LCA_laundry_compaction_Turkey2008

Document Sample
LCA_laundry_compaction_Turkey2008 Powered By Docstoc
					 Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of compacted with non-
compacted heavy duty low suds powder detergent formulations
                        in Turkey




                              Study prepared by:
     Association for Soaps, Detergents and Maintenance Products, (A.I.S.E),
             Soap & Detergent Manufacturers Association (SDSD)




                                  August 2008




                                                                          1/26
Executive Summary
The Laundry Sustainability Project organised by the International Association for Soaps, Detergents and
Maintenance Products, A.I.S.E, currently being implemented by Soap & Detergent Manufacturers Association
(SDSD) Turkey, requires from joining companies to reduce the amount of detergent used per wash by min 33%
(by weight) and 25% (by volume). The focus is on heavy duty low suds powder detergents as other forms of
detergents are rare.

The potential environmental impacts of this industry-wide effort are evaluated by means of a Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA). LCA is a compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs and the potential environmental
impacts of a product system throughout its entire Life Cycle and has been standardised by the International
Standard Organisation (ISO) in the standards ISO 14040-43.

This life cycle assessment evaluates the life cycle of laundry detergent products in Turkey. The study evaluates
the compaction of both a phosphate and nil phosphate detergent.

The goal of this LCA on laundry detergent products is:
 To quantify the environmental impacts per wash of a laundry detergent compaction
 To quantify in parallel the environmental impacts per wash of laundry detergent compaction related to
    detergent formulation and production, packaging and distribution stage, while excluding the use stage
    which is not affected by the compaction.

The life cycle is evaluated by means of a set of 9 environmental indicators.

One key limitation is that the laundry detergent compaction study evaluates the life cycle of a “frame
formulation” compacted and non-compacted laundry detergent product, i.e. not including the auxiliary
ingredients which are considered to be brand and company specific. The functional unit (FU) within the LCA is
defined as 1 average home laundry wash in Turkey.

Looking at the entire life cycle, the results indicate that compaction leads to significant (i.e. >5%) benefits1 for
all environmental indicators with exception of eutrophication. However, there are no environmental downsides
on any of the indicators.

                Compaction of phosphate detergent                                         Compaction of nil phosphate detergent
                               All life cycle stages included                                              All life cycle stages included

                                             Energy                                                                      Energy
                                            100                                                                         100
                 Photochem smog              80             Solid waste                         Photochem smog           80              Solid waste
                                             60                                                                          60
                                             40                                                                          40
             Ozone depletion                 20                    Acidification         Ozone depletion                 20                      Acidification
                                              0                                                                           0



               Climate change                                   Aq toxicity                   Climate change                                   Aq toxicity


                           Hum Toxicity                Eutrophication                                    Hum Toxicity              Eutrophication



                               Regular P formula   Compact P formula                                           Regular nil P   Compact nil P




Figure 1: Environmental benefits of compaction in Turkey over the entire life cycle

Herein, the contribution of the use phase is dominating most environmental indicators. As water and energy
consumption during the use phase cannot be altered by compaction efforts (i.e. consumers maintain their current
washing program), the changes taking into account all life cycle stages but the use phase will show the change that the
compaction brings to the life cycle stages it can affect. Therefore, when looking at the savings excluding the use phase
(as the use phase is not affected by compaction), the results display a more beneficial picture with savings ranging



1
    as the product ingredients, packaging materials and LCI datasets used are the same and the dominating use stage remains unaffected by
compaction, differences larger than 5% in the overall life cycle can be seen as significant




                                                                                                                                               2/26
from 11 to 44% (with exception of eutrophication). Clearly, this does not change the magnitude of the absolute
amount of savings but puts the savings into another context.

               Compaction of phosphate detergent                                    Compaction of nil phosphate detergent
                              Excluding the Use stage                                                   Excluding the Use stage

                                         Energy                                                                    Energy
                                        100                                                                       100
               Photochem smog            80            Solid waste                       Photochem smog            80              Solid waste
                                         60                                                                        60
                                         40                                                                        40
           Ozone depletion               20                   Acidification          Ozone depletion               20                      Acidification
                                          0                                                                         0



             Climate change                                Aq toxicity                 Climate change                                    Aq toxicity


                         Hum Toxicity             Eutrophication                                   Hum Toxicity              Eutrophication



                                 Regular P    Compact P                                                  Regular nil P   Compact nil P




Figure 2: Environmental benefits of compaction in Turkey over the entire life cycle excluding the use stage

Overall, this comparative LCA study can confirm that the compaction of low suds laundry powder detergents in
Turkey can lead to significant environmental benefits related to all relevant environmental indicators.
The study has indicated that per laundry wash savings can be made of 1.0 MJ primary energy consumption which is
the equivalent of one incandescent light bulb of 75 watts used during 1 hour, and reduced CO2 emissions of 69g/wash
which equals 0.4 km driving with an average passenger car.




                                                                                                                               3/26
Table of Content
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 2
1. Goal and Scope .................................................................................................................................................. 6
   1.1.      Goal........................................................................................................................................ 6
   1.2.      Scope ...................................................................................................................................... 6
   1.2.1.    Functional Unit ........................................................................................................................ 6
   1.2.2.    Product Description & Reference Flows ..................................................................................... 6
   1.2.3.    System Boundaries ................................................................................................................... 8
   1.2.4.    Coverage of the environmental indicators ................................................................................... 9
   1.2.5.    Geographical, temporal and technological coverage .................................................................... 9
   1.2.6.    Limitations of the study ............................................................................................................ 9
   1.2.7.    Calculation Software .............................................................................................................. 10
2. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) ............................................................................................................................. 10
   2.1.      Data sources and assumptions .............................................................................................. 11
      2.1.1.    Packaging material production ............................................................................................ 11
      2.1.2.    Chemical ingredient manufacturing ..................................................................................... 11
      2.1.3.    Distribution ....................................................................................................................... 11
      2.1.4.    Use phase .......................................................................................................................... 11
      2.1.5.    End-of-Life phase .............................................................................................................. 12
      2.1.6.    Electricity production ......................................................................................................... 12
   2.2.Environmental indicator results based on the LCI ........................................................................ 12
3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) .......................................................................................................... 14
   3.1.      LCIA methods ...................................................................................................................... 14
   3.2.      LCIA results ………………………………………………………………………………………..15
4. Interpretation ................................................................................................................................................ 156
   4.1.      The environmental benefits over the entire life cycle ............................................................. 16
   4.2.      Contributions per life cycle stage ……………………………………………………………..17
   4.3.      The life cycle stages, comparison for compact an non-compacted products ........................... 19
   4.3.1.    The environmental changes as a result from the product formulation step .................................... 19
   4.3.2. The environmental changes as a result from the product manufacturing step ................................ 20
   4.3.3.    The environmental changes as a result from the packaging step .................................................. 21
   4.3.4.    The environmental changes as a result from the product distribution step .................................... 22
   4.3.5.    The environmental changes as a result from the product usage step ............................................ 22
   4.3.6.    The environmental changes as a result from the waste water treatment step ................................. 23
   4.4.      Alternative scenarios ............................................................................................................ 23
   4.4.1.    The environmental changes as a result from the life cycle excluding the use stage ....................... 23
   4.4.2.    The impact of auxiliary ingredients .......................................................................................... 24
   4.5. Environmental changes In Turkey (entire life cycle) ........................................................................ 24
5. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................................... 25
References: .......................................................................................................................................................... 26


List of tables:
Table 1: Product comparison & reference flows ........................................................................................... 7
Table 2: Description of the unit processes excluded from the system boundaries ............................................. 8
Table 3: Choice of the environmental indicators ........................................................................................... 9
Table 4: Wash temperature distribution (%) Turkey .................................................................................... 11
Table 5: Washing Machine Power Consumption (kWh per wash) ................................................................ 12
Table 6: Connection to waste water treatment for Turkey ............................................................................ 12
Table 7: Electricity Grid for Turkey, IEA, 2006 ......................................................................................... 12
Table 8: LCI indicators for compacted Turkish phosphate based detergent ................................................... 13
Table 9: LCI indicators for non-compacted Turkish phosphate based detergent ............................................. 13
Table 10: LCI indicators for compacted Turkish nil phosphate based detergent …………………………..13
Table 11: LCI indicators for non-compacted Turkish nil phosphate based detergent ……………………..13
Table 12: LCIA indicators for compacted Turkish phosphate based laundry detergent ................................... 15
Table 13: LCIA indicators for non-compacted Turkish phosphate based laundry detergent ............................ 15
Table 14: LCIA indicators for compacted Turkish nil phosphate based laundry detergent……………….. 15
Table 15: LCIA indicators for non-compacted Turkish nil phosphate based laundry detergent…………. 15
Table 16: Environmental difference per wash for using phosphate based detergents in Turkey ....................... 24


                                                                                                                                                    4/26
Table 17: Environmental difference per wash for using nil phosphate based detergents in Turkey ……..25

List of Figures:
Figure 1: Environmental benefits of compaction in Turkey over the entire life cycle ....................................... 2
Figure 2: Environmental benefits of compaction in Turkey over the entire life cycle excluding the use phase .... 3
Figure 3: Example: mass of auxiliaries = not affected by compaction ............................................................. 7
Figure 4: Example: Difference in results = not affected by auxiliaries ............................................................ 7
Figure 5: Environmental benefits of compaction in Turkey over the entire life cycle (P formula) .................... 16
Figure 6: Contributions per life cycle stage for non-compacted phosphate detergent in Turkey (Product includes
      all stages prior to use) ....................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 7: Contributions per life cycle stage for compacted phosphate detergent in Turkey (Product includes all
      stages prior to use) ............................................................................................................................ 17
Figure 8: Contributions per life cycle stage for non-compacted nil phosphate detergent in Turkey (Product
includes all stages prior to use)………………………………………………………………………………...18
Figure 9: Contributions per life cycle stage for compacted nil phosphate detergent in Turkey (Product includes
all stages prior to use) ………………………………………………………………………………..18
Figure 10: Environmental Benefits from the product formulation stage in Turkey ......................................... 20
Figure 11: Environmental benefits from product manufacturing stage in Turkey ........................................... 21
Figure 12: Environmental benefits from packaging stage in Turkey ............................................................. 21
Figure 13: Environmental benefits from the distribution stage in Turkey ...................................................... 22
Figure 14: Environmental benefits from waste water treatment stage in Turkey............................................. 23
Figure 15: Environmental indicators for Turkey excluding the use stage ....................................................... 23
Figure 16: Compaction of full laundry detergent product in the UK (2001) ................................................... 24




                                                                                                                                       5/26
1. Goal and Scope

     1.1.     Goal
The Laundry Sustainability Project of the International Association for Soaps, Detergents and Maintenance
Products (A.I.S.E.), being implemented by Soap & Detergents Manufacturers Association (SDSD) Turkey,
requires from joining companies to reduce the amount of detergent used per wash by min. 33% (by weight) and
25% (by volume). In the context of this LCA, this is referred to as “compaction” as this seems to be the term
which also will be best understood by non-technical external stakeholders. However, technically speaking, the
reduction probably could more accurately be described as “concentration”.
The goal of this screening Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is:
To quantify the environmental impacts of compaction of heavy duty low
suds laundry detergents in Turkey.
More specifically, to quantify the environmental benefits of laundry
detergent compaction related to detergent formulation and production,
packaging and distribution stage (as the use stage itself is not affected by
the compaction efforts).

     1.2.     Scope
In the LCA, the environmental impacts of an industry-wide compaction
effort have been evaluated for SDSD. The focus was on heavy duty low suds powder, including both phosphate
and non phosphate detergent formulations.

          1.2.1.        Functional Unit
The Functional Unit (FU) has been defined as 1 average home laundry wash.
Considering the focus of the study on frame formula ingredients (see study limitations 1.2.6), the key aspects of
compaction are regarded as a result from increasing carbonate and decreasing sulphate levels. Seen the limited
impact on the cleaning performance from these product ingredients, the provided laundry care performance from
the compacted detergent products is expected to be unchanged. Experience from earlier compaction in Europe
within the detergent industry according to the AISE code of good environmental practice has demonstrated that
the performance of compacted detergents is as much appreciated by consumers as the performance of non
compacted versions. Experience also has shown that the compaction does not directly impact on the choice and
level of auxiliary ingredients but that formulation changes take into account a broader range of aspects.
The study evaluates the life cycle of the laundry wash, and will exclude adjacent laundry habits like fabric
softener use, bleach additive use, pretreatment, pre-washing, soaking & scrubbing, laundry drying and ironing
habits as they are assumed to remain the same for all investigated product options in this study and thus can be
excluded from the comparison.

          1.2.2.       Product Description & Reference Flows
As this study intends to represent the overall industry, the product evaluation is based on a product formulation
that comprises only the main detergent ingredients (frame formula) present in laundry detergents, and will not
include auxiliary ingredients which are specific to brand, marketing and company strategies. Since both
phosphated and nil-phosphated detergents are on the market in Turkey, a comparison is done for both type of
formulations. Also, the specific case shows results for a 35 wt% compaction as recommended dosages for a
specific case were taken.

Since the actual brand & company specific product formulations are not evaluated in total, the results for the life
cycle inventory (LCI) indicators and the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) indicators are not meant to
demonstrate the environmental burdens of a (brand & company) specific and complete laundry detergent.
However, the results of the LCIA indicators are representative to evaluate the differences in environmental
burdens between the compacted and non-compacted product formulations, as the auxiliary ingredients (per
laundry wash) are assumed equal in the compacted and non-compacted format. Note that below hypothetical
graph represents a realistic ratio of auxiliary ingredients versus frame formula ingredients (10-20%) for powder
detergents.




                                                                                                    6/26
                 Ing r ed ient s p er laund r y wash f o r co mp act ed and no n- co mp act ed p r o d uct :                                                         R esult s f o r t he envir o nment al ind icat o r s f o r a co mp act ed and no n- co mp at ed
                                                 ( hyp o t het ical examp le)                                                                                                                      p r o d uct ( hyp o t het ical examp le)
          160                                                                                                                                                  1.4




                                                                                                                              indicator result (equivalents)
          140   Non-compacted                                                                                                                                  1.2                                                                     Indicator result (total formula)

          120   Compacted                                                                                                                                       1                                                                      Indicator result (frame formula)
          100
 g/wash




                                                                                                                                                               0.8
          80
                                                                                                                                                               0.6
          60
                                                                                                                                                               0.4
          40
                                                                                                                                                               0.2
          20
           0                                                                                                                                                    0
                Auxiliary ingredient            Frame formula ingredient                   Total (g/w ash)                                                             Non-                      Compacted                           Delta
                     (g/w ash)                         (g/w ash)
                                                                                                                                                                     compacted

Figure 3: Example: mass of auxiliaries = not affected by                                                                   Figure 4: Example: Difference in results = not affected by
compaction                                                                                                                 auxiliaries


For the packaging system, it is chosen to take a representative product from the Turkish market and its
compacted alternative as representative for the changes occurring on the packaging level. Of the various
packaging sizes available, the 2.5kg PE bag is selected. For the compacted product, the same size is selected and
it is assumed that the packaging material reduction is proportional to the volume reduction (25%). Whilst the
number of jobs is higher on a similar weight for compacted products, the packaging contribution is calculated
per wash and as the study will demonstrate, contribution of packaging is very minor to the overall results, thus
not expected to change the conclusions.

From a transport point of view, this project is not intended to demonstrate the environmental difference of local
vs. long distance producers. A distance of 500 km between manufacturing plant and distribution was taken.
Following table further describes the products comparison.
Table 1: Product comparison & reference flows
                                                                             Phosphate detergent                                                                                                        Nil Phosphate detergent
                                                              = low suds powder detergent for Turkey                                                                                          = low suds powder detergent for Turkey
                                             Non-compacted product                                             Compacted product                                             Non-compacted product                                            Compacted product
 Product                                        Ingredients                   % g/wash                      Ingredients     % g/wash                                            Ingredients                   % g/wash                       Ingredients                % g/wash
 Formulation                                        LAS                        5   11.5                         LAS        7.67 11.5                                                LAS                       5    11.5                          LAS                   7.67 11.5
                                               Non-ionic AE7                   2    4.6                    Non-ionic AE7   3.07  4.6                                           Non-ionic AE7                  2    4.6                      Non-ionic AE7              3.07 4.6
                                                  STPP                        15   34.5                        STPP         23  34.5                                              Zeolite                     15   34.5                        Zeolite                  23  34.5
                                                 Carbonate                    15   34.5                      Carbonate      23  34.5                                             Carbonate                    15   34.5                       Carbonate                 23  34.5
                                                  Silicate                     5   11.5                       Silicate     7.67 11.5                                              Silicate                    5    11.5                        Silicate                7.67 11.5
                                               Percarbonate                   10    23                     Percarbonate    15.3  23                                            Percarbonate                   10    23                      Percarbonate               15.3  23
                                                  Sulfate                     48  110.4                       Sulfate      20.3 30.4                                              Sulfate                     48  110.4                        Sulfate                 20.3 30.4
 Recommended
 Dosage (g / wash)                                                 230                                                 150                                                                         230                                                150
 presented on pack =
 reference flow                                                                                                (35% wt reduction)                                                                                                             (35% wt reduction)
 Primary                                           24.5g LDPE / bag                                             21.7g LDPE / bag                                                    24.5g LDPE / bag                                           21.7g LDPE / bag
 packaging (g)                                      (1.225g/wash)                                                (1.085g/wash)                                                       (1.225g/wash)                                              (1.085g/wash)
 Secondary and                                               excluded                                              excluded                                                                    excluded                                                    excluded
 transport
 packaging
 Unit package                                               2.5kg bag                                              2.5kg bag                                                                2.5kg bag                                                    2.5kg bag
 Distribution                                                   500 km                                              500 km                                                                      500 km                                                      500 km
 distance (km)




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   7/26
         1.2.3.           System Boundaries

Included is the raw material manufacturing of product ingredients from the frame formula (7 ingredients) and
packaging materials (primary i.e. plastic bag), the energy production, the production of the regular powder
product, the transport of the product from production plant to the shop, the use phase of the product (energy
consumption) and the waste water treatment of the products that go down the drain.

Unit processes excluded from the system boundaries are the transport of the product ingredients and packaging
materials from raw materials manufacturing to production plant, secondary/transport packaging materials, the
transport from the shop to the consumers, the end-of-life phase of the packaging materials and capital
investments (e.g. buildings, transport vehicles, etc …).
Table 2: Description of the unit processes excluded from the system boundaries
 Step                            Excluded                         Info + potential impact on the result
 Product Formulation             -Auxiliary ingredients           Out of scope. The study intends to compare compacted
                                                                  versus non-compacted product formulations, which does not
                                                                  directly impact on the choice and level of auxiliary
                                                                  ingredients (identical impact in the two compared systems).
                                                                  Therefore, the study does not provide LCI and LCIA results
                                                                  for a full product formulation.

 Packaging:     *primary         -Secondary   and   transport     Considering the low material mass per wash, the impacts are
                 *transport      packaging, Label , adhesive,     assumed to be not significant. With respect to the scoop, this
                                 scoop                            is a conservative approach since a smaller scoop might be
                                                                  needed for the compacted product or same scoop to dose less
                                                                  can be used.

                                 -Pallet                          Material use is insignificant due to reuse, and identical
                                                                  impact in the 2 compared systems.

 Packaging process               Product packing                  Identical impact is expected for the two compared systems.

 Distribution                    -From raw material supplier to   Not included due too lacking information for various
                                 production site                  ingredients. (see study limitations 1.2.6). The impact is
                                                                  covered in a sensitivity analysis
                                 -From shop to consumer           Considered Insignificant, and identical for the 2 systems.

 End-Of-life                     -Packaging     recycling   and   Out of scope, lack of data
                                 disposal




                                                                                                                 8/26
        1.2.4.       Coverage of the environmental indicators
Table 3: Choice of the environmental indicators

 Indicator Group          Indicator                  Description
 Life Cycle Inventory     -Total Primary Energy      Energy reminder, which aggregates the energy savings related to
 (LCI) derived              Consumption              compaction covering all sources of primary energy.
 indicators                -Total Solid Waste        This indicator includes the sludge waste form waste water treatment
                                                     operation, which is a direct result of the chemical composition of the
                                                     product. System boundaries do not include solid waste treatment or
                                                     recycling of packaging material, which means that the total packaging
                                                     waste is accounted for.




 Life Cycle Impact        Climate Change             The choice of impact assessment indicators has broadly followed the
 Assessment (LCIA         Air Acidification          guidelines of the Handbook on life cycle assessment of J. Guinée [18],
 indicators)              Photochemical Smog         which suggests choosing primarily midpoint indicators. The chosen
                          Ozone Depletion            indicators are represented as baseline impact categories. Land use is not
                          Human Toxicity             included since it is not sufficiently covered within various of the life cycle
                          Aquatic Eco-toxicity       inventory datasets used and also regarded as less relevant for the product
                          Eutrophication             category. Also, depletion of abiotic resources is not included since the
                                                     total primary energy indicator (already included) is the key. The overall
                                                     methodology used is CML1992.


The results of the study will be presented using a broad range of 9 environmental indicators, both Life Cycle
Inventory (LCI) and Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) related. As results from the LCI: primary energy
consumption, total solid waste, and as a result from a LCIA: climate change potential, air acidification potential,
photochemical smog creation potential, ozone depletion potential, eutrophication potential, human toxicity
potential and aquatic eco-toxicity potential. Please note, that the emissions from energy consumption are taken
into account in the calculation of the LCIA results, thus some of the indicators are not independent.

These indicators were selected to bring a broad perspective on environmental fingerprint, as they are relevant for
the assessed product category. These are as well the environmental indicators which are consistently used in
earlier life cycle assessments for laundry detergent evaluations [9,10]. For the aquatic eco-toxicity evaluation,
various methodologies are available which may lead to deviating results, mainly due to differences in the fate
and exposure modeling. More information on the evaluation of detergents with different toxicity assessment
methods in LCA can be found in publications from the EU funded OMNIITOX project [24, 25 26, 27].

         1.2.5.       Geographical, temporal and technological coverage
The data used is reflecting the average current situation in Turkey today as far as possible, but is partly going
back to information from 1995-2003. The compaction exercise requires no technological change and no need to
change the production plants.

         1.2.6.         Limitations of the study

Product formulation
         Only a framework formulation containing 7 ingredients, is assessed. Although the environmental
            burden of auxiliary ingredients is meaningful for specific LCI or LCIA endpoints, they are not
            included within the scope of this study. Therefore, the LCI and LCIA results of this study should
            not be seen as a complete reflection of all the environmental burdens of laundry detergents in the
            assessed countries. However, it is assumed that the most significant changes in the formulations
            are represented within the 7 ingredients. The end results are therefore primarily useful in a relative
            comparison within the scope of the A.I.S.E. Sustainability Project.


Packaging
        Often within the primary pack, a plastic scoop is added for product dosage. As no data is available
          on the scoop design, and because any differences are assumed not to be significant, the production



                                                                                                                  9/26
            of this scoop is not included in this study. Furthermore, seen the potentially smaller size of the
            scoop for the compacted product, the approach is seen as conservative for the compacted laundry
            detergent.
           Secondary and transport packaging is also not included as very dependent on the size line up which
            may vary strongly within companies. Earlier studies [9,10] showed very limited impact on the end
            result and in any case compaction leads to reduced packaging materials. The assumption is
            therefore conservative.
Distribution
         For some of the raw materials, information is available on transport distances from raw material
              supplier to the manufacturing site. However, as the transport distances are not present for the
              majority of the ingredients and packaging materials, this distribution step is omitted to ensure
              consistency. Furthermore, since lower volumes of the ingredients are used for the compacted
              product, this approach is seen as conservative to the compacted laundry detergent product.
Use stage
         This study mainly looks into the reduction of product ingredients, packaging materials and the
             related distribution changes as key aspects of this new laundry detergent design. As the use phase is
             not directly affected by a compaction effort, this study does not primarily focus on the use phase,
             but intends to evaluate the life cycle stages beyond the use stage. For the same reason, this
             compaction study does not include other aspects associated with the laundry job like, pretreatment,
             soaking, drying and ironing, as the compaction does not affect these areas. It is assumed that those
             steps will remain the same for the compacted and the non-compacted detergents and therefore can
             be excluded from the evaluation without distorting the comparison.
         Although the use phase is not tackled by the compaction efforts, looking at the entire life cycle, it
             constitutes a predominant phase for many of the end results. Therefore, some limitations in that area
             are highlighted:
               o Power consumption of washing machines is very much dependant on the type of washing
                   machines, machine brand, age, etc…. and of course on the usage pattern of consumers.
                   Washing temperature selection was available from consumer research data. As no specific
                   data for Turkey were available for the power consumption by washing machines, the 2001 EU
                   average was used from the CECED data published in the AISE Code for good environmental
                   practice [3].
Waste Water Treatment
         A summary of the waste water treatment principles is explained in chapter 2.1.5. Particularly for
             Sodium-tri-polyphosphate (STPP), some additional data was sourced. With respect to the removal
             in waste water treatment, 40% removal of STPP was used for secondary waste water treatment and
             90% removal for tertiary waste water treatment. It is assumed 5% removal occurs in primary
             treatment, limited due to high solubility (low sorption). With respect to the aquatic eco-toxicity
             evaluation, the EU DID list (detergent ingredient database – list setup to develop the EU-ecolabel
             criteria[15]) shows a similar acute Toxicity Factor (TF) as for Zeolite. Therefore, the same
             characterization factor is applied in the aquatic eco-toxicity impact assessment (according to
             CML1992 principles).
Disposal
         Disposal for packaging materials, i.e. recycling and final disposal via incineration or landfill is not
             taken into account. Furthermore, not much data is available on specific emissions of recycling and
             solid waste treatment facilities in the investigated country. Therefore, it is only stated how much
             total solid waste is generated. The approach of not taking waste treatment into account is
             considered conservative to the compacted laundry detergent product, since this product involves a
             smaller packaging size.


         1.2.7.      Calculation Software
All calculations were performed in a model built in Excel, with extracts of inventory data from TEAMTM
(software package) and DEAMTM database (maintenance contract with PricewaterhouseCoopers-Ecobilan). For
this reason, the number of elemental flows is limited to solid waste, CO2 and primary energy.




2. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI)



                                                                                                  10/26
A life cycle inventory (LCI) is a compilation table of all energy and raw materials inputs and waste outputs
associated with a product system. It is calculated by summing all LCI’s of the relevant processes throughout the
cradle-to-grave of the evaluated product system. The individual process LCI’s are mostly available in literature
and listed below.

    2.1.      Data sources and assumptions
         2.1.1.         Packaging material production
Sources for life cycle inventory data on packaging materials and processing of these materials are obtained from
the Association of Plastic Manufacturers in Europe [2] when related to plastic materials (i.e. LDPE).
         2.1.2.       Chemical ingredient manufacturing
Sources of life cycle inventory data related to formula ingredients are based on 1995 datasets published in
“Tenside Surfactants” [4] and “Journal of theory technology and application of Surfactants” [5]. Additional
datasets were sourced from Franklin Associates USA [6] and [7].
         2.1.3.       Distribution
As indicated within the study limitations, the transport system has not included the transport from raw material
supplier to the manufacturing site, and from the retail to the consumer home. This approach is conservative to
the compacted laundry detergent product.
However, transport of the products by truck (28 tons) from manufacturing site to the retail was modeled by
using a model based on truck transport per kg finished product and taking into account an assumed transport
distance of 500 km.

         2.1.4.       Use stage
Water Heating: During the use stage, the energy consumption is based on the wash temperature distribution
from consumer research data sources. These data predict the following end-result for the consumer wash habits
for Turkish conditions:
Table 4: Wash temperature distribution (%) Turkey

 Dataset                     % of washes
 T<=30°C                          8
 30°C<T<=40°C                     29
 40°C<T<=60°C                     48
 T>60°C                           15




                                                                                                11/26
Power Consumption of washing machines:
As no detailed data is available on power consumption of washing machines specifically in Turkey, we used the
average European dataset (A.I.S.E. 2001) [3]. Herein, it is uncertain in what way average EU15 data of 2001 is
representative for the energy consumption of washing machines in Turkey in 2008. However, since the use
phase is assumed not to be impacted by the compaction exercise, the absolute differences in environmental
impacts will not be affected by the values used.
Table 5: Washing Machine Power Consumption (kWh per wash)

 Europe (18 countries)
 T<=30°C                                0.44
 30°C<T<=40°C                           0.76
 40°C<T<=60°C                           1.45
 T>60°C                                 2.32



         2.1.5.         End-of-Life stage
Water Treatment:
The waste water treatment (WWT) model for Turkey is obtained from a 2006 report from the Turkish statistical
office. This source shows 36.5% of the domestic waste water is untreated. The proportion of primary, secondary
and tertiary treatment of the treated fraction is 33.4%, 43.3% and 23.3% resp. Therefore it is possible to
calculate overall infrastructure figures for WWT (table 6).
Since this study comprises only few and rather very common laundry detergent chemicals, no new information
beyond that outlined in above reference is sourced. This approach included both the removal through
biodegradation and sorption (to calculate chemical discharge), and the removal through sorption on the sludge
only (calculate dry sludge production) are taken into account. Removal by primary treatment was estimated
using various sources of information [13;14] or was estimated with the mathematical model SIMPLETREAT
[12]. Removal by secondary treatment was derived from data from the EU ecolabel Detergent Ingredient
Database [15]. It was assumed that removals in secondary and tertiary treatment would be the same, with
exception for phosphate removal. The amount of sludge formed in each type of treatment was assumed to equal
the amount of ingredient removed by sorption.
Table 6: Connection to waste water treatment for Turkey, Turkish Statistical Office 2006
                                    (%)
No treatment                         36.5
Primary treatment                    21.2
Secondary treatment                  27.5
Tertiary treatment                   14.8


         2.1.6.        Electricity production
For processes that required electricity, the ETH Energy Database was used consistently [16]. These modules
present in our LCI database link electricity production emissions to country grid infrastructure data that come
from the International Energy Agency [17] and include distribution losses.
For ingredients manufacturing and packaging material production, the average European electricity dataset was
used. A Turkish electricity grid at was used for local processes like waste water treatment, washing machine
usage, etc…..

Table 7: Electricity Grid for Turkey, IEA, 2006 [25]
    Energy sources                 (%)
    Coal (+Lignite)                26.3
        Fuel oil                   4.4
      Natural gas                  44.0
        Nuclear                     0
         hydro                     25.1
            total                  100


     2.2.           Environmental indicator results based on the LCI




                                                                                               12/26
Below tables show the total solid waste and energy consumption indicators for 1 average laundry job in Turkey,
combined with the contribution of each life cycle stage to the final result. As these LCI’s do not capture the
resource consumption and emissions related to auxiliary ingredients, the life cycle inventories do not intend to
represent the actual laundry detergent formulations in Turkey.

Table 8: LCI indicators for compacted Turkish phosphate based detergent
                                       Ingredients   Manufacturing   Packaging   Distribution                          Pack
                                           (%)           (%)            (%)          (%)        Use   Waste water    disposal
 Turkey - compact      unit    total                                                            (%)   treatment(%)      (%)
 Energy consumption    MJ      21.1        18             2             <1           <1          76         4            <1
 Total Solid Waste     kg      0.11        42             1             <1           <1         32         15           11
 CO2 to air            g       1347        18             1             <1           <1         75         5            <1


Table 9: LCI indicators for non-compacted Turkish phosphate detergent
                                       Ingredients   Manufacturing   Packaging   Distribution                          Pack
                                           (%)           (%)            (%)          (%)        Use   Waste water    disposal
 Turkey - before       unit    total                                                            (%)   treatment(%)      (%)
 Energy consumption    MJ      22.1        20             3             1             1          72         4            <1
 Total Solid Waste     kg      0.12        41             1             <1           <1         30        14           15
 CO2 to airg           g       1415        20             2             <1            1         72         5           <1


Table 10: LCI indicators for compacted Turkish nil phosphate based detergent
                                       Ingredients   Manufacturing   Packaging   Distribution                          Pack
                                           (%)           (%)            (%)          (%)        Use   Waste water    disposal
 Turkey - compact      unit    Total                                                            (%)   treatment(%)      (%)
 Energy consumption    MJ      21.0        17             2             <1           <1          76         4            <1
 Total Solid Waste     kg      0.11        32             1             <1           <1         33        24           11
 CO2 to air            g       1302        15             2             <1            1         78         5           <1


Table 11: LCI indicators for non-compacted Turkish nil phosphate detergent
                                       Ingredients   Manufacturing   Packaging   Distribution                          Pack
                                           (%)           (%)            (%)          (%)        Use   Waste water    disposal
 Turkey - before       unit    Total                                                            (%)   treatment(%)      (%)
 Energy consumption    MJ      22.0        20             3             1             1          72         4            <1
 Total Solid Waste     kg      0.12        32             1             <1           <1         30        22           15
 CO2 to airg           g       1370        18             2             <1            1         74         5           <1




                                                                                                      13/26
3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)
     3.1.     LCIA methods
Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) pools individual emissions together into environmental themes. The
potential impacts calculated from impact assessment methodologies help to determine to what extent a particular
product or process may contribute to a particular type of impact. Emissions reported in the inventory analysis
undergo classification and characterization [19;22]. From an environmental perspective, the indicators listed
here are the most important ones. Emissions and resources e.g. from energy use are accounted for as well. As
all LCIA methods calculate potential impacts, the “potential”-phrase is mostly omitted from tables for
simplification. Among the various LCIA methods that are available, CML92 was selected because of the
extensive experience with this method specifically in the detergent area [18]. The choice of this somewhat
dated impact assessment method can be seen as conservative: In contrast to more recent methods for evaluating
aquatic toxicity in LCA like USES 2.0 or IMPACT 2002, in CML 92 inorganic substances do not play a major
role. As the compaction is achieved by reducing inorganic ingredients, the choice of CML 92 as method is
conservative. More information on the evaluation of different toxicity assessment methods in LCA, can be
retrieved in publications from the OMNIITOX project [24][25][26][27].
Among the various impact categories that can be used in LCA, the ones reported in this study are:
           Air acidification potential (g eq. H+) (CML 1992)
           Aquatic toxicity potential (m3 polluted water) (derived from CML 1992)
           Eutrophication potential (g PO4 eq) (CML 1992)
           Human toxicity potential (kg bodyweight) (CML 1992)
           Global warming potential (g eq. CO2) (IPPC, direct, 100 years, 1998)
           Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (g eq. C2H4) (WMO, 1991, average)
           Ozone Depletion potential (g. eq. CFC-11) (WMO,1998,average)
The characterization factors used to calculate the end result for the impact assessment of the various laundry
detergent products are provided in annex 1.




                                                                                               14/26
         3.2.     LCIA results
     Below tables report the total LCIA indicator results for 1 average laundry job in Turkey, combined with the
     contribution of each life cycle stage to the end result.
     Table 12: LCIA indicators for compacted Turkish phosphate based laundry detergent
                                               Ingredients   Manufacturing   Packaging   Distribution                            Pack
                                                   (%)           (%)            (%)          (%)        Use     Waste water    disposal
Turkey - compact       unit            total                                                            (%)     treatment(%)      (%)
Climate Change         g eq. CO2      1419         18             1             <1            1          75           5            <1
Air Acidification      g eq. H   +
                                       0.18        47             2             <1            1         47            2          <1
Eutrophication         g eq PO4        20.7        1              <1            <1           <1         1             98         <1
Photochemical Smog                     0.78        33             8             <1           1          55             3         <1
                       g eq. C2H4

Ozone Depletion                       9.7E-5       52             <1            <1            5         41            2          <1
                       g eq. CFC11

Human Toxicity                         8.7         43             2             <1            1         52            3          <1
                       kg bw

Aquatic eco-Toxicity    3
                       m poll. wat     78.6        62             <1            <1           <1          1            36         <1


     Table 13: LCIA indicators for non-compacted Turkish phosphate based laundry detergent
                                               Ingredients   Manufacturing   Packaging   Distribution                            Pack
                                                   (%)           (%)            (%)          (%)        Use     Waste water    disposal
Turkey - before        unit           Total                                                             (%)     treatment(%)      (%)
Climate Change                        1497         21             2             <1            1          71           5            <1
                       g eq. CO2

Air Acidification                      0.24        59             3             <1            1         35            2          <1
                       g eq. H+

Eutrophication                         20.7        1              <1            <1            <1         1            98         <1
                       g eq PO4

Photochemical Smog     g eq. C2H4      0.89        37             11            <1            2         48             3         <1

Ozone Depletion                       1.2E-4       60             <1            <1            6         33            2          <1
                       g eq. CFC11

Human Toxicity                         11.3        55             2             <1            1         40            2          <1
                       kg bw

Aquatic eco-Toxicity                   97.1        69             <1             1            <1         1            29         <1
                       m3 poll. wat


     Table 14: LCIA indicators for compacted Turkish nil phosphate based laundry detergent
                                               Ingredients   Manufacturing   Packaging   Distribution                            Pack
                                                   (%)           (%)            (%)          (%)        Use     Waste water    disposal
Turkey - compact       unit           Total                                                             (%)     treatment(%)      (%)
Climate Change                        1374         15             1             <1            1          78           5            <1
                       g eq. CO2

Air Acidification                +
                                       0.17        43             3             <1            1         51            3          <1
                       g eq. H

Eutrophication         g eq PO4        0.76        20             1             <1            1         22            56         <1

Photochemical Smog                     0.78        33             8             <1            1         55             3         <1
                       g eq. C2H4

Ozone Depletion                       8.3E-5       43             <1            <1            6         48            3          <1
                       g eq. CFC11

Human Toxicity                         7.8         36             2             <1            1         58            3          <1
                       kg bw

Aquatic eco-Toxicity    3
                       m poll. wat     49.5        40             <1            1             1          1            58         <1


     Table 15: LCIA indicators for non-compacted Turkish nil phosphate based laundry detergent
                                               Ingredients   Manufacturing   Packaging   Distribution                            Pack
                                                   (%)           (%)            (%)          (%)        Use     Waste water    disposal
Turkey - before        unit           Total                                                             (%)     treatment(%)      (%)
Climate Change                        1452         19             2             <1            1          73           5            <1
                       g eq. CO2

Air Acidification                +
                                       0.23        56             3             <1            1         38            2          <1
                       g eq. H

Eutrophication                         0.79        22             1             <1            2         21            54         <1
                       g eq PO4

Photochemical Smog     g eq. C2H4      0.88        36             11            <1            2         48             3         <1

Ozone Depletion                       1.1E-4       54             <1            <1            7         37            2          <1
                       g eq. CFC11

Human Toxicity                         10.4        51             2             <1            1         43            2          <1
                       kg bw

Aquatic eco-Toxicity    3
                                       68.1        55             <1            1             1          1            42         <1
                       m poll. wat




                                                                                                              15/26
4. Interpretation
The ISO standard on life cycle interpretation [23] describes the interpretation phase as the step of a LCA in which the
results of the LCI and LCIA are summarized and discussed as a basis for conclusions, recommendations and decision-
making in accordance with the goal and scope definition. The further interpretation will assess the environmental
benefits and charges along the entire life cycle, and further detail the savings and charges per life cycle stage. Earlier
life cycle assessments performed with the intent to compare alternative product systems with same functional unit,
typically maintain a specific margin to distinguish significant differences for all of the environmental indicators. This
arbitrarily chosen value is mainly there to cover the uncertainty in the LCI datasets as the compared products do not
always rely on similar datasets for ingredient production, manufacturing, and/or comparable use data.
In this particular study, a significance margin of 5% is chosen since
               1) and since the product ingredients and packaging materials are identical,
               2) the datasets used for the situation before and after compaction are the same,
               3) the use phase remains the same (as it is unaffected by the compaction) and is dominating
                    many of the life cycle indicators.

    4.1.        The environmental benefits over the entire life cycle
Since a lot of indicators dominating the use stage are not affected by the compaction, it is obvious that the total
savings per wash including the entire life cycle cannot exceed certain margins. However, when looking at the
entire life cycle, and taking into account an arbitrary significance margin of 5%, significant environmental
savings for the compacted detergent are noticed for:
      Primary energy consumption,
      Solid waste,
      Air acidification,
      Climate change,
      Photochemical smog formation,
      Ozone depletion,
      Human toxicity potential and
      Aquatic eco-toxicity potential.

                               All life cycle stages included

                                             Energy
                                            100
                 Photochem smog              80             Solid waste
                                             60
                                             40
             Ozone depletion                 20                    Acidification
                                              0



               Climate change                                   Aq toxicity


                           Hum Toxicity                Eutrophication



                               Regular P formula   Compact P formula




           Figure 5: Environmental benefits of compaction in
           Turkey over the entire life cycle (P formula)


The profile of the nil phosphate formula compaction looks similar.




                                                                                                         16/26
     4.2.          Contributions per life cycle stage



  Photochem. Smog



    Ozone depletion



    Climate change



     Human toxicity



     Eutrophication



     Aquatic toxicity



        Acidification



     Primary energy



       Waste (total)


                        0%   10%     20%        30%        40%         50%          60%    70%   80%   90%     100%

                                                             Product   Use   End of life




Figure 6: Contributions per life cycle stage for non-compacted phosphate detergent in Turkey
(‘Product’ includes all stages prior to use)


  Photochem. Smog



    Ozone depletion



    Climate change



     Human toxicity



      Eutrophication



     Aquatic toxicity



        Acidification



     Primary energy



       Waste (total)


                        0%   10%      20%       30%        40%         50%          60%    70%   80%   90%     100%

                                                             Product   Use   End of life




Figure 7: Contributions per life cycle stage for compacted phosphate detergent in Turkey
(‘Product’ includes all stages prior to use)




                                                                                                       17/26
  Photochem. Smog



    Ozone depletion



    Climate change



     Human toxicity



     Eutrophication



     Aquatic toxicity



        Acidification



     Primary energy



       Waste (total)


                        0%   10%      20%       30%        40%          50%          60%    70%      80%   90%     100%

                                                             Product    Use   End of life




Figure 8: Contributions per life cycle stage for non-compacted nil phosphate detergent in Turkey
(‘Product’ includes all stages prior to use)


  Photochem. Smog



    Ozone depletion



    Climate change



     Human toxicity



      Eutrophication



     Aquatic toxicity



        Acidification



     Primary energy



       Waste (total)


                        0%   10%      20%        30%       40%          50%          60%       70%   80%   90%     100%

                                                              Product   Use   End of life




Figure 9: Contributions per life cycle stage for compacted nil phosphate detergent in Turkey
(‘Product’ includes all stages prior to use)




                                                                                                           18/26
Considering the fact that the energy consumption during the use stage is driving many of the environmental
indicators, the difference in relative contributions for the compacted and non-compacted products is very small.
The differences are furthermore the most outspoken for indicators which are driven by the ingredient production
(not shown on figures).
To better understand what emissions, resources and eventually which process causes the environmental benefits,
each life cycle stage is studied more thoroughly in the following chapters.
      The climate change potential of the products is driven by the use stage in which CO2 account for ~95%
          and methane for ~4% of the climate change potential.

          For calculation of the air acidification potential, partly driven by the use phase, SOx accounts for
           ~65%, whilst NOx accounts for ~32% of the impact potential. Similar emissions drive the subscore
           driven by the production of detergent ingredients.

          Also the photochemical oxidant formation potential (~50% Ethylene and ~30% non-specified
           hydrocarbons) is partly driven by the use phase.

          With respect to the ozone depletion potential, the only contributing emission derived from the life
           cycle inventory datasets is CF3Br (halon 1301), Following the Montreal protocol and its amendments,
           now ratified by 183 countries since may 2005, the production of this chemical has halted drastically
           worldwide. Therefore, the value of this indicator to indicate product differences is rather limited.
           Moreover, the life cycle inventory table indicates the product formulation (ingredient production) and
           use stage are the main contributing life cycle stages for halon 1301 emissions.

          The human toxicity potential is driven by SOx(~48%), NOx(~22%), and also by Arsenic(~11%).

          The aquatic ecotoxicity potential: similarly to the results of earlier laundry detergent life cycle
           assessments conducted [10], the product formulation and waste water treatment are the driving life
           cycle stages. Herein, the surfactants effluent and the production of inorganic ingredients play a
           significant role for the calculation of the aquatic eco-toxicity as calculated with the CML1992
           methodology adapted and extended. However, due to the approach of using frame formulations, the
           differences in contributions to the compacted and non-compacted product forms are a result from the
           inorganic materials only. The aquatic eco-toxicity potential is driven by waterborne emissions from
           LAS (~23%) and AE7 (~13%) and by emissions occurring at the production of carbonate and STPP
           (primarily cadmium, mercury and phenol).

    4.3.       The life cycle stages, comparison for compact an non-compacted products


           4.3.1.       The environmental changes as a result from the product formulation step

As described in the functional unit (chapter 1.2.1) and the product description (chapter 1.2.2), a key aspect of the
detergent compaction in Turkey is the expected decrease in sodiumsulphate per functional unit of 1 wash.
Eventually, some of the emission reductions due to reduced sulphate production lead to some significant
environmental benefits within this life cycle stage.
Lower sulphate levels reduce emissions of energy production which further translates into other indicators like
climate change, air acidification, human toxicity and water consumption. Furthermore, sodium sulphate
production leads to relevant mercury-emissions (indirectly through the use and production of caustic soda)
which contributes significantly to the aquatic eco-toxicity potential of this life-cycle stage. Some benefits were
also noticed for photochemical smog creation potential and ozone depletion.




                                                                                                    19/26
                                                                                   Production of ingredients

                             100


                             90


                             80


                             70
  Index compact vs. fluffy




                             60

                                                                                                                                                                 P
                             50
                                                                                                                                                                 nil P

                             40


                             30


                             20


                             10


                              0
                                   Waste (total)   Primary   Acidification   Aquatic toxicity Eutrophication Human toxicity   Climate    Ozone      Photochem.
                                                   energy                                                                     change    depletion     Smog


Figure 10: Environmental Benefits from the product formulation stage in Turkey


Overall, compaction contribution from the production of the ingredients is important for most indicators, both
for the phosphate and nil phosphate product. Highest contrbutions are observed for air acidification, aquatic
toxicity, human toxicity and ozone depletion. Therefore, benefits of the overall life cycle analysis are found
within this set of indicators.

         4.3.2.        The environmental changes as a result from the product manufacturing step
Although experience from existing LCAs tells that this stage is not highly relevant considering the entire life
cycle, the changes were investigated. A reduction in product dosage by 35% means that the resource
consumption and emissions of product manufacturing are being reduced by 35% as well. The rather limited LCI
dataset used for product manufacturing is based on powder manufacturing in Germany. Clearly, we would
expect a 35% reduction in all of the indicators. However, as many emissions are not reported, the ozone
depletion and aquatic toxicity indicator does not show any result and are therefore omitted from the chart.




                                                                                                                                                      20/26
                                                                                              Manufacturing stage

                             100




                             80
  Index compact vs. fluffy




                             60

                                                                                                                                                                            P
                                                                                                                                                                            nil P

                             40




                             20




                              0
                                    Waste (total)      Primary energy         Acidification       Eutrophication     Human toxicity     Climate change    Photochem. Smog


Figure 11: Environmental benefits from product manufacturing stage in Turkey

Overall, except for the contribution to photochemical smog creation potential (see tables 12-15), the
contribution of the manufacturing step is quasi non-relevant.

         4.3.3.        The environmental changes as a result from the packaging step
As a result of our assumption of proportional decrease in packaging material, related to the volume compaction
and the fact that we did not change the size for the compact product (therefore resulting in higher number of
jobs per bag), the indices showing the contribution from packaging to the overall are all at 44. As for ozone
depletion there are no emissions, this indicator is not shown on the graph.
                                                                                               Packaging stage

                             100


                             90


                             80


                             70
  Index compact vs. fluffy




                             60

                                                                                                                                                                            P
                             50
                                                                                                                                                                            nil P

                             40


                             30


                             20


                             10


                              0
                                   Waste (total)    Primary energy      Acidification   Aquatic toxicity   Eutrophication   Human toxicity   Climate change   Photochem.
                                                                                                                                                                Smog


Figure 12: Environmental benefits from packaging stage in Turkey




                                                                                                                                                                 21/26
Overall, although the reduction in packaging material (by 25%) leads to substantial savings in packaging
material itself, this does not lead to very significant savings for most of the environmental indicators if seen in
the context of the overall life cycle. This is due to the fact that packaging only plays a relatively minor role
related to the total environmental burdens of washing soiled laundry.


                                   4.3.4.          The environmental changes as a result from the product distribution step

The only distribution step included within the system boundaries, was transport from manufacturing plant to the
shop. Transport from product ingredients to the production plant and from the shop to consumer homes are not
included, however they are expected to be less relevant. Overall, as people dose 35% less (by weight), the
contributions of the distribution step were reduced by 35% as well.
                                                                                        Distribution stage

                             100


                             90


                             80


                             70
  Index compact vs. fluffy




                             60

                                                                                                                                                                 P
                             50
                                                                                                                                                                 nil P

                             40


                             30


                             20


                             10


                              0
                                   Waste (total)   Primary   Acidification   Aquatic toxicity Eutrophication Human toxicity   Climate    Ozone      Photochem.
                                                   energy                                                                     change    depletion     Smog


Figure 13: Environmental benefits from the distribution stage in Turkey

         4.3.5.       The environmental changes as a result from the product usage step
As known from previous studies, the use stage is the predominant life cycle stage for most of the environmental
indicators. The primary energy need to heat high volumes of water is the cause of high energy consumption and
associated emissions into the environment.
As a change from the non-compacted to compacted low suds powder does not directly impact the consumer
habits towards wash temperature, the environmental burdens associated with the use phase are not impacted at
all.




                                                                                                                                                      22/26
                                      4.3.6.                The environmental changes as a result from the waste water treatment step

 As in terms of grams per wash the only difference between the compacted and non-compacted product is
 sulphate and sulphate has a low toxicity, the savings from the compaction in terms of contribution to the waste
 water treatment step are negligible.


                                                                                                 Waste water treatment stage

                               100


                                90


                                80


                                70
    Index compact vs. fluffy




                                60

                                                                                                                                                                                                        P
                                50
                                                                                                                                                                                                        nil P

                                40


                                30


                                20


                                10


                                 0
                                      Waste (total)        Primary         Acidification    Aquatic toxicity Eutrophication Human toxicity    Climate            Ozone          Photochem.
                                                           energy                                                                             change            depletion         Smog


 Figure 14: Environmental benefits from waste water treatment stage in Turkey


                               4.4.         Alternative scenarios

           4.4.1.         The environmental changes as a result from the life cycle excluding the use stage
 The contribution of the use phase is dominating energy consumption as well as a variety of LCIA categories. The
 energy consumption during the use phase cannot be altered by compaction efforts. When the use stage is excluded,
 relative savings are larger. Of course, this does not change the magnitude of the absolute amount of savings but puts
 the savings into another context.


                                      Compaction of phosphate detergent                                                        Compaction of nil phosphate detergent
                                                         Excluding the Use stage                                                                     Excluding the Use stage

                                                                      Energy                                                                                   Energy
                                                                     100                                                                                      100
                                          Photochem smog              80             Solid waste                                      Photochem smog            80              Solid waste
                                                                      60                                                                                        60
                                                                      40                                                                                        40
                                      Ozone depletion                 20                     Acidification                       Ozone depletion                20                      Acidification
                                                                       0                                                                                         0



                                        Climate change                                     Aq toxicity                              Climate change                                    Aq toxicity


                                                      Hum Toxicity              Eutrophication                                                 Hum Toxicity               Eutrophication



                                                              Regular P    Compact P                                                                  Regular nil P   Compact nil P



Figure 15 : Environmental indicators for Turkey excluding the use stage




                                                                                                                                                                                      23/26
            4.4.2.              The impact of auxiliary ingredients

                                                                                     Earlier life cycle assessments for UK laundry
                                                                                     detergent [10] evaluations, which did include
                                                                                     complete formulations have indicated that
                                                                                     compaction exercises lead to environmental
                                                                                     savings, even when the auxiliary ingredients are
                                                                                     included within the goal and scope of the study.
                                                                                     Hence, no significant downsides are expected
                                                                                     when the auxiliary ingredients would be
                                                                                     included within the study, specifically because
                                                                                     the auxiliary ingredients for the compacted and
                                                                                     non-compacted product form are assumed to be
                                                                                     identical and would be included at equal dosage
                                                                                     per wash. Following graph demonstrated the
                                                                                     results of a compaction comparison for regular
                                                                                     powder laundry detergent compaction in the
                                                                                     UK. For detailed information on the goal &
                                                                                     scope of that study, see the publication [10].

                                                                                     Figure 16: Compaction of full laundry detergent product
                                                                                     in the UK (2001)

     4.5.          Environmental changes In Turkey (entire life cycle)
Table 16: Environmental difference per wash for using phosphate based detergents in Turkey
                                         Environmental Burden per   Environmental Burden per
 Environmental indicator - Turkey            job - noncompact             job - compact          Environmental Difference   unit

 Primary Energy consumption                       22.2                        21.1                         1.0              MJ

 Total Solid Waste                                0.12                        0.11                       1.0 E-2            kg

 Climate Change                                   1497                       1419                          78               g eq. CO2

 Photochemical Smog                               0.89                        0.78                        0.11              g eq. C2H4

 Ozone Depletion                                 1.2E-4                      9.7E-5                      2.5 E-5            g eq. CFC11

 Human Toxicity                                   11.3                        8.7                          2.6              g bw

 Air Acidification                                0.24                        0.18                         0.6              g eq. H+

 Eutrophication                                   20.7                        20.7                        3 E-2             g eq PO4

 Aquatic eco-Toxicity                             97.1                        78.6                        18.5              m3 poll. wat



For reference, the 1.0MJ savings per wash found for the compacted laundry detergent corresponds to 0.087kWh
of electricity/wash. This is the equivalent of one incandescent light bulb of 75 watts used during 1 hour.

Furthermore, the savings found for the climate change potential corresponds to the CO2 – emission of driving
an average car for 0.4 km. (Average car CO2-emission =~180g CO2 per passenger km -
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/co2/co2_home.htm) Furthermore, the differences are all positive,
and are thus to be considered as savings.




                                                                                                                                   24/26
Table 17 lists the results for non phosphated detergents.

Table 17: Environmental difference per wash for using nil phosphate based detergents in Turkey
                                    Environmental Burden per   Environmental Burden per
 Environmental indicator - Turkey       job - noncompact             job - compact        Environmental Difference   unit

 Primary Energy consumption                  22.0                        21.0                       1.0              MJ

 Total Solid Waste                           0.12                        0.11                     1.0 E-2            kg

 Climate Change                              1452                       1374                        78               g eq. CO2

 Photochemical Smog                          0.88                        0.78                      0.11              g eq. C2H4

 Ozone Depletion                            1.1E-4                      8.3E-5                    2.5 E-5            g eq. CFC11

 Human Toxicity                              10.4                        7.8                        2.6              g bw

 Air Acidification                           0.23                        0.17                       0.6              g eq. H+

 Eutrophication                              0.79                        0.76                      3 E-2             g eq PO4

 Aquatic eco-Toxicity                        68.1                        49.5                      18.5              m3 poll. wat




5. Conclusions
Looking at the entire life cycle, the results indicate that compaction in Turkey can lead to significant (i.e. >5%)
benefits for all environmental indicators but eutrophication both for phosphate and nil phosphate detergents.
Looking at the savings excluding the use stage (as the use stage is not affected by compaction) would lead to an
even more beneficial picture for the compaction efforts. This is driven by the chemical savings achieved per
wash of sulphate, which in turn avoid energy and related emissions at their production stage, in the detergent
manufacturing stage, on packaging and distribution.

None of the environmental indicators assessed showed a significant increase of environmental burdens, thus
there is no environmental downside to the compaction from an LCA perspective. This is true for both
perspectives including and excluding the use phase.

The simplification taken by leaving out auxiliaries is not expected to change the outcome of the study as
demonstrated in similar detergent LCA studies.




                                                                                                                            25/26
References:
[1] BUWAL 250, 1996, Ökoinventare für Verpackungen, Schriftenreihe Umwelt 250, Bern
[2] Boustead, I.,1997-2003, Ecoprofiles of the European plastics industry (APME)
[3] Taylor Nelson Sofres, november 2001, Survey on temperature distribution
[4] Franke, M. et al., 1995, Tenside Surf. Det. 32, 6, pp. 508.; 1995
[5] Carl Hanser Verlag; 1995, Journal for Theory, Technology and Application of Surfactants
[6] FAL, 2000, Franklin Associates USA LCI Database Documentation, Franklin Associates, confidential report for
Procter&Gamble from “life cycle inventory of two floor cleaning methods”
[7] Procter&Gamble, internal data
[8] www.mappy.com
[9] E. Saouter, G, van Hoof, 2002, A Database for the Life-Cycle Assessment of Procter&Gamble Laundry Detergents, Int.
J. LCA 7
[10] G. van Hoof, D. Schowanek, 2003, Comparative Life-Cycle Assessment of Laundry Detergent Formulations in the UK,
Tenside Surf. Det 40
[11] OECD Environmental data, Compendium 2004
[12] Struijs, J. 1996 SimpleTreat 3.0: a model to predict the distribution and elimination of chemicals by sewage treatment
plants. National Institute of Public Health and the environment (RIVM). Report 719101025. Bilthoven.
[13] De Oude, N.T. 1992, Anthropogenic compounds: Detergents. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.
[14] Feijtel, T.C.J., J.E. Struijs and E.Matthijs. 1999. Exposure modeling of detergent surfactant – prediction of 90th
percentile concentrations in the Netherlands. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 18: 2645-2652.
[15] Ecolabel. 1995. Commission decision of 25 July 1995 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the
community eco-label to laundry detergents. Official Journal of the European Communities 95/365/EC.L217:0014-0030.
[16] ETH, 1996, Ökoinventare für Energiesysteme, ETH Zurich
[17] IEA, International energy agency, Paris, 2001,Energy statistics of OECD countries 1999-2000
[18] Heijungs, R., G. J. B., G. Huppes, R. M. Lankreijer, H. A. Udo de Haes, A. Wegener Sleeswijk, A. M. M. Ansems, P.
G. Eggels, R. van Duin and H. P. de Goede, 1992, Environmental life cycle assessment of products, Guide LCA, CML
Leiden, the Netherlands
[19] SETAC. 1993. Guidelines for Life Cycle Assessment: A code of Practice. Society of Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry, Pensacola, FL., Sesimbra, Portugal.
[20] ISO 14040: 1997 (E). Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Framework. 1997(E)
[21] ISO 14041: 1998. Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Goal and Scope Definition and Inventory
Analysis.
[22] ISO 14042 : 2000 (E). Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Life Cycle Impact Assessment.
[23] ISO 14043 : 2000 (E). Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Life Cycle Interpretation.
[24] Pant R (2003) et al: Pant R., Schowanek D, VanHoof G, Feijtel T: Comparison of four LCIA methods for ecotoxicity
based on a detergent case study within OMNIITOX, presentation at the SETAC annual meeting in Hamburg, Germany, May
2003
[25] Pant R (2004) et al: Pant R., VanHoof G, Schowanek D.: New OMNIITOX characterisation factors for aquatic
ecotoxicity: What can we learn for detergent products?, presentation at the SETAC annual meeting in Prague, Czech
Republic, April 2004
[26] Pant R (2004b): Pant R., VanHoof G, Schowanek D, Feijtel T, de Koning A., Hauschild M., Pennington D., Olsen S.,
Rosenbaum R.: Comparison between Three Different LCIA Methods for Aquatic Ecotoxicity and a Product Environmental
Risk Assessment. Insights from a Detergent Case Study within OMNIITOX, International Journal of LCA 9 (5) pp295-306,
2004
[27] Pant R., Schowanek D., Learnings from the application of the OMNIITOX Base Model for aquatic ecotoxicity from an
industry user perspective, poster presentation at the SETAC annual meeting in Lille, France , May 2005




                                                                                                          26/26

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:6
posted:11/10/2011
language:English
pages:26