THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES

SCHOOL OF MECHANICAL AND MANUFACTURING ENGINEERING

INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS
By

MINGBO SUN

A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

July 2004

ABSTRACT

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) has been successfully used as an environmental assessment tool for the development of ecologically sustainable products. The application of LCA in the early design stage has been constrained by the requirement of large amounts of data and time for carrying out the assessment. In addition, the complexity of LCA causes further difficulties for product developers.

In order to integrate the environmental assessment into the process of product development, this research proposes an integrated decision model for sustainable product development and a simplified LCA approach for the application in the early stage of product design. The main advantage of the proposed model is that it incorporates the environmental aspects of product development into the existing product development framework. It enables designers to strike a balance between the product’s environmental performance and other traditional design objectives.

The simplified LCA approach is based on the concept and application of Environmental Impact Drivers. Material-based environmental impacts and Energy-based environmental impacts are used to predict the total environmental impact of a product. Two sets of impact drivers were developed accordingly. The Material-based Impact Drivers were identified by classifying materials into 16 groups according to the nature of the materials and their environmental performance. Energy-based Impact Drivers were developed for various energy sources in major industrial regions.

Product LCA cases were used to verify the proposed methods. The results computed by the application of the impact drivers were compared with the results of full LCA studies. It is concluded that with the proposed approach, the product’s environmental performance can be assessed in a very short time and with very basic data input requirements and acceptable accuracy.

-i-

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There are many people who I wish to thank for their contribution and support to the completion of this thesis.

Firstly, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Kaebernick, for his technical directions and encouragement during the entire research program. His expertise, practical orientation and thoroughness were critical to the success of this thesis. To my co-supervisor Dr. Kayis, I am especially grateful for her sustained support and encouragement all the way through my study at UNSW. They are inspirational educators, not only have they been a valuable source of knowledge to me but also important mentors. Thank you, I am so fortunate to have been your student. With your guidance I thoroughly enjoyed my PhD adventure and gained so much.

Many thanks to my friends and fellow students. I would not have been able to go through the journey without the generous support from you all. I appreciate your friendship as well as your sharing insights and comments. Special thanks go to Dr. Kara for his helpful comments and invaluable suggestions, and to Sharon and Mary for their administrative help. My great appreciations are extended to CRC-IMST for providing the scholarship.

Finally, I want to acknowledge my family. They have all been sources of encouragement and support. My dearest thanks go to my parents, for the love and dedication they poured into my education, for continually fostering my intellectual and personal growth; to my husband Yong Tao, for his love and patience, for his understanding and sacrificially giving. Thank you so much for your unconditional support throughout my pursuits.

Thank you all very much.

-ii-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1

Introduction 1.1 Environmental Issues and Challenges to the Industry 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3 1.2 1.3 1.4 Motivators for Industry to ‘Go Green’ Sustainable Product Development Product Environmental Assessment 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-4 1-6 1-7

Research Initiation Scope and Approach of the Research Outline of the Thesis

2

Literature Review 2.1 Ecologically Sustainable Development and the Industry 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.2 Industry’s Movement towards ESD Tools for Improving Environmental Performance 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-4 2-7 2-7 2-7 2-8 2-11 2-14 2-16 2-17 2-17 2-18

The Design Issues and DfE 2.2.1 2.2.2 Product Design Design for Environment (DfE)

2.3

Environmental Life Cycle Assessment 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4 2.3.5 Life Cycle Engineering/Life Cycle Design Life Cycle Assessment Methodology LCA Tools LCA Application LCA Limitations

2.4

Research Needs 2.4.1 2.4.2 Needs for an Integrated Product Development Model Needs for a Simplified LCA Approach

-iii-

4 5.3.2 5.3 Integrated Decision Model 3.3 5.6 Grouping of Non-Metals Grouping of Ferrous Metals Grouping of Non-ferrous Metals 5-1 5-2 5-3 5-8 5-9 5-14 5-17 5-18 5-25 5-28 5-28 5-32 Material Groups and their Environmental Impact Drivers Life Cycle Inventory Analysis for Material Groups Case Studies 5.1.1.1 5.1 5.1.1.1 4.1.1.6.3.3.3.3 Product Classification and Group Technology The Pilot Study 4-1 4-1 4-6 4-8 3-11 The Simplified Approach Conclusion 5 The Environmental Impact Drivers 5.1.1 3.5 5.2 5.3.1.1 3.1.6.2 Case Study: Coffee Machine Case Study: Computer Monitor 3.1 Product Design Objectives 3.1 5.2 Coffee Machine Disposable Shavers -iv- .1 Material-Based Environmental Impacts Drivers 5.2 3.1.1 Background 4.2 4.1.2 4.1.3 Current Product Design Practice Sustainable Product Development 3-1 3-1 3-2 3-4 3-9 3-9 3-12 3-15 An Integrated Decision Model Case Studies 3.2 3.1.1.3 Grouping of Materials Initial Grouping Attempts Grouping According to Generic Material Categories 5.1.4 Conclusion 4 The Simplified Environmental Assessment Approach 4.

2 6.3.1 6.2 5.3 6 Energy-Based Environmental Impact Drivers Conclusion 5-34 5-37 Verification and Case Studies 6.3 6.1.2.2.1 6.3.2 Toaster 6.3 6.2 Research Contributions Future Research 7-1 7-3 Reference -v- .1.3 Case Studies 6.3.1.3.3.2.3.1 Kettle 6.5.3.3.1 7.1 6.2 The Verification of the Simplified Approach Correlation Between Product Environmental Impact and Lifetime Energy Use for Active Products 6.2 6.4 Conclusion The LCA Impact Profile of the Toaster The Simplified Assessment of the Toaster The Eco-design Alternative of the Toaster The LCA Impact Profile of the Kettle The Simplified Assessment of the Kettle The Eco-design Alternative of the Kettle 6-8 6-10 6-10 6-11 6-13 6-13 6-16 6-16 6-18 6-13 6-22 6-1 7 Conclusion 7.

LIST OF TABLES Table 2.6 Table 3.2 Table 3.8 Table 5.11 Table 6.5 Table 5.4 Table 3.1 Table 3.7 Table 5.5 Table 3.1 Table 2.4 Table 6.3 Table 3.6 Table 5.5 Environmental impacts with energy consumption from different regions Environmental impact of the kettle life cycle Features of a kettle -vi- .2 Table 5.3 Table 6.1 Table 6.1 Table 5.2 Table 3.9 Table 4.7 Table 3.9 Table 5.3 Table 5.4 Table 5.8 Table 3.10 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Impact categories adopted by different LCA methods LCA tools Example for paired comparison of design objectives Ranking features of product development projects Decision guidelines for paired comparison Features of home appliances Relative importance of design objectives for a coffee machine Total performance of design alternatives for a coffee machine Features of computer industry Relative importance of design objectives for a computer monitor Total Performance of design alternatives for computer monitor Examples of environmentally driven product classification Environmental parameters used in grouping analyses Mechanical properties for 17 material groups Descriptions of the 16 material groups Material groups and Material-based Environmental Impact Drivers Short LCI list for material groups Major environmental impact categories for material groups Comparison of computed impacts and LCA results for model Sima Comparison of computed impacts and LCA results for model Pro The computed environmental impacts for disposable shavers Energy based Environmental Impact Drivers and the Major Substances Major environmental impact categories for Energy-based Impact Drivers Product environmental impact indicator and life cycle phases Environmental Impact Indicator for 43 product cases computed by the simplified approach Table 6.

Table 6.6 Table 6.9 Table 6.11 Relative importance of design objectives for a kettle Total performance of design alternatives for the kettle Environmental impact of toaster life cycle Features of the toaster Relative importance of design objectives for the toaster Total performance of design alternatives for the toaster -vii- .10 Table 6.8 Table 6.7 Table 6.

1 Eco-Indicator 99 analysis for Non-ferrous Metals Grouping solutions and accuracies Environmental profile of the disposable shavers life cycle Major substances for the environmental impact of disposable shavers Deviations of computed value compared to LCA results for 43 product cases Figure 6.11 Figure 6.3 Figure 5.2 Figure 2.LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.7 Relationship between Nickel content in ferrous metals and Eco-Indicator 99 single score Figure 5.9 Figure 5. Figure 6.4 Figure 5.8 Figure 5.3 Figure 6.3 Figure 2.2 Figure 5.1 Figure 3.3 Figure 5. 2000) Design degree of freedom and cost of changes Generic representation of product life cycle Design for Environment Tools and Costs Aggregation levels of LCA results for different audience Trade-off models for current design decision General structure of an environmental life cycle assessment as part of a comprehensive product assessment Figure 3.1 Trade-off model for sustainable product development ECO’99 weighted environmental impact and elasticity modulus for material groups Figure 5.5 Figure 5.4 Environmental profile of the kettle life cycle Major substances for the environmental impact of the kettle life cycle -viii- .2 Correlations between product environmental impacts and lifetime energy consumption for 3 regions.6 Eco-Indicator 99 analyses for Glass & Ceramics Eco-Indicator 99 analyses for Paper & Board Eco-Indicator 99 analysis for Polymer Eco-Indicator 99 analysis for Wood Summarized dendrogram using average linkage for cluster analysis of ferrous metals Figure 5.10 Figure 5.2 Representation of the design process (Rose.1 Figure 2.5 Figure 3.4 Figure 2.

Figure 6.6 Environmental profile of the toaster life cycle Major substances for the environmental impact of the toaster life cycle -ix- .5 Figure 6.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS DE DM DE DfE DS EMS EP ESD I IE IM LCA LCD LCE LCI Pi PC PP QFD SETAC TP Xi Wi The Energy-based Environmental Impact Drivers The Material-based Environmental Impact Drivers Development Expenses Design for Environment Development Speed Environmental Management System Environmental Performance Ecologically Sustainable Development The total Environmental Performance Indicator The Energy-based Environmental Impact of the product The Material-based Environmental Impact of the product Life Cycle Assessment Life Cycle Design Life Cycle Engineering Life Cycle Inventory Target performance level of the design objective i Product Cost Product Performance Quality Function Deployment Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry The Total Performance of a design alternative Performance level of the design objective i for a design alternative Weighting factor of a design objective -x- .

the general concept and key principles of ESD were introduced to the mainstream after more than two decades of development. but at a severe price of the rapid declining of natural capital (Hawken.1 Environmental Issues and Challenges to the Industry For the last two hundred years. 1. outlined the world’s commitment to sustainability. scope and methodology of this research on product environmental assessment. It then introduces aims. 1987). Finally. Concerns for future generations and the alarming rate of deterioration of Eco-systems provide the impetus for Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD).United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED).Chapter 1Introduction CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION This chapter gives a short description of the impetus of integrating environmental assessment in the product development decision process and the motivation of developing a simplified Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach to facilitate the LCA practices of designers. 1-1 . Since the birth of environmentalism in the 1960s. 1999). the thesis structure is explained at the end of the chapter. Goals for achieving ecologically sustainable development have been set up by countries and companies. The most widely cited definition of the ESD concept comes from a report of Our Common Future. the environmental issues are no longer only a task for environmental specialists or a small group of idealists. also known as the Brundtland report. the Earth Summit . The report defines "sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (WCED. industrial systems have achieved massive growths in prosperity and manufactured capital. Following this in 1992. Nowadays.

the main focus of legislation has been on production processes. ‘end-of-pipe’ legislation had limited effect on improving environmental performance. the fact that a particular company has included environmental criteria into the product’s design may sway the customer to purchase that product over and above the product of competitors (Lucacher. 1998). roadmaps and programs as they recognized that failing to take steps forward in environmental initiatives may mean loss of competitiveness in the market place (Stevels. In recent developments.1 Motivators for Industry to ‘Go Green’ In the last two decades. urge companies to implement environmental initiatives that reduce operating costs and increase quality. Increasing its profitability is still the main driver for a company to take environmental aspects into consideration. environmental compatibility breaks ties at the shelf (Ottman. As a result of stricter legislation on disposal practices. Little or no regulation existed for products or the design of products. New solutions of environmental issues seek to address the root causes instead of the effects. Another driving force comes from the competition. The increasing costs of materials and energy. Companies are developing environmental strategies. The solutions to environmental damages were sought through investments in machinery and equipment for the ‘end-of-pipe’ remediation based on the principle of ‘polluter pays’. Learning from the past.Chapter 1Introduction 1. many industrial activities have been regulated from the environmental perspectives (Stevels. thus transferring the responsibility to manufacturers of products.1. Consumers’ and other stakeholders’ push for continuous environmental improvements is also an important driver. Originally. In the tough competitive marketplace. 2000). the costs of 1-2 . 2000). Where competing companies' products are closely matched. by taking the causes into account when the product is originally designed. 1996). Competitors that make progress in environmental issues put pressure on the ‘fence-sitters’ to improve environmental performance. the ‘polluter pays’ principle has been shifted to the ‘producer pays’ principle.

shorter life cycles. a technical approach and a systematic product decision-making framework reflecting the company’s environmental policy. adhere to legislation and maintain competitive advantage. Gardiner. The focus concerning environmental problems has also shifted from process related issues to product related issues. A financial benefit can also be achieved by generating less waste and by design for reuse and recycling. 1. Developing tools and evaluation models for environmentally friendly product development is necessary in order to gain market share. 1-3 . The integration of environmental aspects into the product development process requires both. to make changes on the conventional paradigm of product development and corporate operation. flexibility.Chapter 1Introduction disposal have been rising over the last decade. 1993. 4. The following section outlines the issues faced by companies to integrate environmental considerations into to their product development process. These issues are addressed through this research and the proposed methodology is presented in Chapters 3. It is recognized that decisions on the product system at stages of product development have significant influence on the kind and amount of impact they make on the environment. quality. industry is moving from a reactive approach to a proactive approach.1. These “ green drivers” have lead to challenges and opportunities for the industry. In light of sustainable product development. the design decision-makers have to contend with the pressure of creating and designing product systems to meet the functional requirements. a successful way to minimize the environmental burden is to integrate environmental aspects in the existing product development process (Hanssen. Sustainable product development has become increasingly important. The challenge and responsibility posed to designers is therefore to strike a balance among multiple conflicting goals while remaining competitive. increasing competition and the rapidly increasing environmental awareness (Fischer.2 Sustainable Product Development With the change of environmental attitude in general. rapidly evolving new technologies. globalization. 1996). 1999). and 5. Therefore. time-to-market. cost and economy.

The resolved product and detailed product information. distribution.2 Research Initiation The trend towards sustainable development is driving many companies to consider environmental issues in the process of product development. from raw materials acquisition. production. The ISO standard defines LCA as a compilation and evaluation of the inputs and outputs and the potential environmental impacts of a product system through its lifecycle. reuse. LCA has been the most sophisticated method to assess environmental impacts of products. it requires delineation of all environmental effects irrespective of their position in the life or their origin. Stevels (2000) indicated that LCA has limited applicability because. The aims are to understand and evaluate the magnitude and significance of potential environmental impacts of a product system and determine ways of reducing the associated environmental damage at all stages. which is the cost and time required for conducting LCA. to customer use. It provides a systematic.3 Product Environmental Assessment Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) has become a standard tool for analyzing environmental effects of products and processes. Furthermore.. as a holistic approach. This phase is also considered to have most effect 1-4 . Detailed reviews on the LCA methodology and its applications are presented in Chapter 2.1. The early design stages typically incorporate decisions on a product’s basic physical configuration and product specifications (Krishnan et al. So far. however. are not yet available in the early stages of product development. There is however a continuing concern associated with LCA activities. recycling. comprehensive inventory and impact assessment of the full environmental implications associated with the products’ entire life cycle. 1. 2001).Chapter 1Introduction 1. and disposal. LCA has been applied in many industries as a proactive approach for integrating pollution prevention and resource conservation strategies into the development of more ecologically and economically sustainable product systems.

US Congress.Chapter 1Introduction on the products’ environmental performance (Bhamra et al.. Currently. but detailed information is not available. This requires that designers be able to conduct timely assessment on environmental performance of many alternative concepts early in the design process. and money needed to change the path as product launch deadlines approach. A simplified LCA approach is proposed in this research. On the other hand. competing product concepts are numerous and have dramatic differences. Frei and Zuest. The need for an analytically based decision-making framework for the integration of environmental criteria into the design process has motivated the development of a decision model for sustainable product development. According to literature. there are particular difficulties on environmental assessment. there has been extensive research into methods for reducing environmental impacts at the manufacturing stages. In the early design stages. Therefore. 1997. Only recently. multi-attribute tradeoffs and decisions must be made quickly. 1999. to facilitate the application of environmental assessment in the early stages of product development. cost and time to market. the product’s environmental performance needs to be considered in the evaluation of design alternatives together with the other traditional design objectives. 1-5 . efforts have been altered from reactive ‘end-of-pipe’ solutions to proactive prevention at source solutions. the research for improving the environmental performance in the process of product development is lagging far behind the process improvement work. Fiksel. On the one hand. 1992). Decisions from this phase are then often frozen due to the large amount of resources of time. such as functional performance. manpower. 1996. Therefore the use of detailed LCA methods is of limited value for this phase because of the amount of time and information needed to develop the parametric LCA models.

environmental standards and strategies.Chapter 1Introduction 1. The following presents the major aspects of this research: • Development of Environmental Impact Drivers (D). including Material-based Environmental Impact Drivers (DM) and Energy-based Environmental Impact Drivers (DE).3 Scope and Approach of the Research The main objective of the research is to develop a full methodology for designers to integrate the product’s environmental performance into the early design stage. environmental policies. • Development of a simplified LCA approach for the application at the early stages of product development on the basis of the identified drivers DE and DM. measured by the Environmental Performance Indicator (I). • Investigation into the applicability of the integrated decision model and the simplified LCA approach. information in the field of approaches to sustainable product development. and balances it with other design objectives. the simplified LCA approach must be a quick and easy predictive tool that is understandable and practical to the designers. The research methods used in this study include a literature review. This enables designers to have a quick estimation of the environmental impacts associated with the energy consumption and material usage of a design alternative. to generate the products’ Environmental Performance Indicator (I). which incorporates the product’s environmental performance. 1-6 . without requiring specialist environmental knowledge. product life cycle assessment methodologies and tools. and to consider it under the same framework together with the traditional design objectives. case studies and statistical analysis. As the core part of the methodology. • Development of an integrated decision model for sustainable product development. In the review of literature. life cycle engineering.

LCA data for 394 material cases have been derived from the IDEMAT (2002) database and the databases in the SimaPro (2002) software package. The explanation of the eleven impact categories is included in Appendix A. ecosystem quality 40% and resources 20%). corporate documents. Various classification criteria were adopted in the attempt to identify material groups. characterization. consensus among scientists determines inclusion of effects) and average weighting (A) (human health 40%. The gathered LCA documentations were either detailed reports or summarized reports. an initial LCA was performed. classification tools such as simple ordinal comparisons and hierarchical clustering were applied. and manufacturers. has been investigated through searching of books. journals. 1. Forty-three product LCA cases have been collected from publications. For the latter case where appropriate information was available. and dissertations. In order to make a valid comparison.4 Outline of the Thesis A literature review is presented in Chapter 2. references. 1999).Chapter 1Introduction material and product classifications. In the sourcing of case studies. all the product and material cases used in this study were assessed by the SimaPro 5. The SimaPro LCA software was developed by Pre Consultants in the Netherlands. industry’s movement towards ESD was 1-7 . marketing and publicity documentation. In the cases of missing data. For the development of environmental impact drivers. to calculate the Life Cycle Inventories.0 LCA software package using the evaluation method of Eco-Indicator 99 H/A (Geodkoop. organization documentation and others. these were generated from reference books and databases as well as information from suppliers. It is based on normalization values for Europe in a hierarchist (H) valuation perspective (balanced time perspective. Information on the research areas of Ecologically Sustainable Development. The material-based environmental impact drivers were developed by classifying materials into groups based on the nature of the material and their environmental performance. conference proceedings. and evaluation indicator results. classification. retailers.

Chapter 5 presents the development of two sets of Environmental Impact Drivers. The aim is to balance the environmental performance of a product against traditional design objectives at the early stage of product development. materials were classified into groups according to the type of material and their environmental performance. Case studies were conducted to investigate the effect of introducing environmental performance into the decision model.Chapter 1Introduction investigated. It also presents a weighting system to assess the total performance of competing design alternatives. The concept of Environmental Impact Drivers (D). By mapping materials into the index of DM. The methodology provides a coherent evaluation of design alternatives with the consideration of their environmental performance. Existing literature on product design issues and Design for Environment. Life Cycle Assessment methodology. They are Material-based Environmental Impact Drivers (DM) and Energy-based Environmental Impact Drivers (DE). the material-based environmental impacts of a design alternative can be evaluated on the basis of a few material groups. A Material based Environmental Impact Driver was defined for each group.which represent the key factors that determine the environmental impacts associated with a product system. mechanical and environmental properties. Chapter 3 is devoted to the integration of the product’s environmental performance into the decision making process during the early stage of product design. LCA applications and limitations were reviewed. The literature review led to the establishment of the study background and the problem formulation for this research. A simplified LCA approach is proposed including both energy–based environmental impact and material-based environmental impact in the estimation of the product’s environmental performance. relevant LCA tools. is applied to the calculation of Energy-based Environmental Impact (IE) and Material-based Environmental Impact (IM) . This enables designers to have a timely assessment on the material-based environmental impacts with acceptable 1-8 . Based on the analysis of the materials’ physical. Chapter 4 discusses the review of environmentally driven product classification and the pilot study on using Group Technology to simplify product environmental assessment. This chapter provides an integrated decision model for sustainable product development.

The computed results were compared with results from LCA cases studies for verification. and the evaluation can be completed in a very short time. 1-9 . representing environmental impacts associated with the energy consumption from different sources in different regions. The list of publications is presented in Appendix E. Appendix B lists the material cases and their environmental impact in damage categories. Chapter 7 summarizes the main research findings of this thesis including the crucial lessons and observations resulting from the research. Energy-based Environmental Impact Drivers were identified. Appendix C includes the substances with major contribution to the materials’ environmental performance. Appendix A explains the eleven environmental impact categories used by the method of Eco-indicator 99. The calculations use very simple input data. Further simplification can be achieved by using simple regression equations for active products. In addition. this chapter identifies opportunities for future research. Appendix D describes the product LCA cases included in this research. Chapter 6 presents the application of the proposed simplified LCA approach and Environmental Impact Drivers. Analysis on life cycle inventory is also provided for each material group.Chapter 1Introduction accuracy.

inappropriate use of land and water resources in production and supply. Mackenzie. wastes and environmentally hazardous residues (Swedish EPA. The establishment of research needs and constraints are described at the end of this chapter. acidification of soil and water. Section three presents the review of the existing literature of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). and the application and limitation of LCA. principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development are introduced worldwide. Literature on product design issues and Design for Environment are described in section two. eutrophication of water and nitrogen saturation of soil. 1996. 2.Chapter 2 Literature Review CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Chapter 2 presents a literature review on the research background of Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD). effects of metals. 1996). introduction and spread of alien organisms. These natural capitals are deteriorating worldwide at an unprecedented rate (Hawken. The key threats include: enhanced greenhouse effect. 1999). urban air pollution and noise. depletion of ozone layer. pressures on areas of special conservation interest and on-cyclic material flows. photochemical oxidants and ground-level ozone. including: • Intergenerational equity 2-1 . and industry’s movement towards ESD in the first section. living systems. effects of persistent organic pollutants. which includes natural resources. exploitation of land for housing. and ecosystem service. relevant LCA tools. Recognizing the shadow side of the industrial production. industry and infrastructure.1 Ecologically Sustainable Development and the Industry The increase of human economic activities and the progress of industrial development have raised the concerns about the implication of such activities on the natural capital.

Walley and Whitehead. A primary concern is how to manage their environmental impacts effectively and efficiently. by making efforts to understand the environmental impacts caused by their activities. Recently.Chapter 2 Literature Review • • • Intragenerational equity Precautionary principle. Sheng et al. Manufacturers are facing the challenge on the more effective use of natural resources and the reduction of environmental impacts during the product life cycle. while still meeting customer’s demands for high quality and affordable products (Alting. 1994). 1996. A balance among these conflicting goals has to be achieved in order to keep competitiveness. By taking advantage of regulatory requirements. which are rather reactionary. Developing proactive and innovative responses turns out to be more cost effective than developing processes that negate the effects after the fact (Persson. these interventions provide opportunities for improved environmental protection.dealing cautiously with risk Global issues 2. savings on waste management cost. environmental considerations are portrayed not as a cost of doing business but as catalysts for innovation and new market opportunities (Azzone et al. 1997. 1995). Porter and 2-2 .1 Industry’s Movement towards ESD A number of surveys (Pezzoli..1.. industry realised that addressing environmental issues could be a source of competitive advantage. 1998). Forward-thinking companies are shifting rapidly from a strategy of regulatory compliance to one of proactive environmental management. 1995). direct cost reductions. From this perspective. reduced health and safety risk for both public and employee and improved operation and profit standing (Kedldgaard. 1997) indicate that industries have recognized their important roles in the movement towards Ecologically Sustainable Development. Historically. Invoking sound business sense.. 1995. companies enhance their competitiveness through strategies offering ecological as well as financial opportunities (Porter et al. industry responded with solutions of ‘End-of-pipe’ remediation. profit reducing and thus eventually they threaten its existence.

Chapter 2 Literature Review

Esty, 1998; Lanjouw, 1996; Stevels, 1999). Proactive environmental policy has been used as a marketing tool by industrial-oriented firms (Davis, 1992; Murphy and Gouldson, 2000).

2.1.2

Tools for Improving Environmental Performance

Research programs have been initiated to develop tools for evaluating and improving companies’ environmental performance, so that environmental concerns can be integrated in the product development and design process (Rombouts, 1998; Steen, 1999). These programs include: the Swedish product Ecology Project, the Nordic project on Environmentally sound product development, the various Dutch Programs e.g. Eco-Indicator (Goedkoop et al., 1999), Eco-design, Million and the Promise, the Danish Programs e.g. Materials Technology, Quality Function Deployment (QFD) and EDIP (Wenzel et al., 1997) programmes, the American Life Cycle Design Project (Keoleian et al., 1995) and the German strategies for industrial production in the 21 century. These projects indicate how the industries place priority on addressing environmental issues.

New concepts and systematic approaches for environmental management have been developed and applied by industry. Examples may include Total Quality and Environmental Management (TQEM), Industrial Ecology (Allenby, 1999), Product Stewardship, Cleaner Production, Product-oriented Environmental Management System (P-EMS), Concurrent Engineering, Ecologically Sustainable Manufacturing (ESM), Green Design and Manufacture practices, ISO 14000 series standards for environmental management etc.

At the same time, a handful of techniques are dedicated for the application of Design for the Environment (DfE) concept, e.g. energy audits, pollution prevention and guidelines for parts recovery and recycling, design of disassembly, design of reuse/recycling, Material Input Per Service (MIPS), reverse distribution and life design (Biswas et al., 1995); Environmental benchmarking is an effective engineering and environmental tool for comparing products of similar functions or in similar market segments (Jansen et al., 1998).
2-3

Chapter 2 Literature Review

2.2

The Design Issues and DfE

Cleaner production requires the continuous application of an integrated preventive environmental strategy to processes and products so as to reduce risks to humans and environment. It is achieved by applying know-how, by improving technology, and /or by changing management attitudes. Design for Environment and Life Cycle Assessment are major concepts and techniques for Cleaner Production. These techniques are described in more details in the following sections.

2.2.1

Product Design

Design can be described as a set of decisions taken to solve a particular set of product requirements. The traditional definition of a well-designed product is one that performs its functions successfully. It is the product manufactured efficiently using appropriate materials and techniques, is easy to use, is safe, offers good value for money and looks attractive (Mackenzie, 1996).

As an innovation to the traditional design procedure, concurrent engineering practice simultaneously considers product and manufacturing design. As shown in Figure 2.1, during product design, decisions are made regarding manufacturing, distribution, marketing, consumer usage, servicing and end-of-life. Decisions on the choices of material, resources and processes, together with the energy, service, and disposal influence the use of the product outside the firm and ultimately determine the characteristics of the waste streams. Thus design decisions profoundly influence the entire life cycle of the product. Graedel and Allenby (1995) cited design as the stage that has the strongest influence on the product’s environmental impact.

2-4

Chapter 2 Literature Review

Strategy

Product Design

Manufac -turing

Distribution

Marketing

Consumer

Servicing

End-ofLife

Market Survey

Idea Generation

Figure 2.1 Representation of the design process (Rose, 2000)

Figure 2.2 shows the phases of product design: product definition /product planning, conceptual design, embodiment design and detail design. Product definition is an initial phase in the product development process. It is at this stage where design decisions are at the highest degree of freedom, have the most influence on the developed product system, and the changes are the most cost effective.

The conceptual design is the most important phase in concurrent engineering after the product definition phase. Approximately 80% of a product’s life cycle costs are determined through design choices, such as materials and manufacturing process selections in this phase. Conceptual design comprises concept definition, exploration, evaluation and selection (Allen et al., 1998). Detail design is the actual physical design of the product. As shown in Figure 2.2, design problems found later in the design process (embodiment or detailed design stages) cause costly and time-consuming redesign of the product, and may delay the product’s introduction to the market.

2-5

Chapter 2 Literature Review

Design Degree of Freedom

Cost of Changes Detail of Information

Product Definition

Conceptual Design

Detail Design

Production, Use, Disposal

Figure 2.2 Design degree of freedom and cost of changes (Soriano, 2001)(modified)

As the marketplace has become increasingly competitive, product designers cannot afford to optimise the design with respect to just the traditional functional requirements (i.e. product performance). They must insure that the product excels in all other aspects that lead to customer satisfaction and product profitability such as cost, quality, reliability and environmental impact (Sarbacker, 1998). Design for X is an integrated approach to designing products and processes for cost effective, high quality life cycle management. 'DfX' tools have been developed to help achieve the diverse product requirements, including: • • • • • • • • • •

Design for Assembly (Boothroyd et al., 1994); Design for Process/Design for Producibility (Bralla, 1986); Design for Serviceability (Gershenson et al., 1991); Design for Ownership Quality (Kmenta et al., 1999); Design for Environment (Graedel, 1995); Design for Product Retirement (Ishii et al., 1994); Design for Recyclability (Ishii et al., 1996); Design for End-of-Life (Rose et al., 2000); Design for Product Variety (Martin, 2000); and Design for Supply Chain (Esterman et al., 1999)

2-6

Chapter 2 Literature Review

2.2.2

Design for Environment (DfE)

Design for Environment is based on the Design for X paradigm. It is the systematic consideration of design performance with respect to environmental objectives over the entire product life cycle (Boks, 2000). Keoleian et al. (1995) defines DfE as an umbrella term for approaches and activities that incorporate environmental criteria into the design of new products and the redesign of existing ones. In the DfE process, the environment is given the same status as the more traditional product values such as profit, functionality, and overall quality. With the focus of environmental protection measures shifting from site-oriented towards a product-oriented view, companies have introduced Design for Environment to minimise the environmental damages caused by its products.

Design pressure comes from the fact that environmental conscious products do not always sell in the retail market because consumers still use other criteria such as function and price. Designers cannot trade-off all other product attributes with being green. The priority is still product function and purpose (Allenby, 1995; Gertsakis, 2000). Therefore firms that are able to design high quality and environmentally sound products will enjoy a competitive advantage. The environmental performance can add a premium to some products or introduce a “feel-good” factor to customers and their businesses (BATE, 1998a-d). Addressing the variety of competing and challenging demands, DfE has become an innovative strategy for achieving good performance, ecologically as well as the economically.

2.3

Environmental Life Cycle Assessment

2.3.1

Life Cycle Engineering/Life Cycle Design

Life Cycle Engineering is engineering activities which include: the application of technological and scientific principles to the design and manufacture of products, with the goal of protecting the environmental and conserving resources, while encouraging economic progress, keeping in mind the need for sustainability and at the same time optimising the product life cycle and minimizing pollution and waste (Jeswiet, 2003). Figure 2.3 provides the generic product life phases from material extraction to product
2-7

Chapter 2 Literature Review

end-of-life. According to the study purpose other phases such as transportation, distribution, maintenance, recycling, and reuse, maybe included when defining the product system boundary to be studied. The life cycle approach is of crucial importance, since it considers the environmental impact associated with the whole product life cycle. A company may select those suppliers and distributors who generate less pollution. This encourages the collaborative effort to reduce the total environmental impacts of the product in cooperation with suppliers, distributors, users, and recycling companies.

Material Production

Product Manufacturing

Product Usage

Product Disposal

Figure 2.3 Generic representation of product life cycle (Rose, 2000)

The use of life cycle concepts in product design is considered as a great opportunity to bring about innovative products that fulfil the requirements of the industry, customers and society. The developed product can be optimised for individual life cycle phases. Life Cycle Design (LCD) however aims to optimise these stages together, instead of separately. It is a proactive approach for integrating pollution prevention and resource conservation strategies into the development of more ecologically and economically sustainable product systems. The process requires tradeoffs to develop the optimal design that balances the gains and losses in all the stages of product life cycle.

Keolerian et al. (1995) defines the aim of LCD as minimising aggregate risks and impacts over the entire life cycle of a product, through striking a balance of environmental performance, cost, cultural, legal, and technical requirements of a product system. A product goes through the following stages in LCD: need recognition, design/development, manufacturing and assembly, distribution, usage and service, recycling, reuse, disposal and the ultimate fate of residuals (Alting, 1993). Other terms such as Green Design, Eco Design, Environmental Conscious Design and Clean Design are also widely used. Although the wording may have different meaning, the terms generally have the same goal (Lagerstedt, 2003).

2-8

Chapter 2 Literature Review

2.3.2

Life Cycle Assessment Methodology

The term LCA dates back to the 1960’s and 1970’s (Boustead, 1996), when the world recognised the potential problems of resource scarcity and the climate changes caused by pollution of the atmosphere. Product LCA methodologies and frameworks had been developed in the 1980’s, but its practices had remained on a limited scale. In the early 1990’s industry, governmental and academic interest in LCA was revived on an international scale, and thereafter became a famous buzzword in conferences, workshops and seminars. LCA has gained more attention because it can highlight the “hot spots” in a product life cycle, which have significant contribution to the total environmental impacts. It also can keep track of impacts that are merely shifted from one life cycle phase to another.

Life cycle assessment is one of the major tools used in implementing Design for Environment and Cleaner Production. ISO 14000 series defines LCA as “ a holistic environmental accounting procedure which quantifies and evaluates all wastes discharged to the environment and energy and raw materials consumed throughout the entire life-cycle, beginning with sourcing raw materials from the earth through manufacturing and distribution to consumer use and disposal.”

It is a useful technique for examining and improving the environmental impact of a product at all stages of its life cycle including the ecological rucksack carried by all its ingredients and the impacts of its production, use and disposal. After the establishment of study purpose and system boundary, actual analysis begins with the inventory analysis stage wherein the characteristics of a system are described quantitatively, in terms of raw material and energy inputs and emissions to the air, water, soil, nonmaterial emission and solid wastes. Then at the impact assessment stage, inputs and outputs identified at the inventory stage are linked to environmental effects and qualitatively evaluated. This involves classification and characterisation of the inventory, normalisation and evaluation. Lastly, the improvement stage provides the means to consider alternatives for redesigning the product system such that it satisfies the same functions but with minimised environmental burden. These four components of the LCA methodology are described in more detail in the following sections.
2-9

The impact assessment then converts the data from inventory analysis into descriptions of the environmental impact. the expected product of the study. the analysis involves all steps in the life cycle of each component of the product being studied. Once the inputs and outputs of a system have been quantified by LCI. defines the purpose of the study. impact assessment can be performed. • Characterization is the process of developing conversion models to translate LCI and supplemental data to impact descriptors. not on effects on health or the environment. The second stage of the LCA process is the life cycle inventory. The process of identifying impacts of concern and selecting actual or surrogate characteristics to describe impacts. 2-10 . For a product life cycle. and the assumptions (SETAC. goal definition and scoping. The LCI quantifies the resource use. This stage of LCA is critical because the LCI results are needed to perform any type of quantitative impact assessment. It is the process of assignment and initial aggregation of LCI data into relatively homogeneous impact groups. It provides the information for the impact assessment. If impact assessment is not performed. 1993). and environmental releases associated with the system being evaluated.Chapter 2 Literature Review The first stage of LCA. the boundary conditions. energy use. Conceptually impact assessment consists of three stages: • Classification is the assignment of LCI inputs and outputs to impact groups. • Valuation is the assignment of relative values or weights to different impacts. The inventory analysis stage doesn't directly assess the environmental impacts of the inputs and outputs. then LCI results can be used directly to perform improvement assessment based on energy and emission results. allowing integration across all impact categories.

It is analysis of information from impact assessment for evaluation and implementation of opportunities to make an environmental improvement in a product or process. EPS 2000 (Steen.3 LCA Tools LCA tools can be as simple as a qualitative assessment based on preferences or quantitative assessment of impacts at the various phases of the products life cycle. Ecoindicator 99. LCA practitioners have to be aware of such differences.Chapter 2 Literature Review The fourth stage is improvement assessment. 2. and the appropriate LCA tool should be selected in accordance to the goal definition of LCA study.1 shows the environmental impact categories adopted by the methods of Eco-indicator 95. The applied classification and evaluation model vary among the methods. 2-11 . 1994). and CML 2 baseline (2001).3. 1999). Table 2. The goal is to identify those parts of the system that can be changed to reduce the overall burden or impact of the product or service system (Curran.

. Cap. MECO Principle (Wenzel. 1995). EcoQuantum. 1997). Volvo’s Environmental Profile tool. (Eagan et al. Screening LCA (Bretz and Frankhauser.1 Impact categories adopted by different LCA methods Methods Eco-indicator 95 Eco-indicator 99 • • • • • • • • • • EPS 2000 • Green house Ozone layer Acidification Eutrophication Heavy metals Carcinogens Winter smog Summer smog Pesticides Energy resources • Carcinogenic substances Life expectancy CML 2 baseline 2000 • Abiotic depletion • • Respiratory effects (organics) • Severe morbidity Global warming • • • Morbidity Nuisance Crop growth capacity • Ozone layer depletion • Respiratory effects (inorganics) • • Human toxicity Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity • Climate change • Wood growth capacity • • Radiation Ozone layer depletion • Fish and meat production solid acidification • Marine aquatic ecotoxicity Impact Categories • Solid waste • Terrestrial ecotoxicity • • Ecotoxicity Acidification/ Eutrophication • Prod. Surrogate LCA 2-12 . others including: matrix approaches and abridged LCA (Graedel et al.Chapter 2 Literature Review Table 2... Irrigation water • Photochemical oxidation • • Land use Depletion of minerals • • • Acidification Eutrophication Prod. 1999). Oil points (Bey and Lenau. Drinking water • Depletion of fossil fuels • Depletion of reserves • Species extinction Available LCA tools range from simple checklists to abridged and full LCA tools. 1997). Interactive Screening LCA (Fleisher et al. 1996). Cap. 1995).

. Some other tools are summarized in Table 2. implementation time. Ecoscan 2. NOH. data requirements and costs. 1999). 1996 and Mueller. 1998. 2003) and Integrated Economic and Environmental Assessment through Activity Based LCA( Emblamsvag and Bras.2. time consuming and sometimes not easy to communicate with non-experts (Hockerts. Streamlining will always incur the risk of obtaining a result that is different to that of a full LCA (Curran. TEAM. As shown in figure 2. detailed and expensive studies. the clear trend towards screening and simplified studies can be observed. LCA methodologies and tools vary widely in terms of goals. Eco Functional Matrix (Lagerstedt.4. Ecopro 1. LCAdvantage. and amount of quantification. a full LCA is an extremely useful tool. Euklid. Repaq. 1999). According to the study by RTI. JEM-LCA. Conceptually. EIME.4. while the use of streamlined LCA methods has been attempted and appears to be increasing as practitioners seek less expensive methods that yield timely results. great care has to be exercised. However. 1999). much focus was given to the very long.0. SimaPro. 2-13 . Wisard ECOPACK2001. it may be rather costly (particularly for small firms). In recent years. PEMS. MET Matrices method. Gabi.Chapter 2 Literature Review (Sousa et al. KCL ECO. AT&T product improvement matrix and target plot. LCAiT EDIP LCV tool.2 LCA tools (Menke et al. Guinee et al. Umberto. 1996) Type of LCA Life cycle Inventory Full LCA Specialized LCA Abridged LCA Matrix LCA LCA tools The Boustead Model. 2001). Eco-indicator 95 Manual for designers. Table 2.. Eco-it Simple guidelines such as Ecodesign Tools by Pre consultant Checklists In the early stages of LCA development.

plastics. paint. 2000). particleboard. napkins.Chapter 2 Literature Review Compared to simple qualitative studies. These studies were performed for government agencies. they are more time-consuming and costly. 145 in Sweden and 27 in Italy (Frankl and Rubik. Since the first LCA case study on beverage containers in 1960s.. adhesives. Recent conferences held in Japan. 1999). beverage containers for beer. air products. 2-14 . processes and products e. surgical drapes and gowns.4 LCA Application LCA has been applied in many industries and countries. glass. Curran (1996) listed over a hundred LCA case studies or related studies. LCA studies covered raw materials. diapers. carpets. painting and tires (Dewulf et al.3. textiles. cement. full quantitative LCAs require most detailed data. Time & Cost Full LCA Streamlined LCA Abridged LCA DfE checklists & Matrix LCA Required Data & Complexity Figure 2. 1998). Results of a survey indicated that LCA studies had been carried out in four countries. namely: 288 studies in Germany. such as automotive body systems.4 Design for Environment Tools and Costs (Soriano. towels. 149 in Switzerland. and is considered as a useful tool for the designers to get an overall environmental insight in the products.g. and many other. iron and steel products. Telecommunication products (Scheller and Hoffman. industry organizations and societies and large industrial firms. chemicals. sealants. pulp and paper products. wood. milk juice and soft drink. 2000) (modified) 2. Canada and USA have also shown a multitude of LCA applications. concrete. aluminium. copper.

g. A recent survey (Frankl and Rubik. e. LCA experts Aggregated scores & some details All details Eco-indicators Product managers EMS specialists Designers Figure 2. in distinction to the optional elements.5). and it has been applied to product improvement. normalization. Addressing different audiences for different purposes. ISO 14042 describes the obligatory elements. and ecolabelling programs. information from LCA applications may be presented at different aggregation levels in various formats (shown in Figure 2.5 Aggregation levels of LCA results for different audience (SimaPro.g. the methodological framework for LCA following SETAC guidelines has been internationally recognized and roughly agreed upon. ranking. 2000) on how LCA is used reveals that the most common reasons for the application of LCA are for internal purposes: • • • • Product improvement Support for strategic choices Benchmarking External communication The use of LCA as a tool for product-oriented environmental management is now widely accepted. e. classification and characterization in LCA practices. 2002)(modified) 2-15 . grouping and weighting.Chapter 2 Literature Review Although many variations exist in LCA applications. the design of new products.

as well as the required cost and time.000 to 200. Other concerns include the availability of accurate/complete information. users have to be cautious about the setting of system boundary. the complexity of LCA studies. However. Instant LCAs can be requested online using the Economic Input-Output LCA tool by Carnegie Mellon University’s Green Design Initiatives (McMichael. Claims based on LCA studies. the application of LCA is confined to large companies and low LCA activity is found within the SME’s. There are also a number of websites for organizations offering consultancies. to interpret the online results properly. especially comparative claims are especially tricky. Hence then. training and LCA softwares. too time consuming and too complex in its results. Smaller studies for individual clients could cost from 10. 2. 1999).5 and 1. 1999). They also pointed out that simplified LCA procedures could be used to very good effect.0 million ECU and could take a number of years to complete. a full LCA is too costly. To yield reliable results.Chapter 2 Literature Review Software packages.3. 2-16 .5 LCA Limitations Recently. to be of practical value to designers and manufacturers. People unfamiliar with LCA may wrongly assume they are being informed about the total environmental impact of the product or wrongly assume that one product is better than another. 1997). constraints on LCA application were observed as LCA had moved away from design and designers and had become the preserve of central environmental departments (Evans et al. such as SimaPro and Gabi.000 ECU and may take 4-6 months to complete (Socolow et al. are now available in the market to reduce the difficulty and cost of conducting LCA studies.. Large collaborative industry LCA studies would cost between 0. significant financial resources are required to conduct a LCA study. the criteria of classification and normalization etc. They may be misleading or ill founded. There are difficulties with the clarification of assumptions and the specification of impacts.. Green and Ryan (2001) conclude that for most manufactured products. Taking these problems into account.

For example.e. i. At the beginning of the design process knowledge about the product is limited. Partial approaches pose the question of tackling the right issues to optimise environmental efforts. This. the data for a particular application may not be available. As the value of environmental impacts associated with a product system is 2-17 . dictates the range and level of detail in proactive or innovative analyses.Chapter 2 Literature Review Furthermore LCA application has been even more difficult for new or evolving products. simply because suppliers or the government do not collect environmental data or suppliers are too small to commit enough resources to generate the appropriate data. Raar (1994) maintained the existence of classic tradeoffs between profits and the speed of product development cycles. Carrying out an LCA requires fully developed products. water and detergent consumption during product use.4. 2. best practice in the usage phase would have more relevance (Hinnells. existing products or products that are at least precisely defined with data which is available or attainable through research or experiment (Walker. this would represent only 10% of the impact. and make comparison among design alternatives. Akermark. 1999). translated and transformed in such a way that the environmental considerations can be accounted for and evaluated together with the rest of the design parameters. resources or available data may be used on irrelevant issues. to some extent.1 Needs for an Integrated Product Development Model To approach environmentally sound product design goals. Thus. distribution and disposal phases. If the best practices were used in production. Therefore. 1993). and environmental objectives.4 Research Needs 2. environmental requirements must be integrated into the design process together with economic restrictions and technical feasibilities. 90% of the environmental impact of a washing machine comes from energy. On the other hand. an integrated analytical model is important to trade off environmental performance and other design objectives. 1995.

2-18 . fast-paced trade-off analyses at the early design stages.4. qualitative information is difficult to use. 2000). is needed to approach environmentally sound product development. correct modelling of the system under study and prioritising first before going into full LCA. At the same time. 2001).2 Needs for a Simplified LCA Approach Weidema (2000) pointed out that efficiency and effectiveness could be derived from correct identification of the object of the study. instead designers need more easy to use methods adapted to their work place and expertise (Lagerstedt and Luttropp. A simplified quantitative LCA approach. requires less data input and generates timely results. 2. approximate measurements may be developed to facilitate the decision-making process. which is easy to use and understood by designers.Chapter 2 Literature Review hard to be assessed accurately and is rather subjective. it must be understood that designers are not being transformed into environmental scientists (Gertsakis and Mussett. In the highly dimensional.

3. function. remains of how important is it to apply environmental criteria to a product design. Borland.1. 1998). 1997). The question however. if ever. Companies will have to continue to make profits for their existence. The methodology enables a coherent evaluation of design alternatives with considerations on their environmental performance. The paradigm of product development towards low cost and high profits is unlikely to change significantly in the near future. 1999).1 Current Product Design Practice Current practices of product development in manufacturing companies are still predominantly based on traditional cost/profit models (Asiedu and Gu. and how can we compare environmental requirements with the traditional design objectives such as cost. aiming at achieving high quality of a product at low cost and high profit. Today it is generally agreed that a successful way to minimize the environmental burden is to integrate environmental aspects in the existing product development process (Hanssen.1 Product Design Objectives The need for introducing environmental requirements into the design and development of new products has already been discussed for more than a decade (Keith. Environmental requirements are mainly considered as an 3-1 . 3.Chapter 3 Integrated Decision model CHAPTER 3 INTEGRATED DECISION MODEL This chapter provides an integrated decision model for sustainable product development with the aim to balance the environmental performance of a product against traditional design objectives. 1999. and quality (Bhamra. 1998). Product development is now considered as an extremely important area in terms of environmental improvements. It also presents a weighting system to assess the total performance of competing design alternatives.

This is the objective of Development Speed (DS).Chapter 3 Integrated Decision model unavoidable "must". Fiksel. and they are likely to increase the development costs. In an approach like this. three key objectives have been used for decision-making in a design process. 1996). 1999.1. In order to have the highest effectiveness. Product Cost (PC). Sustainable product development therefore requires the balance of the product environmental performance 3-2 .1). a fourth objective was added. which generates additional design constraints and increases the costs (Bhamra. Traditional Time-to-Market PP PP DS PC DE PC DE Figure 3. In other words.1 Trade-off models for current design decision 3. Borland. one problem being identified is that environmental parameters are not always included in the product design phase. alongside with the introduction of Concurrent Engineering. namely Product Performance (PP). 1998. an overall goal should be established in product development and the environmental issues must not be treated in isolation. Traditionally. They are not integrated with existing development activities. decisions were based on the question: "How much money can we spend in order to develop a product with low cost and high performance?" During the last two decades.2 Sustainable Product Development From the perspective of sustainable product development. and Development Expenses (DE) (Figure 3. The environmental impact of a product has traditionally been assessed after the design of the product and its related manufacturing activities were completed. environmental assessments are carried out fairly late in the product development process. caused by the need for shortening the time-to-market.

LCA might be seen as part of a more comprehensive assessment of products. while meeting customer requirements. As suggested by Osnowski and Rubik (1987).Chapter 3 Integrated Decision model with other design objectives such as product cost. 3-3 . improve product quality. the general goal definition. In the general valuation. The existence of classic tradeoffs between profits and environmental objectives requires the designers to balance between environmental performance and the needs to reduce cost and time to market. development speed and development cost. In order to have a coherent evaluation on design alternatives. A key point is to have an integrated decision tool to compare the environmental considerations with other requirements. consumer safety. cost and other aspects. specifies the role of the different assessment lines and is distinguished from the goal definition component as part of the environmental LCA. these difficult environmental trade-off decisions must be placed within the same analytic context.2 shows the general structure of LCA as part of comprehensive product assessment. the results of different assessment lines are weighted against each other. Figure 3. The first component of such a broad approach. including environmental assessment. product performance. The same holds true for the general valuation.

Chapter 3 Integrated Decision model General Goal Definition Life cycle assessment of other aspects: • • • • • Customer safety Cost Employment Convenience of use Etc. Figure 3. Environmental life cycle assessment Goal definition Inventory Classification Improvement analysis Valuation General Valuation Application Improvement Design Ecolabelling Etc. Based on such a model.. 1992) 3.2 An Integrated Decision Model A workable integrated decision model is therefore important to serve the purpose of balancing environmental performance and other design objectives and making comparisons between design alternatives.2 General structure of an environmental life cycle assessment as part of a comprehensive product assessment (Heijungs et al. opportunities for simultaneous improvement of several objectives can be exploited and unavoidable 3-4 .

The new objective. a fifth objective. As shown in figure 3. or other LCA methods. As indicated in the figure.3 Trade-off model for sustainable product development The advantage of this approach is that the environmental requirements are fully integrated in the process. the five objectives lead to ten trade-offs for sustainable product development. In the proposed trade-off model for sustainable product design. The purpose is to minimize the aggregate environmental impacts over the entire life cycle of a product through striking a balance of environmental performance and other requirements of a product system. The techniques for evaluating and balancing multiple objectives are well established. the Environmental Performance. can be evaluated by applying various Life Cycle Assessment tools. This is a trade-off in product development. This means for a comparison of one pair of objectives. Sustainable Development EP PP DS PC DE Figure 3. The relationships are usually counteractive.Chapter 3 Integrated Decision model trade-offs are addressed directly. 3-5 . A product’s Environmental Performance Indicator can also be generated by a simplified Life Cycle Assessment approach presented in chapters 4 and 5.3. enjoying the same importance rating as all the traditional objectives. if we improve the performance of one objective. the Environmental Performance (EP) is introduced to the concurrent product development model. which lead to an Environmental Performance Indicator (I) representing the aggregate environmental impacts over the product’s life cycle. representing the total environmental impacts of a product system. the other objective will suffer. the five key objectives of sustainable product development are all related to each other.

in accordance with the manufacturer’s product strategy. The weighting factor. In order to establish the weighting factor. TP = ∑ Wi i =1 n Pi − X i Pi (3-1) Where: Xi Pi Wi n = performance level of the design objective i for a design alternative. or as a result from structured product development procedures. through benchmarking with competitors. the method of paired comparison is used for the five design objectives. Pi can be derived from previous project data. reflects the relative importance of each design objective perceived by the company.1 shows the example for the paired comparison. = weighting factor of a design objective.Chapter 3 Integrated Decision model The ten trade-offs in the decision model can be used for evaluating design alternatives.1 Example for paired comparison of design objectives PP PP PC DE DS EP PP PP DE PP PP/EP PC PP PC PC DS PC DE DE PC DE DE DE/EP DS PP DS DE DS EP EP PP/EP PC DE/EP EP EP Total Weight 3-6 . Table 3. = number of design objectives. Wi. Table 3. such as Quality Function Deployment. It is dictated by the market and ultimately by the customer. The Total Performance (TP) of a design alternative is evaluated as a function of multiple attributors. = target performance level of the design objective i.

However.Chapter 3 Integrated Decision model In the assessment two objectives are compared at a time by answering the question. The guidelines are a reflection of common knowledge and current industry practice (Barry.2. five important product development features were identified as shown in Table 3. medium or high.3).. The product characteristics can then be described by ranking the features at low. for the comparison of PP and PC there are three possible answers: PP. They are of generic nature and can be modified to reflect specific product development strategies of a company. Fortunately the differentiation of importance levels is usually fairly obvious so that a simple description of product characteristics is sufficient. which one is more important? For instance. PC or PP/PC where both objectives are of equal importance. The weight is then calculated as percentage of the total (see example in section 3. Erik et al.3. For the purpose of this study. since they depend on a company’s design strategy. Table3. a set of decision guidelines has been established as shown in Table 3. the decisions on importance seem to be fairly subjective.2 Ranking features of product development projects Features of product development projects Low/Short Medium High/Long Technology level of the product Speed of technical development Product life cycle Price competitiveness Environmental awareness of the market In order to apply the product characteristics in the decision process of the paired comparison. These characteristics can be described by a set of typical product features. such strategies are based on well-established ground rules. 1997). At a glance. 1997. 3-7 . which in their turn depend on the characteristics of the product and its market.

For most cases. Time to peak sales is large. (e. For most cases. Average product margins are slowly declining over time. PP PP-EP PP/EP For most cases. or Average product margins are sharply declining over time. home appliances) PC-DE PC PC PC-DS DS PC PC-EP PC/EP For most cases. For products with long product lifecycle.g. PC is of more importance. PC is of more importance. PP is of more importance. (e. For products with a target market of high environmental consciousness.3 Decision guidelines for paired comparison Trade-offs Preference PP PP-PC PP / PC PP-DE PP Comments For most cases. PP is of more importance.g. Time to peak sales is small. and low technology level. For most cases. • • PP • • • PP/DS • • Product life times are long. home appliances) 3-8 . PP-DS Sales rate is large. Product life times are short.Chapter 3 Integrated Decision model Table 3. PC is of more importance. PP is of more importance. Average product margins are sharply declining over time. For products with a target market of high environmental consciousness.

(e. The input data for the case studies were collected from various sources such as publications and non-confidential company information. The product development and cost data for alternatives A and B were derived from the development project of Braun’s KF 40 coffee machine series (Robert et al. Alternative A has a glass jug. 3.3 Case Studies To verify the integrated decision model.g. 3-9 .3 Decision guidelines for paired comparison (Con.Chapter 3 Integrated Decision model Table 3. DS is of more importance. The desired performance levels of Product Cost (PC). EP is of more importance. 3.3. Product Performance (PP). Alternative B has a thermos jug with no heating elements to keep the coffee warm. DS is of more importance. design alternatives A and B for a coffee machine with 10-cup capacity are investigated.) Trade-offs DE-DS DE-EP EP DS DS-EP DS/EP For most cases. two case studies were conducted. For products with low environmental concerns. home Preference DS DE/EP Comments For most cases. For most cases. using heating elements to keep the coffee warm. For products with a target market of high environmental appliances) consciousness..1 Case Study: Coffee Machine In the first case study. 1996). Development Expenses (DE) and Development Speed (DS) were derived from public information on new product development of electrical products.

resulting in a medium speed of technical development.6. A typical feature is the long product life cycle in the order of 10 to 20 years.33% 6.5 Relative importance of design objectives for a coffee machine PP PP PC DE DS EP PP PP PP DS PP/EP PC PP PC PC DS EP DE PP PC DE DS EP DS DS DS DS DS DS/EP EP PP/EP EP EP DS/EP EP Total 3. the Total Performance for design alternatives A and B was calculated and is given in Table 3. 3-10 . In addition. whereas Product Cost (PC) and Development Expenses (DE) have a lower ranking. Using these weighting factors. By using this information.5. Development Speed (DS).5 2 1 4. Table 3.67% The results indicate that Product Performance (PP).67% 30.4 shows the development features of home appliances.4 Features of home appliances Features of product development project Low/short Medium High/long Technology level of the product Speed of technical development Product life cycle Price Competitiveness Environmental awareness of the market X X X X X Table 3. the relative importance of the design objectives was calculated as given in Table 3. there is a high environmental awareness in the market due to the active nature of the product and the fact that most of the environmental impact occurs mainly during the usage stage.5 4 Weight 23.Chapter 3 Integrated Decision model Table 3.33% 13.00% 26. and Environmental Performance (EP) have the highest weight.

with the result shown in Table 3.33 23.9 (Soriano and Kaebernick. for which a smaller value is preferred.47* Total Performance TP = ∑Wi i =1 Pi − X i Pi * Denotes the calculations without Environmental Performance included.6 Total performance of design alternatives for a coffee machine Design Objectives Weighting Factor (∑Wi=100) (Wi) With EP Without EP* Target Performance Levels (Pi) Performance Levels of Design Alternatives A (Xi) B (Xi) Product Cost Product Performance Environmental Performance Development Expense Development Speed (months) Wc Wp Wen Wex Ws 13. Development Expenses and Development Speed are attributes.6. The results for the Total Performance show negative figures. for which a larger value is preferred. Environmental Performance. The equation of I = 1.48 -8. The smaller negative 3-11 . The Environmental Performance Indicators (I) of the design alternatives A and B were calculated by using a simplified LCA approach (Soriano and Kaebernick. In the calculation.33 26.Chapter 3 Integrated Decision model Table 3. 1999) with the Environmental Impact Driver (DE) identified as the lifetime energy consumption. 1999) was adopted to estimate the Environmental Performance for alternatives A and B. the performance levels of Product Cost.2DE + 69.67 30 20 30 N/A 10 40 Pc (DM) Pp (points) Pen (mPts) Pex (106 DM) Ps (months) n 31 100 427 1 18 30 100 520 1 22 -12.67 6.03 -8. which means that both design alternatives do not reach the target performance level.24* 35 110 370 1 22 -2. Product Performance is the only attribute.

Chapter 3 Integrated Decision model value is closer to the desired performance. or we can say they are almost equal. It is a high-end monitor. 3. 1996). The selected monitor is a 17” “multi-scan” monitor with a built-in stand-by mode to comply with EPA’s power consumption regulation. the total performance for the alternatives A and B was also calculated without including EP.3. This clearly indicates that EP has a significant effect on the product decision process and it should be included in the trade-off model. characterized by high technology. In this case. Alternative A is a current model with power consumption of 100W in operation mode and 15W in stand-by mode.2 Case Study: Computer Monitor As a second case study. high development speed and price competition. but very short product life. Table 3.6. a computer monitor was selected to demonstrate the function of the model (van Mier et al. a high-tech product. which is mainly produced for the professional market. In order to investigate the effect of EP on the model. and the results are shown in Table 3. therefore alternative B is the better design. the alternative A performs slightly better than alternative B.7 Features of computer industry Features of product development project Technology level of the product Speed of technical development Product life cycle Price competitiveness Environmental awareness of the market X X X Low/short Medium High/long X X 3-12 .0W respectively.. The features of a high-tech market are described in Table 3. Alternative B has a complete redesign of the circuitry on the Printed Wire Boards (PWBs) with operation and stand-by power of 80W and 1.7.

00% 20.00% 30.8 Relative importance of design objectives for a computer monitor PP PP PC DE DS EP PP PP PP PP/DS PP PC PP PC PC DS PC DE PP PC DE DS DE/EP DS PP/DS DS DS DS DS EP PP PC DE/EP DS EP Total 4.5 4.00% 10.5 3 1.8) highlight a scenario in which Product Performance and Development Speed are the key objectives whereas Development Expenses and Environmental Performance are ranked fairly low.Chapter 3 Integrated Decision model The importance weightings for the design objectives (Table 3. Table 3.5 1.00% 3-13 .00% 10.5 Weight 30.

3-14 . which represents the traditional decision making environment.Chapter 3 Integrated Decision model Table 3.9 Total Performance of design alternatives for computer monitor Target Performance Levels (Pi) Pc (DM) Pp (points) Pen (mPts) Pex (106 DM) Ps (months) TP = ∑Wi i =1 n Design Objectives Weighting Factor (∑Wi=100) With Without EP EP* 20 30 10 10 30 20 35 N/A 10 35 Performance Levels of Design Alternatives A (Xi) B (Xi) 507 110 2184 7 22 -5. despite the fact that alternative B has the better and highly ranked Product Performance. This demonstrates the effect of a typical trade-off with the other objectives.56* (Wi) Product Cost Product Performance Environmental Performance Development Expense ($) Development Speed (month) Wc Wp Wen Wex Ws 500 100 2914 5 18 500 100 2914 5 20 -3. According to the calculations. 2000).33 -3. The effect of EP was again investigated by setting the weighting of EP to zero.9 presents the results for the Total Performance of alternatives A and B. In this case alternative A shows a better Total Performance than alternative B.44 -8. Table 3.89* Total Performance Pi − X i Pi * Denotes the calculations without Environmental Performance included. As in the previous case study. since both products belong to the same category of energy based products (Kaebernick and Soriano. EP was calculated by using the simplified LCA approach with the same Environmental Impact Driver. alternative A is still the desirable option due to the low weighting of EP for a computer product.

The integrated decision model enables the decision maker to consider the product’s environmental performance at the early design stage and to balance it against other design requirements. The importance of integrating the Environmental Performance was demonstrated in the case studies. but it will identify new environmental features of a product that have the potential to improve the overall quality of the product in the eyes of the customer. leading to a trade-off decision model. thus creating additional market potential and financial gains. 3-15 . Being an integrated approach.4 Conclusion This chapter presented a framework for integrating the Environmental Performance of a product design with the traditional design objectives. it will not purely add-on some constraints.Chapter 3 Integrated Decision model 3. Existing assessment methodologies were applied. suitable for application in the early design stage with limited data available.

1998). Simplified LCA tools are very useful in this stage for estimating the environmental impacts of product alternatives and for predicting environmental costs or burdens for manufacturers. classification is a separation process wherein items are clustered into groups based on the presence or absence of product characteristics or attributes. The first section includes a review of product classification and an introduction of a pilot study of applying group technology on the simplification of product environmental assessment. In this study. The grouping activity is based on the idea that products 4-1 .1 Product Classification and Group Technology Similar to Group Technology (Chang et al. 4. a simplified LCA approach was developed by looking at the dominant factors of the products’ environmental impacts. A full LCA however has limited value at this stage. The results of the existing studies provide the rationale of using an Energy-based Environmental Impact (IE) and a Material-based Environmental Impact (IM) to estimate a product’s environmental performance. various Life Cycle Assessment tools can be applied to evaluate the product’s Environmental Performance. which is normally not available in the early stages of product development. as it is very time consuming and requires very specific data.1 Background In the decision model for sustainable product development proposed in Chapter 3.1. The concept of an environmental impact driver is adopted to calculate the IE and IM. 4.Chapter 4 The Simplified Environmental Assessment Approach CHAPTER 4 THE SIMPLIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT APPROACH Chapter 4 presents the development of a simplified environmental assessment approach..

Classification criteria may vary according to different perspectives. 2000). Product classification can be conducted by identifying similarities among various properties of different products. decision variables and the purpose of classification. function. • Engineering design: The product is a complex assembly of interacting components. shape. 4-2 . process-intensive products and customized products (Ulrich and Eppinger. size or lifetime can also serve as classification criteria. Aldenderfer and Blashfield. • Organizations: The product is an artifact resulting from an organizational process. Product development team structure and incentives are examples of decision variables. development process sequence and schedule and point of differentiation in production process are examples of decision variables. • Operations management: The product is a sequence of development and/or production process steps. manufacturing processes can be used as the classification criteria. distinct incentives on product development can drive the classification of products into technology-push products. Product size.Chapter 4 The Simplified Environmental Assessment Approach classification could provide a useful and meaningful map to supply relevant information for predicting and decision-making (Arabie et al. When adopting an operations management perspective. Specific engineering variables such as type of materials. product attribute levels and price are examples of decision variables. dimension are examples of decision variables. 1996. Krishnan and Ulrich (2001) refer to four perspectives reflecting different product development decision frameworks: • Marketing: The product is a bundle of attributes. 1985). platform products. For example. from an organizational perspective.

. + Table 4.. level of environmental impacts (e. lighting armature). Stationary inert products without energy consumption in use (e.g. solvents).Chapter 4 The Simplified Environmental Assessment Approach In view of sustainable product development. food package). Service. material use.g.1 summarizes the relevant studies on product classifications developed under the environmentally driven perspectives. boat with outboard motor). mass. raw material production and maintenance generate the significant impacts for stationary products without energy consumption in use in use (e.g. 1996) Classification Criteria Product categories Product’s functional Products being chemically transformed and life-cycle properties related with significant environmental impacts (e. Examples of classification criteria include product characteristics (e.g. Enhance knowledge-based Aspects of product use which are system performance answered by yes or for ranking Eco-design strategies (Rombouts. life time). electric cables)... 1998) Determine products’ feasible Product’s technical characteristics that no Reuse. end-of-life strategies) (Sousa et al. Table 4.1 Examples of environmentally driven product classification Classification Purpose Identify environmental improvement strategies for distinct types of products (Hanssen. environmental performance can be considered as a new perspective. 2003).g.g. Transportable products with internal energy consumption in use (e. Product does/does not transform energy in use.g. Products is/is not transported in use. Transportable products without internal energy consumption in use (e.g.g. 4-3 . impact indicators) and types of environmental improvement strategies (e. Stationary products with internal energy consumption in use (e. Product does/does not transform materials in use.

g. 4-4 . with a significant amount of ceramic/glass materials. wear-out life) Remanufacturing. with a significant amount of metals.. high-mass household appliances. low-mass consumer products. recycled content. recyclable products.Chapter 4 The Simplified Environmental Assessment Approach end-of –life strategies early in the design cycle (Rose et al. with efficient energy consumption during use (active). low-mass. operational mode) B1: Durable. and with energy consumption during use (active). with no energy consumption during use (passive). B3: Durable electronic consumer products. number of parts. with a significant amount of plastic materials. lifetime. B4: Non-durable. with a significant amount of fiber materials. and with external energy consumption for maintenance during the use phase (active). B7: Durable. Identify environmentallydriven product categories (Sousa. energy source. mass. B5: Low-mass consumer products. 2003) Product descriptors (e. with external energy consumption for mobility during the use phase (active). B6: Durable. B2: Durable. recyclable products. low-mass consumer products. Recycle (separate first).g. 2000) affect product’s end-of-life treatment (e. and with energy consumption during the use phase (active). and with external energy consumption for maintenance during the use phase (active). Recycle (shred first).

juice squeezers. with a significant amount of plastics or ceramics/glass. conversion of fossil energy to electricity. Paper bag. coffee makers. stationary products with energy conversion. • Raw material production was dominant for products being chemically transformed. B2.1). and transportable products without energy conversion. Criteria used for classification focused on functional properties during the use phase and included chemical transformation. stationary products (see Table 4. For both life cycle phases. coffee filter. B3): Durable products. heater. low-mass products.g. stationary products without energy conversion.Chapter 4 The Simplified Environmental Assessment Approach Hanssen (1996) analyzed 18 different LCA studies of product systems to investigate environmental impacts related to specific product groups. and transportable vs. distribution phase and production of packaging were in most product types of very low relevance. and transportable products with energy conversion. process energy. Waste generation was relevant for products being chemically transformed.g. and with no power consumption (e. 4-5 .1) and 4 product categories in Cut A: • A1 (B1. • A2 (B4): Generally non-durable. A hierarchical analysis of 61 products was conducted by Sousa et al. washing machine. LCDs. PP crate. vacuum cleaners. the identified 7 product categories in Cut B (see Table 4. and with power consumption (e. Refrigerators. PE bag. dust bag. Despite of the uncertainty and variation in the LCA studies. TVs). relevant trends were identified: • The most important life-cycle stages were generally raw material production and product use. energy conversion. Use phase was important for products being chemically transformed. heat or transport was a dominating factor. The production phase. and stationary products with energy conversion. radios. mini-vacuum cleaner. (2003) using high-level product characteristics as the clustering variables.

sauce pans). and with no (internal) power consumption (e. • A3 (B5): Low-mass products. • Group 2. reusable towel). The analysis was based on the principles of Group Technology (Chang et. al.2 The Pilot Study In order to find groups of products with common features that produce insight into key points for the design or improvement of environmentally sound products.1. Using the LCA results. car fenders. Three major clusters were recognized: • Group 1. • A4 (B6. made primarily of metals. Home and commercial washed cloth diapers. disposable towel. the impact indicator contributions across the product’s life cycle phases were expressed in relative weights as percentages of total impact. with a significant amount of fiber materials in their composition. B7): Durable. disposable diaper. antifreezes.Chapter 4 The Simplified Environmental Assessment Approach showerhead. chairs. 1998). plastic fender). 4-6 .g. product manufacture. 4. recyclable products. coatings. using both product characteristics and environmental performance indicators as the clustering variables. where the major impact is attributed to the use of the product (an average of 89% of the total impact for products in this group. and with (external) power consumption (e. product usage and disposal. which was divided into the four discrete phases: material production. Kaebernick and Soriano (2000) carried out a pilot study on 33 product cases in 17 product types.g. Results from the clustering attempts are summarized below: Attempt 1: Clustering by comparing impact contributions at each life cycle phase Grouping was done by analysing the temporal distribution of environmental burdens during the product life cycle. BIWs. where most of the environmental impact is caused by the production of the material (90% of the total impact on the average for products in this group).

and a few other vital materials such as CFC. aluminium or zinc contributing 30% to 60% of material impact despite relatively low contribution to product mass. Attempt 2: Clustering by comparing contributions by material type component Products were classified by the material types that bring about the most significant impact during the material production phase. plastic or wood as the dominant material type. • Group 3: where acidification and heavy metals are equally significant issues. • The second group is characterized by having copper. A single material usually contributes the top 70% of the impact.Chapter 4 The Simplified Environmental Assessment Approach • Group 3. This attempt resulted in two major clusters: • The first group are products that have steel. In this group. • Group 2: where acidification is still the main issue but winter smog becomes secondary. 4-7 . the main materials not only contribute to the major impact but also represent the bulk of the product mass. Attempt 3: Clustering by comparing impact contribution by indicator classes Products were classified according to the contribution of the impact indicator classes leading to four groups: • Group 1: where acidification is the top environmental issue followed by summer smog. where both material and usage phases contribute significantly to the total environmental impact of the product.

g. who identified the material production and product use as the dominant factors of a product’s environmental performance. coffee makers.Chapter 4 The Simplified Environmental Assessment Approach • Group 4 where a few issues such as heavy metal. and Group B comprises “passive” products. service life. Attempt 4: Clustering using a hierarchical approach Multiple variables and their degree of association were measured applying hierarchical cluster analysis. and furniture etc.g. acidification. heavy metals. paper bag. The agglomerative hierarchical clustering showed two major clusters: • Group A consists of cases that manifest intensity of the environmental impact at the usage phase (e.. PE bag. • Group B includes products with the greatest environmental impact deriving from the stage of material production (e. frequency of use. carcinogen. and ozone depletion. For example. Group 1 manifests “passive” attribute while for groups 2 and 3 the “active attributes”. energy requirements. summer smog. The grouping of products defined by Attempt 1 and Attempt 4 relates partially to the ones defined by Sousa et al (2003) and Akermark’s (1999) classification of products as “active” if energy is needed for the product to perform its function and “passive” otherwise. The grouping results also confirmed general patterns proposed by Hanssen (1996). winter smog. The mean contribution of the usage phase is 85%. Group A of the Attempt 4 consists of “active” products. The variables are the mass. in Attempt 1.).). 4.2 The Simplified Approach The hierarchical product classification provides a structure for looking at the degree of association among products as affected by the most general to very specific criteria. the presence or absence of environmental issues such as green house effect.. and washing machine etc. In 4-8 . summer smog. TVs. acidification and green house effect all combine as significant environmental concerns.

Therefore. but do not cover the full range of product types in a satisfactory manner. Similar to the cost drivers used in Activity Based Costing. 2001) and the Cut B (Sousa. only a fair correlation exists between the total environmental impact and the product mass. a high degree of correlation was identified between the total product environmental impact and the total energy usage over its lifetime. product groups identified by the Attempt 1 (Soriano. The total Environmental Performance Indicator (I) of a product can be calculated by: I = IE + IM (pts) (4-1) The aim of the new simplified approach is to achieve better accuracy and efficiency. An impact driver represents the key factors that 4-9 . because of the large variety of materials involved in the products. it was suggested that the environmental impact of the product in Group A be calculated as a function of the product’s total energy consumption in kWh and the environmental impact associated with one kWh electricity. which is affected by the type of materials selected and the amount used. Environmental Impact Drivers were proposed for calculating the environmental impact of a product (Kaebernick and Soriano. Altogether. For products in the Group A. In view of the results from these studies. Kaebernick and Soriano (2000) explored the use of clustering results to the development of a simplified product design assessment tool. For Group B. a simplified environmental assessment approach is proposed considering both energy-based impact and material-based impact of the product. The basic concept of the approach is as follows. Therefore further effort of this research was focused on the development of more reliable environmental impact drivers for the calculation of IE and IM. Furthermore. 2003). instead of attempting more product classifications or investigating subgroups. the previous grouping attempts offer point solutions for certain product groups.Chapter 4 The Simplified Environmental Assessment Approach the pilot study. 2000). indicate that sub-groups of active products exist with significant environmental impacts from both material and product usage phases.

DEi = Energy-based Environmental Impact Driver for energy source i (pts/kWh). and the driver has to have a good correlation with the total impact of the product. The Material-based environmental impact of a product design can be estimated by the following equation: I M = ∑Wi ∗ DM i i =1 n (pts) (4-3) Where: IM = Material-based environmental performance indicator (pts) Wi = Mass of materials in group i (kg). for a product consuming energy from n energy sources. Energy sources will be defined in Chapter 5.Chapter 4 The Simplified Environmental Assessment Approach determine the impact of a product. Material groups will be defined in Chapter 5. The development of Energy-based Environmental Impact Drivers (DE) and Material-based Impact Drivers (DM) will be discussed in chapter 5 in more details. The material-based Environmental Impact Driver (DM) can be applied as coefficient to the mass of material to estimate the environmental impact for all members of a material group. The energy-based Environmental Performance Indicator (IE) can be estimated by the following equation. DMi = Material-based Environmental Impact Driver for material group i (pts/kg) 4-10 . IE is described as the sum of the product of energy consumption and the relevant Impact Drivers. For products with a single energy source the calculation becomes very simple. In the calculation. IE = ∑( E ∗ D i i =1 n Ei ) (pts) (4-2) Where: Ei = Lifetime energy consumption for energy source i (kWh).

It is obvious that for “passive” products. This simplified calculation can be carried out at the early design stage with very basic data. the Material-based Environmental Performance Indicator (IM) is described as the sum of the products of material mass and material-based Environmental Impact Drivers (DM). The equation states the mass relationships observed from the pilot study.Chapter 4 The Simplified Environmental Assessment Approach In the calculation. the simplified approach considers both Energy-based impacts and Material-based impacts for all product groups. 4-11 . The application of environmental impact drivers DE and DM enables the simplified approach to yield timely results with the least information requirements. 4. associated with no Energy-based impacts. for a product composed of n material groups. That is. the total Environmental Performance Indicator (I) equals to IM.3 Conclusion Based on the review of environmentally driven product classification and the results from the pilot study. the product’s environmental impact increases with the amount of material used and the rate of increase is determined by the types of materials.

5. Energy-based Environmental Impact Drivers (DE) is also identified. It presents the analysis on environmental impacts associated with material selection of a product design. Materials are classified into groups in the perspective of their environmental performance. detailed quantitative information of applied materials is not available. it cannot be assured that optimization for minimum energy. representing the total environmental impact of a material. The development of Material based Environmental Impact Drivers (DM) is described and the environmental Life Cycle Inventory analysis for each material group is discussed. An aggregated LCA single score. For the purpose of selecting a material with optimal environmental impact and the consideration of a wide range of other parameters. Therefore. Ashby (1999) developed charts.1 Material-Based Environmental Impacts Drivers In the early stage of product development. Holloway’s (1998) material selection charts present the relationship between material properties (modulus and strength) and air and water pollution. relating different material properties to each other. The environmental impact of materials occurs in many different ways. Many studies were conducted in order to facilitate environmentally friendly material selection by providing summarized information about environmental properties of materials. representing environmental impacts associated with the energy consumption from different sources in different regions. is hence more informative for 5-1 . water or air pollution will cover the most important environmental aspects.Chapter 5 The Environmental Impact Drivers CHAPTER 5 THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DRIVERS This chapter focuses on the development of Environmental Impact Drivers as the basis for the simplified environmental assessment approach described in Chapter 4. and designers usually do not have access to a comprehensive environmental database.

while being consistent with the aim of simplifying the assessment procedure. 5. the classification in 11 impact categories. The LCA results for the material cases were derived from data bases included in the SimaPro software package. which satisfy two key requirements. 594 material cases in 6 basic material categories were investigated. Classifying materials into groups and identifying representative impact drivers for each group of materials is therefore a likely solution for generating an accurate estimate of the impact indicator. The mechanical and physical properties of the materials were taken from the IDEMAT (2002) material database. At the same time. Polymer. However a list of indices with specific details for each material will be cumbersome. The environmental impact of materials can be calculated by multiplying the mass of the material with an environmental index. the Life Cycle Inventory was investigated for each material group to provide insights into the substances with major contribution to the environmental impact of the group as well as the associated environmental issues and damages. The analysis covered the materials’ environmental lifecycle inventory substances. In this study. Paper & Board. Ferrous Metals. In the analysis. a Material-based Environmental Impact Driver (DM) was defined for each identified material group. First. and Wood. Second. they must be representative for the materials’ environmental performance. the 3 damage categories and the total impact in the single score according to 5-2 . they must be meaningful to and easily understood by product designers.1 Grouping of Materials The aim of the grouping analysis was to classify materials into groups. expressed in Eco-indicator single score. They are Glass & Ceramics. Non-ferrous Metals. The materials in these categories are of primary importance to product designers.1.Chapter 5 The Environmental Impact Drivers the designers. if not difficult. The characteristics of group members should be similar enough to allow the identification and the usage of one Environmental Impact Driver (DM) for a simplified impact evaluation for each material in the group.

Chapter 5 The Environmental Impact Drivers

the method Eco-Indicator 99 H/A (Geodkoop et. al, 1999). The mechanical and physical properties of the materials, such as strength and density, were also investigated.

The material cases in the databases were reviewed to ensure their data quality and consistency. Cases of recycled materials were separated from the data set. Then poor quality data and duplicates/triplicates (i.e. LCAs of the same material conducted by different organizations) were removed according to the Data Quality Indicator and documentation provided by the SimaPro database. After the review, 397 material cases were maintained for further analysis.

5.1.2

Initial Grouping Attempts

At first, grouping attempts were conducted by applying cluster analysis in SPSS, using various combinations of the environmental parameters as grouping criteria. Table 5.1 shows the 3 environmental damage categories, 11 impact categories and examples of some major substances considered as environmental parameters for the grouping analyses. The grouping results generally presented good similarity on the environmental performance of group members. However, each material group contained a mix of materials from various generic material categories. This makes the material groups incomprehensible and impracticable for designers.

5-3

Chapter 5 The Environmental Impact Drivers

Table 5.1 Environmental parameters used in grouping analyses Environmental Damage Categories Environmental Impact categories • Carcinogens • Resp. organics Human Health • Resp. inorganics • Climate change • Radiation Ozone layer • Ecotoxicity Ecosystem Quality • Land use • Depletion of minerals Resources • Depletion of fossil fuels Heavy metals, NOx, SOx, • Acidification/Eutrophication Conv. to continuous urban land; Copper in ore, Nickel in ore, Coal, Crude oil, CO2, CFC, NOx, Dust; Examples of Major Substances

Natural gas;

Linear regression analysis and multivariate analysis were applied to investigate correlations between the material’s physical parameters (e.g. density, elasticity modulus and tensile strength) and environmental parameters (e.g. CO2, NOx and weighted environmental impact in Eco-Indicator 99 single score) (Rydh and Sun, 2003). The idea is that if relationships exist, the material’s physical properties can be used to predict the environmental performance of a material, and material groups can be identified according to the physical properties. Table 5.2 presents average values for mechanical properties calculated from data of 214 material cases in 17 material groups.

5-4

Chapter 5 The Environmental Impact Drivers

Table 5.2 Mechanical properties for 17 material groups (Rydh and Sun, 2003) Total Density CV (n) (Mg/m3) (%) 22 26 12 10 40 2 2 5 2 50 6 3 5 4 5 10 7 8.2 5.0 7.7 7.7 7.8 1.6 3.1 2.5 2.0 1.1 0.060 0.90 0.87 0.81 0.67 0.60 0.60 30 49 3.9 2.1 1.9 17 23 6.7 54 22 5.5 20 20 Yield Elasticity CV CV strength modulus (%) (%) (MN/m2) (GN/m2) 166 126 193 204 201 103 94 58 2.1 2.2 0.040 0.0052 15 11 10 0.80 0.80 24 9 53 66 5.1 5.3 4.2 45 45 55 59 28 593 223 362 627 452 3600 173 65 33 2 42 47 40 38 69 85 47 89 -

Class Metals Metals Metals Metals Metals Composites Glasses Porous Ceramics Polymers Polymers Polymer foams Elastomers Woods Woods Woods Paper Paper

Group Non-ferrous 8 (Cu etc) Non-ferrous 5 (Al etc) Ferrous Ni>5% Ferrous Ni<5% Ferrous Ni=0% Composites Glasses Porous Ceramics Thermosets epoxy Thermoplastics Thermosets PUR foam Rubbers Woods High impact Woods Medium impact Woods Low impact Cardboards Papers

CV, Coefficient of variance= standard deviation/average · 100%
5-5

Chapter 5 The Environmental Impact Drivers

Metals, which do not contain iron, were assigned to one of three groups depending on density. The group of Non-ferrous metals 8, with an average density of 8.2 Mg/m3 (ranging from 5.7 to 10.7), included Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo and alloys of Cu, Ni and Ti. Cobalt, tin and platinum group metals were not assigned to any groups since their weighted environmental impact was several times higher than for all other groups. The Eco-indicator single score value was 2.4 and 6.8 times higher (for Co and Sn, respectively) than for the group of Non-ferrous 8. Therefore a specific value has to be used for these materials. The group Non-ferrous metals 5 had an average density of 5.0 Mg/m3 (from1.8 to 7.5) and included Al, Cd, Cr, Mg, Mn, Si, Zn and alloys of Al, Mg and Zn. Two outliers were Pb and W (density 11 and 19 Mg/m3, respectively), which were included in this group according to their environmental properties.

For metals containing iron, three different groups were distinguished depending on their content of nickel. Equation 5-1 shows the relationship between the nickel content of the metal (CNi, wt%) and the Eco-Indicator 99 single score, EIECO’99 (Pts/kg). The regression coefficient is 0.79 and the linear relationship indicates a fairly good correlation between the nickel content and the environmental impact of the metal.

EI ECO'99 = 0.0314 cNi + 0.0855

(Pts/kg)

(5-1)

Ferrous metals with nickel concentrations >5wt% and <5wt% made up two different groups. The third group of Ferrous metals contained no nickel. Stainless steels could be found in all three groups due to the use of alloying metals other than nickel.

Composites included glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP) and carbon fibre reinforced polymer (CFRP). Data availability was low for this group but it was included to provide an estimate. The group Porous Ceramics included ceramics, cement and concrete. The group of Glasses included sodium and SiO2 glass. Data for the group of Thermosets was limited, foams of thermosets were included in the group Thermosets

5-6

Guaiacum. With the data used in the study. Rare species of tropical woods were assigned to the group high impact (HI) woods. PS.g. Spruce and Teak. ABS. HDPE. The class of paper and woods was divided into Paper. it was concluded that there was little or no correlation between concentration of metals in the earth’s crust and Eco-Indicator 99 weighted environmental impact (i. Pine. SOx and CO2 as substances highly descriptive for the total environmental impact of different material groups. Birch. Silver fir. Silver fir and Willow. Larch. PP. The analyses identified oil. Low impact (LI) woods were defined as Ash. Baboen. PE. Aspen. Beech. The error bars indicate the standard deviation. Oak. PA. multivariate analysis showed weak correlation between physical material properties and environmental parameters. single score value). Hickory. Bubinga. Blue gum. natural gas.Chapter 5 The Environmental Impact Drivers polyurethane (PUR foam). Medium impact (MI) woods were Afzelia.e. elasticity modulus and tensile strength explain up to 20% of the variability in weighted environmental impact.1 shows that different groups can be distinguished depending on their EcoIndicator 99 single score value and elasticity modulus. Cardboard and three groups of woods. which included Avodire. The results indicated that data for density. Cedar. since no mechanical properties made it possible to distinguish between groups of woods. Mahogani. PVC and PET. 5-7 . NOx. For metals. PMMA. The grouping of woods was based on environmental properties only. PC. Figure 5. Olon and Wenge. The group of thermoplastics included a broad range of polymers e.

1 Paper 0.01 0.1 1 10 2 Young's modulus (GN/m ) 100 1000 Figure 5. Paper & Board. In cases where the standard deviation (STDEV) was more than 30% of the group average. 2003) 5. analysis on other material properties was conducted for further sub-division. environmental properties were used as the first criteria for grouping and specific material properties as the second. which are used in the SimaPro (2001) and IDEMAT (2002) databases. For each category. Material cases and their types are listed in Appendix B.01 0. The 6 generic material categories. Polymer.1.3 Grouping According to Generic Material Categories In view of the results from initial attempts. further grouping analysis was conducted based on the 6 generic material categories and material types to enable easy allocation of a material to one of the groups. and Wood. Cluster analysis and scatter plots of weighted environmental impacts in Eco-Indicator 99 single score were used to identify material groups of material cases. For each identified group.Chapter 5 The Environmental Impact Drivers 100 Environmental impact ECO'99 (Pts/kg) 10 Woods HI Woods MI Non-ferrous 8 Thermosets 1 Thermosets PU Woods LI Thermoplasts Composites Non-ferous 5 Ferrous Ni>5% Cardboard Ferrous Ni<5% Glasses Ferrous Ni=0% Porous ceramics 0. the average value of the Eco-Indicator 99 single score and its standard deviation were calculated as shown in Appendix B. Non-ferrous Metals. material compositions 5-8 . For instance.1 ECO’99 weighted environmental impact and elasticity modulus for material groups (Rydh and Sun. include Glass & Ceramics. Ferrous Metals. The materials in these categories are of primary importance to product designers.

The LCI analysis of Glass and Ceramics materials (see Appendix C1 & C2) indicates that the substances with major contribution to the environmental impacts are NOX. Appendix B1 indicates that. This leads itself to forming two major clusters.6) are in the categories of Fossil Fuels Depletion (58. On average.49%.6 the impacts are through categories of Fossil Fuels Depletion (45. Respiratory Effects (17.80%) and Human Health (24. As shown in Table 5.28%). 5.2 shows that the 6 glass materials have higher environmental impacts than the 5 traditional ceramics materials. The major impacts (see Table 5. the environmental damages are mainly on Resource (58.0273 Pts/kg for the group average with 25. The figures indicate that the average value of the Eco-Indicator score for the group is representative for the group members.14%). for Ceramics materials.3%). CO2. a simple scatter diagram approach was sufficient for identifying the groups.1 Grouping of Non-Metals The grouping of non-metal materials is relatively easy because of the distinct differences of the environmental parameters of the material types. The scatter diagram in Figure 5.10%).48%).81% standard deviation. The group of glass materials has an average value of 0. The category of Glass & Ceramics includes 11 material cases of traditional ceramics and glass.3.Chapter 5 The Environmental Impact Drivers were used as additional criteria for clustering Ferro Metals.72%) and Human Health (41. Appendix B2 shows the major environmental damages of Glass materials are in the categories of Resources (45. SOX. The values for traditional ceramics and cement materials are 0. these substances contribute 98% to the total impact of Glass materials and 85% to Ceramics materials. Different grouping solutions were examined in terms of their simplicity of application and similarity among group members.05%) and Land Use (14. Dust and Pb (for Glass materials only) in the compartment of air emission. 5-9 . Therefore. Crude oil and Natural gas in the compartment of raw material.1.0568 Pts/kg and a standard deviation of 10.08%) and Respiratory Effects (34.

fluting.71%).3. The impacts (Table 5.07 0. The paper group includes kraftpaper.50% standard deviation.2 Eco-Indicator 99 analyses for Glass & Ceramics.03 0.76%) and Respiratory Effects (37. and paper from mechanical pulp e. SOX. Obvious clusters can be observed.86%) As shown in Appendix B10 for Cardboards the environmental damages are mainly on 5-10 . these substances contribute 93% to the environmental impact of Paper materials and 95% to the Cardboards.60% of the group average. This group includes cardboard cellulose/chromo/duplex/gray. Appendix B9 shows the major environmental damages of Paper materials are in the categories of Resources (48. and Dust in the compartment of air emission. The same scatter diagram was plotted for the category of Paper & Board. CO2.0713 Pts/kg with 18. Appendix C9 and C10 presents the substances with major contribution to the environmental impacts of Paper and Cardboard materials. sack paper.04%) and Human Health (46.04 0.02 0. newsprint. As shown in Figure 5.Chapter 5 The Environmental Impact Drivers Eco-Indicator 99 (Pts/kg) 0. packaging carton. On average.6) are through categories of Fossil Fuels Depletion (44.06 0.0348 Pts/kg and the standard deviation is 25.g.01 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Ceramics Glass Case Number Figure 5. having the average value of the Eco-Indicator single score of 0. paper woody/wood-free.05 0. the members in the paper group have higher environmental impacts than those of the cardboard group. producing two groups within the category. kraftliner. testliner. namely paper and cardboard. They are NOX. The cases in the cardboard group have an average value of 0. and paper bleached/ unbleached. Crude Oil and Natural Gas in the compartment of raw material.

They contribute 94% to the environmental impact of Rubber. The major impacts (Table 5.02 0. three cases of epoxy were separated from their original sets of thermosetting plastics and thermoplastic.06 0. Crude oil& Energy from oil and Natural Gas & Energy from gas in the compartment of raw material.3652 Pts/kg.Chapter 5 The Environmental Impact Drivers Resource (46.309 Pts/kg. PS.08 0.00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 Material Case Number Paper Cardboard Figure 5.04 0.3753 Pts/kg in EcoIndicator 99 single score with a standard deviation of 25. and the standard deviation is 18.80%).01%).6) are in the categories of Fossil Fuels Depletion (47. The thermoplastics group has 61 cases.718 Pts/kg. The Epoxy group has an average of 0. PE. The merged group has an average of 0. PP.3 Eco-Indicator 99 analyses for Paper & Board In the category of Polymers.94%. 0. and Dust in the compartment of air emission. SOX. These three generic material groups were merged to one group considering their similar environmental performance. Thermoplastics and Thermosetting plastics and 99% to the Epoxy materials (see Appendix C11 and 5-11 .27%) and Human Health (48.70% of the group average. to PVC and SAN with the average of 0.4).65%). PET. because of their distinctive environmental properties (Figure 5. which belong to three generic groups of rubber. In the analysis. thermoplastics and thermosetting plastics. The 17 cases of PUR thermosetting plastics show homogenous environmental behavior with the average value of 0. Four cases of rubber material have the average value of 0.4273 Pts/kg. CO2. For Polymer materials the substances with major contribution to the environmental impacts are NOX. Respiratory Effects (36.10 Eco-Indicator 99 (Pts/kg) 0. covering a range of materials from ABS. 85 cases have been analyzed.

Guaiacum 16 Pts/kg and Avodire 14. four cases have very high environmental impacts. Thermoplastics and Thermosetting plastics and 77.50 0. Wood Med-High impact.Chapter 5 The Environmental Impact Drivers C12).00 Material Cases Thermoplastic Thermoset Rubber Epoxy Figure 5. The impacts are through the category of Fossil Fuel Depletion.30 0. 5-12 .80 0. and the high impact cluster include woods dominated by “Conv. The environmental damages associated with Polymer materials are mainly in Resources taking 67.90 Eco-Indicator 99 (Pts/Kg) 0.9 Pts/kg.5 Pts/kg.10 0. Thermoplastics and Thermosetting plastics and 75.20 0.76% to Epoxy materials (Table 5.60 0.4 Eco-Indicator 99 analysis for Polymer The SimaPro database provides 86 cases in the category of wood.71% for Rubbers. and no reasonable grouping of plant types could be identified. to continuous urban land” (see Appendix C13-C16).70 0.00 0.5). Wood Low-Med impact. The low impact cluster consists of more commonly used woods with the environmental impact dominated by the substance of “Occupation as rail/road area”.40 0. Cordia 21. Among them.51% to the environmental impacts of Rubbers. Therefore groups were formed on the basis of the magnitude of their environmental impacts. namely Balsa 54 Pts/kg. These two clusters were further divided into four groups namely Wood Low impact. Wood materials are very difficult to differentiate based on the type of wood. 1.92% for Epoxy (as shown in Appendix B11 and B12). and Wood High impact (Figure 5. The analysis on LCI data indicates two clusters of Woods. which on average contributes 66. They should be avoided in product design.6). hence they were not included in the analysis.

and 99.1985 Pts/kg and the standard deviation is 17. the environmental damages of Wood materials are mainly in the Ecosystem quality through the impacts on Land use. with the average of 9. Emeri. which can be explained by the severe environmental problems caused by the forest depletion. and Wenge. which on average contribute 89.3263 Pt/kg and standard deviation of 16. Wood Med-High impact includes 25 materials such as Iroko. Polar. 5-13 . Larch. There are 24 wood materials in the high impact group including Paranapine. 95. Teak.6. Most of which are not widely used materials. As shown in Appendix B13-B16 and Table 5.48% to the Med-High impact group.39% standard deviation.06% to the Low-Med. and Walnut. including Platan. Meranti. Wood Low-Med impact contains 4 cases with medium environmental impact. The wood materials with higher environmental impacts associated with increasing contribution from the impact category of Land use. and Cedar etc. Chestnut. and Yang.83% to the total environmental impact of materials in the Wood Low impact group. with 28.5660 Pts/kg.79%.76%. 98.Chapter 5 The Environmental Impact Drivers The group of low impact wood includes 29 types of Silver Fir.03% to the High impact group. Horse Chestnut. impact group.05% standard deviation. Willow. This group has an average value of 5. Mahogany. Tropical and rainforest woods are associated with higher environmental impacts.5368 Pts/kg in Eco-Indicator with 18. The average Eco-Indicator is 1. The average Eco-Indicator is 0.

Cases of iron ore. Si. including iron. steel construction.5 Eco-Indicator 99 analysis for Wood. In order to explain the varied environmental behavior among the ferrous materials. and strength only have weak relationships to the materials’ environmental properties. steel cast. density. Mn. The Eco-Indicators range from 0. 5-14 .3. tin plate.1. cast iron. The members of the Ferrous Metal category show a large variety of environmental performance. The initial study found that mechanical and physical properties. because they are not design materials. steel high & low temperature. Cr. and steel high & low grade. steel draw. 5. steel spring. such as Young’s modulus.Chapter 5 The Environmental Impact Drivers 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 5 Wood Low Impact Wood Low -Med Impact Eco Indicator 99 (Pts/kg) Wood Med-High Impact Wood High Impact 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 Material Case Number Figure 5. their physical and mechanical properties have been examined with regard to their potential for the use as grouping criteria. steel sheet. tin plate recycled or scraps are not included in the analysis. and Mo in ferrous metals has significant effect on the material’s environmental properties. steel automatic. stainless steel. C. However the investigation on material composition indicates that the content of Ni.2 Grouping of Ferrous Metals There are 81 cases in the generic category of Ferrous Metal.66 Pts/kg.07 to 0.

Cluster analysis was carried out.0772 Pts/kg and 20. The second group has 24 material cases with Nickel content. where cases number 58-68 form one cluster and cases number 69-81 form the other cluster. Figure 5. The average Eco-Indicator is 0. As shown in the summarized dendrogram (Figure 5. Analysis on the detailed Nickel content of these cases explains the common characteristics of members within each cluster. Distance Measure 0 Case Label Num 69-76.Chapter 5 The Environmental Impact Drivers Further analysis found that the Nickel content is the most effective criteria for the grouping of ferrous metals.85% standard deviation. The list of material cases with their Ni and Cr contents are presented in Appendix B3-B5 together with their environmental parameters.6). using the Eco-Indicator and the Nickel content as criteria.6 Summarized dendrogram using average linkage for cluster analysis of ferrous metals (n=81). The first group contains 57 materials with no Nickel content with the average Eco-Indicator value of 0. 79-81 5 10 15 20 25 77-78 Group 2 58-68 Group 1 1-57 Figure 5.6% standard deviation. two major groups were observed. The cluster with a low Nickel content <5% includes cases number 58-68 and the other cluster with a 5-15 . which suggests that further division is necessary for the second group.7 depicts the relationship between the Nickel content and the Eco-Indicator for these 24 cases. The dendrogram shows two clusters in the second group (dotted line in Figure 5.6).313 Pts/kg with 54.

producing more detailed groups.Chapter 5 The Environmental Impact Drivers higher Nickel content >5% includes cases number 69-81.00 10. the larger number of material groups would have increased the complexity for application. SOX.10 0. High Ni ferro (Ni>5%).00 0. other key substances 5-16 . The substances with major contribution to Ferrous metals’ environmental performance are NOX.70 Eco-indicator 99 (Pts/kg) 0. Low NiCr stainless steel (Ni+Cr<20%). there are 5 groups identified namely No Ni ferro. NO2.37% standard deviation. Crude Oil. As shown in Appendix B3-B5 (Solution B).00 Ferrous metal Ni<5% Ferrous metal Ni>5% Nickel content (wt%) Figure 5.20 0. there was no significant improvement on the similarity of group members. On the other hand. Therefore more detailed grouping solutions were not adopted.00 20. with a group average of 0. In addition.40 0.00 15. Low NiCr stainless steel in Solution B.00 5. Low Ni ferro.50 0. and High Ni ferro.00 25. One group is the merging of the two groups of High Ni ferro and High NiCr stainless steel in Solution B and the other 3 groups remain the same as the three groups of No Ni ferro. and CO2 in the compartment of air emission.7 Relationship between Nickel content in ferrous metals and EcoIndicator 99 single score (n=24) Further clustering of ferrous materials was explored.60 0. Low Ni ferro (Ni <5%). The group average of low Nickel ferrous metals is 0. SO2.1481 Pts/kg with 28. Coal and Natural Gas in the compartment of raw material. 0. High NiCr stainless steel (Ni+Cr>20%).4531 Pts/kg and 20. Ferrous metals with more than 5% Nickel content have higher environmental impacts. Another attempt produced 4 groups.32% standard deviation. namely No Ni ferro. Low Ni ferro. Therefore three groups were identified in the category of Ferrous Metal. However.30 0.

3 Grouping of Non-ferrous Metals The generic category of Non-ferrous Metals has 103 cases. Mn. NO2. Mn. An average value should not be applied for the members of this group.e. Mo and their alloys (see Appendix C6-C8). Nickel. 16.6). 5-17 . was identified containing 5 material cases with extreme values. the major substances include NOX. 5. 2.5 Pts/kg for Tin.00 Pts/kg for Rhodium. V. Copper. 4610. Ti. Appendix B6-B8 presents the environmental impact of Non-ferrous materials in damage and impact categories. Cu. Designers should be aware of the high environmental impact associated with these materials. indicating the major damages are in the categories of Human Health and Resources through the impact on Fossil Fuels Depletion and Respiratory Effects (Table 5. Mo and their alloys belong to the second group. 6960. Mg. further sub-divisions are not necessary. Since the standard deviations for the first and second group are 22. Ti. Mg. For the group of Al.6). Ni. Pb and their alloys. They are Human Health and Resources through the impact category of Fossil Fuels Depletion and Respiratory Effects (Table 5. SO2. which is not shown in the diagram. two environmental damage categories show high contribution to the total impact of Ferrous metals. SOX. Tin and land use are identified as key substance for Cu. Figure 5.34 Pts/kg for Cobalt. Zn. The average Eco-Indicator value is 0. i. Crude Oil and Natural Gas in the compartment of raw material.14% of the group average respectively. V. and 123000. In addition to these. An outlier group.1.3.37% and 29. As shown in Appendix B3-B5.00 Pts/kg for Palladium. The first group contains 56 material cases including Al. 6.8 shows the distribution of non-ferrous metals in terms of their Eco-Indicator single score.5436 Pts/kg as group average.5640 Pts/kg.00 Pts/kg for Platinum. Nickel in ore for ferrous metals with Ni content (see Appendix C3-C5). CO2 and Dust in the compartment of air emission. Pb and their alloys. Ni.Chapter 5 The Environmental Impact Drivers include Occupation as industrial area for No Ni ferrous metals. They have much higher environmental impacts than those in the first group. Zn. Two major groups were identified through the cluster analysis.

Ti. Mn and their alloys Cu.00 1. V.00 2. Zn.00 Eco-indicator 99 (Pts/kg) 3.00 0. representing the accuracy of each grouping solution. Therefore 16 groups are proposed for the simplified environmental assessment of materials.00 Material Cases Al.50 0. Ni. The average standard deviation was calculated for each number of groups.50 1. The figure indicates that the solution with 16 material groups provides a low standard deviation and further division into more specific material groups offers only a marginal improvement in accuracy.Chapter 5 The Environmental Impact Drivers 4.50 2.50 4.8 Eco-Indicator 99 analysis for Non-ferrous Metals 5. ranging from a solution based on the 6 generic material categories to the 41 material groups classified by Ashby (1999). Mo and their alloys Figure 5.Mg. 5-18 .50 3.1.9 presents the accuracy of different grouping solutions.4 Material Groups and their Environmental Impact Drivers Figure 5.

3.Chapter 5 The Environmental Impact Drivers 65 60 55 Average deviation (%) 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Number of material groups Figure 5.9 Grouping solutions and accuracies The description of the 16 material groups is presented in Table 5. 5-19 . the members of the group have a similar environmental performance. so that it can easily be understood by designers. At the same time. The group names reflect the common understanding of the nature of the materials in each group.

steel high/low temp. steel spring. Pd. Mo& their alloys Outlier Co&Sn& Pt&Pd&Rd) Tu. and Cu. Mg. Tin plate. Zn.Chapter 5 The Environmental Impact Drivers Table 5. Mn. stoneware and cements Glass (virgin/ green/ brown/oil-fired/ white/ gas-fired) Ferrous metals without Nickel content (Including: steel sheet. Mn & their alloys Cu. steel autom. steel draw. and 3 No Ni Ferro some of stainless steel. cast iron) 6 Non-Ferrous Metal 7 Al.3 Descriptions of the 16 material groups(1-8) Material Category Group No. V. Ti including their alloys Co. Sn. and Al. Mg. Ti. steel construction. steel cast) Ferrous metals with more than 5% 5 High Ni Ferro (Ni>5%) Nickel content (Including some of stainless steel. Ni. Pt. Ni. steel high grade. steel high grade. and Rd 8 5-20 . 1 Glass +Ceramics 2 Glass Group Name Traditional Ceramics Group Description Porcelain. Cd. Si. steel low temp. Cr. Mo. cast iron. ceramics. Pb.) Ferrous Metal 4 Low Ni Ferro (Ni<5%) Ferrous metals with less than 5% Nickel content (Including some of stainless steel. Zn including their alloys V. steel high/ low temp. steel cast.

PE. SAN 5-21 . newsprint 11 Polymers 12 Epoxy Rubber. paper woody/woodfree. PMMA. cardboard gray. LDPE. PS. PET. 9 Paper packaging carton. sack paper. HDPE. fluting. cardboard chromo. PVDC. PP.Chapter 5 The Environmental Impact Drivers Table 5. PVC. Thermoplastics. PC.3 Descriptions of the 16 material groups (Group 9-12) Material Category Group No. cardboard duplex. PB. paper bleached/ unbleached Paper 10 Cardboard Cardboard cellulose. ABS. PUR. testliner. PA. Group Name Group Description Kraftpaper bleached/unbleached. kraftliner brown/ white. HIPS. Thermoset Epoxy resin Rubbers.

Cottonwood. Iroko. Hornbean. Palissander. Aningre. Movigui. Idigbo. Agba. Horse chestnut. Okoume. Afzelia. Indisch. Tchitola. Mahogany. Tiama. 13 Wood Low Impact Sycamore. Cedar. Elm. Mersawa. Linden. Aspen. Hemlock. Canaria. Dibetou. Ash. Mengkulang. Poplar.Chapter 5 The Environmental Impact Drivers Table5. Western. Olon. Ahorn. Pine. Oak. Antiaris. European Spruce. Purpleheart. Emeri 16 5-22 . Koto. Teak. Paranapine. Moabi. Wawa. Willow Azobe. Yang. Peroba. Angelique. Mahogani. Padouk. Robinia. Utile. Woods 15 Wood Med-High Impact Limba. Baboen. Larch. Mansonia. Abura. Kotibe. Afrormosia. Kauri. Mutenye. Bubinga. Ilomba. Alder. Sapelli. Wenge. Merbau. Birch. Group Name Group Description Silver Fir. Platan. Bosse Clair Carapa. Chestnut. Beech. Meranti. Blue Gum. Wood High Impact Niangon. Black Poplar 14 Wood Low-Med Impact Walnut. Makore.3 Descriptions of the 16 material groups (Group 13-16) Material Category Group No.

the average Eco-Indicator single score of each group was calculated and adopted as the material-based Environmental Impact Driver (DM) for the group members. Since the standard deviation of each group is less than 30% of the group average. DM is acceptable for the estimation of the environmental impact for all group members. The variation of 30% has also been widely adopted by researchers as a realistic level of the accuracy of inventory data for LCA (Rousseaux et al. The ‘Outlier’ group of Non-ferrous Metals (Group 8) contains very rare cases with extremely high environmental impact.4. 5-23 . 2001). as shown in Table 5. 1992). Their environmental performances shall be calculated individually instead of using the group average. considering the fact that the accuracy of life-cycle energy results produced by a real LCA is typically ± 30%(UK Ecolabelling Board.Chapter 5 The Environmental Impact Drivers For the 16 proposed material groups.

3753 0.Chapter 5 The Environmental Impact Drivers Table 5.39% 17.81% 10.5436 0.0070 0.0713 0. Ti.37% 22.3263 0.85% 28.1262 0.4531 0. Ni.0132 18.37% 29.0273 0.7413 CV 25.76% Material Groups Traditional Ceramics Glass No Ni Ferro Low Ni Ferro (Ni<5%) High Ni Ferro (Ni>5%) Al.0089 0.0161 0.9995 1.0568 0. Mn & their alloys Cu.0974 0. Mg. Glass +Ceramics 1 2 3 Ferrous Metal 4 5 6 NonFerrous Metal 7 8 9 Paper 10 11 Polymers 12 13 14 Woods 15 16 Cardboard Epoxy Rubber.32% 20.0348 0. Thermoplastics.49% 20.70% 25.1342 0.50% 0. Mo& their alloys Co & Sn & Pt & Pd & Rd Paper Num of Average/ STDEV Cases DM (Pts/kg) 5 6 57 11 13 49 42 5 10 0.1985 5.94% 28.5368 9.14% 5-24 .60% 18. V.5627 25.1481 0.1607 0.0419 0. Zn.79% 18.5660 1.5640 2.05% 16.0772 0.0923 0. Thermoset Wood Low Impact Wood Low-Med Impact Wood Med-High Impact Wood High Impact 23 3 82 29 4 25 24 0.7180 0.0060 0.4 Material groups and Material-based Environmental Impact Drivers Material Group Category No.2132 0.

For better interpretation of the single score assessment. and many substances have only a marginal effect on the total environmental impact. Therefore a compact LCI list was developed including only the main contributors. 5-25 .5 Life Cycle Inventory Analysis for Material Groups It is recognized that the LCA result in a single score has the advantage of providing designers with comprehensible information as well as with an overall view on the environmental impacts associated with the product’s material selection. it is useful to have additional information on the life cycle inventory analysis. The purpose is to provide designers with additional in depth information on the materials’ environmental properties in a summarized form. such as land use associated with a material. It enables the designers to conduct life cycle assessment for a material without assessing all the substances on the LCI list. Table 5. The compact LCI list for each material group is shown in Table 5.6 shows the most important impact categories identified for each material group. and to apply their own evaluation method instead of using Eco-Indicator 99.5. LCI data includes a full list of emissions. However. consumed resources and non-material impacts. The list includes those substances that contribute to more than 80% of the total environmental impact.1. Usually inventory tables are very long. indicating the major environmental concerns associated with a specific group of materials.Chapter 5 The Environmental Impact Drivers 5. They were developed through the LCI analysis of the substances with significant contributions to the total environmental impact (see Appendix C). environmental impacts occur through various pathways.

Natural gas. CO2. NOx. SOx. Mg. Dust Oil. NOx. Dust. CO2. NO2. Oil. Natural gas. NO2. NO2. Mn and their alloys Cu. Natural gas. Pb. NOX. Ni (in ore) NOX. Zn. Land use NOX. Ni. SOx. SO2 Natural gas. Oil. Natural gas.Chapter 5 The Environmental Impact Drivers Table 5. NO2. Coal Oil. Oil. NO2. SOx. SOx. SOx. SO2. SOx. NOx. CO2. Cu. NO2. CO2. CO2. NO2. Dust. SOx. Oil. NOX. Ni. SO2 Oil. SOx. Oil. Ti. CO2. CO2. NO2. SO2. V. Dust NOX. Oil.5 Short LCI list for material groups No. Dust NOX. Tin. Natural gas. SO2. NOx. Ni (in ore). SOx. NO2. CO2. Coal. SOx. SO2 Natural gas. CO2. Dust Occupation as rail/road area Occupation as rail/road area Conv. SO2. Mo and their alloys Outliers (Co&Sn&Pt&Pd&Rd) Paper Cardboard Epoxy Rubber. SO2. SO2. SOx. to continuous urban land Conv. Ni. SOx. NO2. Natural gas. 1 2 3 4 Material Groups Traditional Ceramics Glass Non Ni Ferro Low Ni Ferro (Ni<5%) Abbreviated LCI list NOX. NO2. SO2. Oil. SO2. SO2. Dust Oil. Natural gas. CO2. Land use Cu. to continuous urban land 5 High Ni Ferro (Ni>5%) Al. Natural gas. Thermoplastic. CO2. NOX. Natural gas. Oil. Natural gas. Thermoset Wood Low Impact Wood Med Impact Wood Med Impact Wood High Impact 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 5-26 . NO2. CO2.

71% 0.10% 4.9E-05 44.7600 0.3E-09 58.02% 0.95% 0.02% 0.2496 66.5436 (%) 0.44% 0.08% 14.88% 16.0239 6.5640 (%) 2.0166 32.1174 8.59% 0.36% 0. V.00% 77.66% 0.0008 2.2E-06 0.08% 0.80% 0.0263 0.0047Pts (The average Impact of Resp.21% 23.76% 0.91% 0.0015 4.0212 5.0007 0.1481 (%) 0.8E-05 0.36% 0.0889 0.0001 0.44% 0.8E-05 37.0025 0.42E-05 0.94% 10.0810 21.0039 3.0031 0.0248 17.Mn alloys Cu.Ni.Chapter 5 The Environmental Impact Drivers Table 5.64% 0.0270 8.01% 0.0056 0.0568 Glass (%) 0.05% 0.0695 46.0018 0.37% 1.0262 0.64% 0.1079 0.0612 4.92% 4.0223 4.56% 7.01% 0.77% 0.54% 0.30% 0. Ti.11% 0.6 Major environmental impact categories for material groups Material Groups Group Resp.00% 0.0273Pts (The average total impact)= 17.0072 7.33% 0.39% 0.Zn.85% 0.01% 36.3753 plast.25% 19.0003 0 1.0047 0.0125 8.66% 0.5583 0.86% 0. inorganics) /0.0348 Cardboard (%) 0.0319 *0.99% 4.51% 0.16% 0.56% 0.Thermo 0.48% 0.7180 Epoxy (%) Rubber.0273 Ceramics (%) 0.0058 0.0059 45.2174 38.40% 0.0989 43.0713 Paper (%) 0.3E-05 0.Mg.00% 0.0351 34.0020 2.91% 0.0003 1.62% 0.49% 15.Land Minerals Fossil fuels city Average inorganics change use (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) 0.0772 No Ni Ferro (%) Low Ni Ferro (Ni<5%) High Ni Ferro (Ni>5%) Al.0036 0.0196 7.0495 8.39% 2.0029 0.4109 10.06% 47.0035 0.0691 0.4531 (%) 0.0159 1.0093 6.24% 29.0061 0.31% 0.95% 0.14% 0.01% 0. Thermoset (%) 16.05% 5-27 .95% 0.0051 0 2.0069 9.76% 0.0876 3.53% 0.0256 0. Climate Ecotoxi.0113 0.1657 29.00% 0.2419 53.05%* 0.58% 3. Mo 0.0166 31.88% 11.0012 0.20% 0.28% 0.

3E-06 0.51% 89. and 11.0055 0.1.4524 3E-06 0.0398 0.95% for the model Sima.00% 0.6 Case Studies Case studies of an active product—coffee machine and a passive product – disposable shaver are conducted to test the application of material-based environmental impact drivers.0337 0.1.06% 0.7 and 5.0029 0.55% 0. the detailed LCA 5-28 .09% 0.5E-06 0.5660 (%) 1.0417 0.0052 0. The same case is adopted in this study.48% 0.39% 0.3263 0.6.06% 0.72% 0.36% 0.0047 0.8 show that the simplified approach causes a deviation of 25.0331 0.83% 0.0186 1.60% 0. Climate Ecotoxi.45% 0.0039 0.00% 0.00% 0. to explain the results of a detailed LCA study.0032 1.60% 0.00% 5.0027 9.55% for the model Pro.0197 3.6 Major environmental impact categories for material groups (Cont.Chapter 5 The Environmental Impact Drivers Table 5. The results computed by applying the simplified approach are compared to the results of LCA.48% 0. The results in tables 5.2354 3. models Sima and Pro.04% 98.1985 (%) 5. For the purpose of comparing the environmental performance of the two models.68% 0.0279 4.5084 3.0025 5.03% 99.1393 4.1 Coffee Machine SimaPro software package describes a demo case of two models of a coffee machine.93% 0.5368 (%) 9.03% 0. 5.Land Minerals fuels city Average inorganics change use (Pt) (Pt) (Pt) (Pt) (Pt) (Pt) (Pt) 0.0312 2.) Material Groups Wood Low impact Wood LowMed impact Wood MedHigh impact Wood High impact Fossil Group Resp.27% 95.2E-06 0. The functional unit is defined as using the coffee machine for 5 years twice a day 5 cups.

the results indicate that a simplified calculation leads to the same decision in a comparison of alternative designs and thus is acceptable for the studied cases.83 times greater than that of model Sima. in this case study only the material based impact should be considered for verification and not the total impact.92% for Pro. the small deviation for the total impact is expected.09 Pts for Pro. causing a difference of 11%. The detailed LCA leads to results of 9. Therefore. the environmental impact of model Pro is 1. This represents a deviation is only 1. 5-29 . If we check the effects of the simplified method on the total product environmental impact (including all lifecycle phases). However.Chapter 5 The Environmental Impact Drivers indicates that in the material stage. In summary. independent on which approach a designer would choose. the results are 9.12 Pts for Sima and 7. The simplified method shows this figure as 1. since a coffee machine is an active product with its main impact in the usage phase.82% for Sima and 1.29 Pts for model Sima and 7.22 Pts for model Pro.62. These figures represent the material-based impacts only.

15 1 0.0227 LCA (Pts) 0.8077 Deviation 0.06 Kg Kg Kg 0.0122 0.14 0.0842 0.0564 0.35 0.0348 0.04 0.0116 0.4 0.7 Comparison of computed impacts and LCA results for model Sima Title: Method: Value: Materials Corr.0074 0.2029 0.0565 0.0772 0.0069 0.0568 Wi*DMi (Pts) 0.Chapter 5 The Environmental Impact Drivers Table 5.0149 0.000185 Material-based Environmental Impact: I M = ∑Wi ∗ DMi i =1 n 5-30 .0677 Kg Kg Kg Kg Kg 0.0162 0.3753 Kg Kg Kg Kg Kg 2.0272 0.002 0.1 0.0166 0.0131 0. cardboard mix 1 Glass (white) B250 Paper ETH T Paper wood-free U B250 Steel low alloy ETH T PP granulate average B250 PP granulate average B250 PVC B250 PET bottle grade B250 PVC B250 PS (EPS) B250 (1998) Aluminium ingots B250 Copper ETH T Copper ETH T Coffee Machine Model Sima Eco-Indicator 99 (H) / Europe EI 99 H/A Single score DMi Amount Unit (Pts/Kg) Wi 0.02 0.105 0.0229 0.1 0.5640 0.6413 25.05 0.0281 0.02 0.3060 0.5372 Kg 0.00517 0.4949 0.0428 0.95% 0.

0149 0.14 0.105 0.05 1.0069 0.5372 Kg 1.0131 0.002 0.0122 0.8646 0.0074 0.0348 0.0612 0.2030 0.02 0.0114 0.0166 0.1 0.3753 Kg Kg Kg Kg Kg 2.55% 0.0677 Kg Kg Kg Kg Kg 0.2 0. cardboard mix 1 Glass (white) B250 Paper ETH T Paper wood-free U B250 Steel low alloy ETH T PVC B250 PP granulate average B250 PVC B250 PET bottle grade B250 PP granulate average B250 PS (EPS) B250 (1998) Aluminium ingots B250 Copper ETH T Copper ETH T Coffee Machine Model Pro Eco-Indicator 99 (H) / Europe EI 99 H/A Single score Amount Wi 0.0281 1.00517 DMi (Pts/Kg) 0.1765 11.15 0.04 0.000185 Material-based Environmental Impact: I M = ∑Wi ∗ DMi i =1 n 5-31 .0162 0.Chapter 5 The Environmental Impact Drivers Table 5.0272 0.06 0.2 0.02 Unit Kg Kg Kg 0.0842 0.0116 0.35 0.8 Comparison of computed impacts and LCA results for model Pro Title: Method: Value: Materials Corr.0772 0.0428 0.0568 Wi*DMi (Pts) 0.5764 0.0114 LCA (Pts) 0.5 0.3123 Deviation 0.848 0.2027 0.

164 Unit Kg Kg Kg Kg 0.021 0.9 The computed environmental impacts for disposable shavers Title: Method: Value: Materials Steel PET Polyethylene Polystyrene Disposable Shaver Eco-Indicator 99 (H) / Europe EI 99 H/A Single score Amount Wi 0. The service life of the disposable shaver is 7-8 shaves. Table 5.0772 Wi*DMi (Pts) 0.012 0. Therefore according to the simplified approach (Equation 4-1).0752 5-32 .017 0.Chapter 5 The Environmental Impact Drivers 5.9 shows the calculation of IM using the material-based environmental impact drivers. its total Environmental Performance Indicator I= IM.6. With no energy consumption at usage stage. Table 5.3753 0.2 Disposable Shavers A case study on disposable shavers was carried out to test the application of the simplified method on passive products.0013 Material-based Environmental Impact: I M = ∑Wi ∗ DMi i =1 n 0. The functional unit is defined as shaving for one year with 260 shaves. the energy-based environmental impact IE is zero.0739 DMi (Pts/Kg) 0. which requires 34 disposable shavers per year. IM is the material based environmental impact.1.

Method: Eco-indicator 99 (H) / Europe EI 99 H/A / single score Figure 5. SOx. inorganics Ecotoxicity Fossil fuels 0.10 Environmental profile of the disposable shavers life cycle 5-33 .0751 Pts. The major environmental damages associated with the thermoplastics (Table 5.11.00077 Pts from the disposal of the shavers. the major environmental impacts of the disposable shaver are caused by the thermoplastics from the material stage. CO2. with 0. and dust.10 and Figure 5.11.Chapter 5 The Environmental Impact Drivers A full LCA study on the disposable shavers was conducted for comparison.070 Pts from the material stage. which is in line with the environmental profile of the disposable shaver identified by the full LCA study (Figure 5.10.16 0. As shown in Figure 5.6) are in the category of Human Health and Resources.10).27%. Natural gas. 0. which represent 93. organics Ozone layer Minerals 4. the deviation caused by the simplified calculation is 0. the total impact of the disposable shavers is 0. The simplified analysis also identified that the major substances for thermoplastics are Oil. SO2. through the impacts on Depletion of Fossil Fuels and Respiratory Effects.103 Injection moulding PET Resp.77 Landfill B250 (98) Climate change Acidification/ Eutrophic 70 Analyzing 1 p life cycle 'disposable shavers'.004 Pts from processes of injection moulding and 0. Compared to the LCA results. mPt 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 disposable shavers-material Carcinogens Radiation Land use Injection moulding Resp. NOx.5% of the total impact associated with the disposable shavers’ life cycle as shown in Figure 5. The results are presented in Figure 5. According to the simplified analysis. NO2.

Method: Eco-indicator 99 (H) / Europe EI 99 H/A / single score Figure 5. More case studies were conducted to verify the application of the simplified approach. 1999).. electricity in Europe was used for all active products. Large variations were caused by cases with a different fuel source (diesel).00693 Pt crude oil ETH 0.11 Major substances for the environmental impact of disposable shavers The case studies indicate that the simplified approach may provide designers with a quick analysis of a product’s environmental performance and environmental profile with acceptable accuracy. The results are discussed in chapter 6.003 Pt CO2 0.000814 Pt SO2 0. Instead of further grouping active products according to their energy source.000866 Pt SOx 0.0337 Pt Remaining processes 0. in this study 7 commonly used energy sources were derived from the SimaPro database (as 5-34 . which lead to a subgroup in the cluster of energy based products.2 Energy-Based Environmental Impact Drivers In the pilot study conducted by Soriano (2002).00346 Pt NOx 0.0049 natural gas 0.Chapter 5 The Environmental Impact Drivers crude oil IDEMAT 0. including 23 active products and 20 passive products.00491 Pt Analyzing 1 p life cycle 'disposable shavers'. suggesting that products using different energy sources might create other subgroups. 5. It was also recognized that the environmental impact due to the generation of electricity varies widely between countries (Rombouts et al.0165 Pt dust 0.

11).00248Pts/MJ Oil. CO2. Coal. Dust Oil. SOX. NO2. NO2. SO2 Oil. Coal. 5-35 . NO2. The substances with major contribution to the environmental impact of energy sources are identified as shown in Table 5.10). As the major environmental impacts of active products are associated with energy consumption in the usage stage. No. Oil. CO2. Natural gas. Natural gas.184Pts /kg Major Substances Oil. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Energy sources Petrol B300 Diesel B300 Natural gas B300 DE 0. Natural gas. Natural gas. Natural gas.Chapter 5 The Environmental Impact Drivers shown in Table 5. Respiratory Effects and Climate Change (see Table 5. NO2. SOX. The environmental damages associated with the energy sources are mainly Human Health and Resources through the impact categories of Fossil Fuel Depletion. Natural gas.Dust Oil. NO2. SO2. SO2. CO2. Table 5. NO2. SO2. NO2.00293Pts/MJ Oil. CO2. 0.27 Pts/kg 0.00571Pts/MJ 0. The Energy-based environmental impact drivers (DE) were calculated by the SimaPro software package using the method of Eco-indicator 99 H/A presented in single score value.10 Energy based Environmental Impact Drivers and the Major Substances. CO2. CO2. CO2. Natural gas. the list of DE will be extended with more data becoming available in electricity generation of different regions.185 Pts/kg 0. Dust Electricity NORDEL 0.10 and Appendix C17 in more details. SO2. representing the environmental impacts associated with various sources in different regions.0026Pts/MJ Electricity UCPTE Energy Australia I Energy US I 0.

65% 0.43% 0.17% 0.0223 8.84% 5-36 .0004 14.Chapter 5 The Environmental Impact Drivers Table 5.0025 (%) 0.0026 (%) 0.75% 0.1660 89.0018 60.0045 2.Fuels ication 0.0109 5.1760 95.10% 0.0021 37.0021 37.1840 Natural gas (%) Electricity NORDEL Electricity UCPTE Energy Australia 0.89% 0.2700Pts (The total impact)=1.60% Climate Change 0.0001 2.0035 1.0057 (%) Carcinogens 0.90% 0.00% 0.21% 0.08% 0.0001 2.0003 11.0007 12.82% 0.0009 34.44% 0.76% 0.0009 34.0027 1.97% 0.54% 0.65% 0.2700 Petrol (%) 0.28% 0.13% DE (Pts) 0.0062 2.26% 0.0014 0.0004 14.73% 0.0029 Energy US (%) Electricity NORDEL Electricity UCPTE 0.0002 0.00% *0.79% 0.0022 1.94% 0.0004 12.0009 32.1850 Diesel (%) 0.0006 10.0005 0.0005 18.0001 3.76% 0.11% 0.85% 0.29% 0.0015 0.0001 2.0025 0.19% 0.0050 1.51% 0.0008 32.00% 0.90% 0.0002 2.0019 33.0006 10.85% 0.0005 0.0003 11.0007 23.89% 0.41% 0.0019 33.54% 0.0002 4.0050Pts(The impact of Carcinogens) /0.08% 0.13% 0.0009 34.0002 2.0001 4.0026 (%) 0.00% 0.11 Major environmental impact categories for Energy-based Environmental Impact Drivers Resp.10% AcidificaFossil Ecotoxition/ city Eutroph.0001 4.65% 0.0026 1.0011 42.43% 0. Inorganics 0.89% 0.0057 (%) 0.17% 0 0 0 0 0.60% 0 0 0 0 0.0007 12.77% 0.84%* 0.28% 0.2300 85.74% 0.26% 0.0002 4.

the product’s environmental performance can be assessed with very basic data input requirements and acceptable accuracy. Changes are expected to be very minor. the basic grouping of materials will not be affected. It should be pointed out that any further findings on the impact of materials. the material-based environmental impacts of a design alternative can be evaluated on the basis of a few material groups. a comparison was made with LCI data weighted with the evaluation method of EPS2000. as EPS2000 does not include land use as an impact category. the impact drivers can easily be updated on the basis of new data becoming available.3 Conclusion The grouping of materials produced a material environmental index to evaluate the material-based environmental impacts at the early phase of product development. It enables designers to have a timely environmental evaluation without having access to a LCA software package or an extensive material database. improvement of material acquisition technology. In order to assess how the results would change if a weighting method other than Ecoindicator 99 were used. except for the groups of woods.Chapter 5 The Environmental Impact Drivers 5. and in particular. By mapping materials into the index of DM. The comparison showed that the trends for the material groups were very similar. Together with the energy-based Environmental Impact Drivers (DE). 5-37 . However. and modification of the environmental impact evaluation model would have an influence on the results of this study.

all the product and material cases used in this study were assessed by the 6-1 . these were obtained from reference books and databases as well as information from suppliers. which resulted in further simplification of the environmental assessment for active products. usage. references. marketing and publicity documentation. 6. The first section consists of the comparison of full LCA results of collected product cases and the results computed by the simplified approach. Sources and descriptions of these cases are included in Appendix D. For the latter cases where appropriate information was available. and disposal (the negative figures in this stage are the results of recycling practices). Section three discusses the application of the integrated decision model and the simplified environmental assessment approach in two case studies.1 The Verification of the Simplified Approach A wide range of case studies is used to verify the proposed approach described in the previous chapters. The product cases were collected from publications. and manufacturers. Table 6.Chapter 6 Verification and Case Studies CHAPTER 6 VERIFICATION AND CASE STUDIES Chapter 6 presents the verification of the simplified approach and two case studies for the integrated decision model. In the cases of missing data.1 presents the LCA results of 43 product cases with their total impact indicator and a breakdown into the life cycle phases of material. The gathered LCA documentations were either detailed reports or summarized reports. corporate documents. In order to be able to make a valid comparison between different cases from different sources. retailers. Then the correlation between a product’s environmental performance and its life time energy consumption is investigated. organization documentation and others. an initial LCA was performed. manufacturing.

00954 0.0296 0.12 10.0 LCA software package using the evaluation method of Eco-indicator 99 H/A.70 58. (Pts) 0.62 7.3 53.0943 0.6 57.2354 N/A N/A 0.2 10.00 29.0221 0.8 12.878 0.0678 N/A N/A 0.134 0.0605 N/A 1.759 1.7 54.00677 -0.31 14 14.90 112.5637 13.00 144.427 0.00 54.0519 -108 Total (Pts) 2.00 .9 12.772 1.30 54.12 5.00552 -0.06 12.0831 0.000342 0.7 10.00718 -0.0842 0.113 0.00622 0. Hand drier Electric Pump Washing machine F-Au Refrigerator Washing machine T-Imp Washing machine T-Au PC Dish washer Garbage colletor-RL200 0. Table 6.63 10.00 68.5 40.00 180.5 2.068 N/A N/A N/A 10.5 10.4 Manf.00367 0.20 10.0029 0.1 102 109 133 157 29900 Disposal (Pts) -0.11 25. The energy consumption of Europe (UCPTE) was adopted for the analysis.42 13.7 24.1226 0.73 48.6413 1.47 2.0647 0.000736 -0.348 0.815 8.63 9.01 7.47 0.0883 0.357 2.00 119.5 11.385 7.357 0.8524 0.09 9.000808 0.6431 0.34 308.Chapter 6 Verification and Case Studies SimaPro 5.1765 0.000612 0.31 -1.22 0.00 30100.6 27.1 Product environmental impact indicator and life cycle phases Material Product Case (Pts) Hydraulic unit Coffee machine Pro Coffee machine Sima Cleaner Cooking pan-Gunda Cooking pan-All Steel Cooking pan -356+ Cooking pan-Hotpan Electrical Heater Power tool TV Washing machine F-Imp.88 11.00577 0.9 6-2 Usage (Pts) 1.70 72.4 55.1 40.

07004 0.5 19.31 27900 0.505 2.01236 -0.0364 N/A 0.0012 0.166 -0.06800 0.0000746 0.05328 0.00804 0.00077 0.000671 0.33 4.0012964 0.03250 -0.0285 0. (Pts) 3.000299 Manf.12E-05 0.47E-05 2.015247 0.54 N/A N/A Usage (Pts) 32300 834000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Disposal (Pts) -139 -9940 -8.0075 0.72E-06 -7.02800 -0.0000675 0.0153 0.00111 0.Chapter 6 Verification and Case Studies Table 6.00 852000.0332 0.000468 0.0124 0.1 74.00029 0.198 0.0000431 0.00 0.00175 0.0483 0.00226 0.07500 0.00675 0.50 0.) Material Product Case (Pts) Garbage colletor-RL300 Rock crusher CD package-P Beverage package-steel Paper bag Shopping bag-plastic PET bottle Beverage package-Al CD package-M Paper sack CD package-C CD package-B CD package-D Plastic sack Shaver-reuse Shaver disposal Ceramic tile Steel drawer Steel panel Wooden panel Wooden drawer Paper towel 399.00952 0.000385 0.000143 Total (Pts) 32500.0118 0.01520 -0.01220 0.1 Product environmental impact indicator and life cycle phases (Con.44 11.000196 -0.45 19.00229 0.50600 2.33 4.46E-04 0.000562 0.000265 0.00692 6.00869 0.61 11.0156 0.000521 N/A N/A N/A 0.000774 0.000807 0.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 6-3 .00255 0.12 74.000337 0.004219 0.03650 -0.000135 0.

9) and the equations for the Material-based Environmental Impact (Equation 4-3). with an average deviation of 4. In order to verify the simplified approach.6% and a maximum of 18% (as shown in Figure 6. The deviations caused by the application of the simplified approach are less than 10% for 90% of the products included in the study. the usage phase appears to be the most significant phase for active products. this is acceptable for the applications in the early stages of product development considering the uncertainties of LCA.1). As discussed before. The calculations were carried out by using the identified Environmental Impact Drivers (Tables 5.4 and 5. the Energy-based Environmental Impact (Equation 4-2) and the product Environmental Impact Indicator (Equation 4-1). As expected.Chapter 6 Verification and Case Studies The results of these product cases map the product classifications from the literature.2). whereas for passive products the material phase contributes most of the environmental impact. 6-4 . The material and usage phases are the two major contributors to the total environmental impact of a product. the results of the product LCA cases were compared to the computed results from the simplified approach (shown in Table 6.

58 14.70 8.00 852000.70 10.10 40.73 834000.81 10.44 8.00 54.41 2.60 27.69 15.00 31671.Imp.00 119.33 0.60 57.71 29618.54 10.29 72.70 1.12 10.90 112.00 32500.73 48.20 10.73 Product Case Hydraulic unit Coffee machine Pro Coffee machine Sima Cleaner Cooking pan-Gunda Cooking pan-All Steel Cooking pan -356+ Cooking pan-Hotpan Electrical Heater Power tool TV Washing machine F-Imp. Hand drier Electric Pump Washing machine F-Au Refrigerator Washing machine T.82 6.55 58.00 Computed Results (Pts) IM 0.45 0.75 120.88 11.71 296.28 69.07 IE 1.35 13.70 72. Washing machine T-Au PC Dish washer Garbage collector-RL200 Garbage collector-RL300 Rock crusher 33334.00 133.15 2.79 3.21 9.00 157.00 6-5 .70 24.10 102.91 32055.30 53.09 9.50 40.91 384.00 29.31 111.72 56.30 0.00 IM + IE 1.49 0.99 12.00 109.75 11.54 143.70 58.81 2.12 5.30 54.42 13.00 144.90 12.70 54.69 12.50 11.2 Environmental Impact Indicator for 43 product cases computed by the simplified approach LCA Results (Pts) 2.07 867334.09 56.06 12.70 7.50 10.80 48.51 10.01 29.31 0.11 25.00 10.00 30100.13 7.Chapter 6 Verification and Case Studies Table 6.00 29322.01 7.03 25.31 0.00 180.22 15.00 68.69 169.40 55.

04 0.0365 0.2 Environmental Impact Indicator for 43 product cases computed by the simplified approach (Con.0325 0.01261 0.0680 0.33 4.12 74.0140 0.Chapter 6 Verification and Case Studies Table 6.9 16.0025 0.01015 0.19 4.01532 0.0126 0.0025 0.00247 0.0560 0.72 87.0280 0.00029 0.0069 0.01400 0.0750 0.19 4.72 87.29 10.056 0.29 10.45 19.5060 2.00826 0.50 6-6 .0023 0.0400 0.0095 0.0075 0.0122 0.0752 0.0102 0.0024 0.0003 0.0304 0.90 16.00750 0.0080 0.0752 0.0083 0.502 2.03504 0.) Computed Results (Pts) IM 0.00237 0.03036 0.0153 0.19 IE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IM + IE 0.0003 0.0152 0.0124 0.61 11.19 Product Case CD package-P Beverage package-steel Paper bag Shopping bag-plastic PET bottle Beverage package-Al CD package-M Paper sack CD package-C CD package-B CD package-D Plastic sack Shaver-reuse Shaver-disposal Ceramic tile Steel drawer Steel panel Wooden panel Wooden drawer Paper towel LCA Results (Pts) 0.0350 0.5020 2.

00% 20.topload Au topload PC Dish washer RL200 RL300 Rock crusher CD package-Pre Bev. Heater Power tool TV Imp.1 Deviations of computed value compared to LCA results for 43 product cases .00% Hydraulic unit Coffee machine Pro Coffee machine SIMA Cleaner Cooking pan-Gunda Cooking pan-All Steel Cooking pan -356+ Cooking pan-Hotpan E.00% Name of product Figure 6. package-steel Paper bag Shopping bag-plastic PET bottle Bev package-Al CD package-Mat Paper sack CD package-cloud CD package-Billy CD package-Dylan Plastic sack Shaver-reuse Shaver-dis Ceramic tile Steel drawer Steel panel Wooden panel Wooden drawer Paper towel sys.00% 0.00% 15.00% 25. Frontload Hand drier Pump Au frontload Refrigerator Imp. 5.Deviation of simplified approach (%) 10.00% 30.

They were derived through linear regression on detailed product LCA case studies. For these active products. Therefore. namely active products and passive products. the equations below can be applied (R2 is the regression coefficient). The average deviation was 7.0128 * EUS + 0. In consistency with earlier results (Kaebernick and Soriano. Table 6. analyses were conducted for 3 regions. it is confirmed that most products fall within two major product groups. the total Environmental Performance Indicators were estimated by applying the equation for IM only. For passive products.0113 * EAU + 0.971 R2 = 0.0229 * EUCPTE + 0.993 R2 = 0. it is suggested that the designers may skip the full calculation of IE and IM and use only one indicator for each product group. Australia (AU).7947 IUS = 0. 2000). as shown in Figure 6.2.2 Correlation Between Product Environmental Impact and Lifetime Energy Use for Active Products Further simplification of the environmental assessment can be achieved by the grouping of products. For active products. and United States (US).8024 IAU = 0.3 shows the relationship between environmental impact indicators and their lifecycle energy consumption for 19 electrical appliances.8324 R2 = 0. IUCPTE = 0. namely IE for active products and IM for passive products.2% in comparison to the results of detailed LCA studies. a further simplification is possible by using regression equations. Environmental Performance Indicators are expressed in Eco-indicator 99 single score and the lifetime energy consumption E in kWh. Considering the significance of the energy source to the environmental assessment.Chapter 6 Verification and Case Studies 6.977 (6-1) (6-2) (6-3) 6-8 . namely Europe (UCPTE).

400 28.700 30.370 6.000 180.180 4.943 11.900 42.055 12.943 13.500 28.700 68.800 91.583 6.636 5.120 10.3 Environmental impacts with energy consumption from different regions Environmental Impact Indicators (Pts) IUCPTE Coffee machine Pro Coffee machine Sima Cleaner Cooking pan-Gunda Cooking pan-All Steel Cooking pan -356+ Cooking pan-Hotpan E.590 5.300 79.100 57.057 5.700 72.900 112.500 37.830 4.400 25.000 29.300 103.933 5.000 54.000 68.700 58.Chapter 6 Verification and Case Studies Table 6. Washing machine T-Au PC Dish washer 7.200 10.100 66.400 26.400 31.726 48.100 45.763 5.760 5.113 25.000 144.300 54.600 54.800 40.894 6.000 119. Heater Power tool TV Washing machine F-Imp Hand drier Electric Pump Washing machine F-Au Refrigerator Washing machine T-Imp.100 IUS 4.416 13.100 62.440 5.100 14.600 34.883 11.090 9.000 16.000 IAU 4.300 24.000 Lifecycle energy use (kWh) 250 375 375 510 510 580 620 1200 1320 1971 1960 2600 2710 2660 2778 4970 5320 6500 7621 Product case 6-9 .

00 100.00 180.00 80. 6.00 40. The initial LCAs were carried out using the software package SimaPro 4.Chapter 6 Verification and Case Studies 200.0 using Eco-indicator 99.3.00 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 UCPTE AU US Linear (UCPTE) Linear (US) Linear (AU) Life time energy consumption (kWh) Figure 6.00 60. additional LCAs were conducted for the two cases with the software package SimaPro 5.00 120.0.2 Correlations between product environmental impacts and lifetime energy consumption for 3 regions.00 160. To keep consistency in the study. The cordless kettle is an 6-10 . The product information was provided by the EcoDesign Project Team at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University under the EcoDesign Program for Hong Kong Electrical Appliance Manufacturers.00 0.00 Eco-indicator 99 (Pts) 140. 6.00 20.1 Kettle The water kettle is one of the OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) products manufactured in China and exported to the Netherlands.3 Case Studies Two case studies were conducted to verify the application of the simplified environmental assessment approach as part of the integrated decision model.

3.75 Pts generated by the energy consumption during the usage stage and 0. Apply overheat protector in dry-boil condition. and the kettle is used twice a day. through the impacts on Respiratory effects and Depletion of Fossil Fuels. Figure 6. Since the heater is installed of the bottom of the outside face of the jug pot.2 Pts. buying a new model. 6.452 Pts incurred by the kettle assemblies (including the processing of components). 6-11 . the Eco-indicator 99 single score of the kettle life cycle is 4. The life cycle assessment of water is not included. Cut off the power automatically when water is boiled. The operating voltage of kettle is 220V-240V. The time for fully boiling water requires five minutes and the life span of the kettle is two years. the kettle can be used for other cooking purposes.1 The LCA Impact Profile of the Kettle As shown in Table 6. which is due to the behaviour of the customer.1. The major function of the kettle includes: • • • • Boil water within 5 minutes. It is found that the major environmental damages are in the category of Human Health and Resource. 1250W-1500W at 50-60Hz.0033 Pts from the disposal of the kettle.3. with 0.Chapter 6 Verification and Case Studies electrical appliance with a maximum capacity 1 litre.3 depicts the environmental profile of the kettle life cycle. The functional unit is defined as each boil carries 1 litre of cold water.4. for example.

75 2 1 0.4 Environmental impact of the kettle life cycle Life cycle of kettle Kettle Assemblies Complete jug handle Jug base unit Jug heater unit Jug lid unit Jug pot unit Lead wire sub-assembly Noen lamp w/resistor Other plastic parts Power cable Packaging Usage--Electricity UCPTE B250 Disposal --Household waste NL B250 Total Environmental Impact Indicator (Pts) 0.0126 3.0985 0.0517 0.2 Pt 4 3 3. organics Resp.119 0.3 Environmental profile of the kettle life cycle 6-12 .Chapter 6 Verification and Case Studies Table 6.0144 0.0104 5.452 0 0.0033 4.0548 0.75 0.43E-05 0.00513 -0.0345 0. inorganics Climate change Radiation Ozone layer Ecotoxicity A cidification/ Eutrophic a Land use Minerals Fossil fuels Analyzing 1 p life cycle 'Life cycle of kettle'. Method: Eco-indicator 99 (H) / Europe EI 99 H/A / single score Figure 6.0561 0.452 0.00183 -1 Kettle assemblies Electricity UCPTE B250 Household w aste NL B250 Carcinogens Resp.

a redesign of the kettle was conducted with the collaboration of an overseas institute. CO2.2% of the total impact associated with the kettle life cycle (shown in Figure 6.1. According to the analysis in Chapter 5. The eco-design improved the energy efficiency by 12%.1. and Dust (Table 5.1 11.8 11. the environmental damages associated with the Energy-based Environmental Impact (IUCPTE) are mainly in categories of Human Health and Resources through the impact categories of Fossil Fuel Depletion.75 Pts with the deviation of 10. The computed result is 3.8 20 15 14.58 10 5 0 Total crude oil ETH CO2 SOx (as SO2) dust natural gas ETH Remaining substances NOx (as NO2) Analyzing 1 p life cycle 'Life cycle of kettle'. NO2. IUCPTE=EUCPTE * DE-UCPET.3.68% compared to the LCA result of 4.7 11.4). based on the results of the LCA. represent 75. Natural Gas. The integrated decision model proposed in Chapter 3 was applied to compare the Eco-design of the kettle and the original design.1 6. This is in line with the environmental impact profile identified by the LCA of the kettle life cycle.2 The Simplified Assessment of the Kettle The simplified assessment was performed for the life cycle of the kettle using the calculation for IE only.3. 6-13 .2 Pts.9).4 Major substances for the environmental impact of the kettle life cycle 6. which in this case. SO2. Method: Eco-indicator 99 (H) / Europe EI 99 H/A / single score Figure 6. % 25 20 24.3 The Eco-design Alternative of the Kettle Under the EcoDesign Program.Chapter 6 Verification and Case Studies 6. Respiratory Effects and Climate Change. Chapter 5 also identified that the major substances for IUCPTE are Oil.

6 Relative importance of design objectives for a kettle PP PP PC DE DS EP PP PP PP DS/PP PP/EP PC PP PC PC DS PC DE PP PC DE DS EP DS EP Total 4 3 1 4.5 Weight 26.00% 16.67% 20.5 Features of a kettle Features of product development project Low/short Medium High/long Technology level of the product Speed of technical development Product life cycle Price competitiveness Environmental awareness of the market X X X X X Table 6.5.00% 6. and development expenses. the relative importance of the design objectives was calculated as given in Table 6.4 shows the product development features of the kettle. Table 6. product development speed. A typical feature is the short product life cycle of 2 years due to consumer behaviour with a medium speed of technical development.67% 30. product cost.67% DS/PP PP/EP DS DS DS DS PC EP DS EP 6-14 .5 2. Table 6. As the result. The environmental awareness in the market is at medium level with a high level of price competitiveness.Chapter 6 Verification and Case Studies considering the environmental performance together with the design objectives of product performance.

which is mainly caused by the high cost (DE) and the time consumption (DS) associated with conducting LCA for the Eco-design.75 Pts and EPECO is 3.67% 16. EP was computed with the equation of IUCPTE=EUCPTE * DE-UCPET.07 (0. These weighting factors were applied to the evaluation of the Total Performance for the original design of the kettle and the eco-design.46 100 4.7 Total performance of design alternatives for the kettle Target Performance Levels (Pi) Product Cost Product Performance Environmental Performance Development Expense Development Speed (months) WC WP WEN WEX WS 20.46 100 4. and Development Expenses (DE) has the lowest ranking.30 Pts.30) 220 16 -0.00% 26.00% Pc (USD) PP (points) PEN (Pts) PEX (10 USD) 3 Design Objectives Weighting Factor (∑Wi=100) Performance Levels of Design Alternatives Original design (Xi) Ecodesign (Xi) 12.Chapter 6 Verification and Case Studies The result of the paired comparison shows that Product Performance (PP) and Development Speed (DS) have the highest weight.67% 30. This 6-15 .75) 150 12 13.2 (3.67% 6. The calculations are very simple.07)* 13. whereas Product Cost (PC) and Environmental Performance (EP) are of medium importance. and therefore they cause no extra expenses and time for conducting the environmental assessment. In order to investigate the effect of applying the simplified assessment approach.75) 150 12 0 (0)* PS(months) n Total Performance TP = ∑Wi i =1 Pi − X i Pi * Denotes the calculations of the simplified approach. The result of EPORIGINAL is 3.76 (3.6 indicating that the original design has a better total performance.2 (3. The results are given in Table 6. Table 6.11 110 3.

2 Toaster Another case study was conducted on a multi-function 2-slice toaster. The functional unit is defined as the toaster being used twice a day with two slices of bread each time.00335 Pts from the disposal of Toaster. It also shows that the efforts associated with a full LCA can be prohibitive for the introduction of eco-design solutions. 2. However. The major functions of the toaster include: • • • • • • • • Bread toasting. which is one of the OEM products manufactured by a Hong Kong company for export to the European market.3.3. Canceling: to stop toast process whenever wanted. This result is very plausible since the eco-design is expected to perform slightly better than the original design.5 presents the environmental profile of the toaster life cycle showing that the major environmental damages are in the category of 6-16 .62 Pts. with 0. The operating voltage of toaster is 220-240V. No overheating of outer shell (plastic).07. Each toasting process requires four minutes.274 Pts from the Toaster Assemblies (including the processing of components). Extra lift: for removing even the smallest pieces of toast. Reheating: for quick heating up.34 Pts from the energy consumption during usage phase and 0. Figure 6. which is slightly better than the original design.7 shows the Eco-indicator 99 single score of the Toaster Life Cycle. Removable crump tray. The Life Cycle Assessment of bread is not included in the study.Chapter 6 Verification and Case Studies resulted in a total performance for the Eco-design of 0. Bun-warming. Defrosting: for defrosting and toasting in one go. 6. this is only possible when applying a simplified environmental assessment. 780W. 6. The total impact is 2. The life span of the toaster is 3 years.1 The LCA Impact Profile of the Toaster Table 6.2. at 50-60Hz.

0144 0.0061 0.34 0.8 Environmental impact of toaster life cycle Life cycle of Toaster Toaster Assemblies Bottom cover unit Heater frame unit Heater unit Metal unit Moving mechanism Outer shell unit Packaging Plastic Accessory unit Power cable Sea ship B250 Usage--Electricity UCPTE B250 Disposal --Household waste NL B250 Total Environmental Impact Indicator (Pts) 0.274 0.0836 0.0148 2.0662 0.00335 2.0250 0.0003 0.62 6-17 . through the impacts on Respiratory Effects and Depletion of Fossil Fuels.Chapter 6 Verification and Case Studies Human Health and Resources. Table 6.0207 0.0152 0.0280 0.

34 0.5 Environmental profile of the toaster life cycle 6.3. The simplified assessment identified that the major environmental damages associated with the Energy-based Environmental Impact (IUCPTE) are in the categories of Human Health and Resources through the impacts on Fossil Fuel Depletion. It also identified that the major substances for IUCPTE are Oil. This is confirmed by the environmental impact profile identified by the LCA of the toaster life cycle (Figure 6. CO2.5).2 The Simplified Assessment of the Toaster Applying the simplified approach to the life cycle of the toaster resulted in 2. 6-18 .65% compared to the LCA result of 2. Natural gas.274 0 -0.5 1 2.00635 -0. SO2.00299 Electricity UCPTE B250 Resp. which represent 76% of the total impact associated with the toaster life cycle (Figure 6. and Dust.Chapter 6 Verification and Case Studies Pt 2.62 Pts. Method: Eco-indicator 99 (H) / Europe EI 99 H/A / single score Figure 6.34 Pts for the total impact with the deviation of 10.2.5 2 1. Respiratory Effects and Climate Change. inorganics Ecotoxicity Fossil fuels Household w aste NL B250 Climate change A cidification/ Eutrophic a Resp. NO2. organics Ozone layer Minerals Analyzing 1 p life cycle 'Toaster life cycle'.5 Toaster assemblies Carcinogens Radiation Land use 0.6).

3.1 15 11. Reduce the wall thickness from 2. The integrated decision model was applied to compare the eco-design of the toaster and the original design.4g. As shown in Table 6.4g to 195.3g to 59. targeted the problem of material waste in the original design. developed under the EcoDesign Program. Reduce the weight of outer shell from 296.9 6. 6-19 .5 24 20 15.7 11.3 The Eco-design Alternative of the Toaster The Eco-design alternative for the toaster. Minimize the bottom cover unit from 278 x 178 x 28mm to 238 x 168 x 28mm.53 10 5 0 Total crude oil ETH CO2 SOx (as SO2) dust natural gas ETH Remaining substances NOx (as NO2) Analyzing 1 p life cycle 'Toaster life cycle'.6 Major substances for the environmental impact of the toaster life cycle 6.3 10.2.8 the development features of the toaster include a short product life cycle of 3 years due to consumer behaviour with a medium speed of technical development.2mm.5mm to 2.Chapter 6 Verification and Case Studies % 25 20. and the solutions were developed as follows: • • • • Minimize the outer shell size from 280 x 180 x 180mm to 240 x 170 x 167 mm. Method: Eco-indicator 99 (H) / Europe EI 99 H/A / single score Figure 6. resulting in decrease of weight from 73.2g. The price competitiveness in the market is at high level and environmental awareness is at medium level.

67% DS/PP PP/EP DS DS DS DS PC EP DS EP The relative importance of the design objectives was calculated as given in Table 6.67% 20.5 2. as shown in Table 6.10 Relative importance of design objectives for the toaster PP PP PC DE DS EP PP PP PP DS/PP PP/EP PC PP PC PC DS PC DE PP PC DE DS EP DS EP Total 4 3 1 4. medium importance for PC and EP.9 Features of the toaster Features of product development project Low/short Medium High/long Technology level of the product Speed of technical development Product life cycle Price competitiveness Environmental awareness of the market X X X X X Table 6. and low ranking for DE.341 Pts for EPORIGINAL (calculated by the equation of IUCPTE=EUCPTE * DE-UCPET). As the eco-design was 6-20 . These weighting factors were applied.10 to evaluate the Total Performance for the original design of the toaster and the eco-design alternative.9. the cost of the LCA still remains the major reason for a slightly better total performance of the original design in comparison to the eco-desgin. The application of the simplified approach results in 2.00% 6.Chapter 6 Verification and Case Studies Table 6.67% 30.5 Weight 26.00% 16. The result of the paired comparison shows the highest weights for PP and DS. Although the design team had reduced the cost (DE) and the time consumption (DS) associated with conducting the LCA for the eco-design.

01)* Design Objectives Weighting Factor (∑Wi=100) WC WP WEN WEX WS 20.58 (2.341) 150 12 0 (0)* Ecodesign (Xi) 8. which had no effect on the energy consumption during the usage phase. 6-21 .1g of PP in the eco-design.341) 150 12 9. The result for EPECO is 2.45 100 2.62 (2. It was assumed that there is no extra expense and time for conducting the environmental assessment by the simplified method.4-3).67% 6.11 Total performance of design alternatives for the toaster Target Performance Levels (Pi) Product Cost Product Performance Environmental Performance Development Expense Development Speed (months) Performance Levels of Design Alternatives Original design (Xi) 9.Chapter 6 Verification and Case Studies targeted at reducing the material waste. the Material-based Environmental Impact Driver (DM) of the simplified approach was used to compute the improvement on EP for the eco-design by using the equations (Equation 4-1.97 100 2.337) 200 16 -0. which again proves the significant effect of applying the simplified approach. The reduction of 0.004 Pts was calculated by applying DM (0.4-2.337 Pts.67% 30.03753 Pts/kg) of Thermoplastics to the material saving of 115.67% 16.11 (0.01. This resulted in a total performance for the eco-design of 0. Table 6.00% 26.00% Pc (USD) PP (points) PEN (Pts) PEX (103 USD) PS(months) n Total Performance TP = ∑Wi i =1 Pi − X i Pi * Denotes the calculations of the simplified approach.62 (2.45 100 2.

using the material-based environmental impact drivers. the main purpose of the case studies was to prove that a full LCA at the early stage of design decisions is clearly prohibitive for considering environmental aspects in the design process. however. at least for this early design stage. For passive product. a simplified approach with reasonable accuracy and very short calculations is the only way to integrate environmental performance in the design process. Such more comprehensive assessment remains a valuable tool for designers to consider environmental impacts from all life cycle phases for the fine tuning of designs and for the final life cycle costing of a product. Since such small differences lie within the range of accuracy of the whole assessment process. only material-based environmental impacts need to be calculated. For active products.Chapter 6 Verification and Case Studies 6. In addition. the lifecycle energy consumption proofs to be a good indicator for the total environmental impact. it was suggested that the assessment can be further simplified if a product can be assigned to one of the major product impact groups. they could hardly be used for selecting the better alternative of the designs. which still needs to be carried out at a later stage. does not replace a full LCA. it must be highlighted that the results for the total performance of the kettle and the toaster show very small differences between the original design and the eco-design.4 Conclusions The proposed methodology was verified by the comparison of the results from different product LCA cases. Therefore. However. The case studies showed that the simplified approach could be used to estimate the total environmental impact of a product and to provide the environmental profile with acceptable accuracy. The simplified approach. At this point. The case studies of the kettle and the toaster also demonstrated that the application of the simplified approach leads to a significant reduction in cost and time consumption for the environmental assessment. 6-22 .

The material cases were classified into 16 groups according to the nature of the materials and their environmental performance. The simplified approach is based on the concept and application of Environmental Impact Drivers. 7. This was achieved by analyzing the properties of materials and their LCA results as well as their environmental inventory data. This chapter also identifies opportunities for future research. It enables designers to perform a quick assessment of the environmental impacts associated with a product design. The research work presented in this thesis provides an integrated decision model for sustainable product development and the associated simplified environmental assessment approach for the application in the early stage of product design. The study was focused on the development of Environmental Impact Drivers. without requiring large amounts of detailed data. are not available in the early stage of product development. The LCA application at the early design stage depends largely on how a LCA result can be achieved in a timely manner and how effectively it can be integrated into to the process of product development. 7-1 . The main advantage of the proposed model is that it incorporates the environmental aspects into the existing product development framework. and the Material-based Environmental Impact Drivers (DM) were identified for each group. which in most cases.1 Research Contributions LCA has been successfully used as an environmental assessment tool for the development of ecologically sustainable products.Chapter 7 Conclusion CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION Chapter 7 describes the main research points of this thesis and summarizes the critical findings and observations resulting from the research.

Further analysis on the environmental life cycle inventory of the impact drivers provide designers 7-2 . the proposed regression equations can be used for a quick answer. the aggregation of IE and IM should be calculated. The impact drivers were then adopted in the simplified environmental assessment approach to calculate the Environmental Performance Indicator (I) of a product design. For active products with the environmental impacts dominated by the energy consumption during the usage phase. The results indicate that it is possible and reasonable to apply the identified environmental impact drivers for a quick estimation of a product’s environmental impacts at the early design stage. The integrated decision model was proposed to balance the product’s environmental performance with other design objectives. material phase and usage phase. This approach simplifies the tedious task of collecting detailed information required for LCA. which can be used to estimate the environmental impacts associated with the material selection of a product design. For products with environmental impacts from both. For passive products with no energy consumption during the usage phase. namely Material-based Environmental Impact Drivers (DM) and Energy-based Environmental Impact Drivers (DE). Product LCA case studies were used to compare the results from the proposed simplified approach with those of the LCA studies. The major contributions of this research work can be outlined as follows: • The identification of Environmental Impact Drivers is the major contribution of this research. environmental impacts can be estimated based on the life cycle energy consumption and the appropriate Energy-based Environmental Impact Driver (DE). representing the key factors that determine the environmental impacts associated with a product system. an index of 16 Material-based Environmental Impact Drivers was identified.Chapter 7 Conclusion Energy-based Environmental Impact Drivers (DE) were developed for the various energy sources in major industrial regions. Or even simpler. It forms the basis of the proposed simplified environmental assessment approach. Two sets of impact drivers were identified. and designers can use this simple guideline to optimize their effort and direct their decisions at the early stage of product development.

for instances highly toxic substances or radiation. • Group technology may be applied to production processes and product disposals.2 Future Research This research was based on the current knowledge of environmental impacts and existing case studies. 7. However.Chapter 7 Conclusion with an insight of the environmental profiles associated with the material groups and the energy usage. • A simplified environmental assessment approach is proposed by applying the impact drivers. • The introduction of an environmental perspective into the concurrent product development process provides an integrated decision model for sustainable product development. The following section presents suggestions for future research areas and possible extensions of the current research work. focusing on the most commonly used technical products with their main impacts deriving from the material and the usage phases. The methodology provides a coherent evaluation of design alternatives under the consideration of their environmental performance. This may lead to some simplified environmental impact drivers for products 7-3 . It aims to balance the environmental performance of a product against traditional design objectives at the early stage of product development. Therefore. there might be other products of interest with their main impacts deriving from the production or disposal phases. This approach provides a timely assessment tool for the designers to estimate the environmental impacts of a product design with limited data requirements. additional investigations could be carried out in order to extend the application of the simplified approach to product types with those specific. Existing weighting systems are adopted to assess the total performance of competing design alternatives. It avoids the need for extensive detailed data and the complex and time-consuming LCA tasks. rare features.

a LCA case study of an electric blanket was conducted using three different tools: SimaPro 5.1 indicate that the major environmental impacts of the electric blanket life cycle are from the blanket material of polyester fabric (39. New product cases with specific features in these stages need to be defined.1. Natural 7-4 .3 and the simplified environmental assessment approach proposed in this thesis. The simplified approach also identified that the major environmental damages associated with the electric blanket are in the category of Depletion of Fossil Fuel and Respiratory Effects through the substances of Oil. Therefore designers have to be aware of those limitations associated with the simplified software package. In a collaborative project with the design department of a leading Australian household appliances manufacturer. which is the major contributor according to the assessment by SimaPro. The reasons for the misleading results are that the material database in Eco-it does not include the polyester fabric. Eco-it 1.1. The result of Eco-it has a deviation of 24. The method of Eco-indicator 99 was used in all three tools for the comparison of the results.28% compared to the results from SimaPro 5.48% compared to the results generated by SimaPro. The detailed LCA results from SimaPro 5. Possible extensions of the current research work were also identified through the discussion with designers.Chapter 7 Conclusion with major environmental concerns from the stages of manufacturing and endof-life. At the same time only the European energy consumption data are available in Eco-it. The missing information may have a significant impact on the accuracy of the assessment result. and it indicates that the energy consumption at usage stage is the dominant contributor to the total environmental impact of the electric blanket life cycle (85%). and it indicates that the material of the blanket assembly and the energy consumption at usage stage are the major contributors to its total environmental impact.51%). The list of material based environmental impact drivers was updated to include the textile material for this case. The computed result has a deviation of 13.21%) and the energy consumption at usage stage (36. The simplified approach was also applied using the energy based and material based impact drivers. no Australian data is included.

g. A possible extension of the current research may be on the economic assessment of the environmental impact associated with products. and SO2. applied and understood. In discussions with designers on the studied case. the single score is a simplification of the complex interaction between a product and the environment and the simplified databases may not cover significant contributors to the total environmental performance of some products. It would facilitate the application of LCA in the design process.1. 7-5 . NOx. and SOX etc. The designers also pointed out that marketing requirements and the profitability of the new product are still the primary considerations in the design process. Environmental assessment would not be of the same importance unless it demonstrates its benefits on marketing or profitability. NO2. it was agreed that comprehensive LCA software provides more detailed and accurate results but it is associated with higher costs and is more time consuming. This is in line with the Life Cycle Inventory results from the assessment using SimaPro 5. CO2. The simplified LCA approach using material based and energy based environmental impact drivers is easy to be updated. The extension of the current research should include regular updates on the impact drivers according to the improvement on environmental information about materials and energy consumptions along with the development of the LCA methodology. without providing the Life Cycle Inventory results.Chapter 7 Conclusion gas. Approximate measurements may be developed for the major contributors (e. if the assessment results can be expressed in monetary value. The abridged LCA software is easier to use with less costs. The economic assessment of the environmental impact associated with the product system may be investigated based on the environmental profile identified from the LCI analysis for material and energy-based environmental impact drivers. SOx.) to estimate the economic cost of the environmental impacts associated with a product system. The deviation caused by the simplified approach is acceptable for the application in the early stage of product development. CO2. however it was noticed that. NOX.

44/2/1995. Journal of Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing. Japan. USA. Atlanta. Issue 5-6..429-439. Defining Product Architecture in Conceptual Design. Braden R. Robert A. (1995). L. R. H. Life Cycle Engineering and Design. K. Allenby.. Elements in a new sustainable industrial culture. New York. Vol. John Wiley & Sons. pp 47-50. R-1 . J. Alting. New Jersey. pp. The Importance of Industrial Ecology and Design for Environment to AT&T.M. A. Alting. Prentice Hall. Kusiak (ed. Aldenderfer.B.. and Carlson-Skalak (1998). L. Sage Publications Ltd. and Blashfield. L. Braden R. M.. Tokyo. pp1-11.. ASME. London. Design for Environment from the Designers' Perspective. and Laudine.. (1995).14. Allenby. Life-Cycle Design of Products: A New Opportunity for Manufacturing Enterprises in Concurrent Engineering Automation.. (1998). (1984). Alting.. Proceedings of ECODEsign 99: First International Symposium on Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing. (1999).). M. and Techniques. and Legarth. (1993). and Wenzel. Cluster Analysis. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference.. A. Annals of the CIRP Vol.Environmental assessment in product development. Inc. Industrial Ecology: Policy Framework and Implementation. AT&T Technical Journal Novemebr/December 1995. Allen. Hauschild. Tools. (1999).References REFERENCES Akermark.

Bayus. Y. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Azzone G. P. Long Range Planning. H. Measuring the environmental performance of industry (MEPI). Vol. Vol.. BATE. P..References Arabie. 14. pp. 3M Uses Eco-Efficiency to Move in Sustainable Direction. How Two Pharmaceutical firms Are Using LCA for Competitive Advantage.J. BATE. (1998a). Clustering and Classification. Long-term. G. Holistic Approach pays Off for Electrolux. Materials selection in mechanical design (2nd Ed. Issue 6. Azzone. Exploiting green strategies for competitive advantage. pp. 9-10. Business and the Environment. L. Asiedu. Speed-to-Market and New Product Performance Trade-offs. pp 485-497. (1998d). Butterworth-Heinemann. pp. pp. Product life cycle cost analysis: state of the art review. Simplified Evaluation Methods for the Development of Environmentally Sound Products in Earlier Design Process. and Drunen M. 5-6.. (1999). Business and the Environment. and Shulz. Singapore.) Oxford.2-6. BATE. and De Soete. EC Environment and R-2 . and Gu. Tokyo. and Bertelè. Forecast: Key Trends for 1998. U. Issue 6. (1998b). Pte. (1998).380 – 410. in Proceedings of 6th CIRP International Seminar on Life Cycle Engineering. (1997). pp. Business and the Environment.27. Atik.. International Journal of Production Research. MF.. G. 69-81. pp.. pp. Ltd. A. (2001). 5-6. (1998c).. Ashby. Final report.. Hubert. Berkhout F... 883-908. Hertin J. BATE. Carlens J. Barry L. 4. World Scientific Publishing Co. (1999). Vol. 36 No. (1994). Business and the Environment. (1996).

C. 21-23 June 1999.. Intelligent and Environmentally Conscious Manufacturing Systems State of the Art. (1998).. Tokyo. Environmentally Conscious Product Design: A Collaborative Internet-based Modelling Approach. Boothroyd. T. IEEE.. Dekker. A. D. (2000). Dewhurst and W. Bhamra. Vol. M.. Proceedings of the 1998 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference... T. Boks.. (2000). K. 4. R-3 . Product design for manufacture and Assembly. Assessment of Future End-of-Life Scenarios for Consumer Electronic Products. NL. and Wallace. Atlanta. A. D.. T.2. Creating the Data Basis for Environmental Evaluations with the Oil Point Method.. R. Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing. Human dimensions of climate change. Integrating Environmental Impact Assessment Into Product Design. Evans. Poole. Vol. Design for Sustainability. 6th International Seminar on Life Cycle Engineering of the Life Cycle Working Group of CIRP: The Next Millennium. Kamamura. Biswas. S. N.. M.environmental-performance.. (1994).. P. Georgia Institute of Technology. and Lenau. Delft University of Technology. Ontario. 3(3). Borland. and Kaufmann. NY. G. New York. Wallace. G. P.. Delft. DETC98/DFM-5730. N. pp33-46. N. Knight. No. Journal of Industrial Ecology. Simon. Saad. Borland. www. pp 329-333. C.org Bey. H. (1999). M.References Climate Change Program: Research Theme 4. and Curtin. (1995). Canada.. Integrating Environmental Decisions into the Product Development Process: Part 1 The Early Stages. International Journal of Environmentally Conscious Design & Manufacturing. A. McAloone. S. and Sweatman. (1999).

References Boustead. Centre for Environmental Studies (CML). Simplifying LCA: Just a cut?. John Jr. P. Bretz. (1986). Belgium. 50-54. Dewulf. Brussels. Bralla.A. T. 7. Proceedings of the First National Conference on Life Cycle Assessment. Wysk.C. Vol. New Jersey.leidenuniv. (Eds). R. New York.. M. Application Principles for the Use of DFE Tools. Prentice-Hall Inc. W. (1999). Eagan. and Koning. (1992). Christansen. Melbourne. 1.. (2001).. K. Vol. (1996). McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. New York. J. and Wang. Life Cycle Assessment: An Overview. pp. McGraw Hill. 3 May 1995. Computer-Aided Manufacturing (2nd Ed. (1996) Screening LCA for Large Numbers of Products: Estimation Tools to Fill Data Gaps. Handbook of Product Design for Manufacturing. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment. Ian (1996). NY. and Van Brussel. http://www.P. H. (1997). Business associations for environmental management: the case of BAUM and INEM Ecodecision. Clean Air Society. EcoDesign '99: First International Symposium On Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing.. Curran. R-4 . H..139-146.). International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 120 – 123.. (1998).(1995). No. CML 2 baseline method. Davis T. 3. Sas. SETAC-Europe. P. pp. IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment.. P.nl/interfac/cml/ssp/lca/index Chang. and Frankhauser. R. pp. University of Leiden. Life cycle assessment of a windshield wiper-a case study. A.

Fiksel. pp243-257. KTH Project. New York. Vol. Evans. (Eds). S. Kingston. Washington.(1993). and Robben. Ontario.). Kingston.. H. Hart.. Challenges in Robust Concurrent Product Development Across the Supply Chain. Stockholm.20-24. Sweden. (1999). Erik. Esterman.References Emblemsvag. and Rubik. Industrial New Product Launch Strategies and Product Development Performance. An Ecodesign model based on industry experience. J.. M. and McAloone. T. Canada.. and Izar. 2 LCA (1) pp. CIRP Life Cycle Engineering: The Next Millennium. Issue. and K. Life Cycle Assessment in Industry and Business. Integrating Economic and Environmental Performance Measurements Using Activity-Based LCA. A. 122-130.P. R-5 . J.. 21-23 June 1999. (2000). 6th International Seminar on Life Cycle Engineering. P.(Eds.. J. Iterative Screening LCA in an Eco-Design Tool. NV. S. International Institution for Production Engineering Research. pp. Adoption Patterns. Berlin. and Schot. Frankl. Island Press. J. G and Schmidt. M. (1997). Griffin. B. Canada. Fischer.. Journal of Product Innovation Management. H. Applications and Implications. 14.. McGraw-Hill.(1996). ASME Design For Manufacture. Las Vegas. K. M. (2000). and Bras. Eriksson. Life-cycle Assessment on Saucepans. Ishii (1999). T. (1999).. Environmental Strategies for Industry: International Perspectives on Research needs and Policy Implications. (1997). Springer. Fleischer. Bhamra. J. S.. Design for Environment: Creating Eco-efficient Products and Processes. F. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. W.

(1996). Life-cycle serviceability design.de/GABI/htdoc/home_english. and Ishii.. E..V.References Heidelberg. K. 2002. 395-406. Vol. pp. Singapore. Germany. The Eco-indicator 99: A Damage Oriented Method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. M. Goedkopp. pp. Graedel. B. Berlin. ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference. (1999). and Spriensma. (1997). B. and Zuest. and Mussett. R.. Tokyo. Journal of Manufacturing Systems. An Integrated Design Strategy for Future Manufacturing Systems. 52-61. Gertzakis. (1991). (1995). Australia. Vol.the systematic including of environmental aspects in defining requirements.. A damage oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Matrix Approaches to Abridged LifeCycle Assessment. and Combrie. R-6 . 134-139. and Allenby. M. pp. New York. M. Melbourne.htm.. R. Environmental Science and Technology. Gabi. 127 . New Jersey.. J. Proceedings of the 4th International Seminar on Life Cycle Engineering. (1995).. T. Paris. LCA in the Product Design Process. P. http://www.. Gershenson. Prentice Hall. 23-24 February 2000. The eco-effective product design .. 29(3). 1. G. No. Milan. Industrial Ecology. London. Graedel. 15. Barcelona. Netherlands. The Netherlands.. Pre Consultants B.134. Allenby. Hong Kong. Goedkoop. The Eco-indicator 99..pe-product. Frei. Keith M. pp. (1999). R. J. Miami. PR’e consultants. 2nd National Conference on LCA: Pathways to Eco-Efficiency. Methodology report’. Gardiner. T. (2000).

R-7 . H. and Weidema. Hawken. Prentice Hall. P. and Jean. A. A. J.van Duin. pp. 299-311. Recent advances in design for environment at Motorola. Huijbregts. Lindeijer... H. Guinee.. T.. Streamlined life-cycle assessment.. Kleijn. O.. Life Cycle Assessment. Heijungs... A. Doctor Techn. Thesis Dissertation. Environmental impacts of products in a life cycle perspective: a survey of five product types based on life cycle assessments studies. Earthscan London. E. S. Adda. Leiden. L. O.. Vol... (2001). Roorda. O. Journal of Industrial Ecology.. B. NJ. Leiden University (CML).E. A.. Sustainable Product Systems – Experiences Based on Case Projects in Sustainable Product Development. P. R. R. Journal of Cleaner Production. 16-19 Nov '98. R. J. Udo de Haes. K. Sustainable Industrial Product Systems: Integration of Life Cycle Assessment in Product Development and Optimisation of Product Systems. B. de Bruijn. Hanssen. G. vol. (1996).References Graedel. Gorree. (1999). Wegener Sleewijk. Proceedings of the 2nd Symposium on EcoEfficient Concepts for the Electronics Industry. A.van Oers. J. Implementation of Design for Environment Software in the Electronics Industry.. An operational guide to the ISO Standards. Hockerts. Hanssen. S.. van der Ven. P. (1998).. B. 1 (1). W. A. M. 7. Ministry of Housing. (1998). Hanssen. 6 (3-4).. de Koning. M. J. Final Report. Vol.. Upper Saddle River. Huppes. Natural capitalism: the next industrial revolution. Norwegian University of Science and Technology. (1998). Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) and Centre for Environmental Science. 131-140.27-41. Hoffman III.. Vienna.J. pp. H. pp.. Suh. Journal of Cleaner Production. (1999). (1997).

and Beal. B. CA. pp163-169.. H. H. (1992). and de Geode. J. Industrial Design Engineering software program.. (1993). F. Design Technical Conference. Delft University of Technology. Austria. Ansemsm. P. P.nl/research/dfs/idemat Ishii. Ohio.M. K.References Heijungs. EPA/600/SR-97/l18. Tokyo.. (2000). Irvine. Design for product retirement and material lifecycle. 15(4). Wegener Sleeswijk. J. Ishii. Reverse Fishbone Diagram: A tool in Aid of Design for Product Retirement. (2003).. Keoleian. R. 14. G. N. pp. van Duin. A definition for life cycle engineering. Landreijer. Huppes. (1998). Care Vision 2000..G. Saarbrucken. Udo de Haes... www. and Stevels.. R-8 .. Proceedings of the 36th International Seminar on Manufacturing Systems.A. Proceedings of the 7th International Seminar on Life Cycle Engineering.tudelft. V. pp 17-30. NRMR1. Jeswiet. R. Jansen. Project Summary: Life Cycle Design of a Fuel Tank System. J. Environmental Factors in Products: How to Gather the Evidence. Design Studies. (1997). October 1993. R. A Systematic Approach in Environmental Product Assessment. Guinee. ASME. Germany.. IDEMAT. C. Leiden. Spatari. (1994). Vol. and Soriano. Eubanks. A. Centre of Environmental Science Leiden University.io. 19 (4) pp. S. R. 457-475... Eggels. G. pp.P. A. Vol. (1998). Kaebernick. Materials selection for optimal environmental impact in mechanical design. No. (1996). K. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Products: Guide and Backgrounds. 4.M. Holloway. Care Vision. H. A. An Approach to Simplified Environmental Assessment by Classification of Products. L. and Lee. US EPA Cincinnati.. Vol.M. Delft. A. (2002). Hinnells. L. Materials & Design. and Di Marco.. NL.. Materials & Design.133-143.. Vienna. M. The EPAs Method. 225-233.

Laurence King Publishing. and Mody. A. Life Cycle Design Framework and Demonstration Projects: Profiles of AT & T and Allied Signal.. Jean O. J. KTH.. C. ICED.. (2001). Functional and environmental factors in early phases of product development.. Keoleian. Krishnan. A. Vol.. ASME Design For Manufacture. Prepared for US EPA. (1999). Scotland Lucacher. K. G. Largerstedt. (2001). Research Policy. Vol. Lanjouw. Product Life-Cycle Assessment To Reduce Health Risks and Environmental Impacts. Special Issue on Design and Development. and Menerey. New Jersey. 13th International Conference on Engineering Design. (2003).. Fitch. V. PhD thesis.Quality Function Deployment. TX. R. Green Design: Design for Environment. J. pp. (1996). (1996). Management of Science.. NV. Advanced Failure Modes and Effects Analysis of Complex Processes. Competitive advantage and the environment: Building a framework for achieving environmental advantage.. pp1-21. J. UK R-9 . London. Univ. Kmenta. and Ulrich. D. D. Lagerstedt.Eco Functional Matrix. 47(1). Innovation and the International Diffusion of Environmentally Responsive Technology. Dallas. (1996).. and Luttropp. Mackenzie.References Keoleian... S. 25. G. NPPC. P. of Michigan. K. Functional Priority in Eco Design. IEEE. (1995).549-571. Value Analysis and Functional Profile. Product Development Decisions: A Review of the Literature. Koch. and Ishii. IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment. Las Vegas. USA. Noyes Data Corporation. Glasgow. (1995).

F. Design for Variety: A Methodology for Developing New Product Platform Architectures. A. pp. J. Product Design for Environmentally Optimal Service Life Time in ECO-Pefformance '96.(1996). J. Osnowski. (1987). 33-44. Tokyo. Green and competitive: ending the stalement.).References Martin. C. pp. Persson. Geoforum 31 (1). Porter. (1999). McMichael. Murphy.. Bedurfnisse.B. Environmental policy and industrial innovation: integrating environment and economy through ecological modernisation. M. Carnegie Mellon & Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (1998). C. (2000).120-134. (1999). 549602. Harvard Business Review (September-October). Switzerland Pezzoli. Jan-Gunnar. K. R. pp. G.. Cambridge. Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Analysis (EIOLCA).. Mueller. R-10 . R. 40 (5). Frei (eds. Product und ihre Folgen. Zust. (1995). Sustainable development: A transdisciplinary overview of the literature. Vol. Koln: Kolner Volksblatt Verlag. Massachusetts. van der Linde. and Rubik. F. Chicago. Caduff & M. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. Stanford University. and Gouldson. Green Marketing: Opportunity for Innovation. Presentations at the Third International Seminar on Life Cycle Engineering. V. and Besant. (2000). Product Line Analysis. Mechanical Engineering. IEEE. pp. Streamlining Life Cycle Analysis: a Method. K.G. M. Verlag Industrielle Organisation.. Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing. Zurich.C. NTC Business Books. Ottman.114-119. (1997)....

.References Porter. pp 299-306..287-291. Rose. 99-104. P. C. Robert A.P. Times Mirror Higher Education Group Inc. A New Approach to End-of-Life design Advisor (ELDA). The Environment and Corporate Strategy and Their Implications for Managerial Accounting: A Review. PhD thesis. Labouze. Strategic Management of Technology and Innovation. Vol.. (1998). C. B.. Stanford University. Victoria. Rombouts. A. pp. Modesto. Industrial Ecology and Competitiveness: Strategic Implications for the Firm.M. Rombouts. and Hennessey. pp. Burwood.. 6 (5). Blanc. (1994). (1996). Suh. J. A. A. (2000). (1999). Stevels.. (2000). J. I. Wheelwright 1996.. 35-43. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. LEADS-II A Knowledge-based System for Ranking DfEOptions. and Steven.M. R-11 .98-101.. and Ishii. An overall Assessment of Life Cycle Inventory Quality: Application to the Production of Polyethylene Bottles. M. Gaveglia. and Navarro. Y. and Esty. Dept. pp.. Tokyo. IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment. Vol. (2001). J.. Design for environment: A method for formulation of end-of-life strategies. A. (1998). Rousseaux.. IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers). Mechanical engineering. P. Deakin University. Journal of Industrial Ecology. D. Graduate School of Management.. and Hone. J. pp.. 9430. V. E.. M.J. IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment. ECODEsign 99: First International Symposium on Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing. Raar. Applying Classifications of Materials and Energy Transformations to Environmental Assessment of Products. 2(1).P. Rose C. Working Paper Series No..

Industrial Ecology and Global Change. (1998). Sarbacker..A.References Rydh C. Queen's University. Kingston.. The Value Feasibility Evaluation Method: Improving Innovative Product Development through the management of risk arising from ambiguity and uncertainty. R-12 . URL: http://www. The Netherlands. C. Cambridge University Press.. Sun M. and Baskir.. pp. Peters. Scheller. Socolow.. Andrews.pre.. Sydney. Cambridge. Vol. V. P. F. Brussels. SETAC (Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry).F. D. (Eds). Journal of Cleaner Production (Accepted). Guidelines for life-cycle assessment.J. K. J. Life Cycle Inventory Data for Materials Grouped According to Environmental and Material Properties. Soriano. 8. Wallace.nl.209-219. S. (1998). Weitz. J.. Thomas. NC: RTI. V. V. (1995).. A Simplified Assessment Approach for Environmentally Sound Product Systems Design. draft report. Canada. W. N. (2001). A. Manufacturing Review. (2003). Research Triangle Park. Sharma. H. pp. University of NSW. I. D. R.(1996). Integration Issues in "Green" Design and Manufacturing. Stanford University. Streamlining LCA Case Study Report: Disposable Versus Reusable Shop Towels.. Proceedings of the 6th International Seminar on Life Cycle Engineering. PhD Thesis. 304-309. A Learning Surrogate LCA Model for Integrated Product Design. Mechanical Engineering. and Worhach. SimaPro 5 User’s Manual. 95-105. Berkhout. Borland. Paul S. III. and Hoffman... pp. and Deniz. (1999). Sheng. Stanford. No. Sousa. J. PRé Consultants BV. a ‘Code of Practice’. Belgium. (1993)..2. (1997). Domfeld. IEEE International Symposium on Electronics & the Environment. R. SimaPro (2002). Life Cycle Assessment of a telecommunication product. A..

Ecolabeling Criteria for Washing Machines.4 (4). Marcel Dekker: pp. Eisenhard JL. A. Green Products by Design: Choices for a Cleaner Environment. Swedish EPA. 183. Integration of Ecodesign into Business. 2000 Electronics Goes Green. UK Ecolabeling Board. Ecodesign for Competitive Advantage. (2000b). (1996). McGraw-Hill. (1999). (2000a). Product Design and Development. R-13 . Mechanical Life Cycle Handbook: Good Environmental Design and Manufacturing. Steen. (1992). B. Stevels. N. Wallace DR. A. Stanford. 200. S. Stevels. L. Berlin. Stevels. Hundal. Stanford University Instructional Television Network. Version 2000-Models and Data of the Default Method. DC: US Government Printing Office. (2000). CPM report. Stockholm. Germany.. Second Edition. Air Pollution Costs Billions. 1999:5. K. M. (1999). Office of Technology Assessment (1992). EPS-A Systematic Approach to Environmental priority Strategies in Product development. US Congress. New York. New York. PA Consulting Group. Approximate Life-Cycle Assessment of Product Concepts using Learning Systems.. Inc. (Enviro N 21). OTA-E-541. A. Washington. pp. (2000). CPM. L. Ulrich.References Sousa I. S. Green Marketing of Consumer Electronics. J Industrial Ecology. Gothenburg. L. N.. Vol. CA. 6182. and Eppinger.... N. pp.

A. 2nd National Conference on LCA: Pathways to Eco-Efficiency. 1 Methodology. J.L. Walley. and Alting.. Harvard Business Review (May-June). 191-196. M. L. Tools and Case Studies in Product Development. (1997). and Whitehead. Sterke. pp. Environmental Assessment of Products. Guido P. Hauschild. Stevels. (2000). pp.. B.M. Computer monitors as example. Australia. N.. 23-24 February 2000. Chapman & Hall. IEEE International Symposium on Electronics & the Environment. H. Vol. 46-52. Life-cycle costs calculations and green design options. Our Common Future... WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). L. Wenzel. R-14 .N. LCA Developments for Promoting Sustainability. (1987).M. B. Weidema.. UK. It's not easy being green. London.References van Mier. Cees. (1994). Melbourne. Oxford University Press. (1996).

the reader is referred to the Eco-indicator 99 Manual available at the Pre website.54E-02 5.13E+03 8. The three damage categories (and not the impact categories) are normalized on an European level (damage caused by 1 European per year). The default Eco-indicator 99 method is the Hierarchist version with average weighting set (average of the full panel). The Normalization Factors and weights are specified as follows: Normalization Human Health Ecosystem Quality Resources 1.0 includes the environmental effects. with some updates for the most important emissions. normalized to the effects of an average European inhabitant over one year. This procedure can also be interpreted as grouping.41E+03 Weights 400 400 200 A-1 . The impact category indicator results. which are calculated in the Characterization step.APPENDIX A BRIEF INTRODUCTION OF ECO-INDICATOR 99 DAMAGE AND IMPACT CATEGORIES SimaPro 5. are added to form damage categories. Addition without weighting is justified here because all impact categories that refer to the same damage type (like human health) have the same unit (for instance DALY). In the Eco-indicator 99 method normalization and weighting are performed at damage category level (endpoint level in ISO terminology). weighting factors and criteria based on the Eco-indicator 99 method. For detailed information. mostly based on 1993 as base year.

Unit: PDF*m2yr. Damage to Ecosystem caused by Land-use. or 10% of all species disappear from 1m2 during 10 years.25. A-2 . Unit: DALY= Disability adjusted life years. Damage to Ecosystem Quality caused by Acidification and Eutrophication by airborne emissions. Respiratory Effects on Humans caused by Inorganic Substances. Damage Category --Ecosystem Quality The damage category of Ecosystem Quality includes three impact categories: • • • Damages to Ecosystem Quality caused by Ecotoxic Substances. Damages to Human Health caused by Climate Change. Human Health Effects caused by Ozone Layer Depletion.The impact categories are listed below per damage category: Damage Category --Human Health The damage category of Human Health includes six impact categories: • • • • • • Carcinogenic Effects on Humans. or one person suffers four years from a disability with a weight of 0. A damage of one means all species disappear from one m2 during one year. A damage of 1 means one life year of one individual is lost. PDF= Potentially Disappeared Fraction of plant species. this means different disability caused by diseases are weighted. Respiratory Effects on Humans caused by Organic Substances. Human Health Effects caused by Ionizing Radiation.

A damage of 1 means that due to a certain extraction further extraction of these resources in the future will require one additional MJ of energy. due to the lower resource concentration. A-3 . or other unfavorable characteristics of the remaining reserves. Unit: MJ surplus energy = Additional energy requirement to compensate lower future ore grade. Damages to Resources caused by Depletion of Minerals.Damage Category --Resources The damage category of Resource includes impact categories: • • Damages to Resources caused by Depletion of Fossil Fuel.

0568 0.00877 0.0071 0.72% Human Health Pts 0.0067 0.0356 0.44% 58.08% Resources Pts 0.0062 0.98% 17.39% 55.01% 45.Appendix B1 & B2: Environmental impact of Glass & Ceramics Materials in Damage Categories Material Cases Group ceramics ceramics ceramics ceramics ceramics ceramics ceramics ceramics Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass (brown) B250 Glass (green) B250 Glass (white) B250 Glass oil-fired bj Glass gas-fired bj Glass (virgin) Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Average STDEV CV Name Ceramics I Ceramic (fine) Stoneware I Ceramics ETH T Porcelain I Type Ceramics Ceramics Ceramics Ceramics Ceramics Average STDEV CV Total (Pts) 0.0006 0.0269 0.80% 9.0384 0.39% 6.0105 0.0226 0.03 0.0060 10.0505 0.00394 0.82% 23.10% 0.28% 72.0652 0.0495 0.19% 0.0236 32.70% 2.86% 48.014 0.0178 0.0184 0.56% 22.0070 25.0056 0.0579 0.80% .0126 0.0280 0.0076 7.0256 59.0146 0.0194 0.33% 13.91% 24.27% 19.0603 0.00559 0.0087 0.0273 0.67% 46.0288 0.71% 28.00395 0.49% 0.0068 % 17.37% 18.49% 59.79% 20.0356 0.47% 29.05% 50.98% 3.0046 % 31.53% 27.77% 67.0238 0.0161 0.72% 31.0191 0.0161 0.0278 0.0034 0.78% 31.0294 0.55% 24.0186 0.17% 61.0159 % 50.66% 41.14% Ecosystem Quality Pts 0.44% 31.0111 0.0010 0.0066 0.0204 0.0099 0.65% 54.0571 0.04% 34.81% 0.63% 17.

0101 0.97% 48.16% 32.60% 11.0256 0.44% 41.89% 17.50 13.0253 0.0323 0.1270 0.40% 17.0125 0.0154 0.0119 0.0322 0.40% Ecosystem Quality Pts 0.72% 35.0232 0.0836 0.0880 0.36% 51.50 0.0124 0.72% 35.0347 0.60% 51.0192 0.41% 44.0536 % 34.0780 0.87% 19.0137 0.43% 33.0717 0.0343 0.05 1.0871 0.0356 0.0336 0.94% 36.0171 % 19.05% 32.44% Resources Pts 0.36% 46.44% 51.76% 22.48% 16.0744 0.83% 72.03% 36.0346 0.0127 0.02% 16.39% 47.0125 0.37% 11.53% 11.0694 0.76% 19.81% 37.95 1.0452 0.41% 7.87% 37.65 0.04% 55.74% 17.84% 47.05 12.0249 0.02% 9.00 13.7335) I 50 CrV4 I 42CrMo4 I 34Cr4 I 25CrMo4 I 50CrV4 I X10Cr13 (mart 410) I X30Cr13 (~420) I X12Cr13 (416) I X7CrAl13 (405) I X20Cr13 (420) I Type steel cast steel high temp steel high grade Cast iron steel spring steel high grade steel low temp.0326 0.0307 0.0101 0.00 13.30 0.0234 0.16% 33.0053 0.0752 0.0703 0.0271 0.35% 51.0872 0.79% 44.0346 0.50 0.73% 34.07% 34.0101 0.0282 0.0259 0.0147 0.43% 17.0452 0.0353 0.0876 0.Appendix B3-B5:Environmental impact of Ferrous Metals in Damage Categories with Ni & Cr Cont.0859 0. steel high temp steel high grade steel high grade steel high grade steel high grade steel spring Stainless steels Stainless steels Stainless steels Stainless steels Stainless steels Total (Pts) 0.0495 0.0448 0.00 1.0281 0.0730 0.0724 0.0436 0.56% 36.0340 0.83% 50.0124 0.54% Cr cont % 0.0338 0.0765 0.0141 0.53% 47.05 1.(Solution A) Material Cases Group No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro Name GS-22Mo4 I 21MoV53 I C35 I GGG70 I 67SiCr5 I 15Cr3 I A514(A) I 13CrMo4 5 (1.30 0.0686 0.0152 0.0337 % 45.0451 0.0338 0.43% 40.05 1.0346 0.0183 0.76% 17.87% 17.51% 36.87% 21.70% 48.94% 35.0324 0.00 13.00 Ni cont % .0128 0.0694 0.97% 36.65 0.0272 0.40 0.27% 19.1040 Human Health Pts 0.

0750 0.0312 0.22% 18.0695 0.0947 0.0485 0.84% 7.42% 6.97% 14.37% 32.0359 0.84% 50.0357 0.1080 0.0055 0.0231 0.0644 0.90% 35.0238 0.10% 18.43% 32.92% 2.0229 % 52.66% 52.65% 58.31% 72.0199 0.1350 0.0336 0.54% 18.56% 59.47% 25.0669 0.18% 48.52% 55.(Solution A) Material Cases Group No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro Name X6Cr17 (430) I X90CrCoMoV17 I X90CrMoV18 (440B) I Steel bj Iron Steel I Crude iron I Tin plate bj Steel ETH T Crude iron ETH T Type Stainless steels Stainless steels Stainless steels Ferro Ferro Ferro Ferro Ferro Ferro Ferro Total (Pts) 0.22% 55.06% 7.0173 0.0575 0.82% 49.59% 48.0140 0.0721) I 9SMnPb (1.0335 0.00 17.0866 0.0101 0.0718) I Ferro Ferro Cast iron Cast iron Steel autom Steel autom Steel autom .0123 0.0478 0.0476 0.0328 0.0322 0.35% 43.Appendix B3-B5:Environmental impact of Ferrous Metals in Damage Categories with Ni & Cr Cont.0549 0.09% 62.90% 33.0015 0.0369 0.0056 0.0217 0.0053 0.0223 0.0574 0.41% 37.0988 0.0120 0.0858 0.0200 0.0233 0.0671 0.0352 0.00% 48.0128 0.0124 0.0671 0.0200 0.04% 33.1070 0.0726) I 10SPb20 (1.0153 0.58% Cr cont % 16.59% 18.13% 27.0015 0.50% 19.0187 0.0123 % 10.00 Ni cont % Converter steel ETH T Ferro ECCS steel sheet Steel low alloy ETH T GGG40 I GGG60 I 35S20 (1.0433 0.0329 % 36.0562 0.98% 15.0295 0.67% 24.60% 36.0133 0.00 17.58% 19.0053 0.0329 0.97% 59.82% 19.89% 2.44% 33.0123 0.43% 72.75% 5.0590 0.0217 0.20% 54.88% 34.54% 30.84% 18.0486 0.04% Resources Pts 0.0675 0.0195 0.0527 0.0528 0.10% 19.0133 0.30% 8.0486 0.01% 54.0921 0.24% 50.24% Ecosystem Quality Pts 0.0682 Human Health Pts 0.63% 19.06% 25.0927 0.

28% 49.24% 21.0334 0.0629 0.50% 20.0332 % 44.0202 0.0128 0.11% 32.46% 49.60% 18.0302 0.0244 0.65% Cr cont % Ni cont % .Appendix B3-B5:Environmental impact of Ferrous Metals in Damage Categories with Ni & Cr Cont.0117 0.0337 0.0621 0.0310 0.0115 0.0664 0.0629 0.0326 0.0157 0.60% 18.0241 0.0701 0.0202 0.11% 32.52% 17.0629 0.(Solution A) Material Cases Group No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro 9S20 I GS-70 I GS-45.0202 0.0117 0.0117 0.60% 18.0288 0.60% 18.74% Resources Pts 0.65% 18.0269 0.52% 17.17% 18.0327 0.0372 0.0148 0.0629 0.0117 0.28% 49.0767 0.0202 0.55% 34.0214 0.07% 32.93% 43.85% 16.32% 49.0664 0.61% 18.0123 0.0123 0.0212 0.0117 0.0123 0.0123 0.28% 49.0344 0.10% 32.0310 0.0661 0.0117 0.0310 0.56% 36.0788 0.07% 47.0240 0.52% 18.88% 49.0629 0.0214 0.0201 0.0165 % 16.11% 32.0341 0.0697 0.0123 0.0310 0.11% 47.23% 34.23% 32.0759 Human Health Pts 0.11% 35.38% 34.0337 0.0759 0.44% 36.11% 32.0629 0.37% 32.25% 48.0310 0.0263 % 39.28% 49.60% 19.0202 0.74% Ecosystem Quality Pts 0.28% 49.73% 47.43% 32.0706 0.0283 0.55% 17.25% 49.0327 0.0341 0.28% 44.37% 34.3 I Fe360 I Fe470 I Fe520 I St13 I S355J2G1W I St14 I A517b I A517a I C15 I C55 I C60 I 37MnSi5 I 42MnV7 I 34CrAl6 I 22Mo4 I Name Type Steel autom steel cast steel cast steel construction steel construction steel construction steel construction steel draw steel draw steel draw steel draw steel high grade steel high grade steel high grade steel high grade steel high grade steel high grade steel high temp Total (Pts) 0.60% 18.0784 0.03% 18.0202 0.21% 43.92% 49.0310 0.0124 0.0126 0.11% 32.0305 0.

30 13.34% 52.0122 % 18.064 0.07% 11.76% 8.0772 0.0337 0.1140 0.28% 44.1250 0.32% 10.53% 8.66% 11.85% 17.0660 0.0124 0.00 1.00% Resources Pts 0.0177 0.50 Human Health Pts 0.50 1.97% 33.039 0.4526 0.0123 0.0721 0.00 1.0517 45.69% Ecosystem Quality Pts 0.20% 12.017 0. steel cast Stainless steels steel high grade steel high grade steel high grade steel high grade Average Name ASt35 (1.0196 0.0211 0.20% 30.2430 0.64% 31.38% 33.0741 0.88 1.1240 0.00 1.83% 31.5711 0.15 1.0343 % 49.49% 35.0147 0.59% 7.1160 0.4839 0.0689 0.50 1.95 2.64% 17.74% 17.6132 53.0525 0.0346) I 38Si6 I 55Si7 I Type steel low temp.55 1.0155 0.0146 0.0594 0.0146 0.50% 29.0730 0.1481 0.0548 0.68% 12.0113 0.0495 0.39% 48.00 1.86% 11.0348 0.3053 0.1520 0.00 3.0230 0.0873 0.0123 0.0698 0.(Solution A) Material Cases Group No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro Low Ni Ferro Low Ni Ferro Low Ni Ferro Low Ni Ferro Low Ni Ferro Low Ni Ferro Low Ni Ferro Low Ni Ferro Low Ni Ferro Low Ni Ferro Low Ni Ferro Low Ni Ferro GX12Cr14 (CA15) I X35CrMo17 I 28NiCrMo4 I 36NiCr6 I 15NiMn6 (1.0371 0.0622 0.25 1.85% 0.0335 0.0161 9.57% 33.95% 39. steel spring steel spring Average STDEV CV Total (Pts) 0.0161 20.15 0.0367 0.0191 0.0123 0.50 1.08% 0.Appendix B3-B5:Environmental impact of Ferrous Metals in Damage Categories with Ni & Cr Cont.2060 0.11% 31.1210 0.62% 48.50 1.0717 0.62% 16.1250 0.0203 0.5389 0.56% 32.31% Cr cont % Ni cont % .63% 16.5362 0.1490 0.07% 30.68% 43.6019 0.33% 0.1490 0.6228) I GS-10Ni6 I X22CrNi17 (431) I 18NiCr8 I 30CrNiMo8 I 14NiCr14 I 35NiCr18 I Stainless steels Stainless steels steel high temp steel high grade steel low temp.95 2.5777 0.5736 0.0868 0.0526 0.1620 0.50 4.0237 0.0803 0.0649 0.0307 % 31.1160 0.0326 0.19% 14.0699 0.0369 0.5840 0.00 16.

0203 0.0514 0.5203 0.4531 0.13 0.6020 0.87% 30.00 19.2390 0.5797 0.46% 5.46% 5.23% 36.2390 0.2910 0.45% 29.0279 0.4780 0.00 26.0923 20.96% 4.2180 0.25 15.00 12.91% 34.3210 0.00 17.123 0.0467 0.0419 28.0256 0.2630 0.119 0.0219 0.61% 5. steel low temp.0529 0.2580 0.1580 35.50 1.3990 0.00 9.0207 0.173 0.244 0.50 13.18% 4.00 9.4010 0.79% 5.04% 36.4150 0.99% 0.6530 0.5990 0.75 18.91% 8.2710 0.5725 0.00 12.32% 0.2652 0.29% 5.00 9.3790 0.6620 0.2150 0.75 1.48% 6.(Solution A) Material Cases Group Low Ni Ferro Low Ni Ferro High Ni Ferro High Ni Ferro High Ni Ferro High Ni Ferro High Ni Ferro High Ni Ferro High Ni Ferro High Ni Ferro High Ni Ferro High Ni Ferro High Ni Ferro High Ni Ferro High Ni Ferro High Ni Ferro High Ni Ferro High Ni Ferro X10CrNiS (303) I X12CrNi 18 9 I X8Ni9 I X5CrNi18 (304) I X6CrNi18 (~304) I Stainless steels steel low temp.5960 0.00 20.5908 0.101 0. Stainless steels Stainless steels Name Type STDEV CV Total (Pts) 0.56% 6.4670 0.Appendix B3-B5:Environmental impact of Ferrous Metals in Damage Categories with Ni & Cr Cont.49% 11.228 0.4530 Average STDEV CV 0.00 12.14 0.77% 5.00 17.2430 0.19% 36.84% 37.4070 0.37% 0.00 10.25 10.139 0.54% 34.64% 35.0173 0.3340 0.91% 34.173 0.5397 0.00 18.46% 0.6462 0.3690 0.86% 37.5960 0.5332 0.00 Human Health Pts % Ecosystem Quality Pts % Resources Pts % Cr cont % Ni cont % GX5CrNi19 10 (CF8) I Stainless steels X2CrNiMo1712 (316L) I Stainless steels X5CrNiMo18 (316) I GS-X40CrNiSi 25 12 I X10CrNiMoNb I GGL-NiCuCr I GGG-NiCr I GGG-NiSiCr I Stainless steels steel cast Stainless steels Cast iron Cast iron Cast iron .50 20.75 1.6437 0.161 0.00 17.5020 0.2390 0.01% 9.0299 5.54% 19.183 0.0219 0.4010 0.0219 0.24% 34.0391 0.24% 29.0206 0.14 0.2710 0.00 9.5982 58.00 18.

0664 0.00% 49.43% 72.59% 48.28% 50.0202 0.0486 0.60% 18.54% 32.0718) I GGG70 I Name Ferro Ferro steel cast steel construction steel construction steel construction steel construction steel draw steel draw Ferro steel low temp.0329 0.0671 0.0137 % 37.0117 0.0211 0.0201 0.0117 0.0346) I C15 I C55 I C60 I 35S20 (1.0202 0.22% 18. steel high grade steel high grade steel high grade Steel autom Cast iron Cast iron Steel autom Steel autom Cast iron Type Total (Pts) 0.0629 0.0310 0.0214 0.0123 0.0015 0.23% 32.0310 0.0726) I GGG40 I GGG60 I 10SPb20 (1.0123 0.43% 33.32% 49.0217 0.0133 0.0327 0.97% 32.0629 0.0053 0.0202 0.04% 33.25% 49.0305 0.0123 0.0312 0.0629 0.11% 32.0117 0.0199 0.50 Cr cont Ni cont % % .0327 0.0124 0.90% 31.88% 34.58% 18.28% 49.0123 0.0310 0.60% 18.0200 0.07% 32.11% 49.0015 0.09% 62.0486 0.0229 0.0669 0.0117 0.0660 0.28% 49.11% 32.0117 0.16% 0.28% 49.28% 49.0328 0.82% 19.25% 49.0123 0.82% 48.0721) I 9SMnPb (1.0202 0.54% 7.0133 0.0053 % 2.0574 0.0123 0.84% 7.0223 0.52% 18.84% 18.(Solution B) Material Cases Group No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro Steel bj Iron GS-70 I Fe360 I Fe470 I Fe520 I St13 I S355J2G1W I St14 I Steel I ASt35 (1.0661 0.0682 0.10% 18.0200 0.0629 0.28% 49.0686 Human Health Pts 0.0664 0.0115 0.0644 0.0326 0.37% 32.11% 32.60% 18.0675 0.0629 0.0310 0.Appendix B3-B5:Environmental impact of Ferro Metals in Damage Categories with Ni & Cr Cont.0117 0.18% 19.24% 19.52% 18.23% 32.11% 32.11% 30.76% Resources Pts 0.44% 72.11% 32.0621 0.0528 0.64% 18.60% 18.0310 0.97% Ecosystem Quality Pts 0.0212 0.0329 0.61% 18.0629 0.58% 72.0202 0.92% 2.0053 0.0214 0.0671 0.0123 0.0310 0.60% 19.0495 % 59.0322 0.0202 0.0326 0.0359 0.39% 49.52% 18.84% 49.60% 18.04% 7.

0706 0.35% 47.43% 17.0338 0.37% 36.0128 0.0302 0.56% 39.0240 0.0126 0.44% 44.76% 17.36% 43.84% 47.0125 0.0244 0.0689 0.05 0.0340 0.42% 17.0123 0.(Solution B) Material Cases Group No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro 38Si6 I 15Cr3 I 67SiCr5 I Crude iron I GS-45.0148 0.24% 34.0337 0.03% 36.02% 21.0241 0.53% 45.0346 0.38% 34.0230 0.0237 0.04% 34.95% 34.0698 0.74% 19.0759 0.0165 0.74% 20.0272 0.0123 0.0697 0.74% 44.07% 47.0788 Human Health Pts 0.0154 0.0767 0.0128 % 17.87% 17.03% 16.65 0.40% 19.81% 36.43% 33.55% 1.43% 46.43% 33.3 I 55Si7 I 37MnSi5 I 42MnV7 I 42CrMo4 I 34Cr4 I 50 CrV4 I GS-22Mo4 I 50CrV4 I 22Mo4 I A517b I A514(A) I 9S20 I 25CrMo4 I A517a I 34CrAl6 I Name Type steel spring steel high grade steel spring Ferro steel cast steel spring steel high grade steel high grade steel high grade steel high grade steel high grade steel cast steel spring steel high temp steel draw steel low temp.65 1.0283 0.85% 17.0124 0.65% 17.05 1.0694 0. Steel autom steel high grade steel draw steel high grade Total (Pts) 0.0152 0.85% 17.73% 47.87% 18.0694 0.05 0.0124 0.0372 % 48.0347 0.0341 0.0337 0.0125 0.88% 47.Appendix B3-B5:Environmental impact of Ferro Metals in Damage Categories with Ni & Cr Cont.0695 0.0249 0.0730 0.93% 44.0336 0.0780 0.87% 16.0724 0.0765 0.0253 0.0127 0.24% Resources Pts 0.0784 0.0332 0.50 Cr cont Ni cont % % .0157 0.27% 17.56% 34.28% 48.65% 35.0128 0.07% 34.0341 0.94% 43.55% 17.0234 0.46% 44.10% 36.0346 0.0701 0.0343 0.05 1.0336 0.0717 0.62% 17.62% 48.21% Ecosystem Quality Pts 0.0232 0.0744 0.0123 0.0759 0.73% 34.00 0.0752 0.94% 35.44% 35.0334 0.0281 0.0263 0.0123 0.72% 33.79% 47.0338 0.0269 0.0124 0.30 1.0288 % 33.50% 19.70% 48.17% 19.0271 0.0231 0.0353 0.0259 0.92% 48.41% 48.0337 0.0335 0.0147 0.38% 33.0256 0.0344 0.

0108 CV 14.83% 25.95 % Converter steel ETH T Ferro ECCS steel sheet Steel low alloy ETH T Ferro Ferro .0868 0.0195 0. steel high grade steel cast steel high grade steel high grade steel high grade steel high grade 0.20% 29.85% steel high temp steel low temp.1620 0.0238 0.95 2.20% Ecosystem Quality Pts 0.0173 0.0233 0.49% 1.20% 54.20% 12.98% 22.55 1.66% 12.0346 0.16% 25.1160 0.0872 0.13% 27.0307 0.89% 6.6228) I 36NiCr6 I GS-10Ni6 I 18NiCr8 I 30CrNiMo8 I 14NiCr14 I 35NiCr18 I Name 13CrMo4 5 (1.0055 0.0947 0.06% 16.0699 0.0527 0.0191 14.06% 37.11% 53.68% 32.0170 0.59% 18.0146 0.0476 0.40 Cr cont Ni cont % 0.0340 % 41.0436 0.0282 0.7335) I Tin plate bj C35 I Steel ETH T 21MoV53 I Crude iron ETH T Type steel high temp Ferro steel high grade Ferro steel high temp Ferro Total (Pts) 0.1240 0.0859 0.50% 31.2060 0.0056 0.0729 STDEV 0.76% 10.63% 46.95 2.01% 50.02% 15.15 1.89% 60.00 1.0177 0.15 1.1520 0.72% 50.0988 0.41% 19.0367 0.0495 0.0549 0.0640 0.0730 0.(Solution B) Material Cases Group No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro Low Ni ferro Low Ni ferro Low Ni ferro Low Ni ferro Low Ni ferro Low Ni ferro Low Ni ferro Low Ni ferro 28NiCrMo4 I 15NiMn6 (1.1210 0.30 0.47% 32.11% 0.39% 43.0147 0.31% 37.0866 0.0741 31.0622 0.0217 0.25 1.0858 0.0836 0.0183 0.Appendix B3-B5:Environmental impact of Ferro Metals in Damage Categories with Ni & Cr Cont.32% 0.67% 24.50 4.0590 0.64% 30.1080 Average 0.62% 57.07% 11.0324 0.68% 11.36% 58.0203 0.83% 31.0369 0.50 1.19% 61.07% 30.0575 0.59% 7.30 0.1250 0.83% 59.0146 0.0155 0.22% 55.00 3.50 1.0357 0.40% 57.57% 33.0717 0.0369 0.0140 0.77% 57.1490 53.0295 0.68% Resources Pts 0.53% 8.2430 0.50% 16.0356 0.1250 0.50 Human Health Pts 0.65% 58.0122 % 21.0548 0.60% 36.50 1.0187 0.0873 0.75% 5.76% 54.0927 0.0267 % 36.97% 40.0390 0.0192 0.10% 19.0371 0.0433 0.86% 0.0141 0.

0876 0.0251 5.0206 0.35% Stainless steels Stainless steels Stainless steels Stainless steels Stainless steels 0.97% 16.96% 4.0101 0.75 15.97% 36.29% 4.44% 51. Cast iron Cast iron steel low temp.48% 5.1190 0.0279 0.37% Cr cont Ni cont % % Average 0.1830 0.0448 0.05% 36.17% Resources Pts 0.0452 0.2910 0.2440 0.0391 0.00 16.0173 0.5020 0.00 13.40% 0.00 20.0326 0.0323 0.0490 % 31.30% 59.18% 6.24% 29.44% 0.1610 0.00 13.1552 30.1230 0.0335 0.37% 32.4070 0.00 9.87% 37.2710 0. steel cast Name Type Total (Pts) Human Health Pts 0.0452 0.6620 0.0101 0.0461 CV 29.56% 5.50 Average 0.0203 0.0880 0.0921 0.50% 0.1010 0.48% 10.75 18.3340 0.99% 1.54% 13.25% 61.Appendix B3-B5:Environmental impact of Ferro Metals in Damage Categories with Ni & Cr Cont.60% 11.64% 35.00 13.86% 32.0485 0.2817 64.0322 0.75 1.40% 0.00 26.4150 0.62% 65.82% 57.66% 51.0171 11.36% 52.0905 % 57.1125 CV 24.4530 0.37% 64.0337 36.97% 57.0256 0.45% 36.00 1.3790 0.(Solution B) Material Cases Group Low Ni ferro Low Ni ferro Low Ni ferro High Ni ferro High Ni ferro High Ni ferro High Ni ferro High Ni ferro High Ni ferro High Ni ferro High Ni ferro High Ni ferro Low NiCr stainless steel Low NiCr stainless steel Low NiCr stainless steel Low NiCr stainless steel Low NiCr stainless steel X30Cr13 (~420) I X12Cr13 (416) I X7CrAl13 (405) I X6Cr17 (430) I X20Cr13 (420) I GGL-NiCuCr I X8Ni9 I GGG-NiCr I GGG-NiSiCr I X12CrNi 18 9 I GS-X40CrNiSi 25 12 I Cast iron steel low temp.00 .0101 0.0101 0.91% 5.54% 36.2150 0.50 9.4622 STDEV 0.0536 51.46% Ecosystem Quality Pts 0.0167 % 11.60% 51.2630 0.2710 0.00 20.24% 29.56% 0.53% 11.00 12.1040 0.0871 0.1563 STDEV 0.

84% 34.60% 52.61% 5.4453 STDEV 0.0721 0.00 17.0467 0.50 17.1390 0.1097 STDEV 0.3210 0.Appendix B3-B5:Environmental impact of Ferro Metals in Damage Categories with Ni & Cr Cont.32% 11.0339 5.2430 0.00 1.34% 43.00 17.77% 8.0649 0.1400 0.06% Ecosystem Quality Pts 0.46% 5.01% 9.0594 0.4780 0.50 9.19% 37.00 9.00 10.25 10.11% 52.0219 0.79% 0.2510 59.35% 55.00 18.1300 0.51% 35.56% 51.87% .3990 0.4670 0.97% 53.0120 0.00 13.0703 0.00 12.0153 0.0352 0.50 17.00 16.4010 0.60% 59.23% 34.74% 8.1730 0.00 12.08% 59.53% 32.1604 35.0750 0.1350 0.2580 0.0127 % 17.1140 0.0348 0.80% Resources Pts 0.0478 0.89% 9.26% 48.0796 CV 17.1400 0.90% 59.03% 53.32% 56.0219 0.1160 0.04% 36.0560 % 52.2390 0.2180 0.00 Average 0.00 17.25 High NiCr stainless steel X2CrNiMo1712 (316L) I Stainless steels High NiCr stainless steel X5CrNiMo18 (316) I High NiCr stainless steel X10CrNiMoNb I High NiCr stainless steel High NiCr stainless steel High NiCr stainless steel Stainless steels Stainless steels Average 0.0219 0.0411 % 30.1070 0.3690 0.0525 0.37% 8.86% 18.1270 0.0209 CV 19.37% 0.1490 Human Health Pts 0.52% 55.00 19.0451 0.1730 0.00 19.79% 7.(Solution B) Material Cases Group Low NiCr stainless steel Low NiCr stainless steel Low NiCr stainless steel Low NiCr stainless steel Low NiCr stainless steel Low NiCr stainless steel Low NiCr stainless steel Low NiCr stainless steel Low NiCr stainless steel High NiCr stainless steel X10CrNiS (303) I High NiCr stainless steel GX5CrNi19 10 (CF8) I High NiCr stainless steel X5CrNi18 (304) I High NiCr stainless steel X6CrNi18 (~304) I Name X35CrMo17 I X90CrCoMoV17 I X10Cr13 (mart 410) I X90CrMoV18 (440B) I GX12Cr14 (CA15) I X22CrNi17 (431) I Type Stainless steels Stainless steels Stainless steels Stainless steels Stainless steels Stainless steels Total (Pts) 0.00 13.91% 37.04% Stainless steels Stainless steels Stainless steels Stainless steels 0.19% Cr cont Ni cont % 16.30% 9.91% 34.2280 0.0526 0.4010 0.56% 45.00 1.6020 0.19% 14.49% 5.0529 0.0562 0.39% 37.88 % 1.0119 0.46% 11.2390 0.0196 0.0113 0.2390 0.90% 35.0207 0.87% 35.00 12.0124 0.41% 45.0514 0.

24% 22.55% 7.1200 0.5310 0. Mn & their alloys Al. Zn.3910 0.2440 0.2500 0.0981 0.67% Ecosystem Quality Pts 0.0855 0. Zn.23% 57. Mn & their alloys Al.78% 57.59% 64.64% 49. Zn.86% 35.1270 0.0412 0. Mg. Zn.08% 33.2360 0. Mn & their alloys Al.60% 7.62% 48.43% 4. Mn & their alloys Al.0401 0. Mn & their alloys Al.13% 43.31% 3. Mn & their alloys Al.0424 0.20% 31.2220 0.18% 56.2650 0.0871 0. Mn & their alloys Al.0424 0.74% 10. Mg.2Mg1 (3004) I AlMgSi0.5600 0. Mn & their alloys Name Manganese ETH T Silicon I Ferrochromium I Zamak3 I Zamak5 I ZnCuTi I Zinc (super plastic) I G-ZnAlCu I Lead I Zinc I G-AlSi12 (230) I Aluminium raw bj G-AlSi12Cu (231) I G-AlSi7Mg (Thixo) I AlMg3 (5754a) I AlSiMgMn (6009) I AlMn1.4020 0. Mn & their alloys Al.84% 56.32% 5.2330 0.71% 9.2150 0. Mg. Mg.69% 7. Mg. Mg.2450 % 51.02% 31.0432 0.2270 0. Mn & their alloys Al.4350 0. Mg. Zn.2260 0. Mn & their alloys Al.0840 0.1270 0.57% 43.58% 4. Mg.3960 0. Mg. Zn.5610 Human Health Pts 0.0552 0. Zn.2740 % 34.39% 43. Zn.0408 0.2740 0.2620 0.2580 0.4230 0. Zn.65% 43.58% 7.3860 0. Zn.2730 0.0424 0. Mn & their alloys Al. Mn & their alloys Al.7 (6005) I Type Non-ferro Si Non-ferro Zinc Alloy Zinc Alloy Zinc Alloy Zinc Alloy Zinc Alloy lead Zinc AL alloy Al AL alloy AL alloy AL alloy AL alloy AL alloy AL alloy Total (Pts) 0.0238 0.45% 10.0142 0.57% 7.1370 0.22% 56. Zn.0420 0.63% 43.2580 0. Mg.98% 48.85% 10.1550 0.32% 56.1460 0.34% 48. Mg.83% 43. Mg.0140 0.72% 49.4190 0.0333 0.0122 0.32% 76.83% 51.5370 0.84% .1290 0.49% 7.5450 0.1200 0.07% 34. Zn. Mn & their alloys Al. Mg. Mg. Zn. Zn. Mn & their alloys Al. Mg. Mn & their alloys Al.36% 12. Zn.2250 0.5590 0.0426 % 13.60% 38.2390 0. Mg.0413 0. Zn.1400 0.5240 0. Zn.13% 72.2440 0.48% 32.91% 32.3760 0. Mg.41% 19.2290 0.56% 7.59% Resources Pts 0.0397 0.0396 0.2260 0.85% 43. Mg.Appendix B6-B8: Environmental Impact of Non-ferrous Metals in Damage Categories Material Cases Group Al. Mn & their alloys Al. Mn & their alloys Al.1760 0.84% 48.3250 0. Zn.2630 0.98% 10.2740 0.93% 48.5300 0.

84% 48. Mg.2650 0.62% 43. Mg.76% 48.1420 0.2740 0. Zn. Mg.0220 0.87% 43. Mn & their alloys Al.5 (6060) I AlCuSiMg (2036) I G-AlMg5 (314) I AlCuMg1 (2017) I AlCuMg2 (2024) I G-AlCu4TiMg (204) I AlCuMgPb (2011) I Type AL alloy AL alloy AL alloy AL alloy AL alloy AL Cr AL alloy AL alloy Cd AL AL alloy AL alloy AL alloy AL alloy AL alloy AL alloy AL alloy Total (Pts) 0.13% 23.0444 0.2650 0.2830 0.20% 62.2750 0.32% 7.2500 0.0423 0.75% 43.97% 46.2800 % 43. Zn. Mg.91% 49.97% 48.0471 0.3120 0. Mg.59% 7.6040 0.5610 0.0468 0.00% 48.50% 3.76% 48.40% 7. Mn & their alloys Al.2750 0.0429 0.6490 Human Health Pts 0.2460 0.0433 0.83% 48. Mg. Zn.5610 0.66% 48.5780 0.2730 0.5640 0.49% 43.2650 0.68% 48.85% 43.0423 0.69% 48.2480 0. Mn & their alloys Al. Zn. Mn & their alloys Al.5650 0.2690 0.79% 43.2960 0.2980 0.5930 0.75% 43.2500 0.0447 0. Mg.49% 45. Mn & their alloys Name AlMn1 (3003) I G-AlMg3 (242) I Al99 I AlMg1 (5005) I AlMg4. Mg. Mg. Zn.2470 0.2940 0.90% 32.6060 0. Zn.82% 43.5640 0.72% 43.3570 0. Mn & their alloys Al.36% 7.52% 46. Mg.5640 0. Mn & their alloys Al.38% 7.2990 0. Zn. Mn & their alloys Al. Mn & their alloys Al.2840 0.05% 49. Zn.73% 43.2710 0.0464 0. Mg.2460 0.0428 0.0232 0.2740 0.3220 % 48.95% 50.54% 7. Mg. Mg.1860 0.25% 30.33% 43.2780 0.85% 49. Zn.69% 7.5680 0.15% 43.5770 0. Zn.0452 0.3130 0. Mg.1810 0.6290 0. Mn & their alloys Al. Zn.6400 0. Mg.2750 0. Mn & their alloys Al. Mn & their alloys Al. Zn. Mg.0449 0.58% 49.61% 7. Mn & their alloys Al.70% 3.34% 7.5980 0.2440 0. Mn & their alloys Al. Zn.46% 7. Zn. Zn.89% 4.3080 0. Mg. Zn.6120 0.84% 48. Mg. Mn & their alloys Al.5Mn (5182) I Aluminium ingots B250 Chromium I AlZnCuMg (7075) I G-AlSi8Cu3 (380) I Cadmium I Aluminium foil B250 AlMgSi0.59% 7.2800 0.61% .Appendix B6-B8: Environmental Impact of Non-ferrous Metals in Damage Categories Material Cases Group Al.2800 0.14% Ecosystem Quality Pts 0. Mn & their alloys Al. Mn & their alloys Al.95% 43.0470 % 7.6390 0. Zn.0426 0.88% 7.2760 0. Zn.24% Resources Pts 0. Mn & their alloys Al.0248 0.37% 7.

42% 8. Mg.62% 49.0327 0.97% 4.3270 0.78% 71.0326 0.3040 0.0322 0. Mn & their alloys Al.17% 49. Mn & their alloys Al. Zn.78% 45.6600 0.6690 0. Zn.75% .2668 % 45. Mn & their alloys Al.6640 0.71% 45. Zn.3040 0.59% 25.5760 0. Mn & their alloys Al. Zn.29% Ni-pigmented aluminiumoxide ETH T AL Tungsten I Non-ferro Average STDEV CV 22.3270 0. Mg.3040 0. Zn.3040 0. Mg.86% 4.55% 49.17% 49. Mg.08% Resources Pts 0.Appendix B6-B8: Environmental Impact of Non-ferrous Metals in Damage Categories Material Cases Group Al.81% 49.66% 4. Mo& their alloys Cu.25% 49. Mg.85% 4.68% 3.6590 0. Mn & their alloys Al. Mn & their alloys Al.3030 0. Mg.43% 33. Ni. Ni.78% 4.0313 0.2960 0. Mn & their alloys Al.7910 49.6720 0.5640 0.1262 Human Health Pts 0.3230 0.26% 48. Mg. Zn.87% 4.2516 % 49. Ti. Mg.35% 43. Mg. Mg. Zn.65% 6.1030 0. Zn.3240 0.91% 45.24% 49. Zn.1060 6.09% 49.71% 0.86% 45.6640 0. Mn & their alloys Al.37% Copper alloy Copper alloy 1. Zn.7720 0.2060 0.67% 4.6640 0.85% 45.0310 0.3500 0.6630 0.3270 0. Mg.3040 0. Mn & their alloys Al. Mn & their alloys Al. Ti. Zn. Zn.6560 0.64% Ecosystem Quality Pts 0.3010 0.3050 0.11% 39.2440 0.3240 0.0318 0.89% 4.3290 0.3050 0.0324 0.3040 0.6650 0. Mn & their alloys Al.32% 49.53% 27.33% 43.0326 0.0310 0.83% 45.47% 49. Zn.3290 0. Mn & their alloys Al.5900 0. Mg.95% 4. Mn & their alloys Cu.3270 0.67% 0.0457 % 4.95% 4. V. Mg.6650 0. Mg.0286 0.0323 0.71% 45. Mo& their alloys CuZn40Pb I CuZn40 I Name MgZn6Zr I G-MgAl6Zn3 I G-MgAl9Zn2 I GD-MgAl9Zn1 I G-MgAl8Zn1 I MgAl6Zn I MgMn1. V. Mg.5500 1. Mn & their alloys Al.8900 0.3330 0.3300 0.78% 45.3020 0. Zn. Mg.6650 0. Zn. Zn. Mn & their alloys Al. Mn & their alloys Al.25% 49.6950 43.0324 0.5 I AM100A I AM503 I MgAl3Zn I Magnesium I Type Mg Alloy Mg Alloy Mg Alloy Mg Alloy Mg Alloy Mg Alloy Mg Alloy Mg Alloy Mg Alloy Mg Alloy Non-ferro Total (Pts) 0.8100 0.88% 45.78% 45.

9500 2.1250 0. Ni.0863 0.90% Resources Pts 0.0849 0.0700 2.78% 60.6200 1. Ti. Ni. Ti.8850 0.14% 5.2550 0.5900 1. V. Mo& their alloys Cu.94% 5. Ni.67% 47. Ti.5060 0. Ni. V.1200 % 49. Ni. Ti.0602 0.06% 49.7300 1.1140 0. Mo& their alloys Cu.5590 1.2400 2.72% 3. V.0300 1. Ni. Ti. Mo& their alloys Name G-CuZn40 I G-CuZn37Pb I Vanadium I CuZn37 I Ni span C902 I CuZn30 I Invar I TiAl6V4 I Titanium I NiFe 50 50 I CuZn15 I G-CuZn15 I G-CuAl10Fe I G-CuAl10Ni I TiAl5Sn2 I CuNi18Zn I TiV15SnCrAl3 I CuAl5 I Type Copper alloy Copper alloy Vanadium Copper alloy Ni Alloy Copper alloy Ni Alloy Ti Alloy Ti Ni Alloy Copper alloy Copper alloy Copper alloy Copper alloy Ti Alloy Copper alloy Ti Alloy Copper alloy Total (Pts) 1. Mo& their alloys Cu.73% 31. Ni.23% 43. Ni.34% .6100 1. Ti.86% 49.44% 44. Ni.32% 44.1270 0.5200 0. Ni.7850 1.1500 0.93% Ecosystem Quality Pts 0.71% 43. Ti. V.1300 0. Ti.94% 5.9200 0.1700 2.76% 49.1200 2. V.47% 67. Mo& their alloys Cu. Ni. Ti.5200 1. Mo& their alloys Cu.2300 2.70% 5.14% 6.75% 49. V.5900 1.1080 0.0200 0.7900 1.8190 0.17% 67.64% 30.7040 0.10% 62. Mo& their alloys Cu. V.42% 6. V. Mo& their alloys Cu.9670 1.44% 44.6500 1. V. Ti.7080 1. V.27% 51.0500 1. V.76% 49. Ni.1060 0.6950 0.2400 2.9300 1.9200 0. V.81% 52.6750 0. V. Mo& their alloys Cu.68% 36.67% 49.01% 36. Ti.7910 0.10% 28. Ti. Mo& their alloys Cu.67% 3.0619 0.0765 0.67% 6. Mo& their alloys Cu. Ti.1000 1. Ti.21% 4. Mo& their alloys Cu. Ni.43% 6. Ni.72% 32.8580 0.1100 0.9470 1.8400 1.6750 1. Ti.96% 59.Appendix B6-B8: Environmental Impact of Non-ferrous Metals in Damage Categories Material Cases Group Cu.55% 4.74% 3.1340 % 6. Mo& their alloys Cu. V.58% 15. Ti.74% 6. V. Mo& their alloys Cu.2700 Human Health Pts 0.6360 1.5000 0.76% 65.0700 2. Mo& their alloys Cu. Mo& their alloys Cu. Ni. Ni.68% 67.0685 0.3100 0.1260 0.18% 44.0200 % 43. V. V.96% 49.39% 44. Ti.0300 1.0300 1. Mo& their alloys Cu.26% 43.0883 0. Mo& their alloys Cu. Ti.1270 0.00% 30.7800 1.1270 0.34% 28.53% 47.40% 4. Ni.7220 1.76% 2. V.1600 0.1060 0.8020 0. Ni.

Ti.58% 46. Ti.1400 0.1800 1. Ti.1240 0.1700 1.0600 2.7100 1.58% 49. Ti. Ni.3700 % 49.7100 2. V. Mo& their alloys Cu. V.1100 3.4500 2. Ti.36% 65.8300 1.1400 0.65% 43.9390 0.7P I NiCu30Al I NiCr20Co18Ti I NiMo30 I CuSn8 I Name Type Copper alloy Copper alloy copper Copper alloy Copper alloy Mo Copper alloy Copper alloy Ni Alloy Ni Alloy Ni Alloy Ni Alloy Ni Alloy Copper alloy Ni Alloy Ni Alloy Ni Alloy Copper alloy Total (Pts) 2.1800 1. Ni.98% 31.17% 4.0600 1. V. Ni.3600 2.71% .1470 0.1530 1.58% 3.34% 49.9500 2.9800 3.1700 1.3600 2. Mo& their alloys Cu.0300 3. Mo& their alloys Cu.93% 5.1500 0.1310 % 5. V.8950 0.55% 29.3900 3.1320 0. V. Ti.03% 16. Mo& their alloys Cu.0200 2. V.21% 61.1380 0. V.99% 4. Ni. Mo& their alloys Cu.9190 0. Ti.36% 45.72% 28.1900 0. Mo& their alloys Cu. Ni.0500 1. Ni. Mo& their alloys Cu.6000 1. V.51% 31.3500 1. Ti. Ni. Ni.0900 3.1290 0. Mo& their alloys Cu. Mo& their alloys Cu.1510 0. Mo& their alloys Cu.86% 33. Ti.98% 57.9500 1.5910 0. Ti. V. Ni.09% 67.1330 0.98% 50. Ni.1330 0.8800 2.31% 4.74% Resources Pts 1. Ni.92% 44. Ni.93% 5.4800 3. V.58% 29. Ni. Ti.54% 30.1900 3.92% 44.37% 66.0800 1. V. Mo& their alloys Cu.92% 48.38% 64. Ti.58% 49.28% 4.91% 4. Ti. V.93% 3. Ti.7700 0.64% 32. Mo& their alloys Cu-E I CuAg-E I Copper I G-CuNi10 I CuNi10Fe I Molybdenum I G-CuSn5Zn5Pb5 I CuNi44Mn I Supermalloy I NiCr20TiAl I Mumetal I NiCr 80 20 I NiCu30Fe I CuSn6. Ni.0800 0. Mo& their alloys Cu.37% 5.1200 0. Ni.1700 1.0600 1.1820 0. Ti.1000 2.3600 2.39% 29.82% 63. V.1200 2. V.1400 1. V.1900 0.54% 37. Ti. Ti.1620 0. Ni.12% 30. V.01% 4.1300 1.Appendix B6-B8: Environmental Impact of Non-ferrous Metals in Damage Categories Material Cases Group Cu. Mo& their alloys Cu.12% 46.24% 66. Ni.1400 0.7880 1. Ti.16% 48.17% 4.93% 5. Mo& their alloys Cu.63% 5. Ni. V.1390 1.0000 2. Mo& their alloys Cu.1100 2.92% 22.14% 62.4900 3.33% 65.78% 33.31% Ecosystem Quality Pts 0.9210 1.93% 6.4600 2.3000 3. Mo& their alloys Cu.0600 1.5000 Human Health Pts 1.3100 3. Mo& their alloys Cu.9910 % 44. V.

50% 86. Ni.14 0.77% 67.18% 3.1600 0.1270 0. Ni.57% CV 29. Ni.45% 23.94% 25.Appendix B6-B8: Environmental Impact of Non-ferrous Metals in Damage Categories Material Cases Group Cu.00 3.9580 1.23% 2.85% 0.1290 0.24 16. Mo& their alloys Cu. Ti.99% 5.7800 3.00 .13% 7. Ti.00 2. Mo& their alloys Co & Sn & Pts & Pd & Rd Co & Sn & Pts & Pd & Rd Co & Sn & Pts & Pd & Rd Co & Sn & Pts & Pd & Rd Co & Sn & Pts & Pd & Rd Cobalt I Tin I Non-ferro Non-ferro Duranik I G-CuSn10 I Ni 99.1841 % 4. V.25 3990. V.65% 73. V.6600 3.7413 Human Health Pts 2.90% 28. V. Ni. Ni.65% 0.0600 2.6800 1.20 103.03 515.1000 2.96% 70.00 1310.85% 98.11% Resources Pts 1.5900 0.9740 2.50 4610.1715 % 28.59% 2.4500 0.00 93. Mo& their alloys Cu.41% 4. Mo& their alloys Cu. Mo& their alloys Cu.76% 10. V. V.17% 3.5436 0.1892 % 66.55% 86.6 I G-CuSn12 I Name Type Ni Alloy Copper alloy Ni Alloy Copper alloy Average STDEV Total (Pts) 3.60% 46.19% 11.34 16. Ti.9800 1.00 749.8400 4. Ti. Ti.1530 0. Ni.40% 46.22% 1.17% 10.14% 6. Ti.00 6960.18% 2. Ni.00 332. Mo& their alloys Cu.38% Ecosystem Quality Pts 0.00 180.0600 2.70% Palladium enriched ETH T Non-ferro Platinum ETH T Non-ferro Rhodium enriched ETH T Non-ferro 12300. Mo& their alloys Cu. Ti. V.00 6030.64% 86.00 10700.00 0.95 0.

0103 0.0258 0.71% 5.0032 0.0277 0.94% 6.0529 0.0017 0.0623 0.0012 6.0053 0.0462 0.50% 0.78% 84.0422 0.22% 56.0351 % 40.0375 0.0900 0.0025 0.0062 0.29% 9.03% 7.0369 0.0101 0.0028 0.74% 44.70% 3.0034 0.0012 0.0325 % 50.0296 0.36% 5.60% 3.0926 0.0037 % 8.0796 0.0254 0.0024 0.0289 0.0214 0.27% 3.0266 0.0031 0.21% 5.16% 26.60% 0.0183 0.93% 0.0253 0.0086 0.0626 0.37% 43.50% 65.41% 60.11% 34.22% 5.15% 47.29% 19.63% 49.0012 0.0587 0.0713 0.92% 3.0132 18.86% 31.54% 32.04% .0032 0.0080 48.0282 0.37% 62.0021 0.95% 67.31% 5.09% 46.0014 0.56% 5.71% Ecosystem Quality Pts 0.0570 0.0019 0.05% 87.19% 64.0270 0.50% 29.65% 74.0190 0.0092 0.0611 0.33% 39.0081 0.33% Human Health Pts 0.0471 0.0485 0.70% 36.0093 0.0208 45.28% Resources Pts 0.28% 48.0449 0.0107 0.71% 3.0740 0.0186 0.0463 0.0206 0.0055 0.50% 3.42% 45.03% 45.43% 9.0574 0.0767 0.0300 0.40% 85.50% 3.0075 0.03% 12.0225 0.0316 0.0215 0.56% 9.19% 84.00189 0.13% 69.0019 0.Appendix B9 & B10: Environmental impact of Paper & Cardboard Materials in Damage Categories Material Cases Group paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper Cardboard Cardboard Cardboard Cardboard Cardboard Cardboard Cardboard Kraftliner brown S B250 Paper newsprint B250 Fluting Cardboard gray Cardboard liquid Corrugated board heavy Wellenstoff Name Paper ETH T Kraftpaper unbleached Kraftpaper bleached B250 Kraftpaper bleached C B250 Paper wood-free U B250 Paper bleached B Paper woody C B250 Packaging carton ETH T Paper wood-free C B250 Paper unbleached B Type Paper Paper Paper Paper Paper Paper Paper Paper Paper Paper Average STDEV CV Kraftliner Newsprint Cardboard Cardboard Cardboard Cardboard Cardboard Total (Pts) 0.0015 0.73% 6.

31% 5.0375 0.97% 58.27% .0011 0.31% 39.0024 0.91% 54.0434 0.24% 73. cardboard new Swisskraft Name Type Cardboard Cardboard Cardboard Kraftliner Cardboard Cardboard Cardboard Cardboard Cardboard Cardboard Cardboard Kraftliner Cardboard Cardboard Cardboard Cardboard Average STDEV CV Total (Pts) 0.0070 0.0020 0.0017 % 3.0263 0.99% 5.49% 5.63% 6.0348 0.0019 0.0113 0.33% 51.60% 27.54% 58.93% 48.15% 9.0270 0.0255 0.0027 0.0009 0.65% Ecosystem Quality Pts 0.0162 0.0144 0.0248 0.09% 33.0253 0.08% 29. cardboard mix 1 Corr.0036 0.0089 25.25% 82.73% 5.58% 44.56% 7.0111 0.09% 46.60% Human Health Pts 0.48% 19.0333 0.0026 0.0272 0.0128 0.00% 23.0230 0.0018 0. cardboard mix 2 Cardboard chromo Kraftliner brown A B250 Cardboard cellulose S B250 Cardboard duplex/tripl Corr.0301 0.0322 0.29% 43.0323 0.75% 11.35% 82.05% Resources Pts 0.0495 0.Appendix B9 & B10: Environmental impact of Paper & Cardboard Materials in Damage Categories Material Cases Group Cardboard Cardboard Cardboard Cardboard Cardboard Cardboard Cardboard Cardboard Cardboard Cardboard Cardboard Cardboard Cardboard Cardboard Cardboard Cardboard Cardboard Cardboard Cardboard Testliner Liquid Packaging Board Cardboard duplex Kraftliner white top S B250 Cardboard cellulose Schrenz Sack paper S B250 Corr.66% 20.06% 4.0051 0.0096 0.0015 0.0149 0.0488 0.35% 3.0353 0.0107 0.0422 0.69% 4.0161 0.0073 0.35% 48.45% 4.95% 4.0021 0.47% 11.0016 0.0175 0.0267 0.13% 68.46% 37. cardboard mix 3D Corr.67% 1.0217 0.0318 0.76% 3.0390 0.81% 78.0421 0.0451 0.12% 6.0016 0.0287 0.35% 47.02% 76.0019 0.0140 0.0019 0.0312 0.51% 5.79% 46.54% 36.0348 0.0169 % 72.0480 0.0178 0.0395 0.0030 0.0364 0.0195 0.0023 0.76% 84.38% 2.0009 0.23% 66.0175 0.0162 % 24.86% 62.

16% 84. Thermoset Rubber.0435 0. Thermoplastics. Thermoplastics.2610 0.0044 0. Thermoset Rubber.2990 0.0102 0.33% 31.26% 28.40% 28. Thermoplastics.0115 0. Thermoset Rubber.2800 0.02% 4.1680 0.0711 0.0868 0.2440 0.02% 2.25% .0162 0.44% 2. Thermoplastics. Thermoplastics.47% 28.1900 0.14% 34. Thermoset Rubber.49% 3.0074 0. Thermoplastics.0063 0.50% 32.00% 21.85% 2.2150 0.30% 2.79% 59.2530 0.1770 0. Thermoplastics.2000 0.70% 2.45% 3. Thermoset Rubber.1370 0.00% 69.2260 0.0082 % 3. Thermoset Rubber.0050 0.0841 0.1660 0. Thermoset Rubber.09% 76. Thermoplastics.0797 0.70% Resources Pts 0.43% 32. Thermoset Rubber.0065 0.0770 0. Thermoplastics.1640 0.2970 0.84% 69.19% 28.74% 2.1590 0.11% 35.73% 3.0777 0. Thermoplastics.0060 0.51% 4.1920 0. Thermoplastics.15% 71.2290 0.18% Ecosystem Quality Pts 0. Thermoplastics.40% 20.55% 2. Thermoset Rubber. Thermoplastics.0069 0.Appendix B11 & B12: Environmental Impact of Polymers in Damage Categories Material Cases Group Rubber.1900 0.0090 0. Thermoset Rubber.09% 68. Thermoset Rubber.0298 0.02% 4.36% 72. Thermoplastics. Thermoset Rubber.94% 76.77% 17.0748 0.0702 0.2500 0.0672 % 19.0463 0.2280 % 77.0089 0.2190 0.44% 80.21% 2.1740 0. Thermoset PP GF30 I PVC suspension A PVC bulk A PVC (e) I PE (LLDPE) I PVC film (calendered) A PE (HDPE) I PVC film (unplasticised) A PET 30% glass fibre I PVC B250 PVC revised P PC 30% glass fibre I PVC emulsion A PE (LDPE) I PVC high impact ETH T PVC injection moulded A PE expanded I PVC film (unplastized) P ABS I Name Type Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Total (Pts) 0.0784 0.2180 0. Thermoset Rubber.04% 76.0089 0.2120 0.0563 0.88% 33.0075 0.00% 3.03% 64.21% 26.2240 0.0097 0.06% 25.59% 63.2840 0.2510 0.0611 0. Thermoset Rubber.0991 0.2590 0.2110 0.55% 3.25% 20.92% 22.79% 75. Thermoset Rubber.2590 0.0074 0.1680 0.3030 Human Health Pts 0.2750 0. Thermoplastics. Thermoplastics.0545 0.1620 0.38% 13.34% 62.0404 0. Thermoplastics.07% 68.50% 2. Thermoplastics.1670 0.1000 0.3010 0.0078 0.32% 64.0105 0.1640 0. Thermoset Rubber.16% 5.71% 61. Thermoset Rubber. Thermoplastics. Thermoset Rubber.

0061 0. Thermoplastics. Thermoplastics.0625 0.0041 0.29% 17.3160 0.77% 1.43% 28. Thermoset Rubber.0110 0.05% 4. Thermoset Rubber.27% 17.Appendix B11 & B12: Environmental Impact of Polymers in Damage Categories Material Cases Group Rubber. Thermoplastics. Thermoplastics.02% 79.0065 0. Thermoset Rubber. Thermoset Rubber. Thermoset Rubber. Thermoplastics.0559 0. Thermoset Rubber.81% 1. Thermoplastics.2840 0.22% 79.14% 79.3570 0.26% 80.72% 1. Thermoplastics.89% 68.3230 0.0062 0.0051 0.3480 0.0653 0.0458 0.53% 4.88% .2850 0.34% 18. Thermoplastics.2600 0.2420 0.65% 18. Thermoset HDPE B250 LLDPE B250 PP granulate average B250 LDPE A PP A HDPE A PE granulate average B250 PE P LDPE B250 PET bottle grade I LDPE film A PS (GPPS) I PC I PET granulate amorph B250 PS (EPS) A LDPE revised P PET amorph I PS (HIPS) I HIPS ETH T Name Type Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Total (Pts) 0.0633 0.98% 17. Thermoplastics. Thermoset Rubber.3060 0.3620 0. Thermoplastics.2910 0.0673 0. Thermoset Rubber.0055 0.2650 0.0380 0.0062 0. Thermoplastics.2460 0. Thermoset Rubber.0057 0.56% 79. Thermoset Rubber. Thermoset Rubber.22% 1.0131 0.0055 0.1070 0.2560 0.3620 0.39% 2.28% 80.51% 2.47% 13.0613 0.73% 72.54% 18. Thermoplastics.35% 2.0091 0.91% 1.2660 % 81.0513 0.08% 1.85% 2. Thermoset Rubber. Thermoplastics.2750 0. Thermoplastics.2900 0. Thermoplastics. Thermoplastics. Thermoset Rubber.3590 0.38% 31.71% 5.05% Resources Pts 0.0566 0.2190 0.78% 80.3370 0.10% 78.0148 % 1.0050 0.3030 0.41% 17.2450 0.52% 18.78% 78.1850 0.2610 0. Thermoplastics.0092 0.3610 0.2610 0.3240 0.1180 0.3530 0.63% 80.08% 82.01% 1.59% 1.0514 0. Thermoplastics.0062 0.76% 22.48% 33.2220 0.82% Ecosystem Quality Pts 0. Thermoset Rubber.71% 3.2760 0.0833 % 16. Thermoset Rubber. Thermoplastics.67% 19.61% 51.53% 43.3350 0.0069 0.69% 16. Thermoset Rubber.3410 0.64% 64.0195 0.1580 0.3650 Human Health Pts 0.72% 1.3190 0.19% 86.93% 12.08% 62.56% 84.1010 0.0144 0.3030 0.0572 0. Thermoset Rubber. Thermoset Rubber.38% 19.0679 0.3490 0.2570 0.59% 3.0645 0.

2900 0.5000 0.32% 36. Thermoplastics. Thermoset Rubber.3360 0.08% 27.70% .2070 0. Thermoplastics.0090 0.34% 3.1610 0.69% 1.3670 0. Thermoplastics.4750 0.52% Ecosystem Quality Pts 0.80% 41.Appendix B11 & B12: Environmental Impact of Polymers in Damage Categories Material Cases Group Rubber.0535 0.4700 0. Thermoplastics.0157 0. Thermoplastics.0151 0.2130 % 19. Thermoset Rubber.5200 0.50% 51.2870 0.67% 73.6 30% glass P Name Type Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Total (Pts) 0.06% 3. Thermoset Rubber.82% 75.1580 0.63% 62.0153 0.42% 3.77% 57.0048 0.72% 51.5390 Human Health Pts 0.21% 34.62% 55.1660 0.0927 0.4700 0.72% 22.0213 0.2750 0.26% 2.3750 0. Thermoplastics.3900 0.2130 0.20% 54.0156 0.59% 14.2960 0.1720 0.1030 0.2890 0.2090 0.0708 0. Thermoplastics.94% 45.09% 4.89% 55.63% 67.5010 0. Thermoset Rubber. Thermoset Rubber.59% 84. Thermoset Rubber.2200 0.09% 29.34% 3. Thermoset Rubber.0071 0.4490 0.75% 72.6 30% glass fibre A PP injection moulded A PA 66 I PET film A PET film packed A PA 6. Thermoset Rubber.1080 0.4340 0. Thermoset Rubber.47% 70.72% 40.1950 0.48% 2.0179 0.0163 0.0992 0.3780 0. Thermoplastics.4130 0.3050 0.2420 0.14% 22.2730 0.67% 63.4870 0. Thermoplastics.2130 0.0152 0. Thermoset Rubber.3800 0.00% 55.3940 0.0157 0.0158 % 1.19% 39.0153 0.32% 45.1490 0.1420 0.17% 3.0211 0.69% 40.14% 2.2730 0.4480 0. Thermoset Rubber.5160 0.57% 4.3110 % 78. Thermoplastics. Thermoset Rubber.12% 40. Thermoset Rubber. Thermoplastics. Thermoplastics.10% 2.2090 0.47% 3. Thermoplastics.0215 0. Thermoset Rubber.49% 51.10% 25. Thermoplastics.3210 0.20% 3.49% 60.0092 0.0097 0.3300 0.2770 0.3390 0. Thermoplastics.46% 5. Thermoplastics.93% 2. Thermoset HDPE pipe P PB B250 (1998) PVDC I SAN A HDPE blow moulded bottles A PET resin P (1997) PP oriented film A PMMA I PS thermoformed A PET ETH T PA 6 GF30 I PA 66 GF30 I PET stretch moulded bottles P PA 6. Thermoset Rubber. Thermoset Rubber. Thermoset Rubber.2420 0.93% Resources Pts 0.31% 4. Thermoset Rubber.1070 0. Thermoplastics.29% 24.2880 0.80% 42.14% 3. Thermoplastics.0100 0.84% 71. Thermoplastics.91% 32.

4440 0. Thermoset Rubber.2830 0.3970 0. Thermoplastics.4110 Human Health Pts 0.2960 0.5490 0. moulded ccm/t A PUR flex.24% 2.93% 19.02% 3.0145 0. Thermoset Name PMMA beads A PA 6. moulded cct A Type Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Thermosplas Rubber Rubber Rubber Rubber PUR PUR PUR PUR PUR PUR PUR Total (Pts) 0.43% 2.50% 29.0091 0.68% 22. Thermoplastics.04% 28.2720 0. integral skin foam A PUR RIM amine extended A PUR flex.2430 0.3970 0.25% 2.83% 29.31% 68.3640 0.2780 0.1140 0.33% 14.08% 2.1150 0.1240 % 25.77% 69. Thermoset Rubber.1150 0.47% 70.4070 0.17% Ecosystem Quality Pts 0.2730 0.73% 30.53% 66.2980 0.6330 0.1020 0.0089 0.0091 0.2780 0.25% 2. Thermoplastics. Thermoset Rubber.53% 2.1400 0.34% 2. Thermoplastics.35% 68.0124 0.4060 0.1720 0.81% 67. Thermoplastics.0095 0.6 A PMMA sheet A PA 6 I BR I SBR I NBR I EPDM rubber ETH T PUR flex. Thermoset Rubber.0981 0.0150 0. Thermoset Rubber.77% 5.0089 0.02% 29. Thermoplastics.0089 0.34% 74.32% 79.97% 28. Thermoset Rubber.4010 0. Thermoplastics.1150 0. Thermoplastics. Thermoset Rubber.Appendix B11 & B12: Environmental Impact of Polymers in Damage Categories Material Cases Group Rubber.5930 0.0664 0.62% 28.0083 0. Thermoset Rubber.0090 0.0154 0.0193 0. Thermoset Rubber.3960 0. Thermoset Rubber.3950 0.43% 17.69% 68.23% 2. Thermoplastics.30% 2. Thermoset Rubber.2770 % 72.01% 27. Thermoplastics. Thermoplastics.0084 0.2150 0.21% 3.4060 0.37% Resources Pts 0.2700 0.2370 0.0097 % 2.5440 0. Thermoset Rubber.2760 0. Thermoplastics.33% 69. Thermoplastics.76% 68.6570 0.70% 67.24% 2.14% 82.80% 77.0547 0.1210 0. Thermoplastics. Thermoset Rubber.40% . moulded ccm A PUR RIM glycol extended A PUR energy absorbing A PUR flex.0525 0.1130 0.43% 27. Thermoplastics.1730 0.26% 2. Thermoset Rubber.11% 29.2200 0.

Appendix B11 & B12: Environmental Impact of Polymers in Damage Categories
Material Cases Group Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset Epoxy Epoxy Epoxy Epoxy Epoxy Epoxy Epoxy resin (liquid) P Epoxy resin I Epoxy resin A Epoxy Epoxy Epoxy Name PUR flex. moulded hot cure A PUR flexible block foam A PUR hardfoam ETH T PUR flex. block foam I PUR flex. moulded TDI I PUR rigid integr. skin foam I PUR semi rigid foam I PUR flex. moulded MDI/TDI I PUR rigid foam I PUR flex. moulded. MDI I Type PUR PUR PUR PUR PUR PUR PUR PUR PUR PUR Total (Pts) 0.4110 0.4150 0.4260 0.4490 0.4520 0.4530 0.4550 0.4570 0.4640 0.4690 Human Health Pts 0.1240 0.1250 0.2300 0.2310 0.2360 0.2190 0.2440 0.2390 0.2190 0.2410 0.1139 % 30.17% 30.12% 53.99% 51.45% 52.21% 48.34% 53.63% 52.30% 47.20% 51.39% 29.19% Ecosystem Quality Pts 0.0097 0.0099 0.0333 0.0207 0.0208 0.0234 0.0222 0.0212 0.0235 0.0225 0.0117 % 2.37% 2.39% 7.82% 4.61% 4.60% 5.17% 4.88% 4.64% 5.06% 4.80% 3.09% Resources Pts 0.2770 0.2800 0.1620 0.1980 0.1950 0.2110 0.1880 0.1970 0.2220 0.2050 0.2497 % 67.40% 67.47% 38.03% 44.10% 43.14% 46.58% 41.32% 43.11% 47.84% 43.71% 67.71%

Average 0.3753 STDEV 0.0974 CV 25.94% 0.6420 0.8730 0.6390

0.1920 0.0507 0.1900 0.1442

29.91% 5.81% 29.73% 21.82%

0.0174 0.0100 0.0175 0.0150

2.71% 1.15% 2.74% 2.20%

0.4320 0.8120 0.4310 0.5583

67.29% 93.01% 67.45% 75.92%

Average 0.7180 STDEV 0.1342 CV 18.70%

Appendix B13-B16: Environmental Impact of Woods in Damage Categories
Material Cases Group Wood Low Impact Wood Low Impact Wood Low Impact Wood Low Impact Wood Low Impact Wood Low Impact Wood Low Impact Wood Low Impact Wood Low Impact Wood Low Impact Wood Low Impact Wood Low Impact Wood Low Impact Wood Low Impact Wood Low Impact Wood Low Impact Wood Low Impact Wood Low Impact Wood Low Impact Wood Low Impact Silver fir I Larch, European I Hemlock I Pitch pine I Oregon pine I Teak I Ash I Beech, European I Oak, European I Spruce, European I Ahorn I Scots pine (grenen) I Sycamore I Birch I Merbau I Chestnut I Aspen I Red oak I Cedar I Hickory I Name Type 5y-10y 10y-15y 5y-10y 10y-15y 10y-15y >25y <5y <5y 15y-25y 5y-10y <5y 10y-15y <5y 5y-10y 15y-25y 15y-25y <5y 5y-10y 15y-25y 5y-10y Total (Pts) 0.2340 0.2800 0.3520 0.3710 0.3880 0.4070 0.4080 0.4270 0.4460 0.4640 0.5100 0.5240 0.5640 0.5910 0.6080 0.6280 0.6360 0.6400 0.6430 0.6510 Human Health Pts 0.0028 0.0211 0.0298 0.0217 0.0283 0.0529 0.0211 0.0203 0.0208 0.0072 0.0254 0.0217 0.0135 0.0187 0.0279 0.0363 0.0270 0.0214 0.0292 0.0257 % 1.18% 7.54% 8.47% 5.85% 7.29% 13.00% 5.17% 4.75% 4.66% 1.56% 4.98% 4.14% 2.39% 3.16% 4.59% 5.78% 4.25% 3.34% 4.54% 3.95% Ecosystem Quality Pts 0.227 0.231 0.289 0.331 0.33 0.306 0.361 0.38 0.398 0.446 0.454 0.474 0.538 0.547 0.549 0.551 0.575 0.592 0.581 0.598 % 97.01% 82.50% 82.10% 89.22% 85.05% 75.18% 88.48% 88.99% 89.24% 96.12% 89.02% 90.46% 95.39% 92.55% 90.30% 87.74% 90.41% 92.50% 90.36% 91.86% Resources Pts 0.00447 0.0276 0.0331 0.0186 0.03 0.0485 0.0253 0.0263 0.0279 0.0114 0.0311 0.0283 0.0124 0.0261 0.0312 0.0408 0.0337 0.0268 0.0331 0.0273 % 1.91% 9.86% 9.40% 5.01% 7.73% 11.92% 6.20% 6.16% 6.26% 2.46% 6.10% 5.40% 2.20% 4.42% 5.13% 6.50% 5.30% 4.19% 5.15% 4.19%

Appendix B13-B16: Environmental Impact of Woods in Damage Categories
Material Cases Group Wood Low Impact Wood Low Impact Wood Low Impact Wood Low Impact Wood Low Impact Wood Low Impact Wood Low Impact Wood Low Impact Wood Low Impact Wood Low Impact Wood Low Impact Wood Low Impact Wood Low-Med. Impact Wood Low-Med. Impact Wood Low-Med. Impact Wood Low-Med. Impact Wood Low-Med. Impact Wood Low-Med. Impact Wood Low-Med. Impact Wood Med.-High Impact Azobe I Walnut I Platan I Horse chestnut I Willow I Name Yellow pine I Robinia I Linden I Alder I Elm I Poplar I Red Cedar, Western I Hornbean I Black poplar I Type 5y-10y >25y <5y <5y 5y-10y <5y 15y-25y <5y <5y Average STDEV CV 10y-15y <5y <5y <5y Average STDEV CV 15y-25y Total (Pts) 0.6720 0.6870 0.6970 0.7040 0.7420 0.7620 0.7710 0.7900 0.8160 0.5660 0.1607 28.39% 0.9540 1.1500 1.2200 1.4700 1.1985 0.2132 17.79% 2.7900 0.0277 0.99% 2.7300 97.85% 0.0294 1.05% 0.0230 0.0186 0.0229 0.0314 0.0240 2.41% 1.62% 1.88% 2.14% 2.01% 0.9030 1.1100 1.1600 1.4000 1.1433 94.65% 96.52% 95.08% 95.24% 95.37% 0.0281 0.0245 0.0298 0.0424 0.0312 2.95% 2.13% 2.44% 2.88% 2.60% Human Health Pts 0.0279 0.0190 0.0212 0.0254 0.0154 0.0056 0.0666 0.0166 0.0271 0.0241 % 4.15% 2.77% 3.04% 3.61% 2.08% 0.74% 8.64% 2.10% 3.32% 4.52% Ecosystem Quality Pts 0.609 0.645 0.649 0.647 0.705 0.749 0.639 0.752 0.755 0.5141 % 90.63% 93.89% 93.11% 91.90% 95.01% 98.29% 82.88% 95.19% 92.52% 90.27% Resources Pts 0.0354 0.0233 0.0266 0.0314 0.0211 0.00685 0.066 0.0213 0.0339 0.0279 % 5.27% 3.39% 3.82% 4.46% 2.84% 0.90% 8.56% 2.70% 4.15% 5.23%

Appendix B13-B16: Environmental Impact of Woods in Damage Categories
Material Cases Group Wood Med.-High Impact Wood Med.-High Impact Wood Med.-High Impact Wood Med.-High Impact Wood Med.-High Impact Wood Med.-High Impact Wood Med.-High Impact Wood Med.-High Impact Wood Med.-High Impact Wood Med.-High Impact Wood Med.-High Impact Wood Med.-High Impact Wood Med.-High Impact Wood Med.-High Impact Wood Med.-High Impact Wood Med.-High Impact Wood Med.-High Impact Wood Med.-High Impact Wood Med.-High Impact Wood Med.-High Impact Moabi I Blue gum I Angelique I Makore I Kauri I Mersawa I Yang I Agba I Limba I Bubinga I Mahogani, African I Iroko I Meranti I Utile I Dibetou I Afzelia I Sapelli I Movigui I Afrormosia I Idigbo I Name Type >25y <5y 15y-25y >25y 10y-15y 5y-10y 10y-15y 15y-25y 5y-10y 15y-25y 10y-15y >25y 15y-25y 15y-25y 10y-15y >25y 10y-15y 10y-15y >25y 15y-25y Total (Pts) 3.5600 3.7200 4.7300 4.8300 5.1800 5.1900 5.2100 5.2300 5.2500 5.6100 5.8600 5.9100 5.9400 5.9600 6.0200 6.1000 6.2300 6.2500 6.2800 6.3800 Human Health Pts 0.0381 0.0483 0.0259 0.0400 0.0391 0.0284 0.0273 0.0497 0.0346 0.0395 0.0416 0.0528 0.0546 0.039 0.0412 0.0391 0.0394 0.0348 0.047 0.0436 % 1.07% 1.30% 0.55% 0.83% 0.75% 0.55% 0.52% 0.95% 0.66% 0.70% 0.71% 0.89% 0.92% 0.65% 0.68% 0.64% 0.63% 0.56% 0.75% 0.68% Ecosystem Quality Pts 3.4900 3.6300 4.6700 4.7500 5.1000 5.1300 5.1500 5.1300 5.1800 5.5300 5.7800 5.8100 5.8400 5.8800 5.9400 6.0200 6.1500 6.1800 6.1800 6.2900 % 98.03% 97.58% 98.73% 98.34% 98.46% 98.84% 98.85% 98.09% 98.67% 98.57% 98.63% 98.31% 98.32% 98.66% 98.67% 98.69% 98.72% 98.88% 98.41% 98.59% Resources Pts 0.038 0.0455 0.0323 0.0407 0.0417 0.0329 0.031 0.0499 0.035 0.0393 0.0419 0.0513 0.053 0.0391 0.0413 0.0395 0.0393 0.0353 0.0461 0.0443 % 1.07% 1.22% 0.68% 0.84% 0.81% 0.63% 0.60% 0.95% 0.67% 0.70% 0.72% 0.87% 0.89% 0.66% 0.69% 0.65% 0.63% 0.56% 0.73% 0.69%

5400 8.2200 0.-High Impact Wood Med.04% 99.9600 8.5000 7.2400 7.0348 0.0398 % 0.0430 0.54% 0.51% 0.4500 8.4400 7.4400 6.53% 0.4500 7.-High Impact Wood Med.56% 0.46% 0.47% 0.0257 0.6300 8.54% 0.1900 8.0489 0.00% 98.3300 8.47% 0.0400 8.40% 0.5400 6.0481 0.05% 7.92% 99.35% 0.0415 0.47% 0.47% 0.90% 99.95% 98.7900 8.91% 98.3700 6.0328 0.47% 0.8500 9.86% 99.35% 0.74% .0366 0.0389 0.0455 0.0263 0.54% 0.61% 0.Appendix B13-B16: Environmental Impact of Woods in Damage Categories Material Cases Group Wood Med.5368 0.0512 0.0353 0.05% 98.60% 0.0296 0.57% 0.2500 7.36% 0.5400 7.0423 0.7500 5.1000 8.0513 0.0274 0.0417 0.7700 9.4600 6.51% 0.0462 0.0388 % 0.92% 0.0424 0.-High Impact Wood Med.0416 0.53% 0.53% 0. American I Padouk.0281 0.9995 18.0292 0.20% 98.81% 99.43% 0.62% 0.0449 0.0455 0.-High Impact Wood High Impact Wood High Impact Wood High Impact Wood High Impact Wood High Impact Wood High Impact Wood High Impact Wood High Impact Wood High Impact Wood High Impact Wood High Impact Wood High Impact Wood High Impact Carapa I Paranapine I Purpleheart I Mansonia I Mahogany.1200 99.4200 8.0291 0.08% 98.2000 7.57% 0.4800 6.10% 98.56% Human Health Pts 0.38% 0.6700 5.39% 0.0308 0.-High Impact Wood Med.3400 8.34% 99.2500 8.4588 % 98.3900 6.31% 99.62% 0.0417 0.-High Impact Wood Med.-High Impact Wood Med.0431 0.56% 0.54% Resources Pts 0.56% 7.0309 0.56% 0.0462 0.72% Ecosystem Quality Pts 6.1800 7.81% 98. African I Tiama I Niangon I Aningre I Mutenye I Wawa I Tchitola I Koto I Kotibe I Mengkulang I Peroba I Bosse clair I Name Type 10y-15y 5y-10y 10y-15y 15y-25y Average STDEV CV 10y-15y 5y-10y 15y-25y >25y 15y-25y >25y 10y-15y 10y-15y 5y-10y 10y-15y <5y 10y-15y <5y Total (Pts) 6.6900 8.0365 0.55% 0.44% 0.5800 7.17% 99.0456 0.0389 0.

9000 11.28% 0.06% 99.51% 0.19% 99.40% 0.76% Human Health Pts 0.5627 16.4000 10.53% 0.46% 0.12% 99.Appendix B13-B16: Environmental Impact of Woods in Damage Categories Material Cases Group Wood High Impact Wood High Impact Wood High Impact Wood High Impact Wood High Impact Wood High Impact Wood High Impact Wood High Impact Wood High Impact Wood High Impact Wood High Impact Wood High Impact Wood High Impact Wood High Impact Canaria I Palissander.0339 0.0491 0.45% .5000 11.0268 0.0451 0.4100 9.28% 0.0489 0.3263 1.40% 0.3000 9.0283 0.0453 0.0499 0.40% 0.3000 11.6000 10.3100 9.0294 0.0322 0.0000 11.0424 0.7000 11.2000 11.46% 0.8000 12.14% 99.0353 0.0397 % 0.43% Ecosystem Quality Pts 9.0295 0.31% 0.06% 99.15% 99.08% Resources Pts 0.0417 % 0.0423 0.5000 10.51% 0.0532 0.2408 % 98.0493 0.4400 9.40% 0.0455 0.0487 0. Indisch I Abura I Ilomba I Antiaris I Okoume I Baboen I Olon I Cottonwood I Wenge I Emeri I Name Type <5y >25y <5y 15y-25y <5y 5y-10y <5y 10y-15y <5y 15y-25y 5y-10y Average STDEV CV Total (Pts) 9.09% 99.6000 11.28% 0.0315 0.3000 10.4000 9.27% 0.5900 10.7000 12.6000 10.0497 0.40% 0.47% 99.0530 0.04% 99.0492 0.31% 0.4900 9.53% 0.27% 0.51% 0.51% 0.24% 0.39% 0.07% 99.94% 99.5000 10.

0273 5.76% 0.4E-02 1.3E-06 0.28% Land use (Pts) Minerals (Pts) Fossil fuels (Pts) 9.3E-03 3.6E-04 5.4E-04 5.0495 6.4E-03 4.02% 9. Climate Radiagens organics inorganics change tion (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) 2.6E-03 1.2E-06 14.48% 1.07% 1.3E-03 3.4E-07 0 2.4E-03 7.2E-03 2.2E-03 0 0 0 0 0.1E-06 3.7E-06 2.0E-02 2.5E-09 9.6E-06 6.0505 5.5E-02 2.8E-03 2.6E-04 1.6E-04 4.3E-04 6.2E-02 9.5E-06 0.2E-10 3.08% 0.28% 2.0E-03 0 4.0568 4.4E-04 1.01% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0652 7.6E-02 1.7E-05 0.44% 4.05% 1.08% 9.3E-02 3.9E-03 5.4E-05 9.4E-03 1.0280 2.7E-08 0 0 0.7E-07 2.7E-02 2.6E-05 0.6E-02 58.6E-05 0.1E-03 3.3E-10 4.4E-06 0.3E-03 1.2E-02 3.6E-05 7.36% 0.0194 8.6E-03 0 0 0 Ozone Ecotoxi.6E-03 4.0571 6.1E-03 0.9E-02 1.9E-02 2.1E-08 3.0E-02 1.5E-05 0.3E-06 2.30% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9E-05 2.58% 1.9E-02 3.Appendix C1 & C2: Environmental Impact of Glass and Ceramic Materials in Impact Categories Material Cases Name Ceramics I Ceramic (fine) Stoneware I Ceramics ETH T Porcelain I Average Contibution to total (%) Glass (brown) B250 Glass (green) B250 Glass (white) B250 Glass oil-fired bj Glass gas-fired bj Glass (virgin) Average Contibution to total (%) Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Group Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Total (Pts) Carcino Resp.00% 0.3E-06 9.6E-05 0.6E-02 45.6E-05 1.6E-05 8.0E-03 1.3E-06 0.3E-06 2.3E-03 3.08% 0.3E-05 7.0E-04 2.6E-03 6.6E-09 2.Acidification/ layer city Eutrophication (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) 2.1E-03 4.4E-07 3.0269 3.3E-03 2.01% 2.00% 0.5E-05 5.4E-03 5.20% 0.6E-04 5.6E-04 5.2E-03 3.5E-05 2.0E-03 8.9E-03 3.05% .00% 2.0238 0 9.00% 0.3E-09 0.2E-05 0.1E-04 6.4E-09 0 0 7.9E-02 1.7E-03 1.8E-02 1.0603 0 0 0 0 1.5E-06 1.9E-03 1.3E-04 3.6E-05 2.4E-03 1.1E-02 1.4E-03 1.3E-05 7.0E-02 1. Resp.0579 0.2E-04 6.7E-03 17.9E-09 0 3.3E-03 4.6E-06 5.0E-02 34.9E-07 1.3E-03 3.0E-03 4.8E-02 2.2E-03 1.0384 1.4E-03 9.1E-03 6.

0011 0.61E-08 9.0191 0.0721) I Name Total (Pts) 0.0030 0.0030 0.0058 0.37E-08 1.82E-05 0.0059 0.82E-05 0.0191 0.0187 0.02E-05 0.0058 0.0059 0.0055 0.79E-05 0.06E-03 3.01E-07 3.0012 0.0102 0.0055 0.06E-03 3.0202 0.Acidification / Eutrophicity cation (Pts) (Pts) 1.0018 Fossil fuels (Pts) 0.0057 0.04E-05 0.0191 0.82E-05 0.0055 0.0016 3.0252 0.33E-03 1.0675 Carcino Resp.0011 0.0016 3.02E-05 0.0013 0.0032 0.01E-07 1.19E-03 3.0055 0. Climate gens organics inorganics change (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) 0.0239 0.0056 0.0059 0.0252 0.0253 0.0664 0.02E-05 0.02E-05 0.61E-08 9.0249 0.0304 0.00E-03 0.79E-05 0.0528 0.22E-03 3.0056 0.0016 3.0252 0.0056 0.0056 0.0032 .0726) I GGG40 I GGG60 I 10SPb20 (1.0059 0.0056 0.0239 0.0629 0.0205 0.0057 0.75E-05 0.92E-05 1.0191 0.00E-03 3.0058 0.01E-07 1.0629 0.0017 4.82E-05 0.0671 0.0032 0.0024 0.0059 0.0059 0.0384 0.0621 0.0016 3.0001 1.0017 4.0009 0.0025 0.01E-07 1.06E-03 3.0629 0.0200 0.0239 0.0025 0.0055 0.0346) I C15 I C60 I C55 I 35S20 (1.06E-03 3.0002 1.06E-03 3.0012 0.0191 0.0012 0.0032 0.0012 0.0349 0.0629 0.0102 0.82E-05 0.0199 0.0252 0.23E-03 Land use (Pts) 0.0671 0.39E-08 9.02E-07 1.0011 0.Appendix C3-C5: Environmental Impact of Ferrous Materials in Impact Categories Material Cases Group No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro Steel bj Iron GS-70 I St13 I Fe520 I Fe470 I Fe360 I St14 I S355J2G1W I Steel I ASt35 (1.0239 0. Resp.0011 0.0011 0.0644 0.0056 0.0011 0.0664 0.48E-03 1.0030 0.0205 2.77E-05 9.61E-08 1.82E-05 0.0016 3.0055 0.0017 4.0574 0.15E-03 0.0661 0.0032 0.0002 1.0660 0.22E-03 3.24E-03 1.0235 0.48E-03 3.02E-05 0.0015 3.0202 0.0054 0.0024 0.0239 0.0107 0.61E-08 9.0012 0.0016 3.0239 0.0030 0.0017 4.06E-03 3.0629 0.42E-07 2.01E-07 0.37E-08 3.0107 0.02E-05 0.0191 0.22E-03 3.0017 4.61E-08 9.0032 0.58E-07 4.0059 0.0017 4.0129 0.0030 0.0059 Minerals (Pts) 0.0010 0.36E-03 3.0669 0.0030 0.22E-03 3.0001 0.0062 0.0011 0.0011 0.0253 0.0629 0.0191 0.0002 0.0125 0.0030 0.0384 0.0013 0.0017 4.0056 0.0002 1.01E-07 1.0058 Radiation (Pts) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Ozone layer (Pts) Ecotoxi.61E-08 9.0032 0.0055 0.

30E-03 3.0218 0.0017 4.0059 0.0059 0.31E-03 Land use (Pts) 0.0039 Fossil fuels (Pts) 0.0013 0.06E-05 0.0260 0.04E-05 0.0060 0.29E-03 3.0068 0.0013 0.04E-05 0.0258 0.0060 0.0717 0.0259 0.0017 4.0016 4.0264 0.0067 0.0221 0.0062 0.0014 0.02E-07 1.0062 0.0235 0.0697 0.0064 0.0694 0.0032 0.40E-03 3.0032 0.02E-07 Ecotoxi.0012 0.0017 4.0032 0.0034 0.0059 0.04E-05 0.0239 0.0016 4.0264 0.0088 Minerals (Pts) 0.0058 0.0730 0.0062 0.0257 0.0689 0.0219 0.0059 0.0061 0.06E-05 0.03E-07 1.0016 4.0271 0.0259 0.0013 0.0063 0.39E-05 0.0228 0.03E-07 1.03E-05 0.0058 0.0006 4.0227 0.29E-03 3.95E-08 9.0012 0.0100 0.0060 0.03E-07 1.0002 1.05E-05 0.0083 0.36E-03 3.64E-03 3.0259 0.0062 0.0064 0.0759 0.30E-03 3.0017 4.0701 0.05E-07 9.0063 Radiation (Pts) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Ozone layer (Pts) 1.29E-03 3.0225 0.26E-03 3.0255 0.0017 4.0765 Carcino Resp.0225 0.0017 4.0235 0.30E-03 3.81E-05 0.0718) I GGG70 I 38Si6 I 15Cr3 I 67SiCr5 I Crude iron I GS-45.02E-05 0.0214 0.0059 0.0032 0.0262 0.0032 3.0016 4.0059 0.96E-08 9.0032 0.0059 0.03E-05 0.0017 4.0026 0.32E-03 3.Acidification / Eutrophicity cation (Pts) (Pts) 0.Appendix C3-C5: Environmental Impact of Ferrous Materials in Impact Categories Material Cases Group No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro Name 9SMnPb (1. Climate gens organics inorganics change (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) 0.0016 4.0062 0.99E-08 1.03E-07 1.0032 0.0706 0.0698 0.06E-05 0.0032 0.0695 0.0013 0.0231 0.0032 0.07E-05 0.0109 0.0259 0.0744 0.31E-03 3.0083 0.0724 0.0032 0.0014 0.0759 0.0268 0.05E-05 0.99E-08 1.0016 4.0032 0.0242 0.0016 4.02E-07 1.0752 0.0020 0.0257 0.0694 0.0012 0.0014 0.27E-03 3.0032 0.0062 0.01E-07 3.0013 0.0062 0.0014 0.23E-03 1.0220 0.94E-08 9.0066 0.0032 0.03E-05 0.0686 0.03E-05 0.0210 0.01E-07 1.3 I 55Si7 I 37MnSi5 I 42MnV7 I 42CrMo4 I 34Cr4 I 50 CrV4 I GS-22Mo4 I 50CrV4 I A517b I 22Mo4 I A514(A) I Total (Pts) 0.0049 0.03E-05 0.0032 0.03E-07 1.0385 0.51E-03 3.33E-03 3.0682 0.0254 0.0016 4.0012 0.0261 0.0025 0.04E-05 0.0017 4.45E-08 9.0032 0.36E-03 3.02E-07 1.0061 0.0032 0.0258 0. Resp.0035 0.0110 0.0258 0.0065 0.0061 0.0233 .0025 0.

10E-05 1.43E-03 2.0092 0.0087 x x x 6.0041 0.0220 4.0049 0.0065 0.09E-05 0.0081 0.0169 0.02E-07 2.0012 3.0021 3.0784 0.04E-07 1.0076 0.0214 0.0346 0.0065 0.0871 0.0030 0.0049 0. Climate gens organics inorganics change (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) 0.0069 0.0015 0.89E-05 0.0379 0.10E-07 0.24E-07 1.0073 0.0067 0.0014 x 0.7335) I Tin plate bj C35 I Steel ETH T X30Cr13 (~420) I 21MoV53 I X12Cr13 (416) I X7CrAl13 (405) I X6Cr17 (430) I Crude iron ETH T Name Total (Pts) 0.0314 0.0988 0.0103 0.10E-05 0.0112 2.0263 0.0118 0.0269 0.0183 Fossil fuels (Pts) 0.06E-05 0.0858 0.79E-06 1.0089 0.24E-05 0.0022 0.0018 0.06E-05 0.35E-03 2.0071 0.08E-05 0.0140 0.44E-03 3.0059 0.0032 0.86E-06 1.0242 0.0017 0.0168 3.0060 0.0343 0.0024 0.0043 0.97E-03 3.1040 0.0075 0.0340 0.0007 0.0015 0.0202 0.0353 0.0240 0.0876 0.20E-05 0.24E-05 0.0065 0.0866 0.0012 3.0947 ECCS steel sheet X20Cr13 (420) I X90CrCoMoV17 I 0.12E-05 1.0022 0.34E-03 3.0262 0.0424 0.0134 0.0139 0.96E-03 2.0066 Radiation (Pts) x x x x x x x Ozone layer (Pts) 9.0032 0.0050 0.0240 0.04E-07 1.0156 0.0032 0.0279 0.0013 3.0108 2.0318 0.0016 3.04E-07 1.0031 1.0021 0.02E-07 1.0022 0.0022 0.07E-05 0.0020 4.0032 0.0046 0.0019 0.0236 0.18E-05 0.Appendix C3-C5: Environmental Impact of Ferrous Materials in Impact Categories Material Cases Group No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro 9S20 I 25CrMo4 I A517a I 34CrAl6 I 13CrMo4 5 (1.0193 0.0016 4.35E-03 3. Resp.0020 0.0233 0.15E-03 Land use (Pts) 0.0318 0.53E-03 3.0032 0.0872 0.0788 0.0236 0.54E-03 2.0012 3.0100 Minerals (Pts) 0.0155 0.06E-03 3.81E-08 1.0244 0.0109 0.87E-03 1.0263 0.0009 0.0134 0.0780 0.0086 0.28E-03 3.Acidification / Eutrophicity cation (Pts) (Pts) 0.0018 0.0266 0.0032 0.0216 0.0031 0.0133 0.0012 3.17E-07 1.0081 x x x x x 1.0235 0.16E-05 0.0017 4.10E-07 Converter steel ETH T 0.47E-03 3.0125 0.04E-07 1.14E-05 0.0859 0.0049 0.0217 0.57E-03 2.63E-05 1.0012 3.0098 4.1070 .0225 0.0017 4.0767 0.05E-05 0.0264 4.0238 0.0921 0.0258 0.72E-03 1.0174 0.0062 0.16E-05 0.16E-05 0.0066 0.16E-05 0.0158 0.0836 0.03E-03 1.72E-05 0.33E-05 0.0271 0.0240 0.04E-07 Ecotoxi.0118 0.0253 0.0017 4.95E-03 3.0016 4.02E-03 0.98E-05 0.0075 0.0880 0.03E-07 3.0927 Carcino Resp.0267 5.

10E-07 1.1160 0.0069 8.0050 0.0017 4.0121 5.1210 0.0423 0.0564 0.0016 4.55E-05 1.0060 0.21E-07 1.0021 0.0179 0.0016 4.Appendix C3-C5: Environmental Impact of Ferrous Materials in Impact Categories Material Cases Group No Ni ferro No Ni ferro No Ni ferro Name Steel low alloy ETH T X10Cr13 (mart 410) I X90CrMoV18 (440B) I Average Contibution to total (%) Low Ni Ferro X35CrMo17 I Low Ni Ferro 28NiCrMo4 I Low Ni Ferro GX12Cr14 (CA15) I Low Ni Ferro 15NiMn6 (1.0324 0.1270 0.0050 0.0082 0.05% Land use (Pts) 0.40E-05 0.00% 0.1490 0.0030 0.0115 0.0085 0.0017 4.6228) I Low Ni Ferro GS-10Ni6 I Low Ni Ferro 36NiCr6 I Low Ni Ferro X22CrNi17 (431) I Low Ni Ferro 18NiCr8 I Low Ni Ferro 30CrNiMo8 I Low Ni Ferro 14NiCr14 I Low Ni Ferro 35NiCr18 I Average Contibution to total (%) 0.0012 3.0016 4.0032 0.0225 0.0029 1.21% Fossil fuels (Pts) 0.0423 0.38% 0.0031 0.0531 0.91% Radiation (Pts) Ozone layer (Pts) Ecotoxi.0022 0.17E-05 0.1350 0.0174 0.99E-05 0.1110 0.0369 0.1481 Total (Pts) 0.0060 0.00% 1.12% 0.53% 0.0065 0.0012 3.0225 0.2060 0.0351 23.28E-05 0.0332 0.0756 0.0093 6.08E-07 1.04E-07 1.06% x x x x x x x x x x x 0 0.0606 0.11E-07 0.0012 3.0078 0.0259 5.0129 0.0695 46.0618 0.0102 0.1160 0.91E-03 4.0216 0.0058 0.0012 3.08E-03 0.05E-07 1.0032 0.0055 0.01% 0.0049 0.0248 32.1080 0.0142 0.71% 0.0131 0.0364 0.0100 0.0166 11.31% x x 1.0753 0.0056 0.0021 0.0274 0.0103 0.0086 0.0031 0.95% 0. Resp.0209 0.0608 0.20E-05 0.0274 0.0467 0.0239 31.23E-05 0.0134 0.80E-05 0.0035 4.0072 4.0060 0.67E-05 0.00% 0.0772 Carcino Resp.0016 4.13E-07 1.13E-07 3.0021 0.1350 0.0034 4.0065 0.49E-05 0.0139 0.40E-05 0.03% .0031 0.0059 0.16E-07 1.0031 0.0116 0.14% 0.0291 0.1250 0.1250 0.0374 0.1620 0.0017 4.0030 3.0268 0.0060 4.13E-05 0.0347 0.88% Minerals (Pts) 0.18E-05 0.0017 4.1520 0.0154 0.0271 0.31E-05 0.59% 0.0059 7.0001 0.18E-05 0.0635 0.0053 0.17E-07 1.08E-07 1.0059 0.0102 0.0056 0.13E-07 1.1140 0.0251 0.0024 0.07E-07 1.60E-05 1.86% 0.0088 0.21E-06 1.0012 3.0262 0.2430 0.0058 7.0095 0.0105 0.0604 0.00E-03 4.63E-05 0.08E-07 1.0032 0.03% 3.0022 0.0031 0.Acidification / Eutrophicity cation (Pts) (Pts) 0.0099 0.0427 0.0098 0.0060 0.0015 1.0087 0. Climate gens organics inorganics change (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) 0.0054 0.0024 0.0078 0.0075 0.0042 0.92% 1.0144 0.56% 0.0107 0.28E-05 0.

0018 0.0139 0.1260 0.0018 0.0171 0.0572 0.0590 0.59E-05 0.0019 0.0529 0.0049 0.0168 0.4780 0.48E-07 1.0164 0.0962 0.0049 0.0321 0.0011 3.0140 0.0024 0.0002 2.21E-08 1.6620 0.1350 0.0018 0.49E-07 2.88E-05 0.0790 0.0740 0.2200 0.0855 0.Appendix C3-C5: Environmental Impact of Ferrous Materials in Impact Categories Material Cases Group Name Total (Pts) 0.0168 0.0113 2.40% 0.0010 4.6020 0.0152 0.0049 0.0010 0.92E-05 0.0011 3.0780 0.01E-07 1.94E-05 0.0653 0.0011 3.0343 0.0205 0.4010 0.0877 0.0483 0.0155 0.Acidification / Eutrophicity cation (Pts) (Pts) 0.0011 3.0241 0.4010 0.0049 0.4150 0. Climate gens organics inorganics change (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) 0.0657 0.33E-07 7. Resp.2350 0.0605 0.44E-07 1.0605 0.0168 0.0188 0.0029 0.4531 .0020 0.0186 0.2419 53.0011 3.3690 0.04E-05 0.0152 0.88E-05 0.0935 0.49% Minerals (Pts) 0.30E-08 1.0223 4.0691 15.2180 0.0168 3.91% Radiation (Pts) x x x x x x x x x x x x x 0 0.47E-05 0.1630 0.0308 0.5020 0.3990 0.0285 0.71% Land use (Pts) 0.0872 0.78E-05 0.0059 0.0027 0.0129 0.0014 5.07E-05 0.0861 0.88E-05 0.0558 0.31E-08 7.0027 0.3390 0.0011 0.0174 0.4070 0.0605 0.81E-05 0.0527 0.0220 0.0814 0.44E-07 1.2540 0.0013 5.0790 0.0002 2.73E-07 1.22% 4.0200 0.39% 0.0184 0.2180 0.2420 0.39E-07 1.0016 4.25% Fossil fuels (Pts) 0.0152 0.0017 0.2870 0.0135 0.97E-05 0.00% Ecotoxi.0011 0.4530 Carcino Resp.2010 0.0011 4.41E-07 1.0643 0.33E-07 0.0199 0.4670 High Ni Ferro X5CrNiMo18 (316) I High Ni Ferro X12CrNi 18 9 I High Ni Ferro X10CrNiMoNb I High Ni Ferro GS-X40CrNiSi 25 12 I Average Contibution to total (%) 0.2600 0.88E-05 0.0300 0.0023 0.0018 0.0386 0.0003 2.0067 0.0018 0.1990 0.62% High Ni Ferro GGL-NiCuCr I High Ni Ferro X10CrNiS (303) I High Ni Ferro GX5CrNi19 10 (CF8) I High Ni Ferro X6CrNi18 (~304) I High Ni Ferro X5CrNi18 (304) I High Ni Ferro X8Ni9 I High Ni Ferro GGG-NiCr I High Ni Ferro GGG-NiSiCr I High Ni Ferro X2CrNiMo1712 (316L) I 0.0017 0.86E-05 0.2180 0.2540 0.44E-07 1.0889 19.0213 0.0200 0.00% Ozone layer (Pts) 6.3340 0.01% 0.0011 0.

Mn & their alloys Ferrochromium I Al.0609 0.79E-08 0.0001 0.0001 0.1230 0.0117 0.0044 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 1.0010 6.0121 0.0581 0. Mg. Zn.0206 0.1510 0.0000 8.0521 0.1540 0.5600 0.04E-05 0.0430 0.0001 0.0275 0.06E-05 0.2660 0.5310 0.0031 2.0000 0.0573 0.1020 0.0606 Radiation (Pts) Ozone Ecotoxi.0103 0.0117 0.0115 Land use (Pts) 0.0453 0. Mg. Zn.0276 Minerals (Pts) 0.0450 0.0116 0.0949 0.0112 0.0266 0.0113 0.0100 0.0094 0.0055 0.1450 0.0001 0.0273 0. Mn & their alloys AlSiMgMn (6009) I Al.0153 0. Mg.0000 0.86E-06 0.0129 0.0000 0.2280 Al.1480 0. Zn.0220 4.0193 0.5240 0.87E-06 0. Mn & their alloys G-AlSi7Mg (Thixo) I Al. Zn.2Mg1 (3004) I Al.33E-07 0.0078 0.5450 0. Mn & their alloys AlMn1 (3003) I 0.0275 0.45E-06 0.0007 0.0996 0.0957 0.74E-06 0.1540 0. Mn & their alloys Zinc (super plastic) I Al.0108 0.0119 0.0731 0.0240 0. Mg. Mg.0606 0.0000 0.0485 0.61E-06 0.0115 0.5590 0.35E-05 0.0117 0.0001 0.3960 0.0553 0.0001 0. Zn.0001 4.4230 0. Zn.0088 0. Mn & their alloys Manganese ETH T Al.4190 0.0035 1.0626 0.0941 0. Mn & their alloys AlMgSi0.2220 0.0092 0. Zn.0001 0.3330 0.1010 0.0001 0.69E-06 0.3910 0.0273 0.0001 0.0248 0. Mn & their alloys Silicon I Al. Mn & their alloys G-AlSi12 (230) I Al.0290 0.5610 0.0113 0. Mg.0973 0.0446 0. Mn & their alloys Lead I Al.1540 0.0431 0. Mn & their alloys AlMg3 (5754a) I Al.0874 0.0310 0.0450 0.2130 0. Mn & their alloys G-ZnAlCu I Al.0455 Fossil fuels (Pts) 0.0064 0.0252 0. Mg. Mg.0120 0.0108 0.0116 0.12E-08 0.0291 0.0797 0. Zn. Zn.0010 3.71E-06 0.0001 0. Mg.0008 0.0104 0.0786 0. Zn. Zn. Mg.2280 0. Zn.0090 0. Zn. Mg.3760 0.1070 0.1550 0.0208 0.1150 0.0556 0.2740 0.06E-06 0.62E-06 0.0683 0.4020 0.0610 0.2140 0.0147 0. Mn & their alloys Zamak5 I Al.2580 0.7 (6005) I Al.2200 0.0209 0.0000 0.0001 0. Zn.0057 0.1110 0.1190 0. Zn.1520 0.1460 0.05E-05 0.5370 0.0205 0.0271 0.0237 0. Mn & their alloys Zamak3 I Al.1360 0.0000 0.0033 1.0221 0.0043 0.1490 0.0255 0.0086 0.1140 0. Mg.0001 0. Climate Carcinog Resp. Mg.2280 0.1260 0.0117 0.0034 1.0591 0.2500 0. Zn.0223 4.0087 0. Mn & their alloys AlMn1.0598 0.0001 0.0068 0.0001 0.0001 0.0034 1.0255 0.0295 0.0262 0.0031 9.0116 0.0226 5.04E-05 0. Zn. Mn & their alloys G-AlSi12Cu (231) I Al.0186 4. Mn & their alloys Aluminium raw bj Al. Mg.0001 0. Mn & their alloys ZnCuTi I Al.0307 9. Mg.0007 6.1250 0.4350 0. Zn. Mg.0033 9. Zn.0253 0.2290 0.0294 0.5300 0. Mg.Acidification/ layer city Eutrophication (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) 0.0000 0.0962 0.Appendix C6-C8:Environmental Impact of Non-ferrous Materials in Impact Categories Material Cases Group Name Total (Pts) 0.01E-06 0.0537 0.5610 Resp.0263 0. Mn & their alloys Zinc I Al.0294 0. Mg. ens organics inorganics change (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) 0.0035 .0297 0.0216 x 0. Mg.

0104 3.0281 0. Mg.0611 0.0616 0. Zn.1880 0. Zn.1560 0.0270 0.2340 0.2310 0.0266 0.6390 0.0034 1.0268 x 0.0243 Land use (Pts) 0.95E-06 0. Mn & their alloys AlCuMg2 (2024) I Al.36E-07 0.0127 0.0278 0.0001 0. Mg.0035 1.0032 9.0837 0.0116 0.0036 1.1650 0.0275 0.0977 Radiation (Pts) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Ozone Ecotoxi.0790 0. Zn.0001 0.0119 0.1810 0. Mn & their alloys G-AlMg5 (314) I Al.5Mn (5182) I Al.0247 0.03E-05 0. Mn & their alloys AlCuMg1 (2017) I Al.0034 6.0026 0.2970 Al.2310 0.5610 0.0033 1.0001 0.0823 0.0022 0.0446 0.08E-06 0.3330 0. Mg.5 (6060) I Al.2950 0.0117 0.0008 0.6040 0. Mn & their alloys G-AlCu4TiMg (204) I Al.0252 0.0279 0.5650 0.59E-06 0.0600 0.0001 0.0275 0.0286 0.1550 0.2290 0. Mn & their alloys G-MgAl6Zn3 I .0001 0. Mg.0280 0. Mg.2160 0.Acidification/ layer city Eutrophication (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) 1.5780 0.0599 0.0034 9.0611 0. Zn. Climate Carcinog Resp.0623 0.0056 0.0326 0.0048 9.0911 0.6590 Resp. Zn.2520 x 0. Mg. Zn.2290 0.81E-05 0. Zn.0139 0.0669 0.0001 0. Mg.0151 0.0295 0.0001 9. Mn & their alloys Chromium I Al.2220 0. Zn. Mg.33E-07 0.1680 0. Mg.0004 0. Zn.05E-06 0.0977 0. Mg.0441 0.0141 0.Appendix C6-C8:Environmental Impact of Non-ferrous Materials in Impact Categories Material Cases Group Name Total (Pts) 0.0583 0.0557 0.0001 0.0609 0.0298 0.0276 0. Zn.6560 0.5640 0. Mg.0116 0.0126 0.0614 0.2300 0. Mg. Zn. Zn.0001 0.2280 0.07E-05 0.02E-05 0.1760 0. Zn.0454 0. Mn & their alloys AlCuSiMg (2036) I Al. Zn. Mn & their alloys AlMgSi0.06E-05 0.1420 0. Mn & their alloys Al99 I Al.2550 0.2290 0.2240 0.1380 0.6060 0.2290 0.1690 0.5640 0.0057 Fossil fuels (Pts) 0.0033 3. Mn & their alloys G-AlSi8Cu3 (380) I Al.0298 0.6290 0. Mn & their alloys Aluminium ingots B250 Al.0001 0.0441 0.0034 9.0137 0.0271 0.0137 0.0310 0.0596 0. Mg.0459 0. Zn. Mg.0289 0.6490 0.1920 0.0295 0.0028 9. Zn.1810 0.1560 0. Mn & their alloys MgZn6Zr I Al.0033 9.0278 0.01E-04 0.0595 0. Mg.6400 0.0111 1.0001 0.0437 0.0107 0. ens organics inorganics change (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) 0.0000 0.2490 0.0614 0.0001 0.0001 0.0009 0.5770 0. Mn & their alloys AlCuMgPb (2011) I Al. Mn & their alloys G-AlMg3 (242) I Al. Mn & their alloys AlZnCuMg (7075) I Al.2300 0.0293 0.0240 0.0454 0.0035 1.0001 0.0122 0.0280 0. Mn & their alloys AlMg1 (5005) I Al.0276 0.0121 0.0129 0. Mg.0001 0.1920 0.0283 0. Mg. Mg.86E-06 0.0040 1.0267 0.0004 0. Zn.1570 0.06E-05 0.0676 0.5640 0.2240 0.0686 0.0061 Minerals (Pts) 0. Mn & their alloys Aluminium foil B250 Al. Mn & their alloys Cadmium I Al.0582 0.0600 0.52E-06 0.1170 0. Mn & their alloys AlMg4.0001 0.0000 0.5930 0.33E-07 0.1920 0.0295 0. Mg.0051 0.0270 0.2290 0.6120 0.1760 0.0140 0.0001 0.0679 0.0676 0. Zn.5980 0. Zn.0153 0.0132 0.86E-06 0.5680 0.00E-05 0.0033 9.0296 0.0141 0.01E-05 0.

0047 0.19E-08 0. Mn & their alloys G-MgAl9Zn2 I Al.0985 0.2250 0.25E-06 0. Zn. Ti.2310 0.97E-07 0.77E-07 0.0012 0.5500 1.0244 0.0000 0.5990 Fossil fuels (Pts) 0. V.5 I Al.0000 0.6640 0.63% 0.0041 0.0122 2.0060 0.0000 0.0148 2.0057 0. Mg. Ni.0015 x 0.8900 0. Zn.6640 0.39E-06 0.3000 0.8580 0.0002 1. Mg.0245 4. Ni.0033 0.0124 2.0017 x 0.6600 0.89% x x x x x x 0. Zn.43E-06 0.0115 8.6540 0.0001 0.0989 0.0000 0.3040 0.0502 0.0000 2.0046 0.6640 0.0065 0.0003 0.0002 0.2340 0. Ni.0028 0.1250 0.0012 0.0340 0.0046 0. Ti.3040 0. Mn & their alloys MgMn1.0061 0.3020 0.0025 0. Zn.2200 Al.85% 0.0001 0.5620 0.0612 10.2280 0. Mn & their alloys G-MgAl8Zn1 I Al. ens organics inorganics change (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) 0.0975 0.3000 0. Mn & their alloys Magnesium I 1.0000 0. Ti. Mo& their alloysCuZn40Pb I Cu.0440 0.0000 0.0440 0.0000 0.Appendix C6-C8:Environmental Impact of Non-ferrous Materials in Impact Categories Material Cases Group Name Total (Pts) 0.6320 0.0020 1. Mg.2260 0.0124 2.0496 0.6810 0.0496 0.1010 0.0000 0.0024 0. Mg.6630 0.5860 0. V.0000 0.0060 0.31E-06 0.0090 0. Climate Carcinog Resp.0000 0. Ti.0480 0.0426 0. Mg.0987 0. Zn.0249 0. Mg.0385 0.0061 0.2260 0.0001 0.0000 0.2250 0.0016 8. Ni. Mg.54% 0.43E-06 0.2960 0.0990 0.0242 0. Mn & their alloys AM503 I Al.0005 1.0016 x 0. Mn & their alloys GD-MgAl9Zn1 I Al.0012 0. Mo& their alloysG-CuZn37Pb I Cu.0000 0.6650 0.02% 0.1930 0.0252 0. Mn & their alloys AM100A I Al.0348 0.0000 0.0035 0.8100 Al.2100 0.6100 1.4200 Al.0062 0.5750 0.0060 0.0000 0.66% 0.1000 0.0000 0. Ti. Ni.6540 0.37% 0. Zn.1657 29.0060 0.1010 0. Mn & their alloys Tungsten I Average Contibution to total (%) Cu.2150 0.0046 0. V. Mg.0130 0. Ti.35% 0.2290 0.2230 0.0000 0.0242 0. V.0445 0.3250 0.0000 0.2174 38.2150 0.2180 0.6690 Resp. Zn. Mn & their alloys MgAl6Zn I Al.0495 8.6650 0. Ni.0353 Radiation (Pts) x x x x x x x x x Ozone Ecotoxi.0252 0.0000 0.0350 0. Mn & their alloys Ni-pigmented aluminiumoxide ETH T 0.5900 1. Zn.0255 0.0245 0.3050 0.0348 0.0059 0.3000 0.1810 0.26E-06 0.0010 0. Zn.5750 0.25E-06 0. Mg.0053 0.5900 1.2170 0.0251 0.6630 0. Mo& their alloysVanadium I Cu.0035 0.1160 0. Mo& their alloysCuZn40 I Cu.00% 0.0066 0.Acidification/ layer city Eutrophication (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) 1. Mg.6650 0.2280 0.0000 0.0039 0.77% 0.55E-05 0.6200 1.0001 0.2160 0.5640 0. Zn.0456 Land use (Pts) 0. Mo& their alloysCuZn37 I 1.0044 0.17E-06 0.0056 1.0001 0.99% 2.6500 0.0016 9. Mn & their alloys MgAl3Zn I Al.0000 0.1020 0.0263 4.0136 x x 0.0012 4.64E-04 0.0000 0.0067 0. Mo& their alloysG-CuZn40 I Cu. Zn.38E-07 0.0296 0. V.0115 . Mg.2970 0.0514 Minerals (Pts) 0.0241 0.3000 0. V.

7800 1. V.0010 7. Mo& their alloysTitanium I Cu.2540 0.09E-07 0.0648 0.0002 0.0656 0.0704 0.2970 0. Mo& their alloysG-CuAl10Fe I Cu.0182 0.0002 0. Ti.0011 1.8910 0.0000 0.3600 2.2700 2.0002 0. Ti. Mo& their alloysCopper I Cu. Ti.85E-07 0. V.0509 Radiation (Pts) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Ozone Ecotoxi.0026 0. Ni.4780 0. V.2360 0.0521 0.8910 0.7490 0.0387 0.0093 8.2780 0.0000 0.57E-09 0.2470 0.0001 0.57E-09 0.4390 0.2750 0.57E-09 0.9300 1. Mo& their alloysCuAl5 I Cu. Ti.7730 0.6770 0.1700 2.0001 9. V. Ni.0000 0.68E-08 0.3600 2.0017 1.4400 1.0482 0. Ni.2300 0.0000 0. Ni.0686 0.4610 1.3600 2.0641 0. V.7300 1.0002 5.0001 0.8910 0. Ni.0011 0.0022 0.0000 0. Ni.Appendix C6-C8:Environmental Impact of Non-ferrous Materials in Impact Categories Material Cases Group Name Total (Pts) 1.0020 0. V. Mo& their alloysInvar I Cu.0047 1.0023 0.2340 0. Ti.82E-06 0.3550 1. V.0648 0.8340 0.9010 0.0411 0.2310 0.0033 0.2780 1.2900 1.1200 2. Ti.0012 1.2970 Cu.30E-06 0.0575 0.9500 2.7800 0.Acidification/ layer city Eutrophication (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) 3.0435 0.1300 1.0657 Minerals (Pts) 0.0026 7.0023 0.0036 0.0037 0.9750 1.2330 0.6540 0.0001 9.0652 0.29E-06 0. Mo& their alloysCuNi18Zn I Cu.0058 0.0002 0.0976 0. Ni.8790 0.9900 0.0006 1.9640 0. V. Mo& their alloysCuAg-E I Cu.0387 0.0018 0. Ni.8790 0.0671 0.0000 0.0575 0. V.0900 0.1600 0.2300 2.0740 0.2540 0. Ni.0400 0.0500 0. ens organics inorganics change (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) 0.0047 9.0585 0. Ni.0228 0.04E-07 0.0557 0. Ti. Mo& their alloysCuZn15 I Cu. V. V.28E-07 0.0788 0.29E-08 0.0000 1.27E-06 0. V. Ni. Mo& their alloysNiFe 50 50 I Cu.0624 0.0001 0.0700 2. Mo& their alloysCuNi10Fe I .0000 0.0000 0. Ti.0740 0.17E-07 0.0740 0.0006 6.4130 0.2210 0.8410 Fossil fuels (Pts) 0.0739 0.0411 0.0508 0. Mo& their alloysNi span C902 I Cu. Ti.21E-06 0.0152 0.0000 0. V.2770 0.0380 0.0046 0. V.0100 1.0056 0.0000 0.0656 0.1000 1.2400 2.69E-07 0.0000 0.0623 0.41E-07 0. Ti.0656 0.2770 0. Ni.0000 0.0524 0.17E-07 0.0732 Land use (Pts) 0. Ti.0430 0.0000 0. Mo& their alloysG-CuZn15 I Cu.0066 0.0756 0. Ti. Ni.0003 9. V.0411 0.0017 9.0700 2.3980 0. V. Climate Carcinog Resp. V. Ti. Mo& their alloysG-CuAl10Ni I Cu.0015 0. Mo& their alloysCuZn30 I Cu. Mo& their alloysTiAl5Sn2 I Cu.0000 0. Ti.2440 0. Ti.0493 0.0063 4.1000 0. Ni.0708 0. Ni.2680 0. V.4500 2. Ti.0002 0. Ti.8400 1.0100 1.0014 0. Ni.0553 0.0000 0. Ti.2700 0.0002 0.0728 0.7730 0.0002 0. Ti.0495 0.0001 5.7900 1.0061 0. Mo& their alloysG-CuNi10 I Cu. Ni. Mo& their alloysTiV15SnCrAl3 I Cu.0494 0.66E-08 0.0364 0.2400 2.4600 Resp. Ni. Mo& their alloysTiAl6V4 I Cu. V.1400 0.8370 0.7440 0. Mo& their alloysCu-E I Cu.0100 1.0010 2.0001 0.2770 0. Ni.0568 0.2890 0.0631 0.

Ni.6640 1.0989 43.0000 0.0868 0. V.0001 0.55E-07 0.0018 2.9560 1.9130 1.6 I Cu.7P I Cu.0008 0.95E-07 0.0971 0.0272 0. Ni.0008 0. Ni.0577 0.0900 3.3100 3.4109 Cu.0739 2.91% Land use (Pts) 1. Ti.24% Minerals (Pts) 1. Ti.Appendix C6-C8:Environmental Impact of Non-ferrous Materials in Impact Categories Material Cases Group Name Total (Pts) 2. Mo& their alloysNiCu30Al I Cu. Ti.0007 6.0001 0.4800 3. V.5700 0.8900 0.0611 0.0603 0.4900 3.0436 0.4300 0.8800 1.09% 0.0001 0. V.0001 0.0002 3.1470 0.05E-07 0.7390 0.1130 0.99E-09 0.1260 0.0700 1.0000 0. Ni.1460 0.3830 0. Ti.03E-08 0.9860 0.4860 0.5450 2.69E-07 0.17E-07 0.0645 0.1100 0. V. Ti.6600 0.0004 4.0003 6. Ti. Mo& their alloysG-CuSn10 I Cu. Mo& their alloysNiCr 80 20 I Cu.0000 0. Mo& their alloysNi 99.0407 0.88% 16.0442 0.0008 0.4890 0. V.0017 0.6600 3. V.12E-07 0.12E-07 0.0025 0.0010 0.41E-07 0. Ti.1300 0.0000 0. Ti.8800 2.0056 0. V. Ni. Ti.9290 2.0000 0. Mo& their alloysSupermalloy I Cu.83E-07 0.0000 3. Ni.1260 0.1220 0.1040 0.02E-08 0.1230 0.1310 0. Ti.0011 0. Ti.8900 1.0000 0.0626 0.3900 0. Mo& their alloysNiCr20TiAl I Cu.4900 1.0002 3.6840 2.0003 3.1230 0.0002 0.3000 3. Mo& their alloysCuNi44Mn I Cu.3100 0. Mo& their alloysG-CuSn12 I Average Contibution to total (%) 29.4430 0. V. Ni. V.0876 3. Ti. Mo& their alloysMolybdenum I Cu.0002 3.1420 0.8400 4.0005 8.1180 0.0429 0.6300 1. Mo& their alloysCuSn8 I Cu.0015 0.7800 3.0695 0.0123 0. Ni.0000 0.1160 0. Ti. Ti. V. Mo& their alloysNiCr20Co18Ti I Cu.9400 0. Ti.1070 0.00% 0.1170 0.5000 3.44% Radiation (Pts) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Ozone Ecotoxi.10% 0. Mo& their alloysCuSn6.7100 2. Mo& their alloysNiCu30Fe I Cu.0023 0.2640 0.0300 3.1900 3.9700 1. Ni.19E-08 0. Ni.0000 0.00% 0.0001 0. Ni.2860 0. V.0620 0.0065 0.0900 0. Ni.0011 0.0001 0. Mo& their alloysNiMo30 I Cu.4090 0.1800 0.1140 0. Ti. Ni.4440 0.0450 0.4400 0.0001 0.0001 1.0001 0.16% .0001 0.0001 3. Mo& their alloysG-CuSn5Zn5Pb5 I Cu.0004 9.0003 1. Ni.0069 0.0092 0. Ti. V.5436 Resp.2900 0.0001 0.0687 0.0007 4.7600 Fossil fuels (Pts) 0.45E-07 0.76E-07 0.8400 1. V. V.5210 0.9500 1.4340 0.5050 0.3450 0.5770 2. ens organics inorganics change (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) 0.Acidification/ layer city Eutrophication (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) 8.4840 0.0000 0.0008 0. V.0267 0.0001 0.0585 0.9460 2.4660 0. Ni. V.9400 1.0643 0.0002 9.3900 3. Climate Carcinog Resp.2880 0.0674 0.69E-07 0.0005 0.1100 3.1540 0.0001 0.5100 0.20% 0.0458 0.4380 0. Mo& their alloysDuranik I Cu.0660 0.0011 0. Ni.4950 0.6470 0.0066 0. Mo& their alloysMumetal I Cu. Ni.0026 0.1040 0.0002 1.2840 0.01E-08 0.2820 0. V.9800 3.6900 0.0001 0.1079 4.41E-07 0.0600 2.1260 0.4840 0.

58E-05 5.00 296.51 Ozone Ecotoxi.Acidification/ layer city Eutrophication (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) x 0.04 0.50 4610 6960 12300 Resp.05 0.70 144.94 0.28 0.24 0.Appendix C6-C8:Environmental Impact of Non-ferrous Materials in Impact Categories Material Cases Group Co & Sn & Pts & Pd & Rd Co & Sn & Pts & Pd & Rd Co & Sn & Pts & Pd & Rd Co & Sn & Pts & Pd & Rd Co & Sn & Pts & Pd & Rd Cobalt I Tin I Palladium enriched ETH T Platinum ETH T Rhodium enriched ETH T Name Total (Pts) 6.00 730.11 0. Climate Carcinog Resp.05 0.00 15.00 Minerals (Pts) 0.00 .02 0.93 1.00 Radiation (Pts) x x 0.18 0.00 0.09 0.00 331.08 21.02 214 319 566 Land use (Pts) 5.07 0.00 0.00 419.40 0.39 102.70E-05 9.75 Fossil fuels (Pts) 0.83E-05 251 448 803 0.33E-05 4. ens organics inorganics change (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) 2.01 0.00 179.65 18.20 75.17 3720 5510 9750 0.73 9.34 16.00 0.01 4.21 0.90 0.

87E-06 6.52E-05 3.0626 0.85E-07 2.0001 0.0002 0.0344 0.0062 4.86% 0.94% 0.0034 0.82% 0.91E-04 0 1.0054 0.82E-06 3.0000 0.Appendix C9:Environmental Impact of Paper Materials in Impact Categories Total (Pts) 0.0095 0.33E-06 4.0012 0.0432 0.0025 0.0024 0.0374 0.0449 1.0000 0.0767 Kraftpaper bleached B250 Kraftpaper unbleached Paper ETH T Average Contibution to total (%) 0.0740 Resp.0000 0.70E-04 4.63E-04 7.02% 0.0462 1.10E-04 5.0061 8.27E-04 0.0031 0.0026 1.25E-03 0.0520 0.0270 37.0001 0.0208 0.0002 0.0032 0.0027 3.05E-07 0.0053 0.0029 0.20% 0.0713 4.15% 0.0397 0.0001 0.0015 0.0000 0.0000 0.0035 0.0002 0. Climate Carcino Resp.0570 0.56% Radiation (Pts) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ozone layer (Pts) 0 0 Ecotoxi.0228 0.01% 0.0319 44.0090 0.86E-06 6.0062 0.0369 0 0. gens organics inorganics change (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) 0 0 0.24E-06 2.0001 0.0015 0 0.25E-06 6.0024 0.0025 3.0053 0.Acidification/ Land Minerals city use Eutrophica(Pts) (Pts) (Pts) tion (Pts) 9.37E-07 0.51% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fossil fuels (Pts) 0.0463 2.70E-07 0.0022 0.0926 0.93E-05 2.0086 0.0003 10.0000 0.76% .0133 0.0053 Material Cases Paper kraft-bleached B Paper unbleached B Paper wood-free C B250 Paper bleached B Paper wood-free U B250 2.66% 0.0131 0.0022 0.74E-07 0.45E-07 0.45E-09 0.0007 0.0796 0.0025 0.0900 0.0020 0.0574 0.0314 0.0195 0.0179 0.0038 0.0587 Kraftpaper bleached C B250 0.0050 0.19E-04 2.

0070 0.0300 0.0272 1.0217 0.46E-05 0.58E-05 0.0045 0. cardboard mix 1 Corr.0000 0.0002 0.0141 0.0013 3.0156 0.00E-06 3.0254 0.13E-06 0.0395 0.20E-06 2.59E-06 Ecotoxi.0018 0.0312 0.0020 2.0004 0.0017 0.0004 0.04E-05 0 9.0262 .Acidification/ Land Minerals city use Eutrophica(Pts) (Pts) (Pts) tion (Pts) 0.18E-04 0.95E-07 0.0006 0.0000 0.0322 0.0093 6.0005 0.0011 0.0004 0.16E-05 0.0141 0.0225 0.0030 0.0208 0.0010 0.0063 0.62E-05 0.0011 0.0085 0.0011 0.0020 0.0008 2.0008 2.0049 0.20E-05 0.0323 0.37E-04 1.0022 0.0190 0.0318 0.31E-05 0.18E-06 0 0 0 2.21E-04 1.0010 1.0017 0.27E-05 0.0011 0.0206 0.0008 0.0002 0.0023 0.0208 0.0301 0.0030 Radiation (Pts) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ozone layer (Pts) 4.0005 0.Appendix C10: Environmental Impact of Cardboard Materials in Impact Categories Carcino Resp.0021 0.0206 0.0000 0.0000 0.0006 1.91E-05 0.0009 0.0098 0.42E-05 0.92E-05 0 1.0004 0.0044 0.0007 0.0375 0.33E-05 0.73E-05 0.0006 1.0014 0.75E-05 0.0076 0.0058 0.0162 0.0220 0.66E-05 4. cardboard mix 3D Corr.0127 0 0 0.0024 0.0005 0.0027 0.0211 0. Resp. cardboard mix 2 3.77E-06 5. Climate gens organics inorganics change (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) 0.0077 0.0017 0.0051 0.0255 0.27E-06 0 5.0364 0.0014 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fossil fuels (Pts) Material Cases Total (Pts) 0.27E-06 3.0421 Kraftliner brown S B250 Paper newsprint B250 Fluting Cardboard gray Cardboard liquid Corrugated board heavy Wellenstoff Testliner Cellulose sulphate BCS Cardboard duplex Kraftliner white top S B250 Cardboard cellulose Schrenz Sack paper S B250 Corr.0004 0.42E-05 0 0 0 1.0012 2.64E-06 4.53E-04 1.0096 0 0.0015 0.0021 0.21E-05 0.0036 0.81E-06 4.0002 0.0161 1.90E-09 0.0015 0.0018 0.87E-06 7.0015 3.0296 0.0086 2.0016 0.10E-06 4.0289 0.84E-06 0 1.0007 1.0055 0.0039 0.0017 0.0247 7.08E-05 3.0004 2.0004 1.68E-05 0.0008 0.0025 0.0074 0.0107 0 0 0 0 0 0.0003 0 0.0333 0.0029 0.0019 0.

0348 .42E-05 0.0434 Cardboard chromo Kraftliner brown A B250 0.0352 5.0037 0.0051 Material Cases Total (Pts) 0.79E-05 0.0011 1.08% 0.01E-04 0.01% Ecotoxi.0008 0.05E-04 0.0007 0. cardboard new Swisskraft Average Contibution to total (%) 0.93E-05 0.0079 0.0179 0.0035 0.0267 0.0031 8.43E-08 0.20E-06 3.0002 0.0005 0.00% Ozone layer (Pts) 0 8. Climate gens organics inorganics change (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) 0 2.0422 0.0014 3.0000 0.95% 0.0252 9.01% 0.0287 1.00% 0 Fossil fuels (Pts) 0.0480 0.Appendix C10: Environmental Impact of Cardboard Materials in Impact Categories Carcino Resp.17E-05 0.34E-05 0.0021 0. Resp.17E-05 0.0024 4.93% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.80% Cardboard cellulose S B250 0.07E-06 8.95% Radiation (Pts) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0024 0.0120 0.0066 0.0007 0.0018 0.0195 4.0000 0.38E-06 8.0000 0.0027 0.0131 0.53E-06 1.31E-06 0.0037 0.0451 Cardboard duplex/tripl Corr.0166 47.0495 0.0003 0.0000 0.0015 0.0009 3.0125 36.06% 0.25E-05 0.0008 3.15% 7.Acidification/ Land Minerals city use Eutrophica(Pts) (Pts) (Pts) tion (Pts) 0.0007 2.0488 0.0001 0.0034 0.50E-05 0.0004 0.0000 0.0003 1.0056 0.0005 0.0389 0.

0001 0.0062 0.0003 0.0026 4.0001 0.0043 0.0666 0.0046 0.0021 3.0072 0.0687 0.0001 0.2440 0. Climate Resp.06E-04 0.71E-06 0.0004 0.0004 0.1670 0 9.0004 0.0078 0.2990 0.0196 0.0025 3.1670 0.0645 0.0009 0.0059 0.0551 0.0217 0.2510 0.0063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0113 0.1590 3.88E-06 0.1620 0 0 2.1900 0 7.0374 0.0005 0.2150 0.0164 0.0001 0. Radiagens organics inorganics change tion (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) 0.2800 0.0012 0.0613 0.2840 0.05E-06 0.0027 8.0528 0.0115 0.68E-06 0.0011 0.71E-06 0.2970 0.0001 0.Acidification/ city Eutrophication (Pts) (Pts) 0.0252 0.Appendix C11 & C12: Environmental Impact of Polymers in Impact Categories Material Cases Group Thermoplas PP GF30 I Thermoplas PVC suspension A Thermoplas PVC bulk A Thermoplas PVC (e) I Thermoplas PE (LLDPE) I Thermoplas PVC film (calendered) A Thermoplas PE (HDPE) I Thermoplas PVC film (unplasticised) A Thermoplas PET 30% glass fibre I Thermoplas PVC B250 Thermoplas PVC revised P Thermoplas PC 30% glass fibre I Thermoplas PVC emulsion A Thermoplas PE (LDPE) I Thermoplas PVC high impact ETH T Thermoplas PVC injection moulded A Thermoplas PE expanded I Name Total (Pts) Carcino Resp.58E-08 0.0491 0.0141 0.0082 0.0062 Land use (Pts) Fossil fuels (Pts) Minerals (Pts) 0.0051 0.1370 0.0006 0.0007 0.1660 2.0001 0.0001 0.58E-08 0.19E-06 0.0112 0 0 0.0042 0.0149 0.2500 0.2180 0.2000 0 7.2240 0.0008 1.51E-06 0.59E-06 0.1640 0 4.0082 0.0073 0.0418 0.0033 0.0005 0.0656 0.2190 0.2610 0.0003 0.0077 0.0003 0.0007 0.0061 0.0012 0.89E-06 0.0003 0.0047 0.87E-06 0.0005 0.0025 4.69E-06 0.0037 0.0001 0.0058 4.0058 0.0347 0.0643 0.1770 4.0001 0.0027 3.2120 0.0001 0.0049 0.0001 0.2260 0.0559 0.0115 0.0019 2.01E-06 0.13E-06 0.0051 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.97E-08 0.0000 0.0011 0.2530 0.39E-06 0.0074 0.0103 0.0000 0.0150 0.0010 0.0008 0 0.0001 0.0002 0.0027 3.0497 0.0002 0 0 Ozone layer (Pts) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ecotoxi.0615 0.0001 0.0349 0.0007 0 0 0.2590 0.0011 0.0001 0.2110 0.2290 .0139 0.0049 0.1900 0.0058 0.0062 0.0007 0.0098 0.2590 0.1740 4.1640 0 0 5.21E-05 0.0008 0.0007 0.1680 0.68E-06 0.2750 0.0096 0.0004 0.

0000 0 0 0 Ecotoxi.0063 0.0037 0.3350 0.0001 0.0096 0.0374 0.2750 0.0183 0.2560 3.3030 0.0002 0.0055 0.Acidification/ city Eutrophication (Pts) (Pts) 0.1920 0.0004 0.59E-06 0.0006 0.0008 0 0.0001 0.0003 0.0000 2.24E-06 0.0003 0.81E-05 0.92E-06 0.0006 0.3160 0.0053 0.2900 2.3030 0.0007 0.0110 0.0148 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ozone layer (Pts) 0 0 0.0553 0.0000 0.0004 0.2760 0.0001 0.0002 0.69E-05 0.20E-05 0.0001 0.0026 4.0061 Land use (Pts) 0 Fossil fuels (Pts) Minerals (Pts) Thermoplas PVC film (unplastized) P Thermoplas ABS I Thermoplas HDPE B250 Thermoplas LLDPE B250 Thermoplas PP granulate average B250 Thermoplas LDPE A Thermoplas PP A Thermoplas HDPE A Thermoplas PE granulate average B250 Thermoplas PE P Thermoplas LDPE B250 Thermoplas PET bottle grade I Thermoplas LDPE film A Thermoplas PS (GPPS) I Thermoplas PC I Thermoplas PET granulate amorph B250 Thermoplas PS (EPS) A 0.2190 0 1.0397 0. Radiagens organics inorganics change tion (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) 0.0852 0.97E-06 0.3230 0.0032 4.0002 0.0115 0.0003 0.0005 0.0015 0.0482 0.49E-05 0.0445 0.3190 0.0506 0.0102 0.0002 0.3530 0.0870 0.71E-06 0.71E-06 0.0127 0.0482 0.0000 0.0103 0.2280 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.0132 0.0012 3.21E-06 0.87E-06 0.0299 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0024 7.0002 0.0108 0.46E-05 0.0024 0.0024 0.0001 0.0007 0.0021 0.0117 0.2600 2.0002 0.0125 0.49E-05 0.0855 0.0006 0.3410 0.0050 0.0050 0.0411 0.0022 0.0252 0.3490 0.29E-04 0.0007 0 0.0002 0.0006 0.0463 0.0003 0.0008 0.0057 0.0104 0.3480 0.3570 0.0054 0.0049 0.0008 0 0 0 0 0.0491 0.0001 0.0061 0.0002 0.0003 0.3010 0.0055 0.76E-06 0.3030 0.2610 4.0109 0.10E-05 0.0447 0.30E-05 0.0931 0. Climate Resp.0060 0.0006 0.2840 3.2570 4.2650 2.3240 0.71E-06 0.0155 0.3590 0.0003 0.0102 0.24E-06 0.0002 0.0388 0.Appendix C11 & C12: Environmental Impact of Polymers in Impact Categories Material Cases Group Name Total (Pts) Carcino Resp.0015 0.3370 0.0001 .0001 0.2450 1.0062 0.0013 0.0026 1.0017 0.2460 1.0005 0.2420 1.2220 0 0 3.2610 3.0126 0.0113 0.3060 0.0125 0.

2770 0 1.0171 0.1850 0.0217 0.2890 5.36E-05 0.25E-05 0.0004 0.0001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0071 0.2880 Thermoplas PET stretch moulded bottles P 0.3750 0.Appendix C11 & C12: Environmental Impact of Polymers in Impact Categories Material Cases Group Name Total (Pts) Carcino Resp.0002 0.0619 0.0004 0.0001 0 0 0 Ozone layer (Pts) 0 0 0 Ecotoxi.0001 0.21E-05 0.97E-04 0.1610 0 0 0 0 9.0248 0.2730 4.0007 0.3670 0.0201 0.0001 0.0549 0.1280 0.0001 0.42E-04 0.0007 0.0007 3.4480 0.3610 0.0005 0.2660 0 0 4.0005 0.0040 0.0008 0.0003 0 0 0 0. Climate Resp.0248 0.0002 0.4340 0.71E-06 0.0366 0.0161 0.4130 0.Acidification/ city Eutrophication (Pts) (Pts) 0.3390 0.1750 0.0901 0.0085 0.0014 0.0153 0.0005 0.0781 0.0122 0.0194 0.0120 0.0131 0.2960 Thermoplas HDPE blow moulded bottles A 0.1400 0.0003 0.0712 0.0001 0.0088 0.0029 2.2910 0.0002 0.0061 0.1080 0.0026 9.08E-06 0.3800 0.0026 9.04E-06 0.66E-05 0.0213 0 0 0 0.29E-04 0.0004 0.0001 0.3300 0 0 0 2.4700 0.0505 0.32E-04 0.1400 0.1280 0.0003 .0002 0.3210 4.0074 0 0.0003 0.0011 0.0150 Land use (Pts) 0 Fossil fuels (Pts) Minerals (Pts) Thermoplas LDPE revised P Thermoplas PET amorph I Thermoplas PS (HIPS) I Thermoplas HIPS ETH T Thermoplas HDPE pipe P Thermoplas PB B250 (1998) Thermoplas PVDC I Thermoplas SAN A 0.0032 3.0047 0.0063 0.0586 0.0056 0.0004 0.0109 0.4750 0.0109 0.0001 0.2420 4.0000 2.0187 0.3650 0.0194 0.0005 0.0003 0.61E-05 0.0014 0.0334 0.1490 0.3940 0.4490 0.2730 2.83E-06 0.0108 0.4700 0.0002 0.0022 0.0098 0.0002 0.0168 0.0619 0.3620 0.0040 0.0023 1.0003 0.81E-05 0.81E-05 0.0560 0.0001 0.0026 1.0014 0.2850 0.0071 0.19E-06 0.0196 0.0166 0.0043 0.94E-06 0.3780 0.0003 0.3900 0.0002 0.0137 0.0900 0.0120 0.2200 3.2420 2.3620 0.0003 Thermoplas PET resin P (1997) Thermoplas PP oriented film A Thermoplas PMMA I Thermoplas PS thermoformed A Thermoplas PET ETH T Thermoplas PA 6 GF30 I Thermoplas PA 66 GF30 I 0.0006 0.0007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0095 0.0043 0. Radiagens organics inorganics change tion (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) 0.0491 0.0153 0.51E-06 0.0050 0.0164 0.11E-06 0.

2700 1.3360 0.0005 0.0150 0.98E-05 0.2720 1.62E-05 0.2960 0.19E-06 0.2200 0. integral skin foam A 0.2900 3.0021 2.0003 0.0090 0 0 0 0.2430 0 0 0 1.0144 0.0036 0.0005 0.0002 0.0001 0. Radiagens organics inorganics change tion (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) 0.0178 0.5000 0.0005 0.0212 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5390 0.3640 0.0027 0.2870 7.0336 0.28E-04 0.0026 4.1310 0.0014 0.4440 0.0017 2.0528 0.0212 0.0088 0.3110 9.1400 0.70E-05 0.0001 0.0031 0.6 A Thermoplas PMMA sheet A Thermoplas PA 6 I Rubber Rubber Rubber Rubber PUR PUR PUR BR I NBR I SBR I EPDM rubber ETH T 0.81E-04 0.0056 0.5440 0.0002 PUR flex.84E-05 0.0005 0.0057 0.0031 0.2370 0.08E-05 0.0005 0.0036 0.3950 0.1310 0.1240 0.0067 0.0005 0.2780 0.0001 0.0153 0.0026 1.21E-05 0.0917 0.0036 0.5200 0.0242 0.0008 0 0.0003 0.1240 0.2750 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.0007 2.0001 0.0145 0.0580 0.3960 0.0011 0.6 30% glass fibre A Thermoplas PP injection moulded A Thermoplas PA 66 I Thermoplas PET film A Thermoplas PET film packed A Thermoplas PA 6.0911 0.Acidification/ city Eutrophication (Pts) (Pts) 0.16E-05 0.0001 0.0027 .0023 PUR RIM amine extended A PUR flex.5490 0.0121 0.2980 0.0008 0.0151 0.1700 0.0050 0.0005 0.0908 0.2730 1.0069 0.0010 0. Climate Resp.0055 0.17E-04 0.0010 0.0619 0.0003 0.11E-06 0.0025 0.6330 0.0003 0.0403 0.0002 0 0 0 Ozone layer (Pts) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ecotoxi.0174 0.6570 0.5010 0.Appendix C11 & C12: Environmental Impact of Polymers in Impact Categories Material Cases Group Name Total (Pts) Carcino Resp.0010 0.0434 0.0211 0. moulded ccm A 0.0019 2.0087 0.0684 0.0442 0.1720 0.3970 0.0033 0.78E-05 0.1210 0.0036 0.0416 0.49E-05 0.0563 0.99E-05 0.46E-06 0.0327 0.0363 0.0068 0.0053 0.0325 0.0053 4.0006 0.0087 0.0109 0.0001 0.0002 0.99E-06 0.0175 0.0148 0.0001 0.2150 0.0003 0.0247 8.3970 4.4060 1.5930 0.3050 3.0087 Land use (Pts) 0 0 Fossil fuels (Pts) Minerals (Pts) Thermoplas PA 6.0003 0.4870 0.0090 0.60E-05 0.0005 0.1060 0.0002 0.0431 0.88E-05 0.6 30% glass P Thermoplas PMMA beads A Thermoplas PA 6.5160 0.0086 0.

23E-07 0.Appendix C11 & C12: Environmental Impact of Polymers in Impact Categories Material Cases Group PUR PUR PUR PUR PUR PUR PUR PUR PUR PUR PUR PUR PUR PUR Name PUR RIM glycol extended A PUR energy absorbing A PUR flex.53E-05 0.33% 0.0054 1. Radiagens organics inorganics change tion (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) 0.0128 0.0867 0.4260 0.2770 2. moulded.0237 0.0124 0.0000 66.39% 0 0.15% 0.2050 0.22E-07 0.1980 0.2496 0.1080 0.1050 0.0615 0. moulded MDI/TDI I PUR rigid foam I PUR flex.0126 0.22E-04 0.4010 0.0001 0.0745 0.0889 0.0243 0.0002 0.0102 7.0028 6.0097 0. Climate Resp.1880 0.4060 0.0006 1.0069 1.0020 0.0031 6.0241 0.4150 0.2780 1.0092 0.2220 0.1950 0.09E-05 0.4530 0.4110 0.3753 0.1020 0.1180 0.0006 0.0007 0.79E-05 0.0139 6.0022 0.64% 0.0249 0.04% 0 0.0002 0.4640 0.1080 0.0021 0.0010 0.4520 0.0241 0.24E-05 0.4110 0.0977 0.0972 0.1040 0.0007 0.0002 0.58% 0.0231 0.0002 0.0021 0.0031 6.0096 0.4690 0.61E-05 0.0237 0.0064 1.61E-05 0.1290 0.0810 21.27E-07 0.0069 1. block foam I PUR flex.0004 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.2760 2.2800 PUR flex.0125 0.0237 0.1080 0.0021 6.0591 0.75E-04 0.1010 0.0110 2.64E-05 0.25E-07 0.0012 0.0007 1.0002 0.0090 2.2110 0.0096 0. moulded hot cure A 0.51E-05 0.12E-05 0.0002 0.12E-05 0.26E-07 0.0365 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4550 0.0046 0.0088 0.0063 1.0144 0.11% 0 Ozone layer (Pts) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ecotoxi.0285 0.0367 0.0035 0.0002 0.0172 Land use (Pts) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fossil fuels (Pts) Minerals (Pts) 0.0001 0.0021 0.0094 0.51% 0.2770 2.0990 0.0087 0.0005 0.65E-05 0.6420 0. moulded ccm/t A PUR flex.0990 0.0001 0.4570 0.1110 0.0030 6.0216 0.0006 PUR flexible block foam A PUR hardfoam ETH T PUR flex.56E-05 0.4070 0.14E-05 0.0258 0.92% 0. moulded TDI I PUR rigid integr.0132 0.0015 4.0002 0.1280 0.0002 0.Acidification/ city Eutrophication (Pts) (Pts) 0.0219 0.0053 1.0021 6.1150 0.1970 0.0996 0.27E-07 0. skin foam I PUR semi rigid foam I PUR flex.0001 0.4320 Epoxy Epoxy resin (liquid) P . moulded cct A Total (Pts) Carcino Resp.0145 0.1610 0.0029 0.0001 0.0212 5.41% 0.4490 0.0001 0.0003 0.04E-05 0. MDI I Average Contibution to total (%) 0.2830 2.51E-05 0.01% 0.0287 0.22E-07 0.0056 1.1550 0.

6390 0.Acidification/ city Eutrophication (Pts) (Pts) 0.0005 0. Climate Resp.0002 0. Radiagens organics inorganics change tion (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) 0.0262 3.0023 0 0.8730 0.0443 0.03% 0.0008 0.00% Ecotoxi.0001 0.0000 0.64% 0 0 0 0.0002 0.0000 0.00% Ozone layer (Pts) 0 0 0 0.0003 0.5583 77.0007 0.0359 0.0173 0.36% 0.0000 0.02% 0.0141 1.0061 0.8120 0.1174 16.76% Minerals (Pts) 0.Appendix C11 & C12: Environmental Impact of Polymers in Impact Categories Material Cases Group Epoxy Epoxy Name Epoxy resin I Epoxy resin A Average Contibution to total (%) Total (Pts) Carcino Resp.4310 0.0000 0.0077 0.00% 0.7180 0.11% Fossil fuels (Pts) 0.0000 0.96% Land use (Pts) 0.06% .1530 0.0002 0.

0121 0.22E-08 0.0005 0.0028 2.0000 0.0046 0.0276 0.0263 0.0018 0.24E-08 0.0027 7.88E-05 8.2970 0.0005 0.4450 0.62E-05 9.4460 0.0467 0.0007 0.5420 0.0012 0.0253 0.Acidification city / Eutrophication (Pts) (Pts) 0.0000 0.84E-08 0.0006 0.0002 0.0485 0.3930 0.0300 0.31E-07 0.0043 0.0114 0.75E-05 3.69E-07 0.0124 0.0041 0.0005 0.04E-07 0. European I Spruce.0047 2.0169 0.0043 2.4270 0.0240 0.17E-04 1.3760 0.0252 0.0000 0.37E-04 0.3550 0.0000 0.0186 0.0040 0.0000 0.90E-05 1.5640 0.0019 0.5240 Sycamore I Birch I Merbau I Chestnut I Aspen I 0.0010 2.33E-04 3.0024 0.0039 0.0021 0.Appendix C13-C16: Environmental Impact of Woods in Impact Categories Material Cases Group Wood LI Wood LI Wood LI Wood LI Wood LI Wood LI Wood LI Wood LI Wood LI Wood LI Wood LI Wood LI Wood LI Wood LI Wood LI Wood LI Wood LI Name Silver fir I Larch.4070 0.0337 5.0021 0.0007 0.13E-08 0.0160 0.47E-07 0.0331 0.0299 0.5100 Resp.0019 0.5360 0.0033 0.0000 0.0311 0.0030 0.30E-08 0.0000 0.5450 0.2800 0.2250 0.0027 3.4080 0.24E-07 0.0023 6.6280 0.0044 0.4690 0.3260 0.12E-07 0.0000 0. Resp.0092 2.17E-04 1.0038 0.97E-07 0.0021 8.85E-08 0.0028 5.3880 0.0021 0.4640 0.0029 Land use (Pts) 0.0253 0.0028 0.0002 0.4460 0.0005 0.5680 Minerals (Pts) 0.0022 0.0167 0.5910 0.02E-04 9.0045 0.5370 0.0039 0. European I Ahorn I Total (Pts) 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0024 0.0283 0.0142 0.0004 0.0001 2.0010 2.0202 0.24E-04 1.3250 0.10E-07 0.0279 0.0024 2.11E-09 0.0057 0.0159 0.0034 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.09E-05 1.6360 .0196 0.09E-04 1.0006 0.84E-05 9.0060 0.0066 0.74E-07 0. Climate RadiaCarcinog tion organics inorganics change ens (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) 0.3520 0.32E-07 0.0019 5.0163 0.0001 0.0000 0.0045 0.0000 Fossil fuels (Pts) 0.0019 0.2830 0.0004 0.0050 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Ozone layer (Pts) Ecotoxi.0408 0.6080 0.0005 0.0046 Scots pine (grenen) I 0.0007 6.42E-05 1.0022 0.0002 0.0001 0.2340 0.0005 0.3710 0.0312 0. European I Oak.0042 0.2260 0.0261 0.0046 0.0212 0.08E-04 1.0000 0.0004 2.46E-04 1. European I Hemlock I Pitch pine I Oregon pine I Teak I Ash I Beech.0037 0.0026 6.0000 0.97E-06 1.

6020 5.0020 3.0069 0.0039 0.78E-07 0.0000 0.0281 1.24E-04 8.28E-06 0.0000 0.0021 0.0030 0.0130 0.Acidification city / Eutrophication (Pts) (Pts) 0.89E-07 0. Western I 0.7470 5.0025 1.0005 0.0023 0.0183 0.0004 0.0339 0.6430 0.11E-07 0.7710 Hornbean I Black poplar I Average 0.0247 0.00E-04 1.79E-06 0.0008 0.51% 0.8970 3.0023 Land use (Pts) 0.02% 1.00% x x x Ozone layer (Pts) Ecotoxi.0007 0.6430 4.43E-06 0.0023 0.0006 0.58E-07 0.0048 0.65E-07 0.0245 1.0151 0.0001 0.0019 0.0279 89.0022 0.5740 0.0088 0.6720 0.6400 0.0005 0.6400 4.0267 0.0029 0.15E-07 0.0009 0.1100 3.0045 x x x x x x x x x x x x 0 0.0660 0.5660 Contibution to total (%) Wood LM Walnut I Wood LM Platan I Wood LM Horse chestnut I 0.07% 0.8160 0.0032 0.27E-06 0.89E-06 0.6870 0.0165 0.0212 0.0014 5.0000 Fossil fuels (Pts) 0.0027 0.0177 0.0035 2.17E-04 0.0200 0.6510 0. Resp.00% 4.5084 3.0331 0.0000 0.0034 0.0001 0.5880 0.0051 0.0032 0.44E-04 0.11E-05 1.0037 0.5930 Minerals (Pts) 0.0000 0.0354 0.0004 0.0298 .12E-06 0.0046 1.0004 0.0216 0.74E-07 0.22E-09 0.0314 0.0044 0.0017 0.0024 3.50E-05 2.1500 1.90E-06 0.48% 0.56E-06 0.1600 4.0007 0.0039 0.94E-05 1.6970 0.03E-04 8.98E-05 1.0000 0.0197 3.7480 2.0005 0.0014 0.0041 0.0000 0.0035 2.18E-06 0.68% 0.83% 0.0044 2.49% 0.6270 6.0038 1.84E-07 0.7620 Resp.0233 0.0033 1.0028 0.0009 0.0273 2.7030 3.13E-08 0.0026 0.0117 0.45E-06 0.79E-06 0.0028 0.24E-07 0.Appendix C13-C16: Environmental Impact of Woods in Impact Categories Material Cases Group Wood LI Wood LI Wood LI Wood LI Wood LI Wood LI Wood LI Wood LI Wood LI Wood LI Wood LI Wood LI Name Red oak I Cedar I Hickory I Yellow pine I Robinia I Linden I Alder I Elm I Poplar I Total (Pts) 0.0000 0.17E-04 1.0006 0.0143 0.00% 0.0213 0.0266 0.0006 9.74E-05 1.0023 3.0567 0.34E-06 0.0005 0.63E-07 0.0219 0.7460 9.6390 3.0030 0.0169 0.0043 0.2200 0.0029 0.0037 0.93% Red Cedar.50E-04 8.9540 1.08E-04 8.78E-07 0.02E-08 0.0211 0.7900 0.0079 0.0028 7.0040 0.0036 0.62E-05 1.0046 0. Climate RadiaCarcinog tion organics inorganics change ens (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) 0.7040 0.7420 0.0053 0.07E-04 1.

00% 2.0047 0.20E-08 0.0000 0.20% 0.36E-07 0.0499 5.0034 0.0326 0.0019 1.4700 1.0026 8.24E-07 0.0030 2.0234 0.67E-09 0.72E-04 0.6600 5.27% 0.7200 1.0186 1.06E-08 0.0406 5. Climate RadiaCarcinog tion organics inorganics change ens (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) 0.0070 x 0 0.0455 4.03E-06 0.68E-07 0.0030 0.0030 2.9100 5.8300 5.0025 2.0004 0.66E-07 0.6200 1.0422 0.0454 0.1900 5.0393 5.0001 0.0009 0.0029 2.0032 0.5300 3.06% 0.2100 5.0024 0.0039 0.0050 0.0350 5.5600 3.65E-05 1.0380 3.0352 0.29E-06 0.0035 0.0047 0.0067 0.0338 0.96E-08 0.23E-07 0.1985 Resp.0056 0.0038 0.35E-06 0.07E-04 1.0417 5.0000 0.0005 0.0064 0.4800 3.1800 5.39% 0.76E-06 0.0046 0.38E-06 0.0339 0.0323 4.0026 1.36E-04 1.50E-06 0.0424 1.0059 0.79E-07 0.52E-04 0.05E-06 0.0001 0.0239 0.46E-05 1.0006 0.0023 1.7900 3.0006 0.0054 0.00% Ecotoxi.8000 4.0005 0.0052 0.7300 4.0038 0.2500 5.0041 0.0058 0.09E-06 0.0059 0.1800 4.0055 0.0328 5.52E-05 7.63E-05 1.0064 0.23E-04 1.0236 0.0000 0.23E-04 7.0046 0.8300 5.00% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Ozone layer (Pts) 0.0023 2.01% 7.0468 0.0033 0.0007 0.27E-07 0.0032 0.7200 4.0293 0.0021 1.Acidification city / Eutrophication (Pts) (Pts) 0.1393 4.55% 0.0219 0.0023 1.1000 7.0000 0.01E-07 0.1500 6.1200 5.55E-04 1.0335 0.0000 0.38E-06 0.0024 2.Appendix C13-C16: Environmental Impact of Woods in Impact Categories Material Cases Group Name Total (Pts) 1.0006 1.0513 5.60% 1.0000 0.0021 2. African I Wood MH Iroko I Wood MH Meranti I 1.0530 .0423 0.0419 5.0310 5.1200 6.81E-07 0.0047 0. Resp.0004 0.0002 0.3900 6.44E-07 0.7500 4.29E-07 0.9400 0.0294 3.39E-04 1.08E-06 0.0047 0.15E-04 1.6100 5.0032 0.05% 2.35E-06 0.0312 95.92E-07 0.2300 5.0242 0.39E-07 0.06E-08 0.8600 5.0066 Land use (Pts) Minerals (Pts) Fossil fuels (Pts) Wood LM Willow I Average Contibution to total (%) Wood MH Azobe I Wood MH Moabi I Wood MH Blue gum I Wood MH Angelique I Wood MH Makore I Wood MH Kauri I Wood MH Mersawa I Wood MH Yang I Wood MH Agba I Wood MH Limba I Wood MH Bubinga I Wood MH Mahogani.0049 0.99E-06 0.0005 0.0028 1.0041 0.0067 0.09E-04 1.42E-04 8.7700 4.

0061 0.7500 5.0024 1.67E-09 0.0025 1.39E-06 0.76E-05 7.5368 Resp.0025 1.0023 2.0028 1.0037 0.06E-04 9.5400 5.20E-04 1.62E-07 0.2800 6.84E-09 0.0417 5.4524 3. Climate RadiaCarcinog tion organics inorganics change ens (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) 0.85E-07 0.22E-05 9.3800 6.0200 6.0333 0.72% 7.0060 x x x x x x x x x x x 0 0.09% 0.30E-05 1.06E-06 0.0403 0.00% 0.23E-07 0.0048 0.0281 7.0038 0.0309 7.0025 1.0219 0.9600 6.0025 1.17E-04 1.0046 0.0055 0.0037 0.0413 6.4400 6.2400 4.71E-06 0.9300 4.26E-04 1.0047 0.86E-07 0.23E-07 0.Acidification city / Eutrophication (Pts) (Pts) 0.0041 0.27E-04 1.99E-07 0.0056 0.5000 3.0004 0.28E-05 7.2500 3.0365 6.0056 0.08% 0.04% 5.0393 6.60% 0.0042 0.0050 0.0312 0.47E-07 0.2800 4.0052 0.2300 6.0025 2.00E-05 8.0004 0.54E-06 0.0006 0.39E-04 1.0369 0.4400 4.0355 0.1500 3.0348 6.1700 3.0004 0.12E-07 0.0025 0.48E-07 0.48% 0.5400 6.00% 0.0023 2.0021 8.0353 6.0331 0.0461 6.06E-06 0.58E-07 0.0000 0.13E-04 1.0051 0.0049 0.0250 0.0443 6.0398 98.4700 7.16E-04 1. Resp.01E-07 0.86E-07 0.0295 0.07E-07 0.18E-06 0.0331 0.1800 3.01% 1.30E-04 1.2500 6.00% 0.3900 6.0005 0.21E-07 0.0004 0.0023 9.0032 0.48E-06 0.0044 0.6600 4.0052 0.0027 7.0004 0.0053 0.06E-08 0.0337 0.0060 0.0047 0.14E-04 0.23E-04 1.0100 3.1000 6.18E-08 0.28E-06 0.0396 0.3600 3.0000 0.22E-08 0.Appendix C13-C16: Environmental Impact of Woods in Impact Categories Material Cases Group Wood MH Utile I Wood MH Dibetou I Wood MH Afzelia I Wood MH Sapelli I Wood MH Movigui I Wood MH Afrormosia I Wood MH Idigbo I Wood MH Kotibe I Wood MH Mengkulang I Wood MH Peroba I Wood MH Bosse clair I Average Contibution to total (%) Wood HI Wood HI Wood HI Wood HI Carapa I Paranapine I Purpleheart I Mansonia I Name Total (Pts) 5.0046 0.0350 0.0222 0.35E-07 0.4400 5.8800 4.0032 0.91E-07 0.95E-06 0.1700 6.0005 0.0040 0.15E-05 7.0395 6.0027 2.2000 6.38E-05 7.0055 Land use (Pts) Minerals (Pts) Fossil fuels (Pts) 2.0040 0.0328 7.0046 0.0353 6.0036 0.0455 .0005 0.0022 1.0391 5.0043 0.53E-05 9.42E-06 0.00% x x x x Ozone layer (Pts) Ecotoxi.0052 0.0005 0.0251 0.05E-04 1.0264 0.05E-06 0.4600 6.0022 2.

0061 0.0067 0.05E-07 0.2200 6.0068 0.6000 6.0499 9.0489 8. American I 7.0026 2.0295 9.74E-04 1.47E-06 0.4400 3.79E-04 1.2500 3.70E-04 1.0064 0.0234 0.0058 0.0029 2.0400 4.67E-04 10.4900 3.73E-07 0.56E-06 0.0031 2.0248 0.0398 0.0038 0.26E-04 9.0512 9.0024 9.70E-07 0.83E-04 1.0046 0.Appendix C13-C16: Environmental Impact of Woods in Impact Categories Material Cases Group Wood HI Wood HI Wood HI Wood HI Wood HI Wood HI Wood HI Wood HI Wood HI Wood HI Wood HI Wood HI Wood HI Wood HI Wood HI Wood HI Wood HI Name Total (Pts) Resp.20E-07 0.0291 7.32E-06 0.0029 3.0028 3.4900 4.38E-04 8.47E-04 11.40E-04 1.67E-06 0.48E-05 Abura I Ilomba I Antiaris I Okoume I Baboen I Olon I 9.73E-04 1.0052 0.41E-07 0.4200 5.0332 0.0353 0.0437 0.15E-04 8.58E-05 1.0422 0.7900 8.56E-07 0.47E-06 0.57E-06 0.0455 Palissander.32E-07 0.0449 8.0415 0.32E-04 1.0456 8.6000 5.4000 7.0054 Land use (Pts) Minerals (Pts) Fossil fuels (Pts) Mahogany.53E-07 0.0424 10.0039 0.0024 2.05E-07 0.0056 0.0051 0.65E-07 0.0339 11.8500 5.42E-04 .6300 2.0027 2.0423 8.0054 0.90E-04 1.74E-06 0.3300 4.1100 4.0449 0.7000 7.0063 0.0026 1.5400 4.11E-04 1.2000 4.90E-06 0.3000 5.0362 0.0050 0.3000 5.0532 10.21E-04 8.0056 0.0416 9.0030 9.42E-04 1.1900 5.7600 4.0059 0.20E-04 8.0000 3.3300 4.0057 0.76E-06 0.0021 2. Climate RadiaCarcinog tion organics inorganics change ens (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) 0.0900 4.22E-06 0.33E-04 1.73E-04 8.97E-04 1.55E-04 8.55E-05 7.0387 0.0025 2.0422 0. African I Tiama I Niangon I Aningre I Mutenye I Wawa I Tchitola I Koto I Canaria I 8.5700 5.0431 8.0071 0.0365 0.93E-06 0.57E-04 10.77E-06 0.89E-07 0.16E-07 0.94E-07 0.84E-09 0.9500 3. Indisch I 9.34E-04 8.91E-05 1.Acidification city / Eutrophication (Pts) (Pts) 0.0056 0.50E-04 9.0045 0.0059 0.0061 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Ozone layer (Pts) Ecotoxi.0059 0.43E-04 10.6800 6.0032 3.0229 0.0057 0.0029 2.0049 0.0051 0.5000 5.54E-07 0.17E-04 11.0037 0.0492 10.08E-07 0.5900 5.0032 0.0058 0.03E-09 0.05E-07 0.0389 8.0027 7.4100 6.0026 3.63E-06 0.4300 6. Resp.0066 0.10E-04 Padouk.0405 0.0025 2.0384 0.26E-04 1.0067 0.0487 10.83E-06 0.04E-07 0.9000 6.0061 0.84E-09 0.0034 0.20E-04 1.3000 6.0357 0.

0044 0.00% 8.89E-04 9.00% Ozone layer (Pts) Ecotoxi.8000 3.7000 3.72E-07 0. Climate RadiaCarcinog tion organics inorganics change ens (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) 0.0042 0.0023 8.0451 11.03% 0.4000 3.Acidification city / Eutrophication (Pts) (Pts) 0. Resp.00% 0.03E-09 0.6000 3.0291 0.0235 0.35E-07 0.0055 0.01E-06 0.Appendix C13-C16: Environmental Impact of Woods in Impact Categories Material Cases Group Wood HI Wood HI Wood HI Name Cottonwood I Wenge I Emeri I Average Contibution to total (%) Total (Pts) Resp.0055 0.06% x x x 0 0.0417 99.45% .75E-07 0.0315 12.26E-05 1.65E-09 0.93E-07 0.73E-05 12.0047 0.05% Land use (Pts) Minerals (Pts) Fossil fuels (Pts) 11.23E-04 9.0001 0.3263 0.0004 0.2354 3.03% 11.0041 1.0027 0.44E-04 11.0038 0.0337 0.00% 0.0036 1.0060 0.5000 5.0032 0.36% 0.01E-05 1.0491 9.0265 0.3000 6.33E-06 0.00% 0.

2001. Second National Conference on LCA. 1997. 1996. Canada. V. Centre for Design. and interview with Michael Pitcher by V. Tools and Case Studies in Product Development by Henrik Wenzel et. 1994. 1996. [3] Assessment of Environmental Life Cycle Approach for Industrial Materials and Products by Steven B Young. RMIT Melbourne. Melbourne 2000. Soriano. Sydney . D-1 . PhD Thesis.Appendix D Product Cases and the Source APPENDIX D PRODUCT CASES AND THE SOURCE List of the Sources for Product Cases: [1] A Simplified Assessment Approach for Environmentally Sound Product Systems Design. Melbourne. 2000. [8] Life Cycle Assessment of Dishwasher by Deni Greene Consultanting for Centre for Design at RMIT. [7] Environmental Assessment of Products: Volume 1 Methodology. [6] LCA in Practice in the commercial Furniture Industry by Michael pitcher.Soriano.. [2] A Simple LCA Case Study of Reusable and Disposable Shavers by Marjolein Demmers (Preliminary study carried out by Karli James ) Proceedings of the first National LCA Conference. [4] Product CD cases.J. University of NSW. J. LCA Short Course. al. Melbourne. [5] Sample cases from SimaPro LCA package.

[10] Life Cycle Assessment of Washing Machine by Deni Greene Consultanting Services for the Australian Consumers' Association.. Resources. 1995. [12] Life-cycle Assessment on Saucepans. ProductLife Institute. Environmental Resources Management Ltd. Bentley West Management Consultants. Giuseppe M. South Africa. 1997. 2000. Centre for Design at RMIT. 2000. Geneva. Melbourne. Landfield. Sweden. M.Appendix D Product Cases and the Source [9] Tools for Designers-Redesign of an Electric Heater by Marjolein Demmers. Report of Socioeconomic impact assessment of the proposed plastic bag regulations. Stockholm. Vijia Karra. 1991. M. Bruno Notarnicola b. [11] Waste Minimisation Case Studies for Three Products. University of Kalmar. 1992. D-2 . KTH Project by Eriksson. Von Walter Stahel. 2002. Giuseppe Tassielli. [17] Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of flooring materials: ceramic versus marble tiles. Life cycle assessment of a rock crusher. [16] Life cycle assessment of a paper and plastic checkout carrier bags.. Life cycle analysis of RL-200 and RL-300. [13] Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment Study-Study Prepared for Airdri Ltd. Sweden. Nicoletti. and Izar. [15] Anne H. [14] Vinexus.. Conservation and Recycling Vol. And Bobrick Washroom Equipment Inc. 28. Journal of Cleaner Production Vol.10 2002. 2001.

Front Load) PC Power Tool High Pressure Cleaner Electric Pump Hydraulic Activation Unit Cooking pan-Gunda Cooking pan-All Steel Cooking pan -356+ Cooking pan-Hotpan Source 1 [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [12] [12] [12] [12] Source 2 [2] [2] [3] [3] [3] [4] [4] [4] [4] [4] [5] [5] [6] [6] [6] [6] [7] [8] [7] [5] [5] [9] [10] [10] [10] [10] [11] [11] [7] [7] [7] D-3 .Appendix D Product Cases and the Source Table of Cases and Sources Product Case Shaver-reuse Shaver disposal Beverage package-Al PET bottle Beverage package-steel CD package-P CD package-M CD package-C CD package-B CD package-D Paper bag Shopping bag-plastic Steel drawer Wooden drawer Steel panel Wooden panel Refrigerator Dish washer TV Coffee machine Pro Coffee machine Sima Electric Heater Washing Machine (Au Top Load) Washing Machine (Au Front Load) Washing Machine (Im. Top Load) Washing Machine (Im.

Appendix D Product Cases and the Source Product Case Hand drier Garbage collector-RL300 Garbage colletor-RL200 Rock crusher Paper sack Plastic sack Ceramic tile Paper towel Source 1 [13] [14] [14] [15] [16] [16] [17] [13] Source 2 D-4 .

461-468. Sun M... Life Cycle Inventory Data for Materials Grouped According to Environmental and Material Properties. Kaebernick H. Montreal. Kara S.. (2004). Rydh C. pp...APPENDIX E LIST OF PUBLICATIONS • Kaebernick H. 19. Journal of Cleaner Production (Accepted). • Kara S. • Rydh C. (2003). Kara S. Material Grouping for Simplified Product Life Cycle Assessment. Australia. E-1 . (2002). Robotics ad Computer Integrated manufacturing. Sustainable Product Development and Manufacturing by Considering Environmental Requirements. Annals of CIRP. p. pp.103-111. Kara S. • Sun M. Vol. Canada. 9th CIRP Seminar on Life Cycle Engineering. Sun M. A Sustainable Manufacturing Paradigm Introducing Environmental Requirements into Product Development. Germany. (2002). Journal of Sustainable Product Design (Accepted). • Kaebernick H. August 24-31. Sun M. (2003)... Sun M.. (2004). Adelaide. Erlangen.. 25-28. Sun M. Simplified Lifecycle Assessment for the Early Design Stage of Industrial Products. Kaebernick H.. • Kaebernick H. Proceedings of the International Manufacturing Leaders Forum Leadership of Future in Manufacturing.. February 8-10.J. J... pp.. A Tradeoff Model for Sustainable Product Development.18-25.... April 9-10.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful