Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 29 (2015) 432 – 437

The 22nd CIRP conference on Life Cycle Engineering

Life Cycle Assessment of CRT, LCD and LED Monitors

Vikrant Bhakar, Aashray Agur, A. K. Digalwar, Kuldip Singh Sangwan*
a
Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani, INDIA - 333031

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-1596-515730; fax: +91-1596-244183. E-mail address: kss@pilani.bits-pilani.ac.in

Abstract

The increasing consumption patterns in emerging economies like India and China with half the world population has increased the
environmental concerns. E-waste in these countries is rapidly increasing and monitor is one of the major contributors to it. The paper aims at
assessing the life cycle environmental impact of Cathode Ray Tube (CRT), Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) and Light Emitting Diode (LED)
monitors. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of three widely used monitors has been performed based on the international standards of ISO 14040
series. The LCA was constructed using Umberto software version 5.6 and expressed with both CML (Centrum voor Milieuwetenschappen)
2001, mid-point assessment method and Impact 2002+, end point assessment method. This study is expected to guide policy makers in
government to improve e-waste management strategies and also it will create awareness among the user. The monitor manufacturers may
leverage the study to improve the environmental impact of these products. Sensitivity analysis for the use phase has been performed to confirm
the robustness of results.
©
© 2015
2015 The
The Authors.
Authors. Published
Published by
by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review under responsibility of the International Scientific Committee of the Conference “22nd CIRP conference on Life Cycle
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Engineering.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of The 22nd CIRP conference on Life Cycle Engineering

Keywords: life cycle; environmental impact assessment; end-of-life; e-waste management

1. Introduction
In recent times, the access to personal computers (PCs) has
increased many folds. One of the major components of these
PCs is monitor. The monitor technology has rapidly changed
in last two decades, from cathode ray tube to liquid crystal
display, plasma display, light emitting diode, organic light
emitting diode, etc. Moreover, the increasing penetration of
PCs in emerging economies like India and China with half the
population of the world will increase the number of monitors
required worldwide. For example, in terms of sheer numbers,
the Indian PC market is higher than that of many of the
developed countries [1]). Dwivedy and Mittal [2]) has
predicted that the PC penetration in India could overtake that
of US (highest PC penetration) by 2046, while the number of
obsolete computer inventory in India will be two times that of
US by 2022.
Monitors consume a significant amount (15 to 35%) of
energy in PC system [3]. According to EE Times [4], it is
estimated that by 2014-15 market share of LED monitors will
increase to 80% and LCD market share will come down to
less than 20%. It is estimated that out of 260 million display
units expected in market by 2014, major contribution will be
of LED only. Major benefit associated with LED display is its
lower power consumption during use phase.
Electronic Industries Association of India (ELCINA) has
estimated that commercial sector accounts for 80% of total
market penetration of computer and IT hardware in India. The
association report on consumer behavior highlights that at
corporate/business level only 6% of the organizations were
found to be disposing off their computers in environment
friendly manner [5]. A monitor generates many environmental
impacts throughout its life cycle. The manufacturing of a
monitor is a complex process, involving many hazardous
materials as well as precious metals. The use phase of a
monitor consumes considerable amount of electricity, and
End-of-Life (EoL) phase can seriously affect human health, if
not properly disposed off. For example, liquid crystal mixture
of LCD and LED monitors contains benzene, cyano-group, F,
Cl, etc., which are potentially harmful to human health and
environment [6]. Similarly, plastic housing and frames contain
brominated flame retardants such as Poly Brominated Di-

2212-8271 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of The 22nd CIRP conference on Life Cycle Engineering
doi:10.1016/j.procir.2015.02.003
 Vikrant Bhakar et al. / Procedia CIRP 29 (2015) 432 – 437
phenyl Ethers (PBDE) and Poly Brominated Bi-phenyls
(PBB), which are harmful to brain, kidneys, nervous system,
liver, endocrine and reproductive systems [6].
Complex components used in monitors such as PWB
(Printed Wiring Board) have a large variety of precious metals
such as gold, silver and hazardous materials like lead (Pb) [7].
A recent review has revealed that there is high concentration
of Pb, PBDEs, PCDD (Polychlorinated di-benzo dioxins) and
PBDD (poly brominated di-benzo-p-dioxins) in air, bottom
ash, dust, soil, water and sediments in WEEE recycling areas
of the developing countries as compared to developed nations
[8]. The ancillary materials like nitrogen tri-fluoride (NF3),
which is used during the manufacturing process of LCDs to
clean the vacuum chambers, can cause a lot of environmental
impact, as it is a greenhouse gas with a global warming
potential (GWP) 17,000 times more potent than carbon
dioxide (CO2) [9].
The increasing awareness of environmental protection and
the possible negative effects due to the activities at every stage
of a product’s life cycle, i.e. production, distribution, usage,
and disposal, have led to the creation of plethora of concepts,
strategies, approaches, tools, etc. to assess and understand the
environmental impacts of products throughout their lifecycle
[10]. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of products throughout
various phases is one such approach used to find the
environmental impact of products during pre-manufacturing,
manufacturing, use, and disposal. This paper aims at assessing
the environmental impact of high growth market segment of
PC monitors. The paper also compares the most prevalent
CRT (Cathode Ray Tube) monitors in developing countries,
widely used LCD (Liquid Crystal Display) monitors in
developed countries and fast emerging LED (Light Emitting
Diode) monitors.
LCA is an investigative instrument that incorporates all the
environmental impacts of a product, process and human
activities from raw material extraction, production, use phase
and waste management [11]. LCA is the internationally
standardized environmental assessment method [12] with a
methodological framework for estimating and assessing the
environmental impacts attributable to the life cycle of a
product, such as climate change, stratospheric ozone
depletion, tropospheric ozone (smog) creation, eutrophication,
acidification, toxicological stress on human health and
ecosystems, resource depletion, water use, land use, noise, etc.
[13]. Few LCA studies have been conducted to assess the
environmental impacts of CRT and LCD monitors at different
geographical locations [9] [14] [15] [16]. Such studies are not
available for emerging economies which have poor e-waste
management and poor quality of energy mix. This paper
provides LCA of CRT, LCD and LED monitors as well
provides a comparative assessment of these monitors in an
Indian context on different parameters. Further, the results are
expressed using CML 2001 and Impact 2002+ methodologies.
Sensitivity analysis has also been performed to check the
robustness of the results. This paper is expected to help the
industry in general and Indian industry in particular to take
better decisions during purchase and replacement of monitors.
It will also guide the government policy makers to develop
better policies for e-waste management.
433
2. Materials and methods
A typical desktop PC is an assembly of three main
components, i.e. monitor, CPU and key board. With
technological innovation in the recent past, there is a drastic
improvement in each of these components especially in the
monitors. CRT monitor is the oldest and heaviest and requires
maximum power amongst the three monitors. LCD monitor
uses different technology and is sleeker compared to CRT. It
uses Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp (CCFL) as its light
source in the backlight unit and has liquid crystals sandwiched
between the glasses of its screen. LED monitor in principle is
an LCD monitor as it has the same display screen, but uses
light emitting diode instead of CCFL as light source in the
backlight unit [17]. The environmental performance of the
three monitors has been done by conducting an LCA study
based on the international standards of the ISO 14040 series
[13][18] [19].
2.1. Goals and Scope
2.1.1. Objectives of the Study
The objective of the study is to assess and compare
quantitatively the environmental impacts of CRT, LCD and
LED monitors on different parameters covering various
aspects of nature, i.e. human health, ecosystem quality,
climate change, resource depletion, etc., and thereby to find
the monitor which causes the least environmental burden.
2.1.2. System Boundaries
The scope of the present study is a traditional LCA from
cradle to grave, i.e. from the extraction of the various
resources used in the production of these monitors to the final
disposal at the end of life. The production data of various
parts of the monitor was obtained from the Eco-invent
database 2.2. However, due to lack of availability of data with
respect to transportation between various distribution
channels in India because of diversified and complex
transportation system, transportation has not been included in
the system boundary. Indian electricity mix has been created
based on the data provided in Table 1.
2.1.3. Functional Unit
The functional unit of the study is taken to be a standard
monitor with a diagonal viewing area of 15 inches, working
240 days a year for 6 year in which five hour normal
operation, two hour sleep mode and one hour standby mode.
The CRT monitor closest to that diagonal viewing area is a 17
inches CRT monitor which has diagonal viewing area of 15.9
inches [20]. The other possible design parameters for
monitors are brightness, resolution, weight and power
consumption [16]. Kim and Kara [16] have pointed out the
limitations of functional unit as the products are sold and
bought as a whole unit and not based on the functional unit.
434 Vikrant Bhakar et al. / Procedia CIRP 29 (2015) 432 – 437

Table 1 Composition of Indian electricity mix (Source: CEA, Govt. of India, effect is least in the human health category. The next
2009-2010) prominent contributors are metals. Metals have high effect on
Energy source Electricity produced in 2009-2010 ecosystem quality and human health. Various plastics in CRT
GWh Percentage
monitor have negligible effect on the ecosystem quality. The
Coal + lignite 539.501 67.9
Oil 7.878 1.0 effect of metals on ecosystem quality and human health is
Natural Gas 93.159 11.6 about 30-35%.
Hydroelectricity (large) 109.255 13.6
Nuclear power 18.636 2.3
Wind power 18.187 2.3
Biomass power 7.001 0.9
Hydroelectricity (small) 8.211 1.0
Total 801.828 100.0

2.2. Life Cycle Inventory

Major source of the inventory data for the study was

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of USA and
published literature. The EPA has published bill of primary
materials for 17 inches CRT monitor and 15 inches LCD
monitor. For the purpose of uniformity in the data for the use
phase, the power consumption of each of the monitors at 230
VAC and 50 Hz has been taken from the Hewlett Packard
(HP).
2.3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)
For the impact assessment, two well known LCIA methods
were used: the Impact 2002+ (End point) and the CML 2001
(Mid point). The categories under the Impact 2002+ are
climate change, ecosystem quality, human health and
resources, while those under the CML 2001 methodology are
Acidification Potential (AP), Climate Change (CC),
Eutrophication Potential (EP), Freshwater Aquatic Eco-
Toxicity Potential (FAETP), Freshwater Sediment Eco-
Toxicity Potential (FSETP), Human Toxicity Potential (HTP),
Ionizing Radiation (IR), Malodours air, Marine Aquatic Eco-
Toxicity Potential (MAETP), Marine Sediment Eco-Toxicity
Potential (MSETP), Photochemical ox (summer smog),
Abiotic Depletion Potential (ADP), Ozone Depletion Potential
(ODP), and Terrestrial Eco-toxicity potential (TETP).
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. End Point Assessment
3.1.1. Environmental impact of CRT monitors using end
point assessment method
The results of the environmental impact assessment of the
CRT monitor using Impact 2002+, an end point assessment
method, are shown in Fig. 1. As observed from the Fig., the
major parts which have a significant contribution to various
categories are Printed Wiring Board (PWB), plastics, metals,
and glass. The rest of the parts such as phosphors, aquadag,
ferrite, magnetite, shield assembly, etc. are placed under the
misc. category.
It is evident that PWB has the major impact in all the four
impact categories. It affects climate change the most and its
Fig. 1 Environmental impacts of an CRT monitor production
3.1.2. Environmental impact of LCD monitors using end
point assessment method
The LCD end point assessment results shown in Fig.
reflect that PWB is the major impact contributor. The
contribution of backlight is also noteworthy in LCD monitors.
Backlight consists of CCFL and light guide. Plastics, metal
and glass contribute very low in all categories. The rest of the
parts such as color filter pigments, polarizers, alignment layer,
spacers, adhesives, etc. are placed under the misc. group. The
metals used in LCD monitor consist of steel, copper,
aluminum, tin, and lead. Similarly, plastics consist of
polycarbonate, ABS, Polyethylene ether (PEE), Tri-phenyl
phosphate (TPP) and Polyethylene tere-phthalate (PET). The
contributing trends of plastics and metals in LCD monitor are
very similar to that of CRT monitor. In the CRT monitor, the
plastic set of LCD has a small effect of less 1% on the
ecosystem quality. Similarly, the contribution of metal parts is
higher on the ecosystem quality and human health as
compared to the other two categories. The effect of the
backlight is around 20% for ecosystem quality and human
health measures.
3.1.3. Environmental impact of LED monitors using end
point assessment method
The results of the impact assessment of the LED monitor
are shown in the Fig. 3. The major part having significant
contribution to each of the impact categories is again PWB.
The metals consisting of steel, copper, aluminum, tin, and
lead contribute around 15% to the ecosystem quality and
human health categories and around 10% to the climate
change and resources categories. Plastics consisting
 Vikrant Bhakar et al. / Procedia CIRP 29 (2015) 432 – 437
Fig. 2 Environmental impacts of an LCD monitor production
Fig. 3 Environmental impacts of an LED monitor production
polycarbonate, ABS, Polyethylene ether (PEE), Tri-phenyl
phosphate (TPP), poly-methyl meth-acrylate (PMMA) and
Polyethylene tere-phthalate (PET) contribute around 12% to
climate change and resources categories. Contribution of
plastics to ecosystem quality is almost negligible. The effect
of diodes in LED has significant impact on all categories,
even though its weight is only 35 grams. The contribution of a
strip of 100 diodes is higher than that of entire group of
metals to the climate change and the resources categories.
3.2. Mid Point Life Cycle Assessment
Midpoint assessment for the three types of monitors has
been done using CML method to assess manufacturing
(including pre-manufacturing), use and end-of-life phases.
Detailed results of the assessment of CRT, LCD and LED
monitors for all the fourteen categories across the three phases
is given in Appendix.
It is observed that in term of absolute values, the
malodours air contributes very high. Therefore, this category
has been excluded from the graphical representation. Its
highest contribution is for CRT in all phases. Within CRT, its
contribution is highest in manufacturing phase followed by
use and EOL phases.
3.2.1. LCA results of CRT monitor using midpoint
assessment method
Manufacturing of the CRT dominates the impact in 10
categories as shown in Fig. 4. CRT use has higher potential to
435
the climate change, acidification and abiotic depletion. Use
phase is responsible for more than 70% contribution to
climate change and abiotic depletion. The EOL phase
contributes around 10% to the FAETP, FSETP, MAETP, and
MSETP categories.
Fig. 4 LCA results of CRT monitor across all the phases
3.2.2. LCA results of LCD monitor using midpoint assessment
method
Fig. 5 LCA results of LCD monitor across all the phases
Similar to CRT results, manufacturing is the dominating
phase across all impact categories except climate change and
abiotic depletion as shown in Fig. 5. The use phase dominates
in climate change and abiotic depletion categories and also
has a significant contribution of more than 40% to
acidification potential. EoL phase contributes more than 30%
to FSETP, FAETP and MSPTP categories and more than 20%
to MAETP category. In all these four categories, the effect of
EoL phase is more pronounced than the use phase.
3.2.3. LCA results of LED monitor using midpoint assessment
method
The manufacturing phase dominates in all the categories
for LED monitors as shown in Fig 6. The LED monitors
consume less power, so the effect of use phase is very low in
most of the categories except acidification potential, climate
change and abiotic depletion categories. It contributes
negligibly to all eco-toxicity categories. The EoL phase effect
significantly in term of FAETP, FSETP, MAETP, and
MSETP and also to some extent in term of acidification
potential and climate change, unlike CRT and LCD monitors.
436 Vikrant Bhakar et al. / Procedia CIRP 29 (2015) 432 – 437

3.4. Sensitivity analysis

To check the robustness of the results, a sensitivity analysis

Fig. 6 LCA results of LED monitor across all the phases
has been performed on the impact assessment data. A typical
sensitivity analysis is performed by changing one of the input
independent variable and at the same time measuring its
influence on the dependent variable(s). It measures how
different values of an independent variable will impact a
particular dependent variable under different conditions.
Sensitivity analysis is very useful for measuring the impact of
two or more than two assumed independent variables. In this
case Indian electricity mix was replaced with the German
electricity mix [21] to measure robustness of the model as
shown in Table 2.

3.3. Comparison of CRT, LCD and LED Monitors Table 2 German [21] and Indian Electricity mix [22]
Energy source German Indian
The analyses in the preceding sections dealt with each of Electricity Electricity
the monitors independently using different parameters. This Mix mix
section compares the three monitors on the impact categories Coal + lignite 43.24% 67.9 %
using CML 2001 methodology. The climate change potential Oil 1.42% 1.0 %
Natural Gas/gases 14.94% 11.6%
during all the three phases of life cycle is more for CRT
Hydroelectricity 2.96% 13.6%
monitors (Fig. 7). It also shows that climate change potential (large)
of LED monitors during manufacturing phase is more when Nuclear power 23.76% 2.3%
compared to LCD monitors and the impact is comparable Wind 10.37% 2.3%
during EOL phase. Only during the use phase the impact of power/Renewable
LED monitors is less. The effect of various types of eco- Biomass power 1.74% 0.9%
toxicities during all the three phases of lifecycle shows that Hydroelectricity 1.57% 1.0%
the FSETP is the major contributor, followed by FAETP and (small)
MSETP. The LCD monitors have more eco-toxicity potential Total 100% 100.0
as compared to LED monitors but the values are close to each
other. The effect of CRT monitors is more pronounced. It is Fig. 8 shows that the effect of change of electricity mixes
interesting to observe that the trend for all six types of during the three lifecycle phases. It clearly indicates that with
toxicities is similar for three types of monitors, i.e. CRT the change of electricity mix, the trends are similar across the
followed by LCD and LED. The effect of CRT monitors on life cycles of monitors. The German and Indian electricity
environment is much more than LCD and LED monitors. The mixes are giving similar values for manufacturing and EoL
percentage effect ranges from 57 to 68 percent across phases where the electricity consumption is low. However,
categories. The percentage effect for LCD monitors ranges there is a change in the use phase as seen from Fig. 8, but the
from 18 to 22 percent and for LED monitors the range is 13 to trend is similar. The change is high for CRT and negligible
21 percent. The significant differences between LCD and for LED monitors.
LED monitors are in term of acidification potential, climate
change, abiotic depletion, and maladours air. A CRT monitor
as compared to LED monitor affects the environment
approximately three times throughout its life cycle.

Fig. 8 Effect on life cycle stages (eco indicator 99 total impact points)
with German and Indian electricity mix

Fig. 7 Climate change potential of three monitors (Kg Co2 Eq.)

 Vikrant Bhakar et al. / Procedia CIRP 29 (2015) 432 – 437 437

4. Conclusions [7] Robinson, B. H.. E-waste: an assessment of global production and

The endpoint assessment using Impact 2002+ has shown
that Printed Wiring Board (PWB) on all the three type of
monitors cause maximum damage to the environment. Such a
high impact value of PWB is attributed to the presence of
precious metals like gold and silver and as well the hazardous
metal – lead (Pb). The manufacturing phase (including pre-
manufacturing) is found to cause maximum damage to the
environment in term of various eco-toxicities. However, in
terms of global warming potential, acidification potential and
abiotic depletion, use phase of CRT and LCD monitors cause
more damage to environment. LED monitors cause low
environmental damage in use phase in all categories as
compared to other phases. Therefore, emphasis should be to
improve the useful life of the LED monitors. LED monitors
in comparison to CRT and LCD monitors, have more
potential to cause environmental damage at EoL, so further
research may be directed to formulate better EoL strategies
for LED monitors. However, the volume of sales needs to be
studied for better e-waste strategies [23]. The robustness of
the models has been verified by the sensitivity analysis. It is
evident that LED monitors cause least environmental burden,
while the impact caused by CRT monitors is almost three
times of LED monitors.
References
[1] Sinha-Khetriwal, D., Kraeuchi, P., & Schwaninger, M. A comparison of
electronic waste recycling in Switzerland and in India. Environmental
Impact Assessment Review, 2005. 25(5), 492-504.
[2] Dwivedy, M., & Mittal, R. K. Future trends in computer waste
generation in India. Waste management, (2010). 30(11), 2265-2277.
[3] Park, W. Y., Phadke, A., & Shah, N. Efficiency improvement
opportunities for personal computer monitors: implications for market
transformation programs. Energy Efficiency, August 2013, doi
10.1007/s12053-013-9191-0.
[4] European business press, EE Times (2011), http://www.ledlighting-
eetimes.com/en/energy-cost-savings-from-led-backlit-tvs-relevant-to-
customers-analyst-says.html?cmp_id=7&news_id=222907441. (May 9,
2013)
[5] Jain A., E-waste business models, policies and regulations in India. In:
Proceedings of IEEE Int Symposium on Sustainable Systems and
Technology (ISSST),17-19 May, pp. 1-4, Arlington, Virginia, USA.
2010.
[6] Zhuang, X., He, W., Li, G., Huang, J., & Ye, Y. Materials Separation
from Waste Liquid Crystal Displays Using Combined Physical
Methods. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 2012. 21(6), 1921-
1927.
environmental impacts. Science of the Total Environment, 2009. 408(2),
183-191.
[8] Sepúlveda, A., Schluep, M., Renaud, F. G., Streicher, M., Kuehr, R.,
Hagelüken, C., & Gerecke, A. C. A review of the environmental fate
and effects of hazardous substances released from electrical and
electronic equipments during recycling: Examples from China and
India. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 2010. 30(1), 28-41.
[9] Thomas, N. J., Chang, N. B., & Qi, C. Preliminary assessment for
global warming potential of leading contributory gases from a 40-in.
LCD flat-screen television. The International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment, 2012. 17(1), 96-104.
[10] Sangwan, K. S.. Development of a multi criteria decision model for
justification of green manufacturing systems. International Journal of
Green Economics, 2011. 5(3), 285-305.
[11] Curran, M. A. "Life Cycle Assessment: A review of the methodology
and its application to sustainability." Current Opinion in Chemical
Engineering 2.3 (2013): 273-277.
[12] Kloepffer, W. Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. The
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13(2), 89-95. 2008.
[13] Rebitzer, G., Ekvall, T., Frischknecht, R., Hunkeler, D., Norris, G.,
Rydberg, T., ... & Pennington, D. W. Life cycle assessment: Part 1:
Framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and
applications. Environment international, 2004. 30(5), 701-720.
[14] Socolof, M. L., Overly, J. G., & Geibig, J. R. Environmental life-cycle
impacts of CRT and LCD desktop computer displays. Journal of
Cleaner production, 2005. 13(13), 1281-1294.
[15] Song, Q., Wang, Z., Li, J., & Yuan, W. Life cycle assessment of
desktop PCs in Macau. The International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment, 2013. 18(3), 553-566.
[16] Kim, S.J. and Kara, S. Impact of Technology on Product Life Cycle
Design: Functional and Environmental Perspective. In: Dornfeld DA,
Linke BS (eds) 19th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering,
University of California at Berkeley, USA, 23-25 May 2012.
Leveraging Technology for a Sustainable World. Springer, pp 191-196.
[17] Lim SK. LCD Backlights and light sources. Proceedings of ASID’06,
9th Asian Symposium on Information Display. 2006.
[18] Marsmann, Manfred. "The ISO 14040 family." The International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2000, 5.6: 317-318.
[19] Pennington, D. W., Potting, J., Finnveden, G., Lindeijer, E., Jolliet, O.,
Rydberg, T., & Rebitzer, G. Life cycle assessment Part 2: Current
impact assessment practice. Environment International, 2004. 30(5),
721-739.
[20] Environmental protection agency. USA, EPA -
http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/comp-dic/lca-sum/ques2.pdf, (March 12,
2013).
[21] Itten, R. Frischknecht, R., Stucki, M., Life Cycle Inventories of
Electricity Mixes and Grid, Uster, May 2013, http://www.esu-
services.ch/fileadmin/download/publicLCI/itten-2012-electricity-
mix.pdf. (February 5, 2013).
[22] Annual Report 2009–2010. Central Electricity Authority, Ministry of
Power; www.cea.nic.in/sitemap.html, accessed on June 15, 2011.
[23] Kim, S.J., Kara, S. and Kayis, B. Analysis of the impact of technology
changes on the economic and environmental influence of product life-
cycle design. Int J Computer Integr Manuf, 2014, 27 (5):422-433.

Appendix: Detailed results of impact categories with CML 2001

Impact Categories Unit Manufacture Use End Of Life
CRT LCD LED CRT LCD LED CRT LCD LED
Acidification Potential kg SO2-Eq 1.65E+00 5.58E-01 5.55E-01 2.08E+00 4.42E-01 1.59E-01 1.04E-02 2.99E-03 3.96E-02
Climate Change kg CO2-Eq 2.00E+02 9.06E+01 9.77E+01 5.37E+02 1.14E+02 4.10E+01 1.43E+01 6.94E+00 6.98E+00
Eutrophication Potential kg PO4-Eq 1.87E+00 7.59E-01 7.42E-01 8.90E-01 1.89E-01 6.79E-02 3.88E-03 2.14E-03 2.16E-03
Freshwater Aquatic Eco-toxicity kg 1,4-DCB 4.43E+02 1.77E+02 1.70E+02 1.32E+02 2.81E+01 1.01E+01 7.81E+01 8.98E+01 9.03E+01
Freshwater Sediment Eco-Toxicity kg 1,4-DCB 8.45E+02 3.36E+02 3.25E+02 2.73E+02 5.81E+01 2.09E+01 1.94E+02 2.24E+02 2.25E+02
Human Toxicity kg 1,4-DCB 3.15E+02 1.40E+02 1.19E+02 3.47E+01 7.38E+00 2.65E+00 7.47E+00 3.79E+00 3.81E+00
Marine Aquatic Eco-toxicity kg 1,4-DCB 2.55E+02 1.01E+02 9.71E+01 7.91E+01 1.68E+01 6.04E+00 3.00E+01 3.54E+01 3.57E+01
Marine Sediment Eco-toxicity kg 1,4-DCB 3.83E+02 1.52E+02 1.46E+02 1.26E+02 2.69E+01 9.64E+00 6.70E+01 7.86E+01 7.91E+01
Terrestrial Eco-toxicity kg 1,4-DCB 3.71E-02 1.58E-02 1.42E-02 1.35E-02 2.87E-03 1.03E-03 8.88E-05 2.74E-05 2.76E-05
Ionizing Radiation DALYs 1.45E-06 6.34E-07 7.24E-07 6.27E-07 1.33E-07 4.79E-08 9.24E-09 2.22E-09 2.24E-09
Malodours Air m3 air 2.14E+06 6.75E+05 7.25E+05 2.02E+06 4.31E+05 1.54E+05 1.12E+04 5.33E+03 5.37E+03
Photochemical Ox (Smog) kg ethylene 2.84E-02 1.29E-02 1.33E-02 1.08E-02 2.29E-03 8.22E-04 1.13E-04 4.20E-05 4.23E-05
Depletion of Abiotic Resources kg antimony 1.39E+00 6.10E-01 6.60E-01 3.69E+00 7.85E-01 2.82E-01 9.93E-03 2.00E-03 2.02E-03
Stratosphic O3 Depletion(40) kg CFC-11 2.46E-05 1.02E-05 1.07E-05 1.20E-05 2.54E-06 9.13E-07 1.58E-07 3.38E-08 3.40E-08