LCA

Handbook for Cleaning/Decontamination of Surfaces I. ]ohansson and P. Somasundaran (Editors) �9 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

- 2 . 2 -

Life Cycle Assessment

Johan Widheden and Emma RingstrSm

Akzo Nobel Technology & Engineering, Stenungsund, Sweden

1. INTRODUCTION TO LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT

Life cycle assessment (LCA) [1] can be used in many applications, e.g. in product development projects to identify significant environmental aspects and through that, to provide a baseline for decisions about product improvements. LCA can also be used for identification of improvement possibilities on a national level, e.g. for identifying waste treatment strategies for a nation. Another application area is marketing; the results of an LCA can be used to communicate the environmental benefits of a product to customers, e.g through the LCA-based communication tool environmental product declaration (EPD).

1.1. Background

Traditional environmental regulation is oriented towards production and waste handling at a site or concerning the intrinsic properties of a product and does not cover the way products are designed and used. A large part of the environmental impact does however follow the product through the factory gates, i.e. in the transportation and use of the product.

The concept of a product life cycle means that a product is followed from its "cradle", where raw materials are extracted from natural resources, through refinement, production and use to its "grave", the disposal (Figure 2.2.1). It is thereby the equivalent of a supply chain, but also includes the use and disposal. Life Cycle Assessment is an assessment of the environmental impact of a product 's life cycle. For every activity in the life cycle, resource use, waste and emissions are described quantitatively.

The resources, waste and emissions for all of the activities in the life cycle are summarized into an environmental profile for the

695

Handbook for Cleaning/Decontamination of Surfaces

]esources, e.g. raw naterials, energy and ~nd resources

~/aste and emissions o air and water

Figure 2.2.1 A model of a product's life cycle. The boxes represent physical activities

product, called a life cycle inventory (LCI). The resources, waste and emissions in the LCI are then classified into groups depending on which environmental aspect they affect and are characterized according to how much they affect that aspect, e.g. global warming, acidification or non-renewable resources.

Finally, the different environmental aspects can be summarized through weighting.

The procedure for conducting an LCA is outlined in the ISO 14040 series and further described below. The description in this book is not the detailed description needed for someone who wants to conduct LCAs, but intended to provide a general description of what LCA is and how it can be used.

1.2. Working Procedure

An LCA is carried out in four main phases, which are presented in Figure 2.2.2. In practice, an LCA is often conducted iteratively,

696


:::.I O~176176 1 ~ ~ definition /

'" "" x x ~" x x x ~ I ~ ~ m p a c t assestment~~ "" t 0ass,ca:on /

Characterization / ~. Weighting j ~

Purpose and requirements on modeling and data

Collection of inputs and outputs, e.g. MJ fossil fuel, g NO x, g CO 2

Potential environmental impact, e.g. resource depletion, global warming potential, acidification potential

One-dimensional index

Figure 2.2.2 The working procedure of LCA. The arrows represent information flows and show the iterativeness of the procedure

repeating some of the phases several times, uncertainties.

each time eliminating

1.2.1. Goal and Scope The first part of an LCA study is the planning phase, which includes a definition of the purpose and scope of the study in terms that facilitates the inventory analysis, impact assessment and interpretation.

1.2.1.1. Purpose and context The ISO standard [2] states that the goal definition "shall unambigu- ously state the intended application, the reason for carrying out the study and the intended audience". An important consideration is whether the study is intended to be used externally, e.g. for the purpose of marketing, or internally, e.g. as a basis for choosing raw materials. There are higher requirements on a study intended for external use. For example, should a study intended for external use according to the ISO standard be reviewed by a third party?

1.2.1.2. Scope The scope defines the boundaries of the study, including the products and unit processes for which data are to be collected, and the geographical locations and technological levels of these processes, result- ing in a strategy for data collection. The scope also includes decisions concerning environmental parameters, methods for impact assessment and interpretation.

697


1.2.1.3. Product definition and functional unit The product can be described either as a physical product, e.g. a washing machine, or as a service, e.g. laundry. In both cases, it is important to specify the minimum requirements the product must meet. For example, the delivered function of a laundry is to clean clothes, but the required cleanliness must be specified in order to compare the laundry alternatives on an equal basis. An example of a functional unit is 1 kg of clean clothes.

The functional unit, which is the basis for the calculations, is therefore a measure of the performance that the system delivers. It should be defined so that, if possible, all the aspects of the purpose of the study are accounted for.

1.2.2. Inventory Analysis In the LCI analysis, an incomplete mass and energy balance is calculated, where only the environmentally relevant flows are considered. Environmentally indifferent flows, such as diffuse heat and emissions of water vapor as a combustion product, are not modeled. An LCI analysis includes:

1. Construction of a flowchart representing the product system according to the system boundaries decided on in the goal and scope definition. See the example in Figure 2.2.3.

2. Data collection for all the activities in the product system, followed by data quality assessment and documentation of the collected data.

3. Calculation of the environmental loads (resource use, pollutant emissions and waste) of the system in relation to the functional unit.

The flowchart of a product system can be as simple as the one in Figure 2.2.3, but they are usually more detailed. All the material flows are traced from the extraction of raw materials from the earth and to their release into the environment. All transport operations are also included.

Numerical data as well as descriptive, qualitative data need to be collected. Numerical data consist of data on the inputs and outputs of all the included activities, i.e."

�9 Inputs of raw materials, ancillary inputs and other physical inputs �9 Products and co-products �9 Emissions to air and water, and waste.

698


Fresh ~,~ water

Figure 2.2.3

I Production of 1 raw materials

Transport 1 T

Formulation 1 T

[ Distribution 1 T

I 1 T

I Wastewater 1---I~ Receiving treatment water

Water "~ Use treatment

General flowchart of a laundry detergent

The qualitative information that needs to be collected for every activity include:

�9 Descriptions of the technology of the process �9 How and when emissions were measured and their uncertainty �9 The geographical location of the process/activity �9 Where inflows come from and outflows go.

Last, but not least, the numerical data for the activities have to be recal- culated to fit the functional unit and summarized into a list of parameters representing the entire life cycle of the product. An example of such a list of inventory results is presented in Table 2.2.1. The functional unit is 1 kg of conventional detergent and the effectiveness of each detergent has not been taken into account in these results.

These kinds of inventories can have hundreds of parameters, and it can therefore be hard to draw any conclusions from LCIs.

1.2.3. Impact Assessment The life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) aims at describing the environmental consequences of the environmental loads quantified in

699


Table 2.2.1 Cradle-to-grave inventory results- quantitative comparison of two detergents [3]

Compounds Unit Detergent I Detergent 2

Energy consumption Fossil fuel MJ 11.6 9.7 Inherent energy MJ 3.6 2.8 Electricity 50% efficiency MJ 4.4 3.3 Renewable fuel MJ 1.0 0.6 Other type of energy MJ 0.04 0.02

Emissions to air CO2 g 1500 1400 Particles g 24.5 30.4 Flourides g 3.8 5.1 NOx g 5.3 4.4 Ashes g 5.2 5.4 SO2 g 3.8 2.9 HC g 2.4 1.5 NH3 g 0.9 1.0 CO g 0.9 1.0 CH4 g 0.40 0.60 Acetaldehyde g 4.3 x 10 -3 4.3 x 10 -3 Ethylene oxide g 2.4x 10 -3 3.1 x 10 -3 HAc g 0.2 1.0 x 10 -3 HC1 g 9.8 x 10 -4 8.7 x 10 -4 N20 g 1.1x10 -3 6.6x10 -4 H2 S g 5.6 x 10 -4 4.4 x 10 -4 C12 g 6.5 x 10 -4 2.0 x 10 -4 Hg g 1.9x10 -6 1.2x10 -5 HCFC 1301 g 3.1 x l0 -7 5.6x10 -7

Discharges to water Gypsum g 370 500 C1- g 38 44 Flourides (aq) g 5.7 7.6 TSS (total suspended solids) g 6.3 5.0 COD (chemical oxygen g 4.1 1.2 demand) SO4 (aq) g 0.20 0.30 TDS (total dissolved solids) g 0.30 0.20 DSS (dissolved solids) g 0.20 0.20 H2SO4 g 0.10 0.20 Tot-N g 0.30 0.20 HC1 (aq) g 0.028 0.037

700


Table 2.2.1---cont'd

Compounds Unit Detergent I Detergent 2

BOD (biological oxygen g 0.30 0.20 depletion) Oil (aq) g 0.014 0.014 MCA (aq) g 0.011 6.0x 10 -3 Metals (aq) g 0.042 0.047 HC (aq) g 1.8 x 10 -3 2.0 x 10 -3 Tot-P g 0.022 1.0 x 10 -3 Heavy metals g 0.022 0.030 Sulfur g 7.5 x 10 -5 - Phenol g 5.4 x 10 -5 5.6 x 10 -5 TOC (total organic carbon) g 6.3x10 -6 6.1x10 -4

Solid waste Unspecific g 530 520 Organic g 8.9 1.7 Mineral g 0.50 0.50 Radioactive g 0.043 0.035 Sludge g 0.089 0.083 Covered mass g 0.034 0.034 Aluminum oxide g 1.4x 10 -3 0.10 Salt g 8.6 x 10 -3 8.0 x 10 -3

Resource use Cr g 2.6 x 10 -4 8.7 x 10 -4 B g 2.2 x 10 - 3 3.0 Ni g 0.017 - A1 g 0.048 0.040 Fe ore g 6.0x 10 -3 6.1 x 10 -3 S g 0.60 0.30 Oil kg 0.36 0.29 P g 33 44 Ag g 1.2 x 10 -5 3.8 x 10 -5

the i n v e n t o r y analysis . This is ach ieved b y c lass i fying the e n v i r o n m e n t a l

loads f rom the i n v e n t o r y resul ts into e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t categories ,

such as acidif icat ion, g lobal w a r m i n g , effects on b iod ivers i ty , etc. The

ISO s t a n d a r d for LCIA [4] inc ludes the fo l lowing sub-phases :

�9 Impact category definition Ident i f ica t ion a n d select ion of impac t categories , m o d e l s of cause-e f fec t chains a n d thei r end -po in t s

701


Examples of impact categories are:

- Energy and material resources - Land use - Global warming - Toxicity - Ozone depletion - Photo-oxidant formation - Acidification - Eutrophication.

�9 Classification Assignment of LCI result parameters to their respective impact categories

�9 Characterization Calculation of the extent of the environmental impact per category

�9 Normal iza t ion Relating the characterization results to a reference value, e.g. relating the impacts of the studied product to the impacts of the total amount of pollutants emitted in a region

�9 Grouping Sorting and possibly ranking of the indicators, e.g. sorting according to global, regional or local impact or sorting according to high, medium or low priority

�9 Weight ing Aggregation of characterization results across impact categories into one total environmental impact value.

In order to separate the objective elements, which are based on natural sciences, from the subjective ones, which are contextually defined, the first three sub-phases are mandatory while the others are optional in an LCIA.

1.2.4. Interpretation Refinement of raw results into useful, presentable and final results requires a process that may involve screening of the raw results, identification of critical data and assessments of the importance of missing data. The process of assessing results in order to draw conclusions is called interpretation in LCA terminology.

Any LCA study requires the collection of a large amount of information and data. Difficulties in obtaining the most appropriate data are often encountered. Instead of site-specific data, one might have to resort to liter- ature data or estimated data. Instead of national averages, single-site data might have to suffice. Therefore, evaluations of the robustness of results and conclusions drawn in an LCA study are part of the interpretation phase. Such evaluations may entail the tests presented in Table 2.2.2.

702


Table 2.2.2 Overview of tests for checking the robustness of results and conclusions

Type of Test Purpose of Test

Completeness check

Consistency check

Uncertainty analysis

Sensitivity analysis

Variation analysis

Data quality assessment

Checking for data gaps in inventory, or completeness of impact assessment (the extent to which it covers all inventory result parameters)

Checking the appropriateness of life cycle modeling and methodological choices, given the defined goal and scope

Checking the effect of uncertain data (ranges of data, estimates, approxima- tions, etc.)

Identifying and checking the effect of critical data

Checking the effect of alternative scenarios and life cycle models

Assessing the degree of data gaps, approximate data and appropriate data

1.3. Application and Communication of LCA

It is not enough to develop and produce environmentally sound products. People must also be aware of their existence. The products ' performance must therefore be communicated in a credible and understandable way to customers and other stakeholders. Communicating the results from an LCA comprehensively to different audiences is however not easy to accomplish and many LCA reports end up forgotten on a bookshelf collecting dust, and the results are never used.

1.3. 1. Interpretation of Results Results from LCA calculations can consist of hundreds of parameters and it is consequently not easy to make sense of all of these n u m b e r s - to find out and be able to show the recipient what is important and what is not. An interpretation of the robustness of the LCA is normally carried out within the LCA study (see Section 1.2.4), but in order to find out what the results actually say, it may be necessary to interpret them into words that are understandable to most people and not only to those initiated into the world of LCA.

703


1.3.2. Communicating Results The report of an LCA study is often extensive and sometimes hard to penetrate and is therefore mostly used by LCA specialists. There are other ways of communicating the results of a study to customers and stakeholders, which are more easy to understand. The most common are material declarations and certified environmental product declarations (EPD). These provide customers and the market in general with information regarding environmental performance of products and services. An LCA can also be the basis for an eco-efficiency analysis, which com- bines the result of an LCA with economic aspects in order to compare products from a sustainability perspective.

1.3.2.1. Material declarations/environmental declarations Material declarations and environmental declarations are market communication tools. A material declaration is a disclosure of the types of materials (metals, chemicals, plastics, alloys, etc.) that a product contains and /or hazardous materials (heavy metals, toxic chemicals, etc.) that the product does not contain, which is written by the manufacturing company. An environmental declaration is also written by the manufacturing company and it presents information about the environmental attributes of their products.

There is no standard format for either of these declarations. A material/environmental declaration can however be an indication to a customer that the company that issues them has some system in place that can handle questions on material content etc. of its products. Developing material/environmental declarations for products can be a cost-efficient way of showing that the company is working with product-related environmental issues and might be sufficient for answering environmental questions from customers.

1.3.2.2. EPD An EPD provides customers and the market in general with third- party-verified and comparable information regarding the environmental performance of products and services. An EPD provides answers to many questions often asked by customers. Such questions could be about material content, hazardous materials, emissions, waste, efficiency, recycling and environmental management systems.

1.3.2.3. Eco-efficiency Eco-efficiency is a widely used expression with many definitions. The following definition has been used by Akzo Nobel: eco-efficiency is the

704


ratio of the creation of economic value to the ecological impact [5] caused by a product, process or activity.

Eco-efficiency analysis is a method of evaluating the sustainability of products and processes. In the analysis, ecological as well as economic aspects are considered from the customers' point of view. The product/ process that provides the specific customer benefit of the lowest cost and lowest environmental burden is the most eco-efficient. The analysis only provides comparative information and no absolute values. The analysis can be used for comparing different products/processes with similar customer benefits and the results can be used for guidance in, for example, product development, strategy planning, investment decisions or external communication.

2. LCA WITHIN A CHEMICAL COMPANY

2.1. Organization

For an active use of environmental product information in a company it is necessary to have an "environmental culture" within the whole company and especially in the executive group. In order to actively use LCA, a generally expressed aim to actively work to the company's effect on the environment forms an essential basis. It is also necessary to train and educate people within the company.

For an active use of the results of LCA it is important to present the results in an easily comprehensible way and it is also important to com- bine the LCA results with other decision tools such as risk assessment and cost analysis.

While carrying out LCA it is important to do it in close cooperation with customers and suppliers in addition to involving representatives from several departments in the company, e.g. production, marketing and R&D, at an early stage.

2.2. Use

The applications of LCA can be grouped under four headings:

1. Non-comparative assessments of existing products 2. Comparative assessments of existing products (tactical applications) 3. Comparative assessments of potential products (product development) 4. Strategic assessments of products in relation to an environmental

target.

705


Non-comparative assessments are relevant for making EPDs, or for the identification of improvement possibilities in an initial investiga- tion where the most environmentally important areas ("hot spots") in a product's life cycle are investigated. Non-comparative assessments are based on site-specific data and may be used as a basis for choosing environmental performance indicators.

Comparative assessments of existing products aim at influencing the actors around the product: suppliers, manufacturers and customers. The assessment may compare products from different producers in order to serve as documentation for environmental marketing claims. This type of LCA can be hard to perform if one is not closely connected to the producers.

In product development, the task is to consider how one can improve the product, e.g. by substitution of ingredients, by applying a different technology in the manufacturing process, by reducing the amount of waste in the distribution stage or by identifying new ways of delivering the same service.

Strategic LCAs are used as a basis for long-term decisions and typically compare different types of products in order to obtain a picture of how they will perform in the perspective of a long-term environmental target. The strategic LCA is often used in combination with economic and other evaluations.

Another important application of LCA is that of learning, e.g. explor- ing the environmental properties of a product system and learning about the relationships of the production system [6].

3. LCA OF CLEANING PRODUCTS

Some examples of LCA studies made on cleaning products are presented below.

3.1. General Information

These are some LCA studies that have been performed on cleaning products:

�9 LCA Rapport Tv~ittmedel, Peter Arvidsson, Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry AB, Stenungsund, Sweden, 1995

�9 LCA of Schampoos, Lisa Person, CIT Ekologik, Gothenburg, Sweden, 1997

706


�9 Comparative LCA study of three cleaning products for kitchen surfaces, Joost Dewaele et al., Proctor & Gamble Eurocor, Stormbeek Beyer, Belgium

�9 Life Cycle Inventories for the Production of detergent Ingredients, Silvio Dall'Acqua et al., St Gallen Schweiz, 1999

�9 Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Laundry Detergent Formula- tions in the UK, part I, G. van Hoof et al., Tenside Surfactants and Detergents, 2003.

3.2. Three Case Studies

More detailed descriptions of three of the above studies are presented below. These studies have been performed between 1995 and 2005. In their summaries, it is possible to see that LCA has developed through the years (mainly the extent of the studies and thereby, also, what kind of results can be retrieved as well as how the results are presented).

3.2. 1. LCA Rapport Tv&ttmedel (LCA Report on Washing Detergents) [3]

Peter Arvidsson

Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry AB, 1995

3.2.1.1. Introduction This is a comparative LCA study of two conventional washing detergents (powders). It includes all steps from extraction of resources to the final treatment of the waste water at the water treatment plant.

3.2.1.2. Functional unit and environmental indicators The functional unit was defined as 100 kg of cleaned laundry. The amount of detergent used has been calculated according to the dosage given on the package. No comparison has been done on the cleaning efficiency of the detergents.

The environmental indicators studied were primary energy use, resource use and emissions to air, water and ground. A weighting of the results for the two detergents was also carried out by using two different weighting methods, "Environmental Theme" method and "Environmental Priority Strategies" method.

707


3.2.1.3. Results of the study The results show that the major energy consumption is in the use phase, that is, during washing. When washing at 60~ approximately 80-90% of the total energy consumption of the detergents' life cycle occurs during the washing. The production of the detergent uses about 7-10% of the total energy and the rest is used in transportation and wastewater treatment (Figure 2.2.4).

The emissions and resource consumption depend on how the used energy is produced. If the energy is mainly produced from hydro and nuclear power (average for Sweden), the main emissions of CO2 and SO2 come from the production of the detergent and the main emissions of NOx come from transportation. If the energy on the other hand is mainly produced from coal and gas, the main emissions of CO2, SO2 and NOx come from the use phase, where most of the energy is used.

Weighting of the results with two different weighting methods indicate a small advantage for the second detergent. The difference is however small and they could change due to a small change in dosage.

Since most of the energy is used during the use phase (heating of water), the results also indicate that it is of importance to decrease the water consumption and lower the washing temperature. Use of detergents that are active at 40 ~ instead of 60 ~ could consequently decrease the energy consumption for washing and thereby save the environment as well as money for the consumer.

As mentioned above the dosage of the detergents determines which of the two have the highest environmental impact. This indicates that it is important to provide good instructions to the user regarding the dosage in order to decrease overdosage and thereby, unnecessary environmental impact.

Total energy use

[] Production

[] Transport

[] Use

[] Wastewater treatment

Figure 2.2.4 Energy use for detergents. See Color Plate Section in the back of this book

708


3.2.2. Comparative LCA Study of Three Cleaning Products for Kitchen Surfaces [7]

Joost Dewaele a, Rana Pant a, Claudine Baron b and Dieder ik Schowanek a

aprocter & Gamble Eurocor, Strombeek Bever, Belgium b procter & Gamble France, Paris, France, 2005

3.2.2.1. Introduction For regular cleaning and hygienization of hard surfaces in the kitchen (floors excluded), consumers are offered a range of product alternatives. In this LCA study, three market-relevant cleaning products in France are compared: kitchen cleaning wipes, kitchen cleaning spray and a bottled liquid household cleaner (LHC) product. An important driver for this study was the increased pan-European concern related to solid waste generated by disposable (household) products. The LCA approach was chosen to provide a broad environmental perspective to stakeholders, including the detergent sector, suppliers, interested consumers and consumer organizations, regulators and NGOs. The study was based on LCA work initiated by P&G and further developed in collaboration with the French detergent association (AFISE) and PWC-Ecobilan. It was conducted following the guidelines described in the ISO14040-series.

3.2.2.2. Functional unit and environmental indicators The main methodological challenges for this study were related to the choice of functional unit (FU) and relevant environmental indicators. The FU was defined as the "amount of product used for 1 year of kitchen surface cleaning for one household (floors excluded)". For each product variant, the FU was based on actual consumer habits-and-practices studies from Western European countries and subsequently recalibrated with sales figures relevant to France. Considering all variables and making use of the best data available, a base scenario was identified for the actual use of these products in France; more details are provided in Table 2.2.3. It was assumed that the investigated products deliver a comparable level of cleaning performance. Potential differences in performance regarding hygiene aspects could not be included in the definition of FU. Hygiene is an aspect that needs to be considered on top of the environmental results of the LCA. Given these and other criteria that influence the selection of a product or technology, LCA can be seen as a very valuable decision support (but not a decision-making) tool.

The environmental evaluation was based on a broad set of 10 environmental indicators. The LCA study evaluated in-depth the different waste aspects of the three product systems in a cradle-to-grave perspective,

709


Table 2.2.3 Three kitchen cleaning products at a glance (Product & FU description)

Product Spray Wipes Liquid Household Cleaner

Picture

Brand evaluated (market share in France 2004)

Mr. Propre (ranked number 4 in France)



Product variant (package with highest sales in France)

Kitchen spray (500 ml spray bottle)

Kitchen wipes (Refill pack: 30 wipes, I wipe = 450 cm 2)

LHC Lemon (1.5 1 bottle)

Product consumption per year and per household

6049 ml/year 365 wipes/ year -- 4070 ml/year

5840 ml/year

Ingredients per package unit (labeled)

520 g product <5% anionic surfactant, nonionic surfactant, soap

334.5 g product <5% amphoteric surfactant

1520 g product anionic surfactant, soap, < 5% nonionic surfactant, preservative

Materials used per package unit

�9 Primary �9 Wipe non- �9 Primary packaging = woven = mix packaging - mix 37.5 g 50.22 g mix 78 g HDPE/0.7 g PP/33.48 g HDPE/2.6 g paper/21.5 g cellulose paper / PP/1.1 g �9 Primary 6.2 g PP LDPE/0.0023 g packaging -- �9 Secondary + acetal/0.9 g mix 1.37 g tertiary steel PET/0.34 g packaging =

�9 Secondary + PP/6.79 g PE mix 51.6 g tertiary �9 Secondary+ cardboard/ packaging = tertiary 0.81 g LDPE mix 31.18 g packaging = cardboard/ mix 39.2 g 0.49 g LDPE cardboard/

0.52 g LDPE

710


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 LCI-based indicators. Climate change, acidification (air), photochemical smog creation, human toxicity, aquatic eco-toxicity and eutrophication were evaluated as LCIA indicators.

3.2.2.3. Results of the study The end result shows a mixed pattern for the base scenario, where none of the product systems considered can be seen as environmentally superior to all indicators.

With regards to solid waste, the study confirms that spray or liquid household cleaner products produce less household waste than wipes (spray three times less, LHC six times less), see Figure 2.2.5. It should be noted however, that after treatment of the total solid w a s t e - including household waste - with the current infrastructure in France (i.e. in the true "cradle-to-grave" sense after waste treatment), the difference in total residual amount of solid waste left by the three products becomes much smaller (spray and LHC produce "-~35% less compared to wipes).

- p e r y e a r )

i!~ili 7~�84184184 1�84184

iii!iiiiiii~ii~!iiii~i!iiii!!i !!!i!!~iiiiii!i l l i i !!~i l i !~!iiii~ili~i!~i~!~i~i! !iiii~ i i I' ~i

i �84184 1

0 . 5

W i p e s p r a y [] H o u s e h o l d w a s t e

( kg ) 2 . 0 7

[ ] T o t a l R e s i d u a l S o f i d w a s t e ( kg )

1 . 3 5

............. iiii!ii;iiii!iii Oi !~!!i !~ii!i �84

mE._._

Figure 2.2.5 Relative waste contribution during 1 year of kitchen cleaning in France per household. See Color Plate Section in the back of this book

711


......... !ii ...........

household)

IDEnergy(Md) I 186-1! I .... i!ii~~~iiiiiiiii~ ~----- ~ ~ J Figure 2.2.6 Resource consumption during 1 year of kitchen cleaning in France per household. See Color Plate Section in the back of this book

With respect to resource consumption, the LHC product (mix of dilute and pure use) consumes significantly more water (three times) as compared to the spray and wipe products. This is directly linked to the assumption on water consumption during the use phase. The spray product consumes the lowest amount of primary energy (26 and 48% less than wipes and LHC, respectively), see Figure 2.2.6.

Life Cycle Impact Assessment indicators have shown no significant 1 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 LCH to be the most preferred system with respect to its potential contribution to photochemical oxidant formation (potential contribution of LHC being only 7% that of the other two product alternatives).

1Differences in environmental indicator values >20% are considered to be significant.

712


Life Cycle Impact Assessment

Eutrophication

Aquatic Toxicity

Climate Change

Human Toxicity

Air Acidification

Photochemical Smog

~ - - - -~ Wipes

Spray

..................... LHC

Figure 2.2.7 Relative contribution of the three products to the LCIA indicators (spray is reference). See Color Plate Section in the back of this book

- Environmental benefits for the wipe product were revealed with respect to lower contributions to aquatic eco-toxicity (potential contribution being only 67% that of spray and LHC).

- Furthermore, lower contribution of the wipe product is noticed for its eutrophication potential when compared to both spray product (four times that of wipes) and LHC (seven times that of wipes), see Figure 2.2.7.

To evaluate both uncertainty in the underlying data and the potential effects of alternative product design, 10 sensitivity analyses scenarios have been performed on the most critical parameters of the study.

Although the sensitivity analyses significantly affect the score of many of the impact categories, the overall conclusion that remains is that none of the products is consistently better in all environmental categories.

Two sensitivity analyses scenarios were of particular interest due to data uncertainty in habits-and-practices studies. The first is related to uncertainty in product equivalence (or how much spray or LHC product is required to perform the equivalent task of one wipe). A sensitivity analysis was therefore run with an equal lotion/liquid volume for

713


all products. The second scenario addressed the uncertainty in volume and temperature of the water used in the cleaning phase of the LHC product. For more information on the outcome of these and the other sensitivity analyses, the full report is available at AFISE.

Building on the information derived from both the base scenario and the sensitivity analysis, environmental improvement opportunities were identified, which could be realized through changing consumer habits and /or through improved eco-design of the products themselves. As is often the case for consumer products, this LCA confirmed the important role of consumer habits in the use phase. Where water is used, using less and colder water leads to significant improvements for the overall environmental burdens of the products. In terms of product design and execution, spray refill bottles (without trigger) or more surface-efficient wipes, for example would represent an improvement opportunity.

3.2.2.4. Use of the LCA study These LCA results are used as part of a technical dossier prepared on home care wipes, to give an overall picture of this relatively new product category. In addition to the environmental impact, this dossier covers product benefits, consumer's habits and market situation. It was addressed in early January 2005 to the Press, French authorities, envi- ronmentalists and associations, consumer organizations and industry associations.

The full report including the critical review is available through the websites of Scienceinthebox (http://www.scienceinthebox.com/en_UK/ sustainability/casestudies_en.html), or sent upon request to AFISE (Av. Achille Peretti 118, F-92200 Neuilly-sur-Seine, tel: 33 1 47 47 82 86).

3.2.3. Comparative LCA Study of Three Shampoo Products [8]

Lisa Person

Chalmers Industriteknik Ekologik, 1997

3.2.3.1. Introduction This study of three different shampoos was conducted by Chalmers Industriteknik (CIT) Ekologik 1997 on behalf of Kemisk Tekniska Levereant6rsf6rbundet, KTF. The study was conducted in order to:

(a) Identify the stages in the life cycle of a shampoo that have the largest environmental impact, i.e. the "hot spots".

(b) Compare the potential environmental impacts of the main types (basic cleansing and caring) of shampoo and also to compare the

714


environmental impact of one shampoo fulfilling the Nordic Swan criteria and another not fulfilling these criteria.

Three shampoos were studied:

(1) A caring shampoo with several cosmetic properties and functions (2) A basic cleansing shampoo within the low price segment (3) Shampoo 2 reformulated to fulfil the Nordic Swan eco-labeling

criteria, i.e. adding sodium chloride and reducing the water content.

3.2.3.2. FU and environmental indicators The FU was 1000 hair washes, and each hair wash consumed 25 1 of water, which was heated from 8 to 38~ and 15 ml of shampoo. The energy used in the study is an average Swedish energy production mix.

The impact assessment includes the following impact categories: resource depletion, global warming, acidification, eutrophication, photo- oxidant formation and human health.

3.2.3.3. Results of the study The main result of the study was that the use phase dominates all of the impact categories. This fact results in very small differences in environmental impact between the shampoos. 1-2 min of shower (use phase) has a higher environmental impact than the total impact of all of the other life cycle phases.

A somewhat surprising result was that the packaging had the same or higher impact than the raw materials for the shampoo. The reason for this was that the amount of packaging was high per milliliter of shampoo.

3.2.3.4. Use of the LCA study The results of the study will be used as a basis for future product development and it will also be communicated to those involved in product development for this and similar product categories.

4. BENEFITS FROM USING LCA

There are many benefits for businesses from adopting an LCA approach, for example:

An LCA can be helpful in a choice between alternative actions by pro- viding information about the environmental impacts of the different alternatives.

715


�9 Adding LCA results to the decision-making process provides an understanding of the human health and environmental impacts that are not considered traditionally when selecting a product or process. These results provide information on the full environmental impacts of decisions, especially those that occur outside of the production site.

�9 Through the use of LCA, the most efficient options for increasing the environmental performance of a product or service can be identified.

�9 The use of LCA can help companies avoid sub-optimizing their business activities. The results of an LCA can show where to put research and development resources. Together with economic information, (eco-efficiency analysis) it is also possible to identify the products that have low/high possibilities of becoming cash cows for the company.

�9 The information from an LCA can be used for identifying opportunities for efficiency improvements, such as avoiding waste treatment and using fewer resources, while reducing financial costs.

�9 An LCA can provide information about how greenhouse gas emissions from the business are most efficiently reduced.

�9 LCA results can be used to communicate the environmental benefits of the products to customers, e.g. through the LCA-based communication tool, the EPD. Since the EPD provides the same information on environmental performance for all products of the same kind, pur- chasers have the possibility to choose which product to buy based on the differences in their environmental impact.

5. LCA IN RELATION TO OTHER TOOLS

In this chapter, the use of LCA in relation to other environmental tools is discussed. The other tools considered are environmental management systems (EMS), environmental labeling, environmental risk assessment (ERA), cost benefit analysis (CBA) and eco-efficiency analysis (EEA).

Apart from these tools, there are also many other tools that apply the life cycle perspective and LCA approach, but which are not so extensive and resource demanding to use. Some of these tools are used in product development and they may have been developed for specific product categories, such as electronic or electrical equipment. Many of these tools are based on the so-called "screening LCAs", i.e. the LCAs may not include all the product-specific data or all the steps required in a "full LCA" that have not been performed. They are however fast to use and present indicators for decisions regarding e.g. product development, where full LCAs are too time consuming to perform.

716


More information about all these tools and their applications can be found at www.dantes.info.

An EMS is a tool for an organization to systematically manage its environmental, health and safety matters. The EMS demands continu- ous environmental improvements in the organization. LCA is one tool for meeting this demand. Through the use of LCA, key environmental aspects can be identified and used in the EMS in order to initiate activities in the day-to-day work within the organization.

There are many environmental labeling systems on the market today. These systems can be grouped into three categories:

�9 Type 1: Multi-criteria practitioner programs, i.e. the Nordic Swan, Bra Milj6val, EU-flower

�9 Type 2: Self-declaration claims based on common terms, definitions and symbols

�9 Type 3: Quantified product i n f o r m a t i o n - report card programs, e.g. EPD.

The organizations behind Type 1 labels set up minimum criteria that the products have to fulfill in order to get the label. In Type 2 labeling there are no criteria and the manufacturers can make declarations with information of their own choosing. For Type 3-labeling there are no thresholds to pass, but there are strict regulations on the type of information that is to be declared and how the numeric information is to be calculated. The reason for this is that the receiver of Type 3-labeled products should be able to compare the environmental performance of different products with the same function. The receivers of Type 3- labeled products are exclusively professional buyers. An example of a Type 3 labeling system is the EPD and these are based on LCA results. Type 1 and Type 2 labeling systems do not require information from an LCA.

Labeling a product according to a Type 3 labeling system is more expensive and resource-demanding to perform, but it presents objective, quantifiable and comparable information with high credibility because it is reviewed by a third party.

Environmental risk assessment is a tool for predicting the risk of adverse effects on the environment caused by a chemical substance. Environmental exposure concentrations of a chemical are predicted and compared to the predicted no-effect concentrations for different environmental compartments. This is information that is not normally addressed in an LCA. In order to see more of the complete picture of the effects on the environment, an LCA can be complemented with an ERA.

717


Eco-efficiency Analysis and CBA also include economic aspects. Where EEA only considers the cost effects for the manufacturing company that are directly caused by the product, CBA also includes the cost effects for other parties in the society that are caused not only by the product itself, but also by the environmental impact caused by the product, i.e. global warming and acidification.

6. FURTHER READING

More information about LCA can be found in, for example, various sci- entific books, dissertations, Websites, articles, etc. Some examples are presented below:

�9 The Hitch Hiker's Guide to LCA, Henrikke Baumann, Anne-Marie Tillman, Studentlitteratur 2004

�9 En liten l~irobok om Livscykelanalys, Carl-Johan Rydh et al., Studentlitteratur 2002

�9 Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle Assessment, Lars-Gunnar Lindfors et al., Nord 1995:20

�9 www.dantes.info �9 h t t p : / /www.unep i e .o rg /pc /pc / t oo l s / l c a .h tm �9 h t tp : / /www.unep t ie .o rg /pc / sus ta in / l c in i t i a t ive / �9 h t t p : / /www.epa .gov /ORD/NRMRL/ l cacces s / �9 ht tp : / /www.l i fe-cycle .org/ �9 h t tp : / /www. lcacenter .o rg / �9 http: / / facul ty .washington .edu/cooper js /Educat ion/LCAcurr icu lum/

lca curriculum.htm �9 www.lca-center.dk �9 The international journal of Life Cycle Assessment,

www. scientificjournals, com/ sj/lca �9 www.environdec.com

7. EXPLANATIONS

LCA - life cycle assessment: a method for the environmental assessment of products and services, covering their life cycle from raw material extraction to waste treatment.

718


LCI = life cycle inventory: the phase during which the LCA model is built according to the specifications determined in the goal and scope definition, data are collected and calculations indicating the environmental load of the products are made.

LCIA = life cycle impact assessment: the phase of an LCA study during which the environmental impacts of the products are assessed and evaluated. The impact assessment consists of several steps, among other classification, characterization and weighting.

EPD = environmental performance declarations. Life cycle = all steps from extraction of raw materials to waste

treatment. Environmental impact = consequences of pollution, e.g. eutrophica-

tion and depletion of stratospheric ozone. FU = functional unit: the function of the studied products or services in

quantitative terms serves as a basis for the calculations. It is the reference flow to which all other flows in the LCA model are related. It also serves as the unit of comparison in comparative studies.

ERA -- environmental risk assessment: a tool for predicting whether there may be a risk of adverse effects on the environment caused by a chemical substance.

EEA = eco-efficiency analysis: analysis of the economic output and the environmental impact caused by products or activities.

EMS = environmental management system: a tool for an organization to systematically manage its environmental and health safety matters.

CBA -- cost-benefit analysis: analysis of costs and benefits related to environmental aspects of products and services.

REFERENCES

1. The text in this chapter is mainly based on H. Baumann and A.-M. Tillman, Hitch Hiker's Guide to LCA. Studentlitteratur, 2004.

2. ISO 14040-14043 Environmental Management- Life Cycle Assessment, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.

3. P. Arvidsson, LCA-rapport Tv~ittmedel (LCA report on detergents), Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry, Stenungsund, Sweden, 1995.

4. ISO 14042 Environmental Management- Life Cycle Assessment- Life cycle impact assessment, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.

5. BASF seminar, Ludwigshafen, Germany, May 2005. 6. H. Baumann, Life cycle assessment and decision making. Theories and prac-

tices. PhD Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, G6teborg, Sweden, 1998.

719


7. J. Dewaele, D. Schowanek, R. Pant, V. Jaspers, G. Van Hoof and C. Baron, Comparative LCA study of three cleaning products for kitchen surfaces, Procter & Gamble Eurocor, Strombeek Bever, Belgium and Proctor & Gamble Paris, France, 2005.

8. L. Person, Comparative LCA study of three schampoo products, Chalmers Industriteknik, G6teborg, Sweden, 1997.

720

Test methods: EN 1276 bactericidal test - EN 1650 fungicidal test Contact time: 5 minutes (bactericidal) - 15 minutes (fungicidal) Conditions: 0.03% protein load - 17~ water hardness

~ I I o ,-- _~. [] G r a m negat ive [] G r a m posi t ive [] Fungi

.o i_~ ~ 200 i . . . m (~ ~ o 175 �9 ~ ' ~ 180 160 160 = > ~ =~ ~60 o ~ . ~ . ~40 i: 14( E 140 E =~ 120 III l i 0 1.25 120 120 ]20 _125 ~_~ =~ ~ ~oo I I �9 100 100 100

~ "~ 80 ~!~ --= '- '- I I E m ,~" 60

�9 v- o o 40

d _~ .N 0 !i E 0 0 0

Test organism

PLATE F.2.2 (Table F.2.2) Biocidal Efficacy of TriamineY 12D-30, Bis (3-aminopropyl) dodecylamine

PLATE 2.2.4

Total energy use

[] Production

[] Transports

[] Use

[] Waste water treatment

(Figure 2.2.4) Energy use for detergents

- per year)

i i �84184

0.5

or..-- Wipe

[] Household waste I 207 (kg) I

[] Total Residual Solid waste (kg)

PLATE 2.2.5 (Figure 2.2.5) Relative waste contribution during I year of kitchen cleaning in France per household

~ar- per

i!iii!i! �84184 400

200

or..-- Wipe

[] Water (Liter) [ 312,21

[] Energy (MJ)

PLATE 2.2.6 (Figure 2.2.6) Resource consumption during 1 year of kitchen cleaning in France per household

Life Cycle Impact Assessment

Climate Change

PLATE 2.2.7 (Figure 2.2.7) Relative contribution of the 3 products to the LCIA indicators (Spray is reference)

PLATE 5.1 (Figure 5.1) Lotus leaf ~ Prof. Dr. Wihelm Barthlott

LCA

Documents

product life cycle

products life cycle

life cycle inventory

environmental impact

environmental profile

product improvements

environmental benefits

procedurean lca