Comparing the Environmental Footprints of Home … liquid detergent is a turbid, colored fluid...

1

Supporting Information

Comparing the Environmental Footprints of

Home-Care and Personal-Hygiene Products:

The Relevance of Different Life-Cycle Phases

Annette Koehler* and Caroline Wildbolz

ETH Zurich, Ecological Systems Design, Institute of Environmental Engineering,

Wolfgang-Pauli-Strasse 15, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland

*[email protected]

2

S1 Goal and scope of the LCA study

Figure 1 provides a sketch of the LCA model and its system boundaries.

Figure 1: System boundaries of the LCA model. The sales and distribution stage considers both distribution to wholesale and retailers as well as all storage necessary along the distribution chain.

S2 Product description

The nine home-care and personal hygiene products under investigation encompass

household-cleaning agents (kitchen, window, and bathroom cleaners), detergents (liquid

and powder detergents, a detergent booster applied as additive with powder detergents),

soaps (liquid and bar soaps), and a WC-care product. The products’ chemical ingredients

contain the following chemical substance groups: organic acids, organic bases, inorganic

salts, surfactants (anionic, cationic, non-ionic), builders, bleaches, solvents, buffers,

auxiliaries, fragrances, thickening agents, soil repellents, and opacifiers.

The household cleaners represent colorless liquid solutions with densities of

approximately 1 g/cm3 (0.999 g/cm3, 0.988 g/cm3, 1.023 g/cm3, respectively). The liquid

detergent is a turbid, colored fluid belonging to the special-detergent product group,

while the powder detergent represents a typical heavy-duty detergent concentrate. The

detergent booster, which is also provided in powder form, is generally applied together

Ecosphere

Consumer use

Finished-productmanufacturing

End-of-life

LCA model system boundary

Technosphere

Resources (elementary flows)

Emissions (elementary flows)

Energy generation/

supply

Transports

Auxiliariesproduction

Packagingproduction

Sales and distribution

Background System

Raw chemicals production

Transports

Wasteincineration

Foreground System

Wastewatertreatment

Ecosphere

Consumer use

Finished-productmanufacturing

End-of-life

LCA model system boundary

Technosphere

Resources (elementary flows)

Emissions (elementary flows)

Energy generation/

supply

Transports

Auxiliariesproduction

Packagingproduction

Sales and distribution

Background System

Raw chemicals production

Transports

Wasteincineration

Foreground System

Wastewatertreatment

3

with other detergents (e.g. heavy-duty powder detergents) in order to support stain-

dissolving. In contrast, the toilet-care product stands for a multi-functional product

containing a toilet-cleaning concentrate and an air-freshener deodorant. Two plastic

chambers included in a hang-type plastic basket contain the two fluids. Unlike the regular

bar soap, the liquid soap under study represents an antibacterial foaming hand-wash fluid.

The chemical compositions of all home-care and personal-hygiene products are given

in Table 1, which outlines the water content and all chemical raw materials applied in

production. For a detailed description of the products’ systems see Section 3.2.

4

Table 1: Overview of raw materials used in the production of the home-care and personal-hygiene products

Raw materials 1 Bar soap 2 Liquid soap Powder deter-gent

Liquid deter-gent

Detergent booster

WC care product Bath cleaner Kitchen cleaner Window

cleaner

Raw chemicals

Alcohol √ √ √

Ammonium lauryl sulfate

√

C12-18 fatty alcohol 7 EO

√ √ √

Citrate-(MEA)3 X

Citric acid X

Cocamidopropyl betaine

√

Coconut oil √

Palm oil √

Decyl/lauryl glucoside

X X X

Dipropylene glycol

√

Ethanolamine √

Formic acid √

Glycol Distearate X

Hydroxyethyl cellulose

X

Isopropyl alcohol √

Lactic acid X

Lauramine oxide X

Limonene √ √ √ √

PEG-80; PEG-6 methyl ether

√

Perfume √ √ √ √ √

5

Propylene glycol √

Propylene glycol butyl ether

X

Sodium acrylic acid/MA copolymer

√

Sodium bicarbonate

X

Sodium carbonate √ √

Sodium carbonate peroxide

√

Sodium cetearyl sulfate

√

Sodium chloride √

Sodium citrate X X

Sodium dodecylbenzene-sulfonate

√ √

Sodium formate √

Sodium hydroxide √

Sodium laureth sulfate

√ √

Sodium lauryl sulfate

√ √

Sodium octyl sulfate

√

Sodium silicate √

Sodium soap C16-18

√

Sodium sulfate √ √

Sodium xylenesulfonate

√

Sulfonated polyethylene

√

6

terephthalate

TAED √

TEA quaternary √

Tetrasodium etidronate

√ √

Triclosan/ Triclocarban

√

Zeolite √

Water (aqua) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Number of chemical ingredients (excluding water) considered in the products’ LCI datasets

4 5 13 8 8 7 6 7 6

Water content (%w/w) ~13 ~50 ~10 ~80 ~1 ~60 ~90 ~95 ~90

1Note that only chemical ingredients contributing at least one percent of the overall raw chemical mass (excluding water) are listed.

Ticks (√) represent chemicals with corresponding ecoinvent datasets (1), crosses (X) pinpoint chemical ingredients for which new life-

cycle inventories were composed (see Section 3 below). 2Chemical ingredients of bar soap are based on the respective ecoinvent

dataset providing the amounts of raw materials applied.

7

S3 Cradle-to-gate inventory analysis

The cradle-to-gate life-cycle inventory analysis was performed for Western European

production conditions applying the European electricity mix (UCTE mix) for all

electricity inputs along the entire product value chain. Transport within the chemical and

packaging-supply chains was modeled with specific data from industry. Whenever such

data were unavailable, standard distances according to Frischknecht and Jungbluth (2)

representing typical transports in the Western European region were applied.

Infrastructure expenditures were approximated using generic estimates for organic-

chemical production (3). All manufacturing technologies modeled for newly established

raw-chemical LCI datasets generally produce only single outputs, rendering allocation

unnecessary. LCI datasets were developed in compliance with standard ecoinvent

methodology (4).

In the sensitivity analysis, LCI datasets were adapted to US production conditions by

changing to the US electricity supply mix; transport distances remained unmodified

because transports within the supply chains proved to only marginally contribute to the

overall cradle-to-gate LCI results.

S3.1 Life-cycle inventories for the raw-chemical supply chain

This section describes life-cycle inventory datasets for raw chemicals which were

newly compiled because they were not available from LCA databases (see Table 1 in

Section 2 and Table 2 below). For the LCI, modeling data was collected from

bibliographic sources. In general, the availability of chemical production data was poor,

as first-hand industry data could not be directly collected from raw material

manufacturers. Only for decyl and lauryl glucoside, lactic acid and propylene glycol butyl

ether were environmental performance studies of the respective production processes

obtainable from literature. Therefore, for all other raw chemicals stoichiometric balances

were used to determine the raw material demand and required chemical input masses. For

the energy and auxiliary’ inputs, approximations were applied using standard ecoinvent

methodology (4). For an overview of the different data applied for establishing raw

chemical inventories see Table 2.

8

Table 2: Data sources for newly established raw chemical LCI datasets

Raw chemicals Component type

Data source

Lauramine oxide non-ionic surfactant Technical handbooks and other literature sources

Glycol distearate opacifier Technical handbooks and other literature sources

Hydroxyethyl cellulose thickening agent Technical handbooks and other literature sources

Citric acid, sodium citrate, citrate-(MEA)3

organic acid, builder

Industry data, technical handbooks and other sources

Decyl glucoside, lauryl glucoside non-ionic surfactant Hirsinger and Schick (1995) (5)

Lactic acid organic acid Carbotech (2004) (6)

Propylene glycol butyl ether solvent Maruzen Petrochemical (2003) (7)

S3.1.1 Raw chemical life-cycle inventories based on generic

estimations

The generic inventories include quantities of raw materials, estimations of energy

demand, emissions to water and air, and raw-materials transports. As such, the life-cycle

inventories established represent approximations of the production processes. Raw

chemical consumption is estimated on the basis of stoichiometrical calculations using a

generic yield of 95% (4).

Energy demand and cooling-water requirements for chemical production were

estimated with data from a large German chemical manufacturing site (Gendorf)

comprising 12 companies which produce 2.05 Mt of different chemicals (including

intermediates) per year (3, 8). On average, about 24 kg of water and 3.2 MJ of total

energy are required per 1 kg of chemical end product. Total energy demand is split into

steam (12 %), natural gas (50 %), and electricity (38 %), which are purchased from

external sources. All energy used for heat and steam generation was assumed to be

generated from natural gas. Infrastructure expenditures for organic chemical production

were approximated according to Althaus et al. (3) using a generic value of 4.00-10 plant

units per 1 kg of chemical produced. Raw-chemical transports were estimated using

9

standard distances of 100 km transported by lorry and 600 km by fright rail as defined in

Frischknecht and Jungbluth (2).

Certain fractions of volatile and dissolved unreacted raw chemicals were assumed to

leave the production process as air emissions and with the wastewater, respectively.

Substance-specific removal efficiencies in wastewater treatment were estimated with the

EpiSuite tool (9). Values for wastewater parameters in the purified effluent, such as

COD, BOD, TOC and DOC, were calculated from the amounts of unreacted chemicals

and the respective wastewater-treatment elimination rates. TOC was computed from the

carbon-mass balance of raw chemicals. COD was estimated applying a COD/TOC ratio

of 2.7 for wastewater from chemical industries (10). BOD and DOC values were

determined applying the simplifying assumption that BOD equals COD and TOC equals

DOC. In addition to contaminant emissions to air, waste-heat releases were also included,

assuming 100% conversion of consumed electricity to waste heat (1.2 MJ per kg of raw

chemical produced) (3). The detailed LCI modeling approach for different raw chemicals

is described in the chemical-specific sub-chapters below.

S3.1.1.1 Lauramine oxide

Lauramine oxide represents an aliphatic amine oxide which is insensitive to water

hardness. Due to its satisfactory dispersion of lime soaps and foam and its mildness to the

skin it is widely applied as constituents of dishwasher detergents, shampoos, and soaps

(11). The process technology modeled is the production of lauramine oxide from tertiary

amines using hydrogen peroxide. EDTA is applied as chelating agent for trace metals that

would otherwise decompose hydrogen peroxide (12). The production route starts with the

synthesis of fatty acids and nitriles, followed by primary and tertiary amine synthesis and

the final lauramine oxide fabrication. The intermediates along the production chain are

roughly modeled in new LCI datasets. The overall reaction for the production of

lauramine oxide and the intermediates is described in Equation 1 and the LCI datasets are

given in Table 3.

Raw chemical demand for lauramine oxide production is calculated according to

Maisonneuve (12), who reports a typical industrial formulation. Raw chemical amounts

for synthesis intermediates result from the stoichiometrical equations (Equation 1). No

10

information was available on energy and auxiliary demand of the industrial process, and

generic values were applied (see above).

Equation 1: Stoichiometrical equations of lauramine oxide synthesis (i) and associated sub-syntheses (ii-v) (12)

(i) Stoichiometrical equation of lauramine oxide production ROOCH + NH3 + 2H2 + 2CH2O + H2O2 → 4H2O + RCH2N(CH3)2 + O2 (ii) Reaction of fatty acid (via ammonium salt and amide) to nitrile RCOOH + NH3 → RCN + 2H2O (iii) Reaction of nitrile to primary amine RCN + 2H2 → RCH2NH2 (iv) Reaction of primary amine to tertiary amine RCH2NH2 + 2CH2O → RCH2N(CH3)2 + O2 (v) Reaction of tertiary amine to lauramine oxide RCH2N(CH3)2 + H2O2→ RCH2N(CH3)2O + 2H2O

S3.1.1.2 Glycol distearate

Glycol distearate represents a fatty acid ester used as opacifying, pearlescent and

emulsifying agent. It finds many applications in shampoos, cosmetics, creams and

ointments (13). The LCI dataset was estimated for the production of glycol distearate

synthesized by reaction of ethylene glycol with stearic acid (Equation 2).

Equation 2: Synthesis of glycol distearate

2C17H35COOH + C2H6O2 C38H74O4+ 2H2O

Stearic acid is produced from tallow. The tallow input amount was calculated assuming

that tallow contains approximately 23 % of stearic acid. The modeled dataset is given in

Table 3.

11

S3.1.1.3 Hydroxyethyl cellulose

Hydroxyethyl cellulose, which belongs to the cellulose ethers, is a nonionic, water-

soluble polymer. It is soluble in hot and cold water and can be used to prepare solutions

with a large range of viscosities (14).

Various production processes exist to manufacture cellulose ethers. In general,

purified cellulose, derived from wood, cotton or related scrap materials is treated with

alkali solution to form alkali cellulose. Subsequently, alkali cellulose is reacted with an

etherifying reagent such as ethylene oxide in the case of hydroxyethyl cellulose (15).

The consumption of alkali required to break down the cellulose as well as the final

conditioning processes of hydroxyethyl cellulose were neglected in the life-cycle

inventory due to lack of data and because they were judged to be less influential. The

values for raw materials consumption are based on stoichiometric calculations (Equation

3). Thielking and Schmidt (16) report synthesis yields of 40 to 75 % in relation to

ethylene oxide. In this study a yield of 60 % relating to ethylene oxide was applied. For

cellulose we assumed that all material is converted to hydroxyethyl cellulose representing

a yield of 100 %. For stoichiometric calculations, the molecular structure of cellulose was

approximated with the base unit (C6H10O5)n using the index n = 1. Cellulose was

represented by unbleached sulphate pulp (Table 3).

Equation 3: Stoichiometric equation of hydroxyethyl cellulose

R-OH + CH2-O-CH2 R-O-CH2-CH2OH with R=(C6H10O5)n

12

Table 3: LCI datasets for raw chemical production based on generic estimations (given per 1 kg of chemical produced)

Production of 1 kg of chemical Unit Lauramine oxide

Tertiary amine

Primary amine Nitrile Glycol

distearate Stearic acid

Hydroxyethyl cellulose

Resources

Cooling water m3 2.40E-02 2.40E-02 2.40E-02 2.40E-02 2.40E-02 2.40E-02 2.40E-02

Raw chemicals

Tertiary amine kg 9.79E-01

Hydrogen peroxide (50 % in H2O) kg 7.45E-02 5.00E-04

Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) kg 9.46E-04

Primary amine kg 9.14E-01

Formaldehyde kg 2.96E-01

Nitrile kg 1.03E+00

Liquid hydrogen from chlorine electrolysis kg 2.29E-02

Fatty acids from vegetable oil kg 1.16E+00

Liquid ammonia kg 9.89E-02

Stearic acid kg 1.01E+00

Ethylene glycol kg 1.10E-01

Tallow kg 4.35E+00

Ethylene Oxide kg 3.29E-01

Sulphate pulp kg 7.26E-01

Deionised Water kg 2.03E+00

13

Auxiliaries

Electricity (medium voltage, UCTE) kWh 3.33E-01 3.33E-01 3.33E-01 3.33E-01 3.33E-01 3.33E-01 3.33E-01

Heat from natural gas MJ 2.00E+00 2.00E+00 2.00E+00 2.00E+00 2.00E+00 2.00E+00 2.00E+00

Infrastructure

Chemical plant Plant units 4.00E-10 4.00E-10 4.00E-10 4.00E-10 4.00E-10 4.00E-10 4.00E-10

Transport

Freight rail tkm 6.77E-01 7.26E-01 6.20E-01 7.57E-01 6.70E-01 4.35E-01 6.33E-01

Lorry > 16 t tkm 1.13E-01 1.21E-01 1.04E-01 1.26E-01 1.12E-01 2.61E+00 1.06E-01

Emissions to air

Heat waste MJ 1.20E+00 1.20E+00 1.20E+00 1.20E+00 1.20E+00 1.20E+00 1.20E+00


Ammonia kg 1.98E-04

Ethlyene oxide kg 6.58E-04

Emissions to water

Hydrogen peroxide kg 1.10E-01

Carboxylic acids kg 4.77E-03 1.35E-02 1.37E-02 2.25E-02 5.02E-03


Hydrogen kg 1.14E-03

Ammonium kg 1.42E-03

Nitrate kg 9.49E-04

Ethylene oxide kg 1.18E-01

14

Biological oxygen demand (BOD) kg 8.70E-03 2.84E-02 2.94E-02 4.37E-02 1.04E-02 1.73E-01

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) kg 8.70E-03 2.84E-02 2.94E-02 4.37E-02 1.04E-02 1.73E-01

Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) kg 3.22E-03 1.05E-02 1.09E-02 1.62E-02 3.86E-03 6.43E-02

Total organic carbon (TOC) kg 3.22E-03 1.05E-02 1.09E-02 1.62E-02 3.86E-03 6.43E-02

15

S3.1.2 Raw chemical life-cycle inventories based on environ-

mental studies

S3.1.2.1 Decyl and lauryl glucoside

Decyl and lauryl glucoside are nonionic sugar-based surfactants. In regards to cleaning

performance they show interesting synergies in combination with other anionic and

nonionic surfactants. Due to their good foaming properties decyl and lauryl glucoside are

particularly employed in hand and dish-washing liquids, household-cleaning agents and

detergents.

The production of decyl and lauryl glucosides is estimated on the basis of alkyl

polyglucosides (APG) production. The manufacturing of APG was modeled according to

the life-cycle inventory data supplied by Hirsinger and Schick (5) for European

production conditions. The processes and expenditures included are supply of energy and

raw material resources, infrastructure, land use interventions, and raw-material

transportation. The direct emissions arising in the production of decyl and lauryl

glucoside were neglected due to lack of reported emission data. The manufacturing

process modeled represents the Fischer Synthesis in which APG is derived from fatty

alcohols and monohydrate glucose. Apart from LCI data for glucose, LCI datasets for all

raw materials were retrieved from the ecoinvent database (1). Glucose is extracted from

corn. In a first production step, corn undergoes a wet milling process using a solution of

sulphur dioxide to soften the kernel and to break down the protein-starch matrix. After

hydrolysis of starch into glucose an additional wet milling process follows. The inventory

for glucose is also based on Hirsinger and Schick (5), and the calculations are equally

applied to the production of APG. LCI data for decyl and lauryl glucoside and glucose

are given in Table 4.

The study of Hirsinger and Schick (5) does not explicitly explain how the energy

profiles reported can be broken into process energy, transport energy and feedstock

energy, nor does it provide details on the final energy required. Therefore, the assumption

was made that all energy enters the system as process energy delivered as electricity and

heat. This electricity and thermal energy demand was estimated from the figures on

energetic resources reported for APG and glucose production by the authors (5).

16

Following the approach taken by Dall’Acqua (17) the European electricity production

mix was used to estimate the electricity demand of APG production. The primary energy

demand for heat supply for APG production results from the difference between the total

and the electrical primary energy consumption. The final heat supply was estimated for

industrial furnaces applying a furnace efficiency of approximately 95 % for gas and oil

fired furnaces (18, 19) and approximately 80 % for coal fired furnaces (20). Further, the

study does not provide any specified information on transportation of raw materials and

auxiliaries as well as production infrastructure operated. Therefore, standard values as

described above for generic LCI datasets were applied (see Section 3.1.1). Due to lack of

data, emissions directly released from the APG production process were omitted.

Table 4: LCI datasets for the production of 1 kg of decyl and lauryl glucosides and glucose

Production of 1 kg of chemical Unit Decyl/ lauryl glucoside Glucose Data source

Raw chemicals Hirsinger and Schick(1995) (5)

Glucose kg 6.31E-01

Sodium hydroxide (50 % in H2O) kg 5.00E-04

Fatty alcohol (coconut oil) kg 2.22E-01

Fatty alcohol (palm kernel oil) kg 2.22E-01

sulphur dioxide, liquid, at plant kg 7.92E-04

Grain maize IP, at farm kg 1.09E+00

Auxiliaries Hirsinger and Schick (5)

Electricity (medium voltage, UCTE) kWh 1.61E-01 7.61E-02

Heat from hard coal MJ 2.57E+00 2.73E-01

Heat from natural gas MJ 4.07E+00 5.28E-01

Heat from light fuel oil MJ 2.90E+00 5.35E-02

Infrastructure Althaus et al. (2007) (3)

Chemical plant Plant units 4.00E-10

Transports Frischknecht and Jungbluth (2002) (2)

Freight rail tkm 6.46E-01 6.56E-01

Lorry (> 16 t) tkm 1.01E-01 1.09E-01

17

S3.1.2.2 Lactic acid

Lactic acid, a colorless to slightly yellow hygroscopic liquid, is industrially produced

by fermentation of carbohydrates or synthetically manufactured via the hydrolysis of

lactonitrile. The three main application areas of lactic acid and some of its derivates are

food, polymers, and industrial products. The largest consumer of lactic acid and lactate

salts is the food industry, where these substances are mainly used as acidulants and

preservatives. Lactic acid is a monomer also applied for the production of polylactic acid

or polylactide (PLA). Additionally, lactic acid is used in the cosmetics, metal plating,

textile and leather industries (21).

Due to the lack of reliable data sources the lactic acid inventory dataset established in

this study was based on the data for the production of lactic acid from corn starch as

reported by Carbotech (6). This study presents aggregated cradle-to-gate data, while

direct inputs into and outputs from the various processes involved are not separately

disclosed. The inventory data comprises raw materials, energy demand and expenditures

for raw material transportation (Table 5).

The consumption of raw materials was adopted from the Carbotech study (6). It was

assumed that the amount of water required for lactic acid production equals the

wastewater volume generated. The energy consumed to produce 1 kg of lactic acid from

maize starch is reported as UCTE electricity demand and heat produced from light fuel

oil and natural gas burners. In total, 0.275 kWh of electricity and 9 MJ of natural gas are

required to produce 1 kg of lactic acid. Because the study does not provide any

information on the transportation of raw materials and auxiliaries, standard values were

applied (2, 3) (see Section 3.1.1).

18

Table 5: LCI dataset for the production of 1kg of lactic acid

S3.1.2.3 Propylene glycol butyl ether

Propylene glycol butyl ether is a clear, colorless liquid with a characteristic odor

belonging to glycol ethers. The primary use of propylene glycol butyl ether is in heavy-

duty cleaning products, where its fast evaporation rate and excellent ability to solubilize

organic soils, hydrophobic greases, and oils makes it useful in a wide variety of

formulation systems. Especially in glass and all-purpose cleaners, propylene glycol butyl

ether is an appropriate ingredient (22).

Glycol ethers are produced by reacting alcohol with oxides (ethylene or propylene

oxides). The inventory for propylene glycol butyl ether production was based on data for

the production of ethylene glycol mono tertiary butyl ether (ETB). The production

processes of both chemicals are considered to be very similar, according to expert

judgment from industry (23). The inventory therefore relies on data documented in an

environmental product declaration (EPD) for ethylene glycol mono tertiary butyl ether

Production of 1 kg of lactic acid Unit Amount Data source

Resources Carbotech (2004) (6)

Unspecified water from natural origin m3 1.88E+00

Raw chemicals Carbotech (2004) (6)

Maize starch kg 1.00E+00

Auxiliaries Carbotech (2004) (6)

Electricity (medium voltage, UCTE) kWh 2.75E-01

Heat from natural gas MJ 4.63E+00

Heat from light fuel oil MJ 4.38E+00

Infrastructure Althaus et al. (2007)

Chemical plant Plant units 4.00E-10

Transports Frischknecht and Jungbluth (2002) (2)

Freight rail tkm 6.00E-01

Lorry > 16 t tkm 1.00E-01

Disposal Carbotech (2004) (6)

Wastewater to municipal wastewater treatment m3 1.88E+00

19

(7). The processes considered comprise mining, transportation and purification of

resources, the transportation of purified resources, and the final production of propylene

glycol butyl ether. The production process modeled is the reaction of butane and butenes

fractions included in isobutylene with ethylene glycol in the presence of a catalyst. In a

subsequent distillation process the high-purity final product is obtained.

The consumption of raw chemicals and energetic resources was adopted from the

environmental product declaration (7) which differentiates between non-renewable and

renewable resources. It was not possible to associate the required resources with

particular production steps because detailed data was not disclosed. As far as possible all

resources were considered on the same level of processing.

Table 6: LCI dataset for the production of 1 kg of propylene glycol butyl ether (adapted from ref. (7))

Production of 1 kg of propylene glycol butyl ether Unit Amount

Resources

Sodium chloride kg 8.68E-08

Crude oil, onshore production from Russia kg 6.59E-01

Crude oil, onshore production from Africa kg 3.18E-01

Crude oil, onshore production from Middle East kg 3.18E-01

Crude oil, offshore production from Norway kg 4.09E-01

Crude oil, offshore production from United Kingdom kg 2.73E-01

Crude oil, onshore production from the Netherlands kg 1.48E-01

Crude oil, offshore production from the Netherlands kg 1.48E-01

Light fuel oil kg 2.98E-05

Propane/ butane kg 1.09E-05

Natural gas, onshore production from Germany Nm3 1.21E-04

Natural gas, offshore production from the Netherlands Nm3 5.06E-05

Natural gas, onshore production from the Netherlands Nm3 7.59E-05

Natural gas, offshore production from Norway Nm3 1.40E-04

Natural gas, offshore production from United Kingdom Nm3 2.14E-05

Natural gas, onshore production from Russia Nm3 2.43E-04

Coke oven gas MJ 3.94E+00

20

Auxiliaries

Nuclear electricity kWh 6.40E-01

Electricity from hydropower kWh 4.50E-02

Electricity from photovoltaic kWh 3.17E-06

Electricity from wind power plant kWh 2.24E-06

Heat from brine water heat pump kWh 5.96E-05

Emissions to air

Carbon dioxide, fossil kg 3.95E+00

Sulfur dioxide kg 3.89E-03

Nitrogen oxides kg 7.75E-03

Methane, fossil kg 7.58E-07

Dinitrogen monoxide kg 2.86E-11

Emissions to water

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) kg 2.07E-05

Ammonium, ion kg 1.13E-05

Nitrate kg 4.93E-05

Nitrite kg 6.58E-07

Nitrogen, total kg 5.01E-07

Phosphorus, total kg 5.19E-07

Disposal

Municipal solid waste to sanitary landfill kg 9.25E-06

S3.2 Life-cycle inventories for finished-product manufacturing

In the manufacturing stage, finished home-care and personal hygiene products are

fabricated. The processes associated with this life-cycle stage mainly encompass the

mixing of raw chemicals with water to achieve the fluid product formulation. For the

powder detergent and detergent booster, spray drying in a tower and powder processing

were considered as additional production steps, and are used to obtain the desired

detergent texture. In contrast, the final manufacturing of bar soap, which represents the

only chunk product, covers all relevant process steps including the production of neat

soap by fatty acid neutralization, the production of soap pellets by vacuum spray drying

21

and the manufacturing of line formulated bar soap. Subsequent to the fabrication of the

final formulation and bar product, respectively, product packing is performed, which is

included in the finished-product manufacturing LCI dataset of bar soap.

S3.2.1 Raw chemicals and energy demand

Life-cycle inventories for finished-product manufacturing include raw-chemicals used

as well as energy inputs and packaging materials employed to package the finished

product for transport and distribution. Solid wastes and wastewater were disregarded

because of insignificant amounts generated. Also, cooling water was excluded because

the respective amounts were regarded as negligible.

Raw chemicals applied in finished-product manufacturing and integrated in the LCI

datasets are listed in Table 1 (Section 2). Energy demand for this manufacturing stage

(Table 7) takes into account energy consumption for storage of raw chemicals, chemicals

mixing, packaging, and, if applicable, for spray drying and powder processing. In the

case of bar soap all three sub-processes (see above) are included. A generic inventory

dataset was adjusted with industry data for bar-soap production.

Table 7: Energy demand for finished-product manufacturing expressed as fossil cumulative energy demand CEDfossil

Product

Bar

soa

p

Liq

uid

soap

Pow

der

dete

rgen

t

Liq

uid

dete

rgen

t

Det

erge

nt

boos

ter

WC

car

e pr

oduc

t

Bat

h cl

eane

r

Kitc

hen

clea

ner

Win

dow

cl

eane

r

[MJ eq./kg]

[MJ eq./kg]

[MJ eq./kg]

[MJ eq./kg]

[MJ eq./kg]

[MJ eq./kg]

[MJ eq./kg]

[MJ eq./kg]

[MJ eq./kg]

Heat supply (gate-to-gate)

1.37E+00 1.01E+00 1.96E-01 1.05E+00 1.96E-01 1.57E-02 1.57E-02 1.57E-02

Electricity supply for finished product manu-facturing

9.26E-01 2.14E-02 1.39E+00 1.39E-01 2.74E-01 1.39E-01 2.12E-01 2.12E-01 2.12E-01

22

S3.2.2 Product packaging systems

Primary packaging used for sales units of homecare and personal hygiene products

consists of PET bottles, LDPE plastic bags and bottles, and partly coated core board

boxes, respectively. Only the bar soap is solely wrapped in paper, while the WC care

products require sophisticated packaging systems of plastic containers and baskets.

Secondary and tertiary packaging materials such as corrugated board and polyethylene

film required for product handling and distribution were additionally considered. All

information was provided by the product manufacturers (23, 24). An overview of the

packaging systems considered for all products is presented in Table 8.

Table 8: Overview of products’ primary, secondary and tertiary packaging

Primary Packaging Secondary Packaging Tertiary Packaging

Bar soap Paper Corrugated board Wooden palette, PE

Liquid soap PET bottle with dispenser Corrugated board Wooden palette, PE

Powder detergent LDPE plastic bag Corrugated board Wooden palette, PE

Liquid detergent LDPE bottle Corrugated board Wooden palette, PE

Detergent booster Coated core board box Corrugated and core board Wooden palette, PE

WC care

Two little PET plastic containers surrounded by a PP basket which is covered by a core board and a PET cap

Core board Wooden palette, PE

Bath cleaner PET bottle with spray head Corrugated board Wooden palette, PE

Kitchen cleaner PET bottle with spray head Corrugated board Wooden palette, PE

Window cleaner PET bottle with spray head Corrugated board Wooden palette, PE

The three cleaning agents (bathroom, kitchen and window cleaners) are filled in

polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic bottles containing 500 ml of cleaning agent

product. The bottles are equipped with a sprayer consisting of polyethylene, polyethylene

terephthalate and polypropylene in approximately equal shares. For sales and distribution,

a corrugated paper shipping case consists of 10 bottles. Three layers are stored on a

wooden palette containing 16 shipping cases including 480 bottles. The detergent booster

is filled into boxes made out of coated board containing 500 g of detergent booster

23

product. The boxes are covered with paper and polyethylene applied as moister barrier.

Seven boxes are packed in a corrugated board shipping case. A layer consists of 22

shipping cases including 154 boxes. A wooden palette stores four layers including 616

boxes in total. The liquid detergent is filled in LDPE plastic bottles containing 1500 ml of

liquid detergent product. The bottle cap is produced from polyproyplene and the lable

from light density polyethylene. A corrugated board shipping cases contains 8 bottles.

Twelve shipping cases form a layer while two layers are stored on a wooden palette

including 192 bottles in total. The powder detergent is filled in plastic bags containing

1350 g of powder detergent product. The plastic bags mainly consist of light-density

polyethlyene and some polypropylene. Five product bags are packaged in a tray. A layer

consists of 16 trays containing 80 bags. Five layers are stored on a wooden palette

conaining 540 bags in total. Liquid soap is filled in plastic bottles containing 237 grams

of soap product. Twelve bottles are stored in a case which includes a corrugated board

divider for protecting the pumps during distribution and handling. A shipping palette

contains 140 cases with 1680 bottles in total. The bar soap is individually wrapped in

paper containing 128 grams of soap product. Eight bars are packaged with a

polypropylene plastic film as the selling unit. A corrugated paper shipping case consists

of nine selling units including 72 bars. 105 shipping cases are stored on a wooden palette

containing 7560 soap bars in total. The WC care product contains two plastic chambers

enclosing a toilet-cleaning concentrate and an air-freshener deodorant. The plastic

chambers are surrounded by a polypropylene basket which is packaged with a core board

and covered with a polyethylene terephtalate cap. Eight single units are packed in a core

board shipping case. A wooden palette contains 90 shipping cases arranged in five layers

which include 720 single WC care-product units in total. Detailed information on the

packaging materials required is listed in Table 9.

Apart from the regular product type, the liquid soap, WC care product, bathroom

cleaner and window cleaner are additionally offered as refill products. Refill packages of

both household cleaners and liquid soap consist of plastic stand-up pouches produced

from PET (15%) and LDPE (85%). Refill packages of the WC care product represent a

combination of two plastic flasks and plastic caps contained in a plastic blister which is

24

covered with a blistercard. Amounts of materials used for WC care product refill

packages are documented in Table 9.

25

Table 9: Raw materials used for product packaging, differentiated in single-unit packaging and packaging on wooden palettes employed for distribution (packing material mass given per 1kg of product)

Bar soap Liquid soap Powder detergent

Liquid detergent

Detergent booster

WC care product

Bath cleaner

Kitchen cleaner

Window cleaner

Raw materials [kg/kg] [kg/kg] [kg/kg] [kg/kg] [kg/kg] [kg/kg] [kg/kg] [kg/kg] [kg/kg]

Single product unit

PET, amorphous 2.11E-4 1.58E-1 2.15E-02 2.20E-02 2.23E-02

PET, bottle grade 1.01E-1 1.67E-1 6.65E-02 6.81E-02 6.88E-02

PP 2.78E-3 1.37E-1 4.22E-03 4.76E-3 2.83E-01 1.96E-02 2.00E-02 2.02E-02

LDPE 9.26E-03 4.86E-02 4.47E-03 3.00E-2 2.35E-02 2.40E-02 2.43E-02

Corrugated board

Core board 2.32E-2 7.39E-02 1.25E-1

Paper 1.61E-2 1.17E-02

Palette packaging unit

LDPE 5.56E-04 2.53E-031 3.60E-4 6.67E-3 2.53E-031 2.53E-031 2.53E-031

LLDPE 1.87E-4 4.52E-4

Corrugated board 2.47E-2 1.19E-1 1.54E-02 2.32E-02 2.77E-2 3.81E-2 3.95E-2 3.90E-2

Core board 3.90E-3 3.13E-3

Refill packages

LDPE 2.08E-2 3.44E-2 1.93E-2 2.00E-2

PET, amorphous (film) 3.67E-3 1.05E-1 3.4E-3 3.52E-3

26

PET, bottle grade 1.67E-1

PP 6.00E-2

Core board 1.27E-1

1 Values are approximated with the figures given for the detergent booster, the powder detergent powder and the WC care product

27

S4 Cradle-to-grave inventory analysis

S4.1 Sales and distribution

For modeling sales and distribution, lorry and train transports from manufacturing

sites to wholesale and retail stores were calculated using data from industry (23) and from

a retailer (25). Environmental expenditures for product storage are described by energy

use only; occupied storage areas were disregarded.

In general, the consumer products are transported by freight train and lorry from

manufacturing plants to regional wholesale distribution centers. Freight train and lorry

transports were estimated with approximate distances of 400 km each (23). Further

considered were succeeding transports of 80 km distance to retail distributors from where

the consumer products are subsequently distributed to shops. The final lorry transports to

various retail stores were modeled with an average distance of 40 km for both urban areas

and rural agglomerations.

Storage in distribution centers and retail storages was considered to be performed at

room temperature, which, on an annual basis, requires heat and electricity. Generic values

for energy demand were applied per 1 kg of finished product: 130 Wh of electricity and

76 Wh of heat (25). Heat was assumed to be produced in equal shares by oil and natural

gas furnaces, as well as delivered from district heating. The technology mix for district

heating encompasses oil furnaces (12%), heat pumps (2%), natural gas furnaces (36%)

and waste incinerators (50%).

S4.2 Consumer use

Product quantities applied by the end-user in the consumer-use phase were collected

from consumer-behavior studies and laboratory experiments. Consumer-use data for

application of soaps and of the WC care product were supplied by industry (23, 24).

Product-use data for detergent application was derived from information provided on the

product packaging which is generally documented according to regulatory requirements.

Note that the detergent booster shall always be applied in combination with another

detergent. In this study, we considered the combined use of powder detergent and

detergent booster. Theoretically, other applications are also possible.

28

Product quantities of the three cleaning agents were estimated in laboratory

experiments. In average, five spraying cycles were conducted in cleaning activities

resulting in an average applied product amount of 4.7 g (stdev: 0.4 g) (26).

For the consumer-use phase, the purchase of refill packages was included. Two groups

of consumers with varying preferences were taken into account: The first group involves

consumers who always purchase original product packages. For the second group it was

assumed that, in average, consumers purchase a combination of one original and four

refill packages. This is considered reasonable because original product packages which

are being refilled are replaced on a regular basis.

Apart from product application, home transport from retail stores was included in the

consumer-use phase. Based on different consumer mobility choices different

environmental impacts arise. Transport by car was chosen as baseline, while bike

transport was considered as alternative use-phase scenario. An average home transport

distance of 6.5 km per trip and an average number of shopping trips (0.7 trips per day)

were estimated using mobility studies from Switzerland (27) and Great Britain (28). In

order to test the sensitivity of the results, different home-transport distances were

modeled (6.5 km, 10 km, and 15 km) in a sensitivity analysis.

The Swiss mobility study describes an average basket of goods purchased during an

average shopping trip. In reference to an average shopping basket, shares of the overall

home transport distance were allocated to the product groups under study applying the

Swiss consumer price index (economic allocation; reference period: one year). Allocation

resulted in a transport portion of 0.942 % for the product category detergents and

cleaning agents and 0.216 % for the category soaps and bath additives. Multiplying those

transport shares with the product shares per product category and the average shopping

distance per year (1584 km/year) and dividing by the consumed product amount per year

returns the average transport distance (km) covered for the purchase of 1 kg of final

consumer product.

29

S4.3 Product end-of-life

S4.3.1 Wastewater treatment

During product use in the consumer-use phase wastewater arises which contains the

product’s chemical constituents. The treatment of this wastewater is modeled in the end-

of-life phase. For all products under study, except for the window cleaner, we assumed

the entire amount (100%) of product ingredients to be disposed down the drain with the

wastewater. For the window cleaner, we assumed the product constituents to disperse in

the indoor air environment and to adhere to the paper towels applied for cleaning,

respectively.

An Excel-based life-cycle inventory tool for municipal wastewater purification was

applied for modeling the environmental impacts (29). Purification plants operating

primary and secondary treatment with subsequent phosphate elimination and sludge

incineration (capacity class: 10'000 to 50'000 population equivalents per year) were

chosen. Removal of product chemical ingredients in wastewater treatment was quantified

by applying chemical-specific elimination rates (Table 10) in order to quantify pollutant

emission loads to the freshwater environment. Wastewater parameters, such as total

organic carbon (TOC), total nitrogen, total phosphorous, and total sulfur were calculated

on the basis of chemical substance compositions. Chemical oxygen demand (COD) was

computed according to the calculation of the theoretical oxygen demand (ThOD) (30)

employing a conversion factor of 0.95 (31).

S4.3.2 Packaging disposal

For the base case of the products’ life cycles all packaging materials, including the

total amount of plastic, paper and cardboard packaging were assumed to be combusted in

a municipal solid waste incineration plant. In Western Europe incineration and recycling

are the prevalent municipal solid waste treatment types. Waste incineration was chosen as

base case because most Western European countries incinerate a substantial share of

household waste (e.g., The Netherlands, Germany, France, Denmark, and Switzerland).

In an alternative waste-management scenario recycling of the total amount of plastic

packaging was considered. As some countries in Western Europe still deposit large waste

30

fractions (e.g. GB: 64%, I: 55%, E: 53%), landfilling was taken into account as

alternative option.

S4.3.2.1 Packaging-waste incineration and landfilling

Waste incinerations of product packaging materials including energy recovery was

modeled using life-cycle inventory data from the ecoinvent database (1, 32). The

incineration of packaging materials, as with other waste types, generates heat and

electricity. On average, the gross efficiencies for heat and electricity generation amount

to 24% and 13%, respectively. Excess energy, which remains after plant-internal energy

consumption in form of heat and electricity, is fed into district heating grids: 0.839 MJ

heat and 0.144 kWh electricity per kg waste (32, 33). In the model, system expansion was

applied to account for the generated co-products heat and electricity. The reference

systems chosen for quantifying the avoided environmental burdens were supply of grid

electricity (low voltage, UCTE electricity mix) and heat production by light fuel oil

boilers (75%) and natural gas boilers (25%), respectively.

Landfilling of packaging waste was simulated with an Excel-based life-cycle

inventory tool for landfills (34).

S4.3.2.2 Plastic packaging recycling

Recycling of the total amount of plastic packaging material arising during the

consumer-use phase was described with an open-loop recycling process. In this scenario,

all other product packaging materials, e.g. cardboard, were assumed to be combusted in

municipal solid waste incineration plants (as described in the base case, see Section

4.3.2). Mechanical down-recycling of mixed plastics to plastic material of lesser quality

used for products intended preferentially for applications not typical for plastic materials

was modeled according to Heyde and Kremer (35). Recycled plastic was assumed to be

subsequently used for mixed-plastic palisades which were believed to substitute wooden

palisades. Wooden palisades with a lifetime of approximately 30 years were thus chosen

as substituted products manufactured from secondary plastics. Wood preservatives used

for wooden palisades were approximated with inorganic salt preservatives containing

chromium. Heyde and Kremer used a Cu-HDO preparation as wood preservative (35). In

31

contrast to Heyde and Kremer (35), we assumed wooden palisades to be disposed and

combusted in municipal solid waste incineration plants.

The mechanical recycling process of mixed plastics generates different waste

fractions. All waste fractions generated along the recycling process chain we assumed to

be combusted in municipal solid waste incineration. Wastewater generated in the

recycling process was neglected. Also, the LDPE color batch, which is added to ground

mixed plastics during extrusion, was not included in this study due to very small amounts

applied and missing inventory data.

Non-ferrous and ferrous metals are assumed to be reused as secondary raw materials.

Environmental credits were granted for the recovered non-ferrous metals copper and zinc

which 28% and 72% of the non-ferrous metals in the mixed-plastic fraction. Ferrous

metals were considered to be recycled by 100 % and to substitute pig iron. Environmental

interventions arising from landfilling the contamination fraction and sorting residues

were calculated with an Excel-based life-cycle inventory tool for landfills (34). The credit

for energy recovery was calculated with the lower heating value (38 MJ/kg) of plastic

waste generated in the recycling process and of cutting residues remaining from the

extrusion/molding process (35). The disposal of mixed-plastic palisade was modeled

accordingly.

S5 Life-cycle impact assessment

S5.1 Fossil cumulative energy demand (CEDfossil)

The fossil cumulative energy demand (CEDfossil) represents the direct and indirect

energy use throughout the product life cycle, including all fossil energy consumed during

resource extraction, manufacturing, use, and disposal. Thus, this primary energy indicator

encompasses fossil feedstock, all process energy needed within the entire production

chain, and packaging supply chain, as well as grey energy embodied in plant

infrastructure.

32

S5.2 Freshwater ecotoxicity

Due to a large variety of chemical substances contained in the products investigated,

this study puts an additional focus on the evaluation of ecotoxicological impacts

potentially induced by the emissions of product constituents. Emission loads of chemical

ingredients to the aquatic environment were computed with substance-specific

elimination rates in wastewater treatment (Table 10). Ecotoxicity potentials were

calculated with the USEtox model (v0.994) (36). Freshwater aquatic-ecotoxicity

characterization factors for chemicals not included in the USEtox database were

computed with substance property data collected from HERA environmental risk

assessment reports (37) (employed as primary data source), chemical safety datasheets

(SDS), and chemical handbooks (38-40). If reported data was not at hand, substance

properties were estimated using the Estimation Program Interface (EPI) Suite software

(41). USEtox-based ecotoxicity characterization factors of all chemical product

ingredients emitted to continental freshwater were converted to EI99 damage factors for

ecosystem quality impairments (Table 10). These damages factors were fully

implemented into the EI99 scheme using normalization and weighting factors according

to the EI99 hierarchist (HA) perspective. Ecotoxicity characterization factors were

applied to residual product ingredients released with purified wastewater treatment

effluents.

S5.3 IMPACT 2002+ method

The assessment with IMPACT 2002+ was performed to compare differences and

similarities with the EI99 assessment. The IMPACT 2002+ methodology (42) was

applied in the cradle-to-grave analysis to calculate the environmental impacts of liquid

soap, powder and liquid detergents, and the bath cleaner. These products were chosen as

representatives of their product groups. Within the IMPACT 2002+ assessment weighting

factors of 1 were applied for all impact categories.

Freshwater ecotoxicity of product chemical components was computed with the

IMPACT 2002 characterization model (42) using the same data basis as applied for the

USEtox modelling (see Section 5.2).

33

Table 10: Wastewater-treatment elimination rates and ecotoxicity characterization and damage factors for product chemical constituents

Chemical substance Elimination in wastewater treatment

USEtox ecotoxicity potential (in comparative toxic units)

EI99 damage factor for ecosystem quality

EI’99 score (HA) Data source Comments

[%] [PAFm3d/kg] [PDFm2yr/kg] [Points]

Alcohol 95 1.02E+00 1.12E-04 8.69E-06 USEtox Estimated with ethanol

Ammonium lauryl sulfate 87.4 2.00E+03 2.19E-01 1.70E-02 USEtox Estimated with dodecyl sulfate

C12-18 fatty alcohol 7 EO 97 9.94E+01 1.09E-02 8.46E-04 Data from HERA study suite

Estimated with fatty alcohol ethoxylate C12-18 7EO

Citrate-(MEA)3 96 8.97E+00 9.83E-04 7.62E-05 USEtox Estimated with sodium citrate

Citric acid 96 2.18E+01 2.39E-03 1.86E-04 USEtox

Cocamidopropyl betaine 1.87 5.22E+03 5.72E-01 4.44E-02 EPI Suite

Decyl/lauryl glucoside 90 6.46E+02 7.08E-02 5.50E-03 EPI Suite

Dipropylene glycol 1.85 4.63E+00 5.08E-04 3.94E-05 Estimated with propylene glycol, monomethyl ether

Ethanolamine 88 1.09E+01 1.20E-03 9.28E-05 USEtox

Formic acid 1.76 1.25E+01 1.37E-03 1.06E-04 USEtox, k(deg, air) taken from EPI Suite

EC50 data only available for fish

Glycol distearate 93 6.00E+01 6.58E-03 5.11E-04 EPI Suite, SDS

34






Isopropyl alcohol 87.8 6.00E-01 6.58E-05 5.10E-06 USEtox

Lactic acid 1.76 2.87E+01 3.14E-03 2.44E-04 USEtox

Lauramine oxide 98 1.78E+03 1.95E-01 1.51E-02 USEtox, EC50 taken from SDS

PEG-80; PEG-6 methyl ether 94 3.87E-01 4.24E-05 3.29E-06 USEtox Estimated with ethylene glycol

Perfume 67.20 6.86E+03 7.52E-01 5.83E-02 HERA study suite Estimated with polycyclic musks (HCCB)

Propylene glycol 10 9.25E-01 1.01E-04 7.87E-06 USEtox

Propylene glycol butyl ether 87 4.40E+00 4.82E-04 3.74E-05 HERA study suite

Sodium acrylic acid/ MA copolymer

24 5.52E-01 6.04E-05 4.69E-06 EPI Suite Estimated with 2-propenoic acid, homopolymer

Sodium cetearyl sulfate 87.4 2.00E+03 2.19E-01 1.70E-02 USEtox Estiamted with dodecyl sulfate

Sodium citrate 96 8.97E+00 9.83E-04 7.62E-05 USEtox

Sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate 99 1.97E+03 2.16E-01 1.68E-02 USEtox Alkylbenzene sulfonic acid, sodium salt C10-C13

Sodium formate 1.75 3.57E+00 3.92E-04 3.04E-05 USEtox, k(deg, air) taken from EPI Suite

35






Sodium laureth sulfate 87 2.00E+03 2.19E-01 1.70E-02 HERA study suite

Sodium lauryl sulfate 86.4 6.51E+02 7.13E-02 5.54E-03 HERA study suite

Sodium octyl sulfate 87.4 4.63E+00 5.07E-04 3.93E-05 USEtox

Sodium soap C16-18 90 6.22E+01 6.81E-03 6.81E-03 USEtox Estimated with octadecanoic acid, sodium salt. C18

Sodium xylenesulfonate 87 6.00E+00 6.57E-04 5.10E-05 EPI Suite

Sulfonated polyethylene terephthalate 24 2.66E+00 2.92E-04 2.26E-05 EPI Suite, EC50 taken from HERA study suite

Estimated with polycarboxylate

TAED 1 97 1.02E+01 1.11E-03 8.65E-05 HERA study suite

TEA quaternary 98 1.56E-01 1.71E-05 1.33E-06 HERA study suite

Triclosan/triclocarban 68 1.54E+05 1.69E+01 1.31E+00 USEtox

1TAED quickly dissolves in the washing liquor and undergoes perhydrolysis in the presence of persalts (e.g. perborate or percarbonate) via triacetylethylenediamine (TriAED) to diacetylethylenediamine (DAED) (43).

36

S6 Relevance analysis

S6.1 Environmental relevance of freshwater consumption

To assess the environmental impacts of freshwater consumption we applied the

watershed-differentiated characterization factors provided by the method of Pfister et al.

(44). This method extends the EI99 indicator concept by including characterization

factors for damages to freshwater resources, human health, and ecosystems which are

caused by freshwater consumption. Note that not the entire amount of water used was

evaluated, but rather the freshwater quantity effectively consumed, i.e. the freshwater

amount which after use is not available anymore in the watershed.

Watershed-differentiated characterization factors were computed for an arid area in

Southern Spain showcasing a very water-scarce region. This region covers parts of three

different watersheds. The average characterization factors for the Southern Spanish

region were calculated from the individual watershed-based characterization factors using

the area share of each watershed within the region as weighting factors (Table 11)

To indicate to which maximum extent water consumption may contribute to the

environmental profile of the consumer products, all processes involved in all product life-

cycle phases (production, use, and disposal) were assumed to take place in this arid

region. Because inventory data for freshwater consumption is generally very scarce

effective freshwater consumption was approximated according to Shiklomanov (45) with

generic values for sectoral water use in households, industry, and agriculture. These value

describe the ratio of freshwater consumption and (total) use: (i) households: 10 % of total

water intake, (ii) industry: 20 % of total freshwater use, (iii) 70 % for agricultural

production, and (iv) 100 % for freshwater required in the chemical formulation of

household and personal-hygiene products.

37

Table 11: Characterization factors for freshwater consumption according to Pfister et al. (44)

Watersheds contributing to arid region in Southern Spain

Share of watershed contributing to area of the arid region selected

Water stress index Damage characterization EI99HA [points/m3]

[%] [-] Resources [MJ/m3]

Ecosystem quality [m2•yr/m3]

Human health [DALY/m3]

Resources Ecosystem quality

Human health aggregated

Watershed 1 (river system Guadiana) 46 0.99 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05

Watershed 2 (river system Guadalquivir)

38 1.00 2.98 0.50 0.00 0.07 0.04 0.00 0.11

Watershed 3 (river system Río Segura)

16 1.00 9.65 0.57 0.00 0.23 0.05 0.00 0.27

Average characterization factors and EI99 points for arid region in Southern Spain applied in this study

0.99 2.72 0.57 0.00 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.11

38

S6.2 Environmental relevance of the annual per-capita product

use

In order to assess the overall environmental relevance of the annual per-capita use of

the consumer products studied, we calculated the yearly global warming impacts of these

products in comparison to the total life-cycle climate change impacts caused by all

products and services serving the final consumption in the European Union. Average

annual consumer use was defined using consumer information and data from consumer

surveys retrieved from different studies (46-49) (Table 12). If information was not

available from literature, reasonable assumptions were made. In average, five laundry

loads are washed per week and household (46). It was assumed that powder detergent is

used three times, liquid detergent twice and detergent booster only once a week. For soap

application, we assumed that a person uses liquid soap for hand washing ten times a day.

Based on the carbon footprint calculated per functional unit (see results in Table 19),

we estimated the global warming potential of the annual product use per household

applying a factor of 2.5 persons per household which equals the European average

household size.

The total global warming potential of applying all products under study results in a

GWP of 136 kg of CO2-equivalent per person and year. This corresponds to a GWP of

340 kg of CO2-equivalent per household and year, given an average household size of 2.5

persons. These carbon footprints were compared to the results of the so-called EIPRO

(Environmental Impact of Products) study (50). The EIPRO report analyzes the

environmental impact of final consumption of products in the European Union (EU-25)

and quantifies the share each product category contributes to the total environmental

impact in Europe. The product categories encompassing cleaning agents and personal

hygiene products as well as equipment for the application of these products were

determined and their global warming potential retrieved from the EIPRO study (Table

13). The category "(washing with) household laundry equipment" represents a

combination of the purchase of laundry equipment, the use of electric services, the water

supply and wastewater treatment services. The use of soaps and detergents during

washing is not included in this category but rather in the categories "soap and other

39

detergents" and "non-durable household goods". The latter does include cleaning and

maintenance products such as soaps, washing powders, washing liquids, detergents,

window cleaning products in addition to several other product groups (50).

Table 12: Global warming potential for each consumer product per person and year

Product Functional unit (FU)

GWP per FU [kg CO2 eq./FU]

Assumed frequency of application [per person and year]

GWP per person and year [kg CO2 eq./ (cap*year)]

GWP per average household and year [kg CO2 eq./(household*year)]

Bar soap One-time hand washing

1.10E-02 not considered

Liquid soap One-time hand washing

1.51E-02 3650-times per year and person (10-times per day and person)

5.52E+01 1.38E+02

Powder detergent

Washing one load of laundry (5 kg at 40 °C)

5.35E-01 62.4-times per year and person (3-times per week and household) (46)

3.34E+01 8.35E+01

Liquid detergent



2.25E+01 5.63E+01

Detergent booster



1.61E+01 4.04E+01

Subtotal GWP for soap and detergents

1.27E+02 3.18E+02

WC care product

One-time toilet flushing

4.31E-03 1825-times per year and person (5-times per day and person) (47)

7.87E+00 1.97E+01

Bath cleaner Cleaning a small washbasin

2.05E-02 20.8-times per year and person (1-time per week and household) (48)

4.27E-01 1.07E+00

Kitchen cleaner

Cleaning a small kitchen sink

2.06E-02 20.8-time per year and person (1-time per week and household) (48)

4.29E-01 1.07E+00

40

Window cleaner

Cleaning a small window

1.62E-02 4.8-times per year and person (1-time per month and household) (49)

7.79E-02 1.95E-01

Total GWP for all product groups

1.36E+02 3.40E+02

Using the total European GWP equivalent (4.71E+12 kg CO2 equivalents/year) for all

products and services and the total population (453’025’000 inhabitants) in the EU-25

countries as given in the EIPRO study, the GWP of the three product categories

representing the application of the nine consumer products studied equals 322 kg CO2

equivalents per capita and year. This contribution makes up 1.3% of the per-capita annual

carbon footprint in Europe and 42.2% of the total GWP attributable to the three CEDA

categories "(washing with) household laundry equipment", "soap and other detergents"

and "non-durable household goods".

Table 13: Relevant product categories and percentage contribution to GWP according to the EIPRO study (50)

Product category (according to EIPRO study)

% contribution to total European GWP1)

Absolute contribution to total European GWP1)

GWP per person [kg CO2 eq./ (cap*year)]

GWP per average household [kg CO2 eq./ (cap*year)]

(Washing with) household laundry equipment

2.4 1.13E+11 2.50E+02 6.24E+02

Soaps and other detergents 0.2 9.42E+09 2.08E+01 5.20E+01

Non-durable household goods

0.5 2.36E+10 5.20E+01 1.30E+02

Total of the above categories [kg CO2 eq.]

3.22E+02 8.06E+02

1) Total European GWP: 4.71E+12 kg CO2 eq./year.

41

S7 Results

S7.1 Product comparisons based on cradle-to-gate analysis

Table 14: Primary energy footprint (CEDfossil in MJ eq./kg finished product) (including both feedstock and energy-related CEDfossil per sub-process)

Product Bar soap Liquid soap Powder detergent

Liquid detergent

Detergent booster

WC care product

Bath cleaner

Kitchen cleaner

Window cleaner

Production stages and sub-processes [MJ eq./kg] [MJ eq./kg] [MJ eq./kg] [MJ eq./kg] [MJ eq./kg] [MJ eq./kg] [MJ

eq./kg] [MJ

eq./kg] [MJ eq./kg]

Process waste disposal 4.31E-04 7.73E-03

On-site heat production (gate-to-gate)

1.37E+00 1.01E+00 1.96E-01 1.05E+00 1.96E-01 1.57E-02 1.57E-02 1.57E-02

Electricity supply for finished product manufacturing

9.26E-01 2.14E-02 1.39E+00 1.39E-01 2.74E-01 1.39E-01 2.12E-01 2.12E-01 2.12E-01

Infrastructure (gate-to-gate) 1.61E+00 1.02E+00 9.15E-01 9.15E-01 9.15E-01 9.15E-01 9.15E-01 9.15E-01 9.15E-01

Packaging production and supply 1.02E+00 1.94E+01 1.23E+00 4.15E+00 1.46E+00 4.72E+01 1.03E+01 1.06E+01 1.06E+01

Raw chemical production and supply 6.03E+00 3.00E+01 2.71E+01 8.63E+00 1.75E+01 1.71E+01 1.98E+00 3.73E+00 4.62E+00

Total 1.10E+01 5.04E+01 3.16E+01 1.40E+01 2.12E+01 6.55E+01 1.34E+01 1.54E+01 1.64E+01

42

Table 15: Carbon footprint (GWP in kg CO2 eq./kg finished product)


Liquid detergent

Detergent booster

WC care product

Bath cleaner

Kitchen cleaner

Window cleaner

Production stages and sub-processes

[kg CO2-eq./kg]

[kg CO2-eq./kg]

[kg CO2-eq./kg]

[kg CO2-eq./kg]

[kg CO2-eq./kg]

[kg CO2-eq./kg]

[kg CO2-eq./kg]

[kg CO2-eq./kg]

[kg CO2-eq./kg]


On-site heat production (gate-to-gate)

8.65E-02 5.86E-02 1.17E-02 6.07E-02 1.17E-02 9.38E-04 9.38E-04 9.38E-04


7.62E-02 1.76E-03 1.14E-01 1.15E-02 2.25E-02 1.15E-02 1.74E-02 1.74E-02 1.74E-02

Infrastructure (gate-to-gate) 1.26E-01 7.97E-02 7.17E-02 7.17E-02 7.17E-02 7.17E-02 7.17E-02 7.17E-02 7.17E-02

Packaging production and supply

6.31E-02 7.69E-01 4.61E-02 1.38E-01 9.54E-02 1.64E+00 3.87E-01 3.97E-01 4.00E-01

Raw chemical production and supply

6.26E-01 1.00E+00 1.41E+00 4.27E-01 9.79E-01 8.27E-01 1.45E-01 1.49E-01 1.56E-01

Total 9.78E-01 1.85E+00 1.70E+00 6.60E-01 1.23E+00 2.56E+00 6.22E-01 6.36E-01 6.46E-01

43

Table 16: Environmental footprint (EI99 scores in EI99 points/kg finished product) differentiated by production stages and sub-processes


Liquid detergent

Detergent booster

WC care product

Bath cleaner

Kitchen cleaner

Window cleaner

Production stages and sub-processes

[EI99 points/kg]

[EI99 points/kg]

[EI99 points/kg]

[EI99 points/kg]

[EI99 points/kg]

[EI99 points/kg]

[EI99 points/kg]

[EI99 points/kg]

[EI99 points/kg]


On-site heat production (gate-to-gate) 5.65E-03 3.72E-03 7.97E-04 3.86E-03 7.97E-04 6.37E-05 6.37E-05 6.37E-05


3.00E-03 6.93E-05 4.51E-03 4.52E-04 8.88E-04 4.52E-04 6.87E-04 6.87E-04 6.87E-04

Infrastructure (gate-to-gate) 1.29E-02 8.15E-03 7.32E-03 7.32E-03 7.32E-03 7.32E-03 7.32E-03 7.32E-03 7.32E-03

Packaging production and supply 6.89E-03 8.04E-02 4.76E-03 1.56E-02 1.21E-02 1.86E-01 3.92E-02 4.01E-02 4.05E-02

Raw chemical production and supply 4.60E-01 1.49E-01 1.63E-01 9.72E-02 7.93E-02 2.67E-01 2.86E-02 1.98E-02 1.99E-02

Total 4.89E-01 2.38E-01 1.84E-01 1.21E-01 1.04E-01 4.61E-01 7.59E-02 6.80E-02 6.85E-02

44

Table 17: Environmental footprint (EI99 scores in EI99 points/kg finished product) differentiated by environmental impact categories


Liquid detergent

Detergent booster

WC care product

Bath cleaner

Kitchen cleaner

Window cleaner

Impact categories [EI99 points/kg]

[EI99 points/kg]

[EI99 points/kg]

[EI99 points/kg]

[EI99 points/kg]

[EI99 points/kg]

[EI99 points/kg]

[EI99 points/kg]

[EI99 points/kg]

Fossil fuels 2.51E-02 1.50E-01 8.39E-02 4.00E-02 5.34E-02 1.91E-01 3.69E-02 4.36E-02 4.68E-02

Minerals 2.84E-03 2.48E-03 6.62E-03 1.64E-03 2.70E-03 3.44E-03 1.67E-03 1.61E-03 1.53E-03

Land use 3.72E-01 2.57E-02 3.14E-02 5.12E-02 1.11E-02 1.99E-01 1.82E-02 5.10E-03 3.61E-03

Acidification/ Eutrophication 3.62E-03 2.70E-03 2.57E-03 1.27E-03 1.85E-03 2.96E-03 8.36E-04 7.24E-04 7.01E-04

Ecotoxicity 4.01E-03 6.69E-03 4.59E-03 2.10E-03 3.70E-03 6.41E-03 2.43E-03 2.38E-03 2.20E-03

Ozone layer 1.84E-06 5.46E-06 3.38E-06 9.58E-07 2.49E-06 6.99E-06 9.01E-07 8.96E-07 1.13E-06

Radiation 2.01E-04 1.52E-04 2.51E-04 6.29E-05 1.74E-04 2.53E-04 6.68E-05 6.50E-05 6.50E-05

Climate change 8.60E-03 1.03E-02 9.74E-03 4.14E-03 6.72E-03 1.39E-02 3.43E-03 3.46E-03 3.49E-03

Respiratory inorganics 6.79E-02 3.72E-02 3.76E-02 1.91E-02 2.13E-02 3.80E-02 1.03E-02 9.47E-03 9.07E-03

Respiratory organics 1.32E-04 8.31E-05 5.81E-05 5.45E-05 2.97E-05 1.24E-04 2.36E-05 2.54E-05 2.65E-05

Carcinogens 4.49E-03 2.54E-03 6.91E-03 1.82E-03 2.70E-03 6.02E-03 2.01E-03 1.56E-03 1.06E-03

Total 4.89E-01 2.38E-01 1.84E-01 1.21E-01 1.04E-01 4.61E-01 7.59E-02 6.80E-02 6.85E-02

45

Figure 2: Fossil cumulative energy demand (CEDfossil) per 1 kg of finished product for the nine consumer products under study

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

Bar soa

p

Liquid

Soap

Powder d

eterge

nt

Liquid

deterge

nt

Deterge

nt bo

oster

WC care

produ

ct

Bath cle

aner

Kitche

n clea

ner

Window

clean

er

CED

foss

il [M

J eq

./kg

finis

hed

prod

uct]

Process waste disposal


Electricity supply forfinished productmanufacturing

Infrastructure (gate-to-gate)

Packaging productionand supply

Raw chemical productionand supply

46

Figure 3: Environmental footprint (EI99 scores in EI99 points/kg finished product) for the nine consumer products under study

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Bar so

ap

Liquid

Soap

Powde

r deter

gent

Liquid

deter

gent

Deterge

nt boos

ter

WC care

produ

ct

Bath cl

eaner

Kitche

n clea

ner

Window

clea

ner

EI99

sco

re [E

I99

poin

ts/k

g fin

ishe

d pr

oduc

t]

Process waste disposal


Electricity supply for finished productmanufacturing

Infrastructure (gate-to-gate)

Packaging production and supply

Raw chemical production andsupply

47

S7.2 Product life-cycle comparisons based on cradle-to-grave analysis Table 18: Primary energy footprint per functional unit for base case (CEDfossil in MJ eq./FU)


Liquid detergent

Detergent booster

WC care product

Bath cleaner

Kitchen cleaner

Window cleaner

Life-cycle stages and sub-processes [MJ eq./FU] [MJ eq./FU] [MJ eq./FU] [MJ eq./FU] [MJ eq./FU] [MJ

eq./FU] [MJ

eq./FU] [MJ

eq./FU] [MJ

eq./FU]

Energy recovery (electricity & heat)

-2.50E-04 -1.05E-02 -2.73E-02 -1.63E-01 -8.02E-02 -1.64E-03 -9.97E-03 -1.02E-02 -2.88E-02

Packaging incineration 3.34E-06 2.03E-04 4.83E-04 2.07E-03 4.45E-03 4.97E-05 3.25E-04 3.33E-04 3.37E-04

Wastewater treatment 2.75E-03 2.81E-03 1.66E-01 1.56E-01 1.68E-01 1.59E-02 1.58E-03 1.75E-03 7.61E-04

Warm water supply / auxiliaries 1.37E-01 9.75E-02 4.01E+00 4.01E+00 4.01E+00 9.75E-03 1) 8.91E-02 8.91E-02 5.35E-02 2)

Home transport 1.39E-03 9.12E-03 1.65E-01 2.96E-01 2.75E-01 1.23E-02 1.25E-01 1.25E-01 1.25E-01

Storage 1.10E-03 9.59E-03 2.14E-01 4.18E-01 3.63E-01 8.71E-04 1.76E-02 1.76E-02 1.76E-02

Transport 4.25E-04 3.84E-03 8.09E-02 1.62E-01 1.40E-01 3.32E-04 6.84E-03 6.87E-03 6.90E-03

Finished product manufacturing 1.38E-03 2.32E-03 2.14E-01 1.53E-01 2.76E-01 2.10E-04 4.95E-03 5.69E-03 5.29E-03

Packaging supply 3.45E-04 4.52E-02 8.55E-02 5.09E-01 1.49E-01 7.55E-03 4.76E-02 4.84E-02 4.91E-02

Raw chemical supply 2.11E-03 6.84E-02 1.84E+00 1.03E+00 2.19E+00 2.73E-03 9.28E-03 1.71E-02 2.11E-02

Total 1.47E-01 2.29E-01 6.74E+00 6.57E+00 7.49E+00 4.81E-02 2.92E-01 3.02E-01 2.51E-01

1) Only cold tap water; 2) No water is used, only household paper

48

Table 19: Carbon footprint per functional unit for base case (GWP in kg CO2 eq./FU)


Liquid detergent

Detergent booster

WC care product

Bath cleaner

Kitchen cleaner

Window cleaner

Life-cycle stages and sub-processes

[kg CO2-eq./FU]

[kg CO2-eq./FU]

[kg CO2-eq./FU]

[kg CO2-eq./FU]

[kg CO2-eq./FU]

[kg CO2-eq./FU]

[kg CO2-eq./FU]

[kg CO2-eq./FU]

[kg CO2-eq./FU]

Energy recovery (electricity & heat) -1.84E-05 -7.73E-04 -2.02E-03 -1.21E-02 -5.91E-03 -1.21E-04 -7.36E-04 -7.52E-04 -2.12E-03



Warm water supply / auxiliaries 9.60E-03 6.81E-03 3.31E-01 3.31E-01 3.31E-01 9.70E-04 1) 6.23E-03 6.23E-03 3.96E-03 2)




Finished product manufacturing 1.01E-04 1.87E-04 1.65E-02 1.15E-02 1.98E-02 1.52E-05 4.20E-04 4.20E-04 4.20E-04


Raw chemical supply 2.19E-04 2.31E-03 9.50E-02 5.17E-02 1.19E-01 1.32E-04 6.75E-04 6.97E-04 7.27E-04

Total 1.10E-02 1.51E-02 5.35E-01 5.41E-01 6.77E-01 4.31E-03 2.05E-02 2.06E-02 1.67E-02


49

Table 20: Environmental footprint per functional unit for base case (EI99 scores in EI99 points/FU) differentiated by life cycle stages and sub-processes


Liquid detergent

Detergent booster

WC care product

Bath cleaner

Kitchen cleaner

Window cleaner

Life cycle stages and sub-processes

[EI99 points/FU]

[EI99 points/FU]

[EI99 points/FU]

[EI99 points/FU]

[EI99 points/FU]

[EI99 points/FU]

[EI99 points/FU]

[EI99 points/FU]

[EI99 points/FU]

Energy recovery (electricity & heat) -9.41E-07 -3.95E-05 -1.03E-04 -6.15E-04 -3.02E-04 -6.17E-06 -3.75E-05 -3.84E-05 -1.08E-04



Warm water supply / auxiliaries 5.64E-04 4.00E-04 1.41E-02 1.41E-02 1.41E-02 5.88E-05 1) 3.66E-04 3.66E-04 4.92E-04 2)




Finished product manufacturing

7.55E-06 1.89E-05 1.05E-03 1.04E-03 1.41E-03 1.37E-06 3.77E-05 3.77E-05 3.77E-05


Raw chemical supply 1.62E-04 3.44E-04 1.10E-02 1.17E-02 1.14E-02 4.26E-05 1.34E-04 9.24E-05 9.32E-05

Total 7.71E-04 1.05E-03 2.98E-02 3.34E-02 3.30E-02 3.16E-04 1.38E-03 1.34E-03 1.40E-03


50

Table 21: Environmental footprint per functional unit for base case (EI99 scores in EI99 points/FU) differentiated by environmental impact categories

Product Bar soap Liquid soap

Powder detergent

Liquid detergent

Detergent booster

WC care product

Bath cleaner

Kitchen cleaner

Window cleaner

Impact categories [EI99 points/FU]

[EI99 points/FU]

[EI99 points/FU]

[EI99 points/FU]

[EI99 points/FU]

[EI99 points/FU]

[EI99 points/FU]

[EI99 points/FU]

[EI99 points/FU]

Fossil fuels 4.55E-04 6.87E-04 1.24E-02 1.21E-02 1.40E-02 1.18E-04 8.56E-04 8.87E-04 7.10E-04

Minerals 5.98E-06 1.01E-05 8.37E-04 5.99E-04 8.28E-04 1.48E-05 1.66E-05 1.64E-05 1.52E-05

Land use 1.38E-04 6.63E-05 2.40E-03 6.50E-03 2.21E-03 4.31E-05 1.12E-04 5.11E-05 2.35E-04

Acidification/ Eutrophication 7.05E-06 1.24E-05 5.82E-04 5.92E-04 6.84E-04 4.50E-06 1.86E-05 1.87E-05 2.28E-05

Ecotoxicity 8.36E-06 2.62E-05 1.16E-03 1.14E-03 1.31E-03 1.92E-05 3.10E-05 3.08E-05 3.55E-05

Ozone layer 3.95E-08 4.25E-08 7.77E-07 6.71E-07 8.82E-07 7.96E-09 6.21E-08 6.21E-08 4.52E-08

Radiation 6.53E-07 1.16E-06 1.73E-04 1.70E-04 1.82E-04 1.40E-06 1.94E-06 1.97E-06 1.94E-06

Climate change 6.12E-05 8.30E-05 2.95E-03 3.01E-03 3.70E-03 2.36E-05 1.13E-04 1.13E-04 9.14E-05

Respiratory inorganics 8.73E-05 1.51E-04 7.95E-03 8.03E-03 8.61E-03 6.99E-05 2.02E-04 2.00E-04 2.58E-04

Respiratory organics 2.35E-07 3.61E-07 7.38E-06 1.08E-05 8.26E-06 1.07E-07 6.47E-07 6.56E-07 6.44E-07

Carcinogens 7.06E-06 1.36E-05 1.40E-03 1.21E-03 1.42E-03 2.17E-05 2.32E-05 2.12E-05 3.39E-05

Total 7.71E-04 1.05E-03 2.98E-02 3.34E-02 3.30E-02 3.16E-04 1.38E-03 1.34E-03 1.40E-03

51

Table 22: Shares of contributing processes to aquatic freshwater ecotoxicity per functional unit for base case (calculated with the USEtox model and the EI99 method; considering only waterborne emissions to freshwater environment)


Liquid detergent

Detergent booster

WC care product

Bath cleaner

Kitchen cleaner

Window cleaner

Share of process [%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]

Emission of product chemical components after wastewater treatment

0 1) 98.4 75.2 64.2 67.0 28.6 26.5 8.5 0 2)

All other processes in the product’s life cycle 100 1.6 24.8 35.8 33.0 71.4 73.5 91.5 100

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

1) No ecotoxic emissions from use of bar soap because it only contains natural oils. 2) No water is used, only household paper

52

Table 23: IMPACT 2002+ results per functional unit for base case (Impact 2002+ scores points/FU) differentiated by life cycle stages and sub-processes for selected products

Product Liquid soap Powder detergent Liquid detergent Bath cleaner

Life cycle stages and sub-processes

[Impact 2002+ points/FU]




Energy recovery (electricity & heat) -2.14E-07 -5.60E-07 -3.35E-06 -2.04E-07

Packaging incineration 1.76E-07 3.72E-07 2.37E-06 1.87E-07

Wastewater treatment 3.35E-07 1.65E-05 1.01E-05 8.34E-08

Warm water supply / auxiliaries

1.63E-06 1.08E-04 1.08E-04 1.48E-06

Home transport 1.82E-07 3.47E-06 6.21E-06 2.49E-06

Storage 2.47E-07 5.48E-06 1.07E-05 4.50E-07

Transport 8.12E-08 1.71E-06 3.42E-06 1.45E-07

Finished product manufacturing

6.58E-08 3.63E-06 2.54E-06 1.47E-07

Packaging supply 6.44E-07 1.11E-06 4.60E-06 7.15E-07

Raw chemical supply 1.20E-06 3.81E-05 2.88E-05 5.23E-07

Total 4.34E-06 1.78E-04 1.73E-04 6.02E-06

53

Table 24: IMPACT 2002+ results per functional unit for base case (Impact 2002+ scores points/FU) differentiated by environmental impact categories for selected products

Product Liquid soap Powder detergent Liquid detergent Bath cleaner

Impact categories [Impact 2002+ points/FU] [Impact 2002+ points/FU] [Impact 2002+ points/FU] [Impact 2002+ points/FU]

Carcinogens 2.37E-07 1.95E-06 2.36E-06 3.84E-07

Non-carcinogens 7.22E-08 3.09E-06 2.61E-06 1.05E-07

Respiratory inorganics 7.14E-07 3.83E-05 3.99E-05 9.55E-07

Ionizing radiation 6.53E-09 9.83E-07 9.66E-07 1.10E-08

Ozone layer depletion 2.13E-10 4.40E-09 3.94E-09 3.39E-10

Respiratory organics 1.88E-09 3.77E-08 5.58E-08 3.42E-09

Aquatic ecotoxicity 1.38E-08 1.52E-06 9.57E-07 1.47E-08

Terrestrial ecotoxicity 1.04E-07 1.21E-05 5.54E-06 2.42E-07

Terrestrial acid/nutri 1.13E-08 5.43E-07 5.53E-07 1.74E-08

Land occupation 1.52E-08 3.11E-07 1.82E-06 7.02E-08

Aquatic acidification - - - -

Aquatic eutrophication - - - -

Global warming 1.48E-06 5.27E-05 5.36E-05 2.03E-06

Non-renewable energy 1.68E-06 6.61E-05 6.49E-05 2.18E-06

Mineral extraction 1.22E-09 1.23E-07 5.66E-08 1.99E-09

Total 4.34E-06 1.78E-04 1.73E-04 6.02E-06

54

Table 25: Sensitivity analysis of home transport distances for selected products; results per functional unit for primary energy footprint (CEDfossil in MJ eq./FU) and carbon footprint (GWP in kg CO2 eq./FU)

Product Bar soap Liquid soap Bath cleaner Kitchen cleaner Window cleaner

Environmental indicator

Life-cycle GWP for base case (home transport: 6 km) [kg CO2 eq./FU]

1.10E-02 1.51E-02 2.05E-02 2.06E-02 1.67E-02

GWP of home transport only [kg CO2 eq./FU]

6 km (base case) 9.31E-05 6.13E-04 8.40E-03 8.40E-03 8.40E-03

10 km 1.50E-04 9.88E-04 1.35E-02 1.35E-02 1.35E-02

15 km 2.25E-04 1.48E-03 2.04E-02 2.04E-02 2.04E-02

Life-cycle CEDfossil for base case (home transport: 6 km) [MJ eq./FU]

1.46E-01 2.29E-01 2.92E-01 3.02E-01 2.51E-01

CEDfossil of home transport only [MJ eq./FU]

6 km (base case) 1.39E-03 9.12E-03 1.25E-01 1.25E-01 1.25E-01

10 km 2.23E-03 1.47E-02 2.02E-01 2.02E-01 2.02E-01

15 km 3.35E-03 2.20E-02 3.03E-01 3.03E-01 3.03E-01

55

S7.3 Scenario analysis of consumer behavior and waste-management options

Figure 4: Detailed results of scenario analysis for the application of liquid soap expressed as GWP (in kg CO2 equ./FU); (1) base case, (2) overdosage, (3) excessive water use, (4) decreased water temperature, (5) refill packages, (6) -, (7) electric boiler for warm water supply, (8) home transport by bike, (9) Plastic recycling of plastic packaging

-2.00E-03

0.00E+00

2.00E-03

4.00E-03

6.00E-03

8.00E-03

1.00E-02

1.20E-02

1.40E-02

1.60E-02

1.80E-02

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Production Sales and distribution Consumer use End of life End-of-life energy recovery

Car

bon

foot

prin

t GW

P [C

O2-

eq/F

U]

Raw chemical supply Packaging material supply Transport Storage Home transportWarm water supply Wastewater treatment Packaging end-of-life Electricity recovery Heat recovery

56

S7.4 Relevance analysis of freshwater consumption related environmental impacts

Table 26: Relevance of freshwater consumption related environmental impacts for the products powder detergent, liquid soap and window cleaner, calculated for the entire life cycle

EI99 scores [EI99 points/FU] Total Human Health Ecosystem Quality Resources

Powder detergent

Base case 3.0E-02 1.2E-02 4.1E-03 1.3E-02

Water-consumption related impacts 1.2E-03 0.0E+00 4.9E-04 7.0E-04

Total EI 99 score incl. water consumption 3.1E-02 1.2E-02 4.6E-03 1.4E-02

Share of water-consumption related impacts 3.8% 0.0% 10.5% 5.1%

Increase in EI99 score by inclusion of water consumption 4.0% 0.0% 11.8% 5.3%

Liquid soap

Base case 1.1E-03 2.5E-04 1.0E-04 7.0E-04





57

Window cleaner

Base case 1.4E-03 3.9E-04 2.9E-04 7.3E-04





Table 27: Contribution of life-cycle phases to freshwater-consumption related environmental impacts [% of EI99 scorce]

Contribution to freshwater-consumption related EI99 score [%] Life-cycle phase

Production Consumer-use Sales & distribution and end-of-life phases

Powder detergent 12 74 14

Liquid soap 39 56 5

Window detergent 19 65 16

58

S8 Literature Cited

(1) Swiss Center for Life-Cycle Inventories. ecoinvent database; Dübendorf, Switzerland, 2008; www.ecoinvent.org (2) Frischknecht, R.; Jungbluth, N. Working paper: qualitiy guidelines ecoinvent 2000 (in German: Arbeitspapier: Qualitätsrichtlinien ecoinvent 2000); Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, ecoinvent Center: Duebendorf, Switzerland, 2002. (3) Althaus, H.-J.; Chudacoff, M.; Hischier, R.; Jungbluth, N.; Primas, A.; Osses, M. Life cycle inventories of chemicals; Final ecoinvent report v2.0 No. 8, Swiss Center for Life Cycle Inventories, ecoinvent Center: Dübendorf, Switzerland, 2007. (4) Frischknecht, R.; Jungbluth, N.; Althaus, H.-J.; Doka, G.; Dones, R.; Hellweg, S.; Heck, T.; Hischier, R.; Nemecek, T.; Rebitzer, G.; Spielmann, M. Overview and Methodology; Final ecoinvent report 2000 No. 1; Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, ecoinvent Center: Duebendorf, Switzerland, 2007. (5) Hirsinger, F.; Schick, K.-P. A life-cycle inventory for the production of alkyl polyglucosides in Europe. Tenside, surfactants, detergents. 1995, 32 (2), 193-200. (6) CarbotechAG. Ecological comparison: Oneway - reusable cups (in German: Ökologischer Vergleich: Einweg – Mehrwegbecher); No. 286.58, Basel, Switzerland, 2004. (7) Maruzen Petrochemical CO. LDT. Certified Environmental Product Declaration - Ethylene glycol mono tertiary butyl ether, 2003. (8) Gendorf. Environmental declaration 2000 (in German: Umwelterklärung 2000); Werk Gendorf; Burgkirchen, Germany, 2000. (9) EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency. Estimation Programs Interface (EPI) Suite v3.20, 2007. (10) Koehler, A. Environmental assessment of industrial wastewater treatment processes and waterborne organic contaminant emissions. Ph.D. thesis. ETH Zurich, Department of Chemical and Bioengineering, 2006. (11) Kosswig, K. Surfactants. In Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, Germany. 2000. (12) Maisonneuve, B. Amine Oxides. In Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology; John Wiley and Sons. 2003. (13) IIC Imperial Industrial Chemicals Thailand. Technical information, ethylene glycol distearate. Available at: http://www.iic.co.th/products/EGDS.asp?from=ETHYLENE++GLYCOL+++DISTEARATE. (14) DOW Chemicals. UCAR emulsion systems products, CELLOSIZE Hydroxyethyl Cellulose. Available at: http://www.dow.com/ucarlatex/prod/cello.htm. (15) Feller, R. L.; Wilt, M. Evaluation of Cellulose Ethers for Conservation. Research in Conversation. Getty Conservation Institute: US, 1990. (16) Thielking, H.; Schmidt, M. Cellulose Ethers. In Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry; Wiley-VCH Verlag. 2006.

59

(17) Dall'Acqua, S.; Fawer, M.; Fritschi, R.; Allenspach, C. Life cycle inventories for the production of detergent ingredients; EMPA report No. 244, EMPA: St. Gallen, Switzerland, 1999. (18) Faist, M.; Heck, T.; N., J. Natural gas. In: Life cycle inventory analysis of energy systems: Basics for the ecological comparison of energy systems and the inclusion of energy systems in life cycle assessment in Switzerland. (in German: Erdgas. In: Sachbilanzen von Energiesystemen: Grundlagen für den ökologischen Vergleich von Energiesystemen und den Einbezug von Energiesystemen in Ökobilanzen für die Schweiz); Final ecoinvent report v2.0; Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, ecoinvent Center: Duebendorf, Switzerland, 2006. (19) Jungbluth, N. Petroleum In: Life cycle inventory analysis of energy systems: Basics for the ecological comparison of energy systems and the inclusion of energy systems in life cycle assessment in Switzerland. (in German: Erdöl. In: Sachbilanzen von Energiesystemen: Grundlagen für den ökologischen Vergleich von Energiesystemen und den Einbezug von Energiesystemen in Ökobilanzen für die Schweiz; Final report ecoinvent v2.0 No. 6; Dones, R. Ed.; Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. ecoinvent Center: Duebendorf, Switzerland, 2007. (20) Roeder, A.; Bauer, C.; Dones, R. Coal In: Life cycle inventory analysis of energy systems: Basics for the ecological comparison of energy systems and the inclusion of energy systems in life cycle assessment in Switzerland. (in German: Kohle In: Sachbilanzen von Energiesystemen: Grundlagen für den ökologischen Vergleich von Energiesystemen und den Einbezug von Energiesystemen in Ökobilanzen für die Schweiz); Final report ecoinvent v2.0 No. 6, Dones, R. Ed.; Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, ecoinvent Center: Dübendorf, Switzerland, 2007. (21) Chahal, S. P.; Starr, J. N. Lactic acid. In Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry; Wiley-VCH. 2006. (22) DOW Chemicals. DOWANOL PnB (propylene glycol n-butyl ether) Physical properties. Available at: http://www.dow.com/PublishedLiterature/dh_0077/0901b80380077452.pdf?filepath=oxysolvents/pdfs/noreg/110-00616.pdf&fromPage=GetDoc. (23) Henkel KGaA. Industry data; Duesseldorf, Germany, 2008. (24) Dial Corporation. Industry data; Scottsdale, AZ, 2008. (25) Meylan, G. Life Cycle Assessment of Online and Conventional Shopping - A Case Study of Retailing in the Zurich Region. Master thesis. Institute of Environmental Engineering, ETH, 2007. (26) Demou, E. Laboratory experiments with cleaning agents. ETH Zurich, Institute of Environmental Engineering, 2008. (27) Swiss Federal Statistical Office. Mobility behabior in Switzerland (Mobilität in der Schweiz, Ergebnisse des Mikrozensus 2005 zum Verkehrsverhalten); Neuchâtel, Switzerland, 2007. (28) WSP Development and Transportation. Winchester Local Development, Framework Transport Assessment; Winchester City Council: Winchester, 2007. (29) Doka, G. Life-cycle inventories of wastewater-treatment services; ecoinvent report No.13-IV, Swiss Centre for Life-Cycle Inventories, ecoinvent Center: Dübendorf, Switzerland, 2003.

60

(30) Gujer, W. Urban water management (in German: Siedlungswasserwirtschaft). Springer Verlag: Heidelberg, Germany, 2007. (31) Baker, J. R.; Milke, M. W.; Mihelcic, J. R. Relationship between chemical and theoretical oxygen demand for specific classes of organic chemicals. Water Research 1999, 33 (2), 327-334. (32) Doka, G. Life-cycle inventories of waste treatment services; ecoinvent report No. 13-I, Swiss Centre for Life-Cycle Inventories, ecoinvent Center: Dübendorf, Switzerland, 2007. (33) Frischknecht, R.; Jungbluth, N. Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods; econinvent report v1.1; Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, ecoinvent Center: Dübendorf, Switzerland, 2004. (34) Doka, G. Life-cycle inventories of waste treatment services. Part III: Landfills - Underground Deposits - Landfarming; ecoinvent report No.13-III, Swiss Centre for Life-Cycle Inventories, ecoinvent Center: Dübendorf, Switzerland, 2007. (35) Heyde, M.; Kremer, M. Recycling and recovery of plastics form packagings in domestic waste: LCA-Tipe analysis of different strategies. LCA Documents, Vol. 5. ecomed publishers: Landsberg, Germany, 1999. (36) Rosenbaum, R. K.; Bachmann, T. M.; Gold, L. S.; Huijbregts, M. A. J.; Jolliet, O.; Juraske, R.; Koehler, A.; Larsen, H. F.; MacLeod, M.; Margni, M.; McKone, T. E.; Payet, J.; Schuhmacher, M.; van de Meent, D.; Hauschild, M. Z. USEtox - the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2008, 13 (7), 532-546. (37) Human & Environmental Risk Assessment on ingredients of household cleaning products (HERA). Human & environmental risk assessment on ingredients of European household cleaning products: Brussels, Belgium, 2002-2008. (38) Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2008. (39) RÖMPP Encyclopedia. Natural Products, Steglich, W., Fugmann, B., and Lang-Fugmann, S. Ed. Thieme Stuttgart, 2000. (40) Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, 2004. (41) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Estimation Programs Interface (EPI) Suite v3.20; EPA: 2007. (42) Jolliet, O.; Margni, M.; Charles, R.; Humbert, S.; Payet, J.; Rebitzer, G.; Rosenbaum, R. IMPACT 2002+: A new life cycle impact assessment methodology International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2003, 8 (6), 324-330. (43) Human & Environmental Risk Assessment on ingredients of household cleaning products (HERA). Tetraacetylethylenediamine (TAED): Brussels, Belgium, 2002. (44) Pfister, S.; Koehler, A.; Hellweg, S. Assessing the environmental impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA. Environmental Science & Technology. 2009, 43 (11), 4098–4104. (45) Shiklomanov, A. I. World water resources at the beginning of the 21st century in International Hydrological Programme; State Hydrological Institute (SHI) Ed.; UNESCO: St. Petersburg, 1999. (46) Forum Waschen. National action day for sustainable washing - energy consumption of washing mashines. (in German: Bundesweiter Aktionstag Nachhaltiges Waschen -

61

Energieverbrauch von Waschmaschinen). Forum Waschen: Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 2008. (47) Geberit AG. Life cycle assessment - Geberit Duofix toilet element (in German: Ökobilanz - Geberit Duofix WC Element); Geberit AG: Jona, Switzerland, 2005. (48) Statista GmbH. How often do you use bath and toilet cleaners in your household? (in German: Wie häufig wird in Ihrem Haushalt Bad- oder WC-Reiniger verwendet?). Available at: http://de.statista.org/. (49) Statista GmbH. How often do you use window cleaners in your household? (in German: Wie häufig wird in Ihrem Haushalt Fensterreiniger verwendet?). Available at: http://de.statista.org/. (50) Tukker, A.; Huppes, G.; Guinée, J.; Heijungs, R.; de Koning, A.; van Oers, L.; Suh, S.; Geerken, T.; Van Holderbeke, M.; Jansen, B.; Nielsen, P. Environmental Impact of Products (EIPRO). Analysis of the life cycle environmental impact related to the total final consumption of EU25; Institute for prospective technological studies. European Science and Techonology Observatory (ESTO): 2005.

Comparing the Environmental Footprints of Home … liquid detergent is a turbid, colored fluid...

Documents

Transcript of Comparing the Environmental Footprints of Home … liquid detergent is a turbid, colored fluid...