to LHC (6 times). Important factor for the quantity of
generated household waste for wipes is the moisture content of the wipes at moment of
disposal.
• Total Residual solid waste produced after treatment by the municipalities (in a true cradle-to-
grave sense) is more comparable for the three products systems. Wipes produce 44% more total
residual solid waste when compared to Spray, 32% more when compared to the LHC product.
Notably, the different life cycle stages contribute very differently for the three compared
products. Main contributing stages for:
o Wipe: Disposal stage where the wipe material is considered as non recyclable fraction
o Spray: Disposal stage where the trigger materials are considered as non recyclable.
o LHC: Use stage where waste water treatment (sludge) and energy for water heating
play an important role
• Water consumption: LHC product is consuming significantly more water (3 times) when
compared to Spray and Wipe product. This is directly linked to the assumption on water
consumption during the use phase. Wipe product on its turn consumes 32% more water when
compared to Spray.
• Energy consumption: LHC product is consuming 18% more primary energy when compared
to Wipe product (non-significant). Compared to Spray product, primary energy consumption of
LHC is however 48% higher. This is directly linked to the heated water consumption in the
LHC cleaning step. Wipe product consumption potentially leads to 26% more primary energy
consumption when compared to Spray.
6.2. Conclusions from the sensitivity analyses
Beyond the settings of the base scenario, impact of data uncertainty and alternative product scenario’s
were assessed in the sensitivity analyses.
69/84
1. An important analysis dealt with the data uncertainty related to the equivalent product
consumption of all three product alternatives (chapter 5.2.1). The reference flows chosen based on
product consumption values through consumer habits can be considered as realistic. However, a
sensitivity scenario was developed in which the assumption was made that each product alternative
requires the same volume of liquid product (i.e. volume of wipe lotion = volume of LHC/Spray
product) . This scenario, which is seen by the authors as a true worst case for wipes, assumes the
consumption for spray and LHC to be reduced by 20%. Simultaneously, all 10 environmental
indicators would decrease by 20% as well. Hence, this scenario would result in the wipe product
alternative to score the worst on 7 and 8 indicators versus LHC and spray product respectively.
Technical studies that further clarify the product consumption equivalence would be a valuable
addition to confirm the results of this study.
2. A second series of sensitivity scenarios was reflecting the data uncertainty on variables related to
water volume and temperature in the cleaning and rinsing habits for spray and LHC.
One uncertainty was related to the water volume used in the cleaning step of LHC product users.
This scenario, that reduced the water volume used from 4 to 1 Liter in the cleaning phase (applied to
the 30% of people that use diluted product) of the LHC users, led to a 46% reduction of water
consumption for LHC, but did not change the conclusion that the LHC product remains the product
with the highest water consumption. It did however affect the energy consumption, as this is
directly linked to heating of the water. Rather then being the product alternative that used the most
energy, this scenario would predict LHC product users to use the least amount of energy. Similar
effects were seen for the global warming and air acidification potentials.
Another uncertainty was related to the water temperature of the water in the cleaning step for LHC.
The temperature (41.5°C) variable based on habits studies was replaced by cold tap water (12°C).
This temperature is underestimating the average consumer habits but the sensitivity of this variable
is shown through reduction of LHC energy consumption by 50%. Also, significant reductions
(>20%) were seen in climate change, air acidification, photochemical smog and human toxicity
potential!
Hereby, we confirmed that many of the environmental indicators for the LHC product category are
driven by the consumer rinsing and cleaning habits. More precise data with regards to water
volume and temperature would enable us to better address the uncertainty there.
3. Another variable of uncertainty was the evaporation profile of the wipe product in the dust bin.
The base scenario (50% of the wipe lotion evaporates in the dust bin) was selected based on
technical data. The sensitivity analysis, which explored two extremes (0-100% evaporation)
70/84
indicated the evaporation profile to highly impact the ranking of the products regarding otal residual
solid waste. In case all lotion would evaporate from the wipes, there would no longer be a
difference in total residual solid waste for the 3 alternatives. In case no evaporation of lotion would
occur at all, the use of wipes would lead to the highest level of total residual solid waste by a high
margin compared to the other two variants. We have reason to believe that more accurate data with
respect to the evaporation of lotion might indicate the total residual solid waste of wipe product
category to be lower than assumed in the base scenario.
4. Data uncertainty related to energy consumption of the cellullosic fiber making indicated an
increase in potential primary energy consumption for the wipe product scenario with up to 17%.
5. Although not reflecting the current market situation, another scenario was developed to evaluate
product design opportunities of a refill package for spray showing a significant decrease in several
of the indicators.
6.3. Potential improvement areas with respect to consumer habits
As the main results of this comparative study are driven by consumer habits, there are of course a
number of environmental opportunities that relate back to these habits.
• For all 3 products, rinsing and cleaning habits are driving a significant part of the environmental
profile. In this respect, careful use of water is an important factor. In more detail, it is
recommended to the product consumers to use minimum amount of water and to use non-heated
water where possible. Those two factors drive energy consumption and immediately affect a
number of environmental indicators. Please note that this is mainly valid for the LHC product
category, where highest rinsing frequency and high water volumes in the cleaning phase are used.
• With respect to the wipe product usage, using the wipes to their full extent will reduce waste and
overall environmental impact.
71/84
6.4. Potential improvement areas for development of future products
Table 44: Potential development areas for three compared kitchen cleaning products
Product Potential development area Comment Wipes • Reduce elements that contribute to
photochemical smog • Decrease the weight of the wipe relative to
impact and cost. (Environmental data for this scenario is available, potential impact however is limited).
• Reduces non-renewable energy consumption
• Lower amounts of household waste and total
residual solid waste Spray • Reduce elements that contribute to
photochemical smog • Efforts towards reduction of packaging
material (i.e. refill bottles)
• Reduce VOC emissions • packaging one of the key drivers for Spray
LHC • Address consumer habits with respect to cleaning habits
• Address consumer habits with respect to rinsing
• Use chemicals/ surfactants with low COD
• Use of heated water is a main driver for many indicators
• High water consumption
• Reduce contribution to eutrophication
72/84
7. Critical review performed by Mr. Henri Lecouls, assisted by ADEME
The English version of the critical review is currently under final writing. The French version is in annex 11, but
also reproduced hereafter
Annexe 11 Revue critique de l’Analyse du Cycle de Vie de
trois produits de nettoyage des surfaces de cuisines
Rapport de revue définitif transmis à l’AFISE le 24 janvier
2005
Cette revue critique est réalisée par M. Henri LECOULS expert ACV indépendant, assisté
de Mme Nadia BOEGLIN de l’ADEME
Deux rapports d’ACV successifs ont été soumis à la revue critique, en août et en octobre
2004, ils ont fait l’objet de deux rapports de revue critique intermédiaires en septembre
et en novembre 2004.
Le présent rapport de revue définitif est rédigé par les auteurs de la revue critique, en
tenant compte des améliorations qui ont été apportées aux premières études et des
réponses qui ont été faites, par les auteurs de l’ACV, aux questions posées dans les
rapports de revue intermédiaires.
Références :
Les références chiffrées (numéros de pages et de paragraphes) sont celles de l’étude de
décembre 2004, citée dans l’encadré ci-dessus.
Terminologie :
Dans ce rapport nous utilisons :
73/84
le mot « lingette » pour « wipe »
le mot « spray » est inchangé
les mots « liquide de nettoyage » pour « liquid household cleaner »
AVIS GENERAL :
Les différents chapitres de l’étude répondent bien aux exigences des normes de la série
14040, et notamment aux principes de transparence et de clarté.
Cependant, pour améliorer la pertinence du rapport final de l’étude, certains points
demandaient à être précisés ou améliorés et ont fait l’objet de recommandations, de
propositions ou de questions aux auteurs de l’étude, par écrit et verbalement. Les auteurs
ont, globalement, bien tenu compte des recommandations faites et apporté des réponses
satisfaisantes aux demandes de précision.
Ces points sont repris dans les chapitres suivants.
1 Changements substantiels :
1.1 Définition de l’objet de l’étude
La nouvelle version du rapport est explicite sur la nature du nettoyage objet des ACV réalisées :
titre et paragraphes introductifs et conclusifs indiquent bien que seul est concerné le nettoyage
des surfaces de travail des cuisines. Ceci est tout particulièrement important pour éviter toute
généralisation à d’autres applications, notamment en ce qui concerne les lingettes dédiées à
d’autres usages.
1.2 Polyvalence du liquide de nettoyage
Les auteurs de la revue critique ont souhaité que soit rappelé l’aspect multifonctionnel du liquide
de lavage : l’équivalence entre les 3 produits est une notion déterminante pour justifier l’étude
comparative. On pourrait considérer que le liquide de nettoyage sert à tout : cuisine, sols carrelés,
salle de bains ... et que les produits lingettes et spray viennent en complément dans des domaines
spécialisés, voire se surajoutent à l’usage du liquide en s’intercalant entre 2 utilisations
conventionnelles de ce dernier.
74/84
En réponse, les auteurs de l’étude justifient leurs choix pour le scénario de référence dans les
deux commentaires ci-dessous :
=> « On a ajouté (chapitres 2.3.1 et 5) une description pour souligner que les lingettes, le spray ou
le liquide ne sont pas des substituts dans tous les types de travaux de nettoyage. De temps en
temps - notamment quand il est utilisé pur - le liquide est utilisé pour des travaux de nettoyage
plus lourds que les lingettes. »
=> « Les informations qui indiquent quelles habitudes des consommateurs sont spécifiques aux
surfaces de cuisine seulement (à l’exclusion du nettoyage des sols) et quelles ne le sont pas
peuvent être trouvées dans l’analyse de sensibilité 5.2.2.1 et dans l’annexe III. Ces nombres sont
utilisés pour le scénario de base parce qu' ils représentent les meilleures données disponibles sur
les habitudes et les pratiques des consommateurs en France.
Pour les utilisations de liquide de nettoyage, l’estimation de la proportion des gens qui utilisent le
produit non dilué (75%) et du pourcentage des ménages qui rincent après le nettoyage (70%) est
basée sur des données spécifiques aux surfaces de cuisine seulement (à l’exclusion des sols). Par
conséquent le scénario de base suppose que 30% des personnes utilisent de l’eau pour le nettoyage
parce qu’elles utilisent le produit dilué. Et ceci peut être considéré comme relatif aux surfaces de
cuisine seulement (à l’exclusion des sols).
Par contre, la répartition de la température et du volume de l’eau utilisée pendant le nettoyage
avec du liquide de nettoyage est non spécifique des surfaces de cuisine seules. Ces valeurs
montrent que certains ménages utilisent de l’eau chaude, d’autres chauffent l’eau, et certains
l’utilisent même froide. Ces données indiquent aussi que certaines personnes utilisent un seau plein,
d’autres seulement la moitié ou moins. Par conséquent les valeurs de 41,5 °C et 4 litres d’eau sont
des valeurs moyennes. Seulement 0,53% des gens utilisent un seau plein.
Toutes les autres incertitudes relatives à la température et au volume d’eau sont traitées dans
l’analyse de sensibilité et reprises dans les conclusions au chapitre 2.3.1 . »
Commentaire des auteurs de la revue critique : les explications fournies ci-dessus permettent de
mieux appréhender les incertitudes inhérentes aux modes d’utilisation du liquide de nettoyage, qui
ont un effet très important sur les impacts de ce produit.
75/84
1.3 Rédaction de la conclusion finale et du résumé exécutif :
La conclusion finale chapitre 6 et le résumé page 2 sont les éléments les plus importants de l’étude
parce qu’ils serviront de support aux documents abrégés de communication. Leur rédaction doit
être soignée et leur contenu doit être le reflet exact des résultats de l’étude.
La revue critique a recommandé d’améliorer la rédaction de la conclusion finale qui restait trop
centrée sur les résultats du scénario de référence sans considérer les résultats de l’analyse de
sensibilité.
Les auteurs de l’étude ont tenu compte de cet avis, ils ont remanié la partie conclusion :
a) En introduisant le sous-chapitre 5.2.6 dans lequel les 10 scénarios de l’analyse de
sensibilité sont rassemblés et récapitulés sous différentes formes (écarts mini-maxi et
écarts types) et discutés.
b) En rédigeant une conclusion plus nuancée et plus complète dans laquelle :
=> les résultats du scénario de base sont exprimés en pourcentages exacts des
différences
=> le sous-chapitre 6.2 donne les conclusions de l’analyse de sensibilité
=> le sous-chapitre 6.3 dégage les possibilité d’améliorations liées aux habitudes
des consommateurs
Commentaire des auteurs de la revue critique : par rapport à l’édition initiale, la conclusion, qui a
été fortement approfondie, est maintenant satisfaisante.
Le résumé aussi (Executive summary page 2) a été amélioré en précision. Notons cependant qu’un
résumé ne peut pas exprimer toutes les nuances de l’étude, qui sont mieux rendues dans la partie
conclusion.
2 Autres améliorations apportées par la nouvelle version du
rapport :
76/84
2.1 Unité fonctionnelle : la présentation des flux de référence a été améliorée par les auteurs de
l’étude qui ont modifié le tableau 4 page 17, de façon à faire la comparaison sur une base de
volumes annuels.
Ainsi on voit mieux les ordres de grandeur de chaque variante.
2.2 Présentation et choix des indicateurs environnementaux
Sur proposition de la revue critique, les auteurs de l’étude ont :
=> amélioré la présentation des indicateurs en ajoutant le tableau 2 page 14 qui donne un
aperçu des indicateurs retenus
=> supprimé trois indicateurs - qui sont cependant calculés - mais ne sont pas repris dans
l’interprétation. Avec les commentaires suivants :
« Destruction de la couche d’ozone : nous avons évalué et décrit la pertinence de
l’indicateur de destruction de la couche d’ozone et l’avons supprimé de l’interprétation. Les
résultats figurent dans les calculs. Comme cela est expliqué dans la revue, l’indicateur ozone n’est
plus utile parce que les substances qui contribuent à cet indicateur ne sont plus utilisées dans
l’industrie (interdiction réglementaire). »
« Déchets solides : nous estimons que les paramètres de déchets solides les plus
importants dans cette étude sont les déchets solides résiduels et les déchets domestiques. Ils
sont présentés dans le rapport sur le tableau 18 page 38. En ce qui concerne les paramètres
déchets solides totaux et déchets d’emballages, nous pensons que les définitions sont correctes et
qu’ils sont importants pour certains lecteurs. Par conséquent, les définitions sont conservées et les
résultats sont présentés dans le texte, mais ils ne sont pas utilisés pour l’interprétation (parce que
moins importants) ».
2.3 Chauffage de l’eau : dans le scénario de référence les auteurs de l’étude ont
remplacé le modèle de chauffage initial, électrique à 100%, par un modèle mixte, 50% électrique /
50% au gaz naturel, plus proche de la réalité. Le scénario à 100% de chauffage électrique est
conservé dans l’analyse de sensibilité.
77/84
2.4 Recharges pour le spray : la revue critique avait proposé de prendre en compte
dans l’inventaire un pourcentage de recharges vendues sans la pompe-gachette « trigger ». Afin de
diminuer la quantité de déchets ménagers de la variante spray.
Réponse des auteurs de l’ACV : « Le spray n’est pas disponible sous forme de recharge en France,
mais nous le prenons en compte dans l’analyse de sensibilité, parce que ce produit est faisable
techniquement (chapitre 5.2.5, page 58) »
2.5 Production des substances de base, utilisation de ressources renouvelables :
La revue critique avait proposé de développer une réflexion sur les consommations d’énergie
renouvelable et non renouvelable, en examinant les possibilités d’utiliser plus de ressources
renouvelables à partir des filières « naturelles » agro-bio .
Les auteurs de l’ACV ont répondu : « Nous sommes d’accord qu’un ratio différent des 2 matériaux
des lingettes affectera le ratio des consommations d’énergie renouvelable et non renouvelable.
Cependant, l’indicateur de changement climatique rend compte de ce point en partie, à travers la
contribution aux émissions de CO2. Nous avons inclus dans le rapport (chapitre 5.2.4.2, page 57) la
proportion d’énergie renouvelable des deux matériaux des lingettes et la proportion de cette
énergie dans la consommation totale d’énergie du produit. »
« A propos de l’utilisation de ressources agro-bio, nous indiquons (chapitre 5.2.4.2, page 58) la
fraction d’énergie de l’éthanol (avec le bio-éthanol comme ingrédient alternatif) dans la
consommation d’énergie des lingettes (dont l’éthanol est le principal ingrédient), nous donnons
quelques explications sur le fait qu’aucune technologie ne peut fournir des lingettes efficaces qui
seraient produites avec des matières renouvelables seulement. »
2.6 Pourcentage de la lotion qui s’évapore des lingettes : les auteurs de l’étude ont
clarifié le scénario d’évaporation de la lotion par le commentaire ci-dessous :
« Conformément à une proposition d’Ecobilan, nous avons développé un scénario extrême pour les
COV des lingettes, c’est à dire que nous supposons que dans la phase d’utilisation la totalité des
COV s’évaporent rapidement de la lingette et sont toujours considérés comme étant émis à 100 %
dans l’air. Les scénarios d’évaporation 0 et 100 % sont relatifs à l’évaporation de l’eau de la lotion.
Donc les scénarios d’évaporation affectent principalement les paramètres de déchets solides.
L’hypothèse de cette analyse de sensibilité est soigneusement clarifiée au chapitre 3.1.6, page 28
du rapport. »
78/84
2.7 Présentation des résultats : la présentation des résultats dans le texte manquait
d’homogénéité
Réponse des auteurs de l’ACV : « Nous admettons qu’il y a une grande diversité de présentation
des résultats, mais nous avons amélioré la structure du rapport pour présenter les résultats par
groupe d’indicateurs d’une façon homogène paramètres déchets, paramètres ressources et
indicateurs d’impacts). Notre intention est de clarifier au mieux les résultats des différents
indicateurs. Un tableau récapitulatif permet au lecteur de retenir toutes les informations d’un
seul coup d’oeil à la fin. Nous pensons qu’en séparant les catégories d’indicateurs dans
l’interprétation, on souligne le fait que les indicateurs choisis ne peuvent pas être pondérés comme
s’ils étaient d’égale importance. Nous avons limité le nombre de décimales où elles ne sont pas
nécessaires (chapitre 5.1, pages 37 - 45) »
Commentaire des auteurs de la revue critique : la nouvelle présentation des résultats est plus
claire et plus homogène. Néanmoins la multiplication des graphiques (en particulier camembert 3D),
qui n’apportent selon nous que peu d’informations supplémentaires, nuisent à la bonne
compréhension des principaux résultats et à l’identification des éléments significatifs.
3 Réponses apportées aux autres questions soulevées par la revue critique et
n’ayant pas conduit à des modifications du rapport :
Les réponses ci-dessous ont été apportées par les auteurs de l’étude à certaines questions
posées par la revue critique : ces éléments de précision n’ont pas donné lieu à des modifications du
rapport mais ont été jugés satisfaisants par les auteurs de la revue critique :
3.1 Inventaire des déchets solides (cf. annexe 5, résultats des inventaires) Certains termes de l’inventaire des déchets solides, qui posaient problème, ont été clarifiés par
les auteurs de l’étude :
- Les déchets de mine « Waste (mining) », qui sont essentiellement des roches, ne sont pas
additionnés dans les déchets totaux « Total residual solid waste » parce que ces roches sont
79/84
« ramenées dans la mine à l’endroit d’où elles ont été extraites » et parce que « la quantité est si
importante que tout autre déchet le long du cycle de vie serait invisible dans le total »
- La quantité de boues de traitement de l’eau « Sludge » est supposée par hypothèse être
égale à la quantité d’ingrédients éliminés par adsorption. Le mode de calcul des boues est expliqué
au chapitre 3.1.6, page 28.
3.2 Consommation d’argile (cf. annexe 5, résultats des inventaires)
La consommation d’argile, parfois importante, que l’on note dans l’inventaire des ressources
de chaque produit, est justifiée par la création de couches intermédiaires dans les centres
d’enfouissement technique des déchets (les décharges). Ces quantités d’argile sont comptées
comme déchet non minéral (inerte).
3.3 Incinération avec récupération d’énergie (cf. sous-chapitre 3.1.7.3)
Le modèle de récupération de l’énergie prend bien en compte le fait qu’en France une
partie de la vapeur est récupérée et une partie ne l’est pas, par exemple en été.
3.4 Impact sanitaire des ingrédients
Bien qu’elles n’entrent pas formellement dans le cadre d’une ACV, deux problématiques
particulières ont été soulevées par les auteurs de la revue critique : la pollution de l’air intérieur
par les composés organiques volatils et les risques toxiques ou allergiques induits par les colorants
et parfums. Les auteurs de l’étude ont fourni en réponse un inventaire des émissions de COV et les
commentaires suivants que nous citons in extenso :
3.4.1 Inventaire des émissions de COV dans l’air intérieur
Les auteurs de l’étude ont rédigé un complément aux résultats de l’inventaire (sous-chapitre 3.2.2
tableau 13) donnant un chiffrage de la quantité maximum de COV (solvants et parfums) émis dans
l’air intérieur pendant l’utilisation des trois produits de nettoyage.
3.4.2 Commentaire des auteurs de l’étude sur la pollution de l’air intérieur
« Nous reconnaissons l’importance et l’intérêt du public pour la pollution de l’air intérieur. Evaluer
la pollution de l’air intérieur en quantifiant et en comparant les quantités de COV émis dans l’air
pendant le nettoyage de locaux est hors des possibilités de ce dossier d’ACV. Si ce critère est
80/84
pertinent, la pollution de l’air intérieur devrait être prise en compte, mais pas dans le contexte
d’une étude d’ACV (chapitre 3.1.6, page 27) »
«Les produits de nettoyage domestique sont soigneusement évalués et ne sont pas susceptibles de
provoquer des réactions asthmatiques ni des allergies de la peau. Nous ne sommes pas informés de
problèmes d’asthme causé par une utilisation convenable d’aucun de nos produits.
Les causes de l’asthme sont nombreuses et les asthmatiques doivent être particulièrement
prudents dans tout ce qu’ils font. L’asthme est une maladie chronique inflammatoire des voies
aériennes. C’est une maladie complexe dont les symptômes seuls ne permettent pas de connaître
sûrement la cause. Une variété de facteurs peut déclencher une réaction asthmatique chez celui
qui en souffre, par exemple une infection virale, des polluants de l’air, la fumée de cigarette, l’air
froid, l’exercice, les aéroallergènes courants (tels que le pollen), certains médicaments, des
conservateurs, et le stress émotionnel.
De plus, les COV sont une classe très diversifiée de substances chimiques, avec des propriétés
diverses. Un des solvants COV le plus utilisé dans les catégories de produits pour les
consommateurs est l’éthanol. Comme l’éthanol est soluble dans l’eau et facilement biodégradable,
sa durée de vie dans l’environnement est très brève contrairement à de nombreux autres COV.
Nous sommes bien entendu informés d’un article récent dans lequel certains COV mesurés dans
l’air intérieur sont associés à des symptômes respiratoires. Ces COV sont les benzène, toluène, m
- xylène, o,p - xylène, èthylbenzène, styrène et plusieurs chlorobenzènes. Ces ingrédients sont
typiquement non présents dans les produits de nettoyage domestique. »
3.4.3 Commentaire des auteurs de l’étude sur les colorants et parfums
« Les informations disponibles pour caractériser le profil de toxicité humaine des parfums et des
colorants sont très limitées. Nous n’avons pas d’informations pour caractériser ces ingrédients
dans les valeurs de toxicité humaine selon CML92. Donc il reste à examiner ce qui se passe dans le
traitement des eaux résiduaires. Concernant l’écotoxicité aquatique, nous avons inclus une étape
de traitement des eaux résiduaires, après laquelle nous avons caractérisé les parfums et les
colorants sur la base de facteurs de caractérisation génériques selon CML 92. Au delà de ces deux
indicateurs, les propriétés de santé humaine de ces substances chimiques sont hors du champ de
l’ACV »
« Les parfums sont des mixtures complexes de centaines de matières premières individuelles. Les
composants des parfums des produits d’entretien domestiques sont typiquement des matières
81/84
premières de parfums utilisées couramment que l’on retrouve dans de nombreux autres produits
de nettoyage domestique odorants, à des niveaux et des concentrations similaires.
Les parfums utilisés dans les produits de nettoyage domestiques se conforment typiquement aux
lignes directrices de l’IFRA (Association Internationale de Recherche sur les Parfums). L’IFRA
fixe des lignes directrices pour les applications avec contact (le produit reste sur la peau) et sans
contact (le produit est rincé), afin d’assurer une utilisation sans danger de nombreux types et
formes de produits de consommation. L’industrie des biens de consommation suit, ou dépasse,
les lignes directrices de l’IFRA relatives aux niveaux et/ou à la présence de matières premières
dans les parfums.
Les parfums dans les produits de nettoyages domestiques sont totalement évalués au point de vue
de la sécurité des consommateurs lorsque les voies d’exposition attendues sont la peau et
l’inhalation. Sur la base de ces évaluations, aucun problème de sécurité des consommateurs n’est
soulevé par l’exposition prévue aux parfums associée avec l’utilisation de produits de nettoyages
domestiques. »
4. Un point resté en suspens : comment permettre au lecteur la
bonne compréhension des ordres de grandeur présentés
Le tableau de synthèse des résultats met bien en lumière la contribution relative de chaque
produit aux indicateurs choisis. Cependant, il ne donne pas de points de référence permettant au
lecteur de juger de l’importance relative des différents impacts présentés : il aurait ainsi pu être
intéressant de mettre les impacts liés au nettoyage de la cuisine face au total de ceux générés
directement par un ménage ou encore de rapporter les impacts à une échelle de référence telle
l’équivalent habitant (normation)
Réponse des auteurs de l’ACV : « Nous avons décidé de ne pas conduire une étape de normation
parce que les données de référence pour certaines catégories d’impact calculées selon CML ne
sont pas disponibles pour la France. Et aussi, comme les valeurs de référence ne sont pas
disponibles pour indiquer l’importance relative des indicateurs de déchets et de ressources,
l’intérêt de cette étape est limitée dans ce cas. »
82/84
Commentaire des auteurs de la revue critique : tout en comprenant les difficultés d’accès à des
données de référence, la revue critique considère que cette réponse n’est pas satisfaisante : le
problème de la bonne compréhension des ordres de grandeur reste entier. Si les pistes proposées
par les auteurs de la revue critique n’ont pas été jugées exploitables ou intéressantes par les
auteurs de l’étude, charge à ces derniers de trouver d’autres solutions pour répondre au problème
posé.
5 Conclusion de la revue critique :
Des réponses acceptables ont été faites par les auteurs de l’étude, aux questions qui étaient
posées dans les rapports de revue intermédiaires.
Des améliorations notables ont été apportées au texte : en particulier, le titre de l’étude, son
champ et les conclusions sont plus clairs et plus précis.
Outre le résumé « executive summary », nécessairement succinct, nous recommandons aux
lecteurs de l’étude de prendre connaissance des conclusions ( au chapitre 6 du rapport ) ; nous
recommandons aussi aux commanditaires de l’étude de communiquer sur la base des conclusions du
rapport, car ces conclusions sont plus nuancées que le résumé et rendent mieux compte du très
riche contenu de l’étude présentée.
________________________________________
83/84
References [1] SETAC. 1993. Guidelines for Life Cycle Assessment: A code of Practice. Society of Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry, Pensacola, FL., Sesimbra, Portugal.
[2] ISO 14040: 1997 (E). Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Framework. 1997(E)
[3] ISO 14041: 1998. Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Goal and Scope Definition and Inventory
Analysis.
[4] ISO 14042 : 2000 (E). Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Life Cycle Impact Assessment.
[5] ISO 14043 : 2000 (E). Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Life Cycle Interpretation.
[6] SPOLD (1997), The SPOLD file format, http//www.spold.org/publ/index.html, Society for promotion of life cycle
development, Brussels
[7] FAL, 1998, Franklin Associates USA LCI Database Documentation, Franklin Associates, Prairie Village, Kansas, USA
[8] ETH, 1996, Ökoinventare für Energiesysteme, ETH Zurich
[9] EPA, AP-42, Vol. I, CH1.5: Liquefied Petroleum Gas Combustion,