Recent impact on ancient well – the calculation of the Water

Footprint of bottled natural mineral water

Maria Kalleitner-Huber*, Christian Pladerer, Austrian Institute of Ecology
Seidengasse 13, 1070 Vienna, Austria
phone: +43-699-5236115
fax: +43-1-5235843
*kalleitner-huber@ecology.at, www.ecology.at

1. Introduction
Water is the most threatened and at the same time most crucial resource for mankind. The
contribution of human activity to water consumption and pollution is apparent in agriculture and
industrial production as well as consumer patterns or leisure activities. Drinking water is
essential for our health and fitness and the trend towards bottled mineral water is unbreakable,
even in countries like Austria where most of the people are supplied with highest quality of tap
water.
Vöslauer Mineralwasser AG1 is the leading Austrian company in the sector of bottling and
distributing of Mineral Water with a market share of 41 % in Austria and a 97.8 million euro
turnover in the year 20131. The Vöslauer Mineral Water originates from a thermal spring
located in the east of Austria and is a totally pure and healthy product; it rises to the surface
without pumping, because the Vöslauer spring is an artesian well, originated over 600 meters
deep more than 20,000 years ago. The Vöslauer spring water is also used for the thermal bath
due to its curative and healing properties.
In an effort to reduce the environmental impact of the production of bottled mineral water,
Vöslauer Mineralwasser AG has implemented several measures like a reduction of weight per
20 % per product and increase of the recycling content to 66 % of the PET bottles. Special
focus lies on the efficient usage of different water sources for different purposes. Thus, the
artesian spring water from deeper sources is exclusively used for drinking purposes while the
overflow of the source is utilized for cleaning and production processes.
The reasons for the company to implement waterfootprinting for selected products rose out of
the need for gaining more information of and insight into the environmental impact of the well-
known, but to date unbalanced bottling business. Although Austria is blessed with rich water
resources with drinking water quality, Vöslauer takes its environmental and social responsibility
seriously and looks beyond the factory gate in addition to the water consumption resulting from
the on-site production activities. The company puts effort in raising awareness within the
company, taking measures for optimized water management in line with other measures like
reduction of losses along the pipes and ensuring sustainable usage of the ancient well.
With the following case study, the challenges and limits of calculating the Water Footprint (WF)
of bottled water will be shown. Data availability and the influence of the system boundaries will
be addressed as well as the comparability of different data sources (literature vs. real data
from the company). Specific product improvement measures based on the results will be given.
Special focus will lie on the influence of different kinds of packaging; the water footprint of a 1
litre re-usable glass bottle has been compared to a 1.5 litre PET single use bottle.

1 http://www.voeslauer.com/web/Nachhaltigkeitsbericht?_ga=1.96794653.349004444.1400181144
 2. Water Footprinting of products

2.1 Approach

Similar to other assessment or footprinting approaches like LCA or Carbonfootprint water

footprinting has sought to understand and measure the invisible or virtual link between the
local consumption of goods and the impacts from the production of those goods on often
distant water resources. Especially if agricultural products like sugar are included, their origin
has a major influence on the „outsourced“ water usage.
A methodology for measuring human demands – or 'footprint '– on the biosphere was first
developed in the early 1990s by Rees and Wackernagel. Allan (1998) introduced the term
'virtual water' to describe water used in the production of imported goods and hypothesised
that such virtual water imports were a partial solution to problems of water scarcity in the Middle
East (Chapagain and Ticker, 2012).
These ideas took on a more precise form once researchers began to quantify and calculate
global virtual water flows and, from this, water footprints of specific products and of nations
(e.g. Hoekstra and Hung, 2002; Chapagain and Hoekstra, 2004; Oki et al., 2003; de Fraiture
et al., 2004; Yang et al., 2006) (Chapagain and Ticker, 2012).
Water footprints of nations have been calculated on a broader basis than on individual product
basis. Data on bottled drinks have been rare at the time of the waterfootprinting of bottled
water.
The accounting of the water footprint of products is a method to assess the total water
consumption along the whole life cycle and presents a relative young method in comparison
to other indicator based methods like the carbon footprint. The rapidly growing interest of
companies and governments to use water footprint accounts as a basis for formulating
sustainable water strategies and policies and a shared standard and vision has been
developed by the Water Footprint Network (WFN). The accounting of the water footprint of
bottled mineral water has been accomplished according to this standard.
The calculation of the water footprint (WF) comprised of the following steps: setting the goal
and system boundary, gathering input and output data and balancing inventory analysis,
calculating the water footprint for the two products, analysis and interpretation.

2.2 Global Water Footprint Standard

The calculated water footprint (WF) follows the Global Water Footprint Standard described in
detail within the Water Footprint Assessment Manual (WFN Manual) (Hoekstra et al., 2011),
input and output flow table and calculations have been accomplished in excel files in order to
enable the company to make adjustments easily if process parameters change. As Vöslauer
is working on the fresh water reduction on a permanent basis this procedure has been selected
as the most practical manner.
According to the WFN Manual the water footprint of a product is an empirical indicator of how
much water is consumed over the whole supply chain of the product. The water footprint of an
individual, community or business is defined as the total volume of fresh water that is used to
produce the goods and services consumed by the individual or community or produced by the
business.
A water footprint (WF), expressed in volumetric terms (i.e. litres or m3 of water), is therefore a
multidimensional indicator that looks at both direct and indirect water use of a consumer or
producer and which can show water consumption volumes by source and polluted volumes by
type of pollution.

Figure 1 shows the schematic links between water use and the different types of water footprint
in the context of the hydrological cycle (Chapagain et al., 2006 in Chapagain and Ticker, 2012).

Figure 1: Components of water footprint according to Chapagain and Ticker, 2012

Green WF is the volume of rainwater consumed and expresses the volume of soil moisture
used by rain-fed cropping. It is equal to the volume of water lost through evapotranspiration.
If an agricultural ingredient like sugar is used, e.g. the Green WF can have a key influence on
the total WF of a beverage.

Blue WF refers to the consumption of surface water and ground water, whereby consumption
refers to the volume of water that evaporates or is incorporated into a product or is transferred
into another river or aquifer through the production process. The blue WF is often smaller than
the volume of water withdrawal because some water may return to the ground or surface water
body from which it was withdrawn.
Blue WF consists of irrigation water and/or direct water use in industry or in homes, minus
return flows.

The grey WF concept reflects the notion that the impacts of water pollution can be expressed
in terms of the volume of water required to dilute pollutants such that they become harmless
Grey WF is an indicator of the degree of freshwater pollution and is defined as the volume of
freshwater required assimilating the load of pollutants based on existing ambient water-quality
standards.

WF differs from measures of water withdrawal in that it does not include return flows, i.e. blue
water withdrawal insofar as this water is returned to where it came from. Moreover, a WF
normally considers green and grey water alongside blue water. A WF can also be
disaggregated into direct and indirect WF components, sometimes also referred to as internal
and external WF or, in the context of manufacturing and business contexts, operational and
supply chain WF. The basic distinction is between water (blue, green or grey) consumed
through the tap and water embedded in products or processes.

3. Water footprint of bottled mineral water

3.1 Scope and system boundary

The water footprint of the following two products has been compared:
• Carbonated mineral water in a single use 1.5 l PET bottle (household usage)
• Carbonated mineral water in a re-usable 1.0 l glass bottle (gastronomy usage)

Figure 2: Examined 1.5 l PET bottle and 1.0 l glass bottle

1000 l of natural mineral water in the selected bottles has been defined as functional unit. The
system boundary comprises the extraction and bottling of the mineral water in the factory in
Austria including relevant input parameters like packaging (bottles, trays, cases, euro pallets,
foil) and the transport to the distribution centres and distributors. The distribution to the
supermarkets and restaurants, storing and cooling before usage do not lie within the system
boundary. The following figures present the two product systems with the relevant in- and
output flows and sub processes at the production site. Prior to data collection it was necessary
to set up a list of the individual components of the product in order to be able to depict all
associated processes in the product systems.
According to literature (BEER, 2011) the following parts constitute less than 1% of the entire
water consumption along the supply chain of bottled beverages and therefore have not been
considered as relevant (De minimis):
• ingredients < 1 % by weight
• distribution
• retail, consumption (infrastructure, cooling)
• disposal, recycling and re-use of waste streams
The so called de minimis regulation refers to the relevancy of components and as cutting off
criterion 1% of the mass of the examined final product are usually selected. Processing parts
which constitute less than 1% of the mass of the examined final product are neglected because
of low relevance, except for there are particularly poisonous substances and/or harmful on a
long-term basis or particularly scarce resources.
As transport is considered as an impact parameter when comparing single to refillable multi
use bottles, the distribution of the bottled water to the distributors/distribution centres has been
included into the calculation.
The following components are considered as relevant and have been considered for the
calculation of the water footprint:
• water in the product
• ingredients > 1 % by weight
• water conditioning
• process water
• losses due to incorrect fillings
• water losses at the well/transport/infrastructure
• waste water including detergents
• energy from renewable sources and electricity
• packaging (preforms/bottles, cases/trays, euro pallets, foil)

3.2 Assumptions and adaptions for the calculation

The WF has been calculated relatively for the defined functional unit of 1000 litres of mineral
water (corresponds to 666.67 pieces of PET bottles and 1000 pieces of GLASS bottles) and
absolutely per a single unit (= 1 bottle). Direct and indirect WF have been depicted separately,
which again consist of blue, green and grey footprint.
The Green WF has not been calculated because no agricultural products like sugar or aromatic
substances are used in bottled mineral water. Thus, only the Blue and Grey WF have been
calculated.
Additionally to the product itself, the mineral water from the 15,000 year old spring is used as
process water, particularly for purification processes. The blue and grey WF are based on real
data of actual consumption and seizable losses e.g. from reverse osmosis and rinsing losses
during the CO2 adjustment in the so called Carboniser have been considered. For the
calculation of the WF the distinction of the following terms is crucial:
- Water consumption
- Water usage and
- Water pollution (wastewater).
Water consumption effects the calculation of the WFA directly and must be distinguished from
water use where a certain amount of water is not consumed but remains available for the same
or a different purpose. Water consumption is a measure for the spatial and temporal availability
of water and contains:
- Evaporation - high influence of e.g. open water reservoirs of storage power plants
- Losses referring from storage/cooling in the water reservoir and/or water tank,
transportation, evaporation from processes e.g. heating
- water which is incorporated into the product, here: bottled mineral water
For the WF of a product the consumptive water use is relevant. This refers to the quantity of
water which is actually contained in the product and/or has evaporated. Local usage for the
same purpose (water recycling) or an alternative purpose (water re-use) does not have any
influence on the water footprint.
3.2 Preparatory steps

The inventory analysis is based on the existing data of Vöslauer and resulted into the
quantification of the relevant input and output flows of the product systems. Those present the
basis for further data collection and calculation of the water footprint (WF). Process and product
specific data which could not be raised have been taken out of acknowledged databases and
balancing software (e.g. Global Watertool, Eco-invent, Gemis) or have been estimated. Water
losses were only partly quantifiable and therefore could not be considered completely. For the
consideration of the upstream process steps of the packing materials data from literature were
used.
With the inventory analysis all in- and output flows have been determined set aside
consumption and disposal of the bottles. For this purpose flow sheets for both product systems
under consideration of the system border have been provided (figure 3 and 4) as well as an
input output table for the regarded processes of the selected products.
While the production steps within the company affect the direct water footprint of the products,
the up- and downstream processes present the basis for the indirect WF. Data collection of
upstream suppliers concerning the water consumption of the basic materials and their
processing was not very fruitful. Subsequently for these process steps literature and database
values were consulted and adapted if necessary.

Figure 3: Product System single use 1.5 litre PET bottle

Figure 4: Product system re-usable 1.0 litre glass bottle

4. Results and Discussion

The calculation results of the two product systems have been compared and analysed; key
influence factors have been identified.

4.1 Comparison of the water footprint of the two product systems

The following graphs show the percentage distribution of the blue water footprint.

" 


!  " 


 
# 


  

    


   
  


   

  
 
 
  

  
(  
   $
 '
   %

  
  &
   
$
   

Figure 6: composition of Blue WF PET (left) in comparison to Blue WF GLASS (right

The main contribution to the blue water footprint is similar to both product systems and results
from the bottled mineral water itself, the paper labels, the wood pallets, the used electricity and
CO2. The losses of CO2 and of water from rinsing processes have the same share in both
systems.
The individual contribution differs, e.g. the electricity demand for the PET system is higher due
to the blow moulding process of the preforms to gain PET bottles (compare 16 % PET to 10 %
GLASS).
It is also visible that for the reusable GLASS system more wood pallets are needed and
additional water consumption occurs for the cleaning process of the reusable trays (5 %) and
bottles (spring water softened 5 %).The pallets and paper labels of the PET system sum up to
34 % of the Blue WF PET and the product itself – the carbonised spring water to 35 %, whereas
the pallets and paper labels of the GLASS system amount to 46 % of the Blue WF GLASS and
the carbonised spring water to 27 %.
Figure 7 shows the results split into the indirect and direct WF depending where the
consumption is allocated to. This is very important for the development of reasonable
optimization strategies within reach.

ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶt&WůƵĞ
ƉĞƌďŽƚƚůĞ
ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶt&WůƵĞ 6

ƉĞƌ ϭϬϬϬů
2
:777/7

:
4777/7

4
L
3777/7 )5)*+,-
)5)*+,- K
J
I3 3G2
0/174 H )5)*+,-
C
F E
)5)*+,- D 0G1
E 0777/7 C
D
C
0/.36 0

9777/7
9

.777/7 )*+,- )*+,-

. )*+,-
)*+,-
./234 9G7
.G2
./0.1
8 7

;<= 3/3:2 > ?@ABB 4/:47 > ;<= :G2 > ?@AB 4G2 >

Figure 7: composition indirect and direct Blue WF per 1000 l in comparison to Blue WF per bottle

For the production of 1 l of mineral water 4.5 litres of water are needed for the bottling per 1.5
l PET bottle, whereas 5.6 litres are needed for the production of mineral water per 1.0 l Glass
bottle (compare Figure 7 on the left). Figure 8 shows the results for the Grey WF which are
also split into direct (internal) and indirect (external) WF contributions. Surprisingly, the Grey
WF is about the same volume per functional unit, although one might assume a much higher
water consumption for multi-use systems due to the cleaning processes of bottles and trays.
The ratio for the amount of water necessary to dilute waste water to fulfil the local quality
standards is 1 : 2.8 for PET and 1 : 2.9 for Glass.
But the share of indirect and direct WF shows very contrary results, referring from higher
internal consumption for cleaning processes for the GLASS than for the PET system.
Figure 8: composition indirect and direct Grey WF per 1000 l in comparison to Grey WF per bottle

4.2 Influence factors on Blue Water Footprint and optimization

The water footprint is an indicator for the assessment of one single environmental parameter
– the consumption of fresh water. The inclusion of the supply chain including packing materials
and auxiliary materials shows the magnitude of the influence of water consumption along the
product life cycle on the entire water footprint.
As Blue water makes the highest share of the water footprint, the following key influence factors
could be elaborated as starting points for its optimization:

Key impact parameters:

- Paper labels: Paper production is water-intensive, plus raw material wood
- Wood pallets: long growth phase and corresponding water requirement
- Electricity from storage power plants: evaporation of free water surfaces
- Carbon dioxide, CO2

Comparison product system PET to GLASS

- Absolute water consumption differs: ratio 1: 7.2 l for PET and 1: 8.6 l for glass
- Similarity: main contribution of labels, pallets, electricity, CO2 and bottled water
- Glass: more wood pallets per functional unit
- Electricity demand for PET bottles higher due to blow moulding of preforms
- Influence of bottles lower than 1%, high glass recycling rate and multi-path usage

The calculated results of the direct WF of the systems PET and GLASS lie under those for the
indirect WF resulting from the upstream processes with exception of the grey water footprint
of glass, where the cleaning of the empty bottles constitutes the largest portion of the water
consumption. The comparison to the already internally determined water consumption shows
that the so far unconsidered up- and downstream steps have great impact on the total water
footprint: “For the production of one litre of Vöslauer mineral water an average of 0.9 litre of
fresh water is required which sums up to 1.9 litres per litre of bottled beverage. This leads to
approximately three-quarter of a litre of waste water and a direct water consumption of 2.65
litres per litre product (ratio 1: 2.65 l)” (Vöslauer sustainability report 2011, p. 22 water
protection).

Table 1 lists the main components of the total water footprint including their allocation to the
direct and indirect water footprint. The paper labels, wood pallets and the electricity demand
for the production of the bottles are responsible for 56 % of the WFtotal of the system GLASS
which can be assigned to the upstream processes (=indirect). The largest portion which can
be related directly to the production at Vöslauer accounts for 38% of the entire water footprint
and results from the water conditioning and cleaning, the carbon dioxide and the bottled
mineral water itself. Regarding the largest contribution to the WF of the PET system the impact
is similar and main shares can also be assigned to the upstream processes: the paper labels,
the wood pallets and the electricity demand for the production of the bottles constitute 49% of
fresh water need. The direct WF consists mainly of the water consumption due to cleaning and
water processing, the carbon dioxide and the bottled mineral water itself and makes 45% of
the entire WF.
Components/Processes Share Share direct/
with main impact GLASS PET indirect
Paper labels 24 % 22 % indirect
Euro pallets 22 % 11 % indirect
Electricity 10 % 16 % indirect
Total indirect 56 % 49 %
Cleaning/
Conditioning 11% 10 % direct
Carbon dioxide 9% 12 % direct
Mineral water 18 % 23 % direct
Total direct 38 % 45 %
Table 1: components and processes with main impact on total WFtotal

5. Conclusions

The calculation results point out the big influence of the upstream processes and components
which are considerably influenced by procurement decisions and production processes.
The ratio of the bottled product itself to the fresh water need along the supply chain is 1: 8.6
litres for glass returnable bottles and 1:7.3 litres for PET non deposit bottles. This means that
for the production of 1 litre of mineral water in a refillable 1.0 l glass bottle 8.6 litres of fresh
water are consumed in comparison to 1 litre in a 1.5 l PET bottle under the current conditions
and made assumptions. The lever for optimization measures is accordingly high.
The water footprint is an indicator for the assessment of one single environmental parameter
– the consumption of fresh water along the product life cycle. When optimizing measures are
applied one should keep an eye on the fact, that one measure should not entail a major shift
from one life cycle phase to another or from one impact category to the account of another
like. E.g. the substitution of paper labels with plastic ones would raise the carbon dioxide
equivalents of a system whereas the water footprint would show lower results. In some cases
this might not be prevented, but the holistic view on the overall environmental impact should
be considered. The mentioned optimization possibilities only refer to the reduction of the water
footprint. A holistic optimization concept for the two product systems demands a
comprehensive life cycle analysis in accordance with ISO 14040ff. A comparative confrontation
with an alternative, wide-spread evaluation method like the carbon footprint, expressed in CO2-
eq is recommended.
It has to be noted that a comparative depiction of the bottle systems can be misleading, if the
results for the 1 l glass bottle and 1.5 l PET bottle are confronted. In order to prevent misleading
interpretations an additional conversion step to 1.0 l of bottled water is needed. This was
guaranteed with the introduction of the functional unit of 1000 litres of mineral water in the
respective packing.
The comparison of the water footprint of natural mineral water with that of sugar containing
beverages and beverages with other ingredients from agricultural production points out the
large impact of the water evaporation caused by agricultural production with large geographical
differences. From this background pure mineral water should be preferred.
Data refers from the available sources at the time of the project which has been accomplished
at the end 2012/beginning 2013. Due to lack of data some uncertainties still remain and
comparability of results is difficult. However, with the further development and implementation
of the method of WF the data situation will improve.
For a sustainable use of the pure mineral water the efficient usage of different water sources
for different purposes is very important. Thus, the artesian spring water from deeper sources
is exclusively used for drinking purposes while the overflow of the source is utilized for cleaning
and production processes. The company puts effort in raising awareness within the company,
taking measures for optimized water management in line with other measures like reducing of
losses along the pipes and ensuring sustainable usage of the ancient well. The artesian well
constantly delivers mineral water without pumping, not more water is used than naturally
originates. The availability of the water in terms of time and space is also given for other
purposes like the local thermal bath.
Water footprinting has sought to understand and measure the invisible link between the local
consumption of goods and the impacts from the production of those goods on often distant
water resources. In this case, the indirect water footprint is higher in both systems.

6. References
BIER 2011, A practical perspective on Water Accounting in the Beverage Sector, BIER – Beverage
Industry Environmental Roundtable, 2011

Chapagain, A.K. and Tickner, D. (2012): Water footprint: Help or hindrance? In: Water Alternatives
Volume 5 (Issue 3):p. 563-581, ISSN 1965-0175

Ercin, A.E., Aldaya M.M., Hoekstra, A.Y. (2009): A Pilot in corporate water footprint accounting and
impact assessment: The water footprint of a sugar-containing carbonated beverage, Value of Water
Research Report Series No. 39, UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, Delft, the Netherlands

Hoekstra, A.Y., Chapagain, A.K., Aldaya, M.M. and Mekonnen, M.M. (2011): The water footprint
assessment manual: Setting the global standard, Earthscan, London, UK, ISBN 978-1-84971-279-8

Van Oel, P.R., Hoekstra, A.Y. (2012): Towards quantification of the Water footprint of paper: A first
estimate of its consumptive component, in: Water Resour Manage (2012) 26: 733-749, DOI
10.1007/s1169-011-9942-7, Springer Verlag GmbH

The Coca-Cola Company: Towards sustainable sugar sourcing in Europe Water footprint
sustainability assessment (WFSA), August 2011, http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/CocaCola-
2011-WaterFootprintSustainabilityAssessment.pdf
Vöslauer Sustainability Report 2011, http://www.voeslauer.com/

Water Footprint Network http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/home