2) Fulltext01

Life Cycle Assessment and Sustainability
Aspects of Solvatten, a Water

Cleaning Device
Ulrika Isberg & Karin Nilsson
Master of Science Thesis

Stockholm 2011
Ulrika Isberg & Karin Nilsson
Life Cycle Assessment and Sustainability Aspects

of Solvatten, a Water Cleaning Device
Supervisor:
Björn Frostell, Industriell ekologi, KTH
Examiner:
Björn Frostell, Industriell ekologi, KTH
Master of Science Thesis

STOCKHOLM 2011
PRESENTED AT
INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY
ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
TRITA-IM 2011:42
Industrial Ecology,
Royal Institute of Technology
www.ima.kth.se
Abstract
Solvatten is a water cleaning device for households in developing countries. As a Master Thesis for
the Master of Science in Engineering Programme at Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan a Life Cycle
Assessment of Solvatten has been conducted. The primary aim was to investigate the environmental
impacts of Solvatten and compare it with two other common methods of accessing safe water;
boiling and bottled water. Information has been gathered by contacting manufacturers and suppliers
and analysed in the computer software SimaPro. The stand-‐alone LCA of Solvatten showed that the
product gives almost no impact on ecosystem quality and human health. As the product mostly is
made of different plastic materials (i.e. fossil fuels), Solvatten has its highest impact in the damage
category of resources. Hence, most of Solvatten’s environmental impact comes from the materials
and production processes of the black container and the transparent lid. The disposal phase of
Solvatten has been left out of the data analysis as there is a large uncertainty in waste scenarios of
developing countries. Instead, a comparison was made between three different waste scenarios;
landfill, incineration, and recycling with European standards. It is clear that recycling is the best
alternative, and Solvatten should show their corporate social responsibility by organizing this. The
comparative studies conducted for Solvatten, boiling water with firewood and buying bottled water
indicated that due to Solvatten’s long lifetime, the environmental impact for Solvatten is lower. Also
discussed in the report are the economic and social aspects of Solvatten, which are a great advantage
for Solvatten since both time and money can be saved. Solvatten is concluded to be a good
alternative for accessing safe water.

i

Sammanfattning
Solvatten är en produkt för att rena vatten i hushåll i utvecklingsländer. En livscykelanalys av
Solvatten har gjorts som examensarbete för civilingenjörsprogrammet på Kungliga Tekniska
Högskolan. Det främsta målet med analysen var att utreda Solvattens miljöpåverkan samt att jämföra
den med två andra sätt att få tag på rent vatten; kokning och flaskvatten. Information har samlats in
genom att kontakta producenter och leverantörer och sedan analyserat med datorprogrammet
SimaPro. Den fristående LCA:n av Solvatten visade att produkten nästan inte ger någon inverkan på
ekosystem kvalité och hälsa. Eftersom produkten mestadels är gjord utav olika plastmaterial (d.v.s.
fossila bränslen), visar analysen högst påverkan i kategorin för råvaror (eng: resources). Den största
delen av Solvatten’s miljöpåverkan kommer ifrån materialen och produktions processerna för den
svarta delen av dunken samt de genomskinliga locken. Avfallshanteringen för Solvatten fick
utelämnas ur dataanalysen, då osäkerheten kring olika metoder för avfallshantering är för stor i
utvecklingsländer. Istället gjordes en jämförelse mellan tre olika avfallsscenarion; deponering,
förbränning och återvinning med europeiska standarder. Det är tydligt att återvinning är det bästa
alternativet, och att Solvatten AB borde visa sitt samhällsansvar genom att organisera detta. Den
jämförande studien mellan Solvatten, kokning och flaskvatten indikerar att Solvatten har den lägsta
miljöpåverkan, på grund av produktens långa livslängd. Rapporten diskuterar även Solvattens
hållbarhet ur ekonomiska och sociala perspektiv. De visar att Solvatten har stora fördelar i att både
tid och pengar kan sparas. Slutsatsen är att Solvatten är ett bra alternativ för att få tillgång till rent
vatten.
ii

iii

Contents
Abstract .................................................................................................................................................... i
Sammanfattning .......................................................................................................................................ii
Contents .................................................................................................................................................. iv
Figures ..................................................................................................................................................... vi
Tables ...................................................................................................................................................... vi
1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background .............................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Aim and Objectives .................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 2
2 Theory .............................................................................................................................................. 3
2.1 Water and Sanitation .............................................................................................................. 3
2.2 Solvatten .................................................................................................................................. 4
2.3 Comparison with Other Methods of Accessing Purified Water .............................................. 5
2.4 Life Cycle Assessment ............................................................................................................ 11
3 Goal and Scope .............................................................................................................................. 15
3.1 Goal ....................................................................................................................................... 15
3.2 Scope of the Study ................................................................................................................. 15
4 Life Cycle Inventory ....................................................................................................................... 19
4.1 Data Collection Procedure ..................................................................................................... 19
4.2 Inventory Data ....................................................................................................................... 21
4.3 Data Sources .......................................................................................................................... 23
4.4 Assumptions and Missing Data ............................................................................................. 23
5 Life Cycle Impact Assessment ........................................................................................................ 25
5.1 Classification and Characterization ....................................................................................... 25
5.2 Impact Categories .................................................................................................................. 26
5.3 Normalization ........................................................................................................................ 27
5.4 Weighting .............................................................................................................................. 28
5.5 CO2-‐equivalents with ReCiPe ................................................................................................. 28
6 Interpretation of Stand-‐Alone LCA ................................................................................................ 29
6.1 Results ................................................................................................................................... 29
6.2 Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis ..................................................................................... 49
6.3 Key Findings ........................................................................................................................... 51
iv

7 Comparative Studies ..................................................................................................................... 53
7.1 Boiling .................................................................................................................................... 53
7.2 Water in PET-‐bottles ............................................................................................................. 59
8 Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 61
8.1 Stand-‐Alone LCA of Solvatten ................................................................................................ 61
8.2 Comparison of Solvatten with Other Sources of Purified Water .......................................... 63
8.3 Limitations to the Solvatten Study ........................................................................................ 65
8.4 The Sustainability of Solvatten .............................................................................................. 65
9 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 67
10 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 69
11 References ..................................................................................................................................... 71
Personal Communication .................................................................................................................. 73
12 Appendixes .................................................................................................................................... 74

v

Figures
Figure 1 The Solvatten Unit ..................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 2 Initial Simplified Flowchart of the Solvatten Life Cycle from Cradle to Grave ........................ 16
Figure 3 The Different Parts of Solvatten Marked on a Solvatten Unit ................................................ 19
Figure 4 Detailed Flow Chart of Assembly of Solvatten (without classified information) .................... 20
Figure 5 Characterization Result, Showing the Impact from Different Parts of Solvatten on the
Different Impact Categories, in the Stand-‐alone Solvatten Study ........................................................ 31
Figure 6 Normalization Result, Showing the Normalised Impact from Different Parts of Solvatten on
the Different Impact Categories, in the Stand-‐alone Solvatten Study .................................................. 33
Figure 7 Normalization Result, Showing the Normalised Impact from Different Parts of Solvatten on
the Different Damage Categories, in the Stand-‐alone Solvatten Study ................................................ 34
Figure 8 Weighting Result -‐ Showing the Weighted Impact from Different Parts of Solvatten on the
Different Impact Categories, in the Stand-‐alone Solvatten Study ........................................................ 36
Figure 9 A Network of the Solvatten Assembly, Showing the Characterized Results of the Impact
Category Fossil Fuels ............................................................................................................................. 38
Figure 10 Comparison of the Impact of Waste Scenarios on the Impact Categories for Solvatten ...... 42
Figure 11 Characterization Results of Solvatten with Waste Scenario: Landfill.................................... 43
Figure 12 Characterization Results of Solvatten with Waste Scenario: Incineration ............................ 44
Figure 13 Characterization Results of Solvatten with Waste Scenario: Recycling ................................ 45
Figure 14 A Network of the Solvatten Assembly, Showing the Characterized Results of the Impact
Category Climate Change [cutoff: 1 %] ................................................................................................. 47
Figure 15 Comparison of the Different Impact Categories of the Solvatten Unit Using 20 % and 5 % Air
Freight ................................................................................................................................................... 50
Figure 16 Simplified Flowchart of Boiling Water ................................................................................... 53
Figure 17 Comparison of Solvatten (Red) and Boiling Water (Green): Figure Showing Characterisation
Results Divided into the Impact Categories .......................................................................................... 56
Figure 18 Comparison of Solvatten (Red) and Boiling Water (Green): The Figure Showing
Characterisation Results Divided into the Damage Categories ............................................................. 57
Figure 19 Comparison Solvatten (Red) and Boiling Water (Green): The Figure Shows Normalized
Results Divided into Impact Categories ................................................................................................. 58
Tables
Table 1 An Overview of Different Purifying Methods by Comparing Different Criteria. ...................... 10
Table 2 Life Cycle Inventory Results, of the Stand-‐alone Solvatten study, Listing the Largest Emissions
to Air, Soil, and Water. .......................................................................................................................... 30
Table 3 Normalised Results of the Stand-‐alone Solvatten Study, Listing the Normalised Values of the
Impacts Category Results. ..................................................................................................................... 32
Table 4 Weighted Result – The Values of the Impact Categories after Weighting, in the Stand-‐alone
Solvatten Study...................................................................................................................................... 35
Table 5 Results from the Impact Category Climate Change Using the Impact Assessment Method
ReCiPe .................................................................................................................................................... 48
Table 6 Results from the Impact Category Climate Change Using the Impact Assessment Method
ReCiPe, Including the Disposal phase: Incineration .............................................................................. 48
vi

vii

1 Introduction
This is the report of a Life Cycle Assessment of Solvatten, a water cleaning device for households in
developing countries. The Life Cycle Assessment is performed as a Master Thesis for the Master of
Science in Engineering Programme at Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan in Stockholm, Sweden. The
Master Thesis is conducted by Ulrika Isberg and Karin Nilsson during the spring of 2011. The life cycle
assessment is made on behalf of the company of Solvatten AB, but is performed independently. The
primary aim of the life cycle assessment is to investigate the environmental impacts of Solvatten and
to see how the impacts differ from other common methods of accessing safe water.
A life cycle assessment regards many product specific details that due to confidentiality reasons
cannot be published officially. This report does therefore not contain any specifics on materials,
production processes or production sites. Such information is reported in Appendixes that the
company Solvatten AB can choose to publish to whom they like. In the end of this official report, the
Appendixes are listed.
1.1 Background
Today, almost a billion people do not have access to drinking water from sources with safe water
(World Health Organization, 2010). Different methods of purifying water are hence very important,
as clean as well as use of warm water is a major factor for a healthy life and good hygiene. The most
commonly used method is to boil water. Boiling is very effective in killing pathogens but there are
negative side effects to the method; burn injuries, unhealthy smoke and dependency on an energy
source such as wood fuel or gas (World Health Organization, 2002). Solvatten is a method that
purifies and heats water with solar energy; it is a black plastic container, with hinges making it
possible to fold open. On the inside there is a transparent plastic that can be penetrated by the UV-‐
radiation. The UV-‐radiation from the sun heats the water, yielding the same effect as boiling the
water, as well as kills the microorganisms. In about 2-‐6 hours, 10 litres of water will be purified. The
unit also comes with an indicator, switching from a red sad smiley to a green happy smiley when the
right temperature is reached. This indicator is very easy to understand, lowering the possibility of
using the water before it is ready. Solvatten is hence suitable for developing countries where the
availability of safe water is small (Solvatten AB, 2010).
As Solvatten is a technology, which is developed for a better living environment in the developing
countries, it is interesting to find out the environmental impacts of production and usage of the
product itself. A Life Cycle Assessment is a description of all of a product’s inputs and outputs and the
environmental impacts these infer.
1.2 Aim and Objectives

The aim of this thesis is to perform a Life Cycle Assessment, LCA, of the product Solvatten. The
purpose is foremost to use the LCA in marketing of Solvatten. To finance production, and hence
usage of Solvatten, some investors require an LCA showing the product’s full environmental impact.
Another purpose is that Solvatten AB is interested in parts of the production that can be improved in
terms of environmental impacts. Also, a comparison will be made with boiling water and bottled
water, to show advantages and disadvantages of Solvatten.
1
1.3 Methodology
This life cycle assessment was performed during five months, January to June 2011, involving
literature review, data collection and data analysis. Data collection was done by visiting the
production site in the south of Sweden and contacting suppliers of materials by personal
communication. For data which could not be retrieved from suppliers a reasonable assumption was
made. The collected data were then analysed with the computer software SimaPro 7.1.8 developed
by PRé Consultants and the impact assessment method Eco-‐Indicator 99, which is implemented in
SimaPro. The results were then compiled and discussed in this report.
2
2 Theory
This theory section describes the importance of clean water and good sanitation. The invention of
Solvatten is described together with other common methods of cleaning water. One objective of this
report is to compare Solvatten with boiling water and bottled water, a motivation to why these
methods are chosen for the comparison is included in this theory section. Finally, there is a
description of Life Cycle Assessment, LCA, as a tool to evaluate the product’s environmental impact.
2.1 Water and Sanitation

One of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDG) concerns environmental
sustainability and access to clean water. The MDGs are a strategy agreed upon by the world’s
countries to reduce the poverty in the world (United Nations Millenium Development Goals, n.d.).
Target C of MDG7, Ensure Environmental Sustainability, declares that the proportion of world
population without sustainable access to drinking water and basic sanitation should be halved
between 1990 and 2015 (United Nations Millenium Development Goals, 2011). According to the
World Health Organization, WHO, sustainable access is defined as having access to protected wells,
boreholes or rainwater collections, i.e. so called improved drinking-‐water sources. In 1990, 23 % of
the world population lacked such access. According to the 2010 prognosis the target is almost
reached, as less than 13 % of the world population lacks access to improved water sources in 2008.
Almost the whole world is on track to reach the target, except for the Sub-‐Saharan African countries
that have had a flat or increasing trend the last 20 years. There are also large inequalities when
comparing urban and rural areas. Worldwide, 94 % of the population in urban areas of developing
countries has access to improved drinking-‐water, whereas only 76 % in rural areas. These differences
are especially distinct in the Sub-‐Saharan countries, where only 60 % of rural areas have access
(World Health Organization, 2010).
Today, a total of 884 million people still do not get their drinking-‐water from improved sources.
Almost all of them live in developing countries and the Sub-‐Saharan countries accounts for almost a
third (World Health Organization, 2010). In a report summarizing global health risks, the WHO
concludes that the top five risk factors in causing disease are; childhood underweight, unsafe sex,
alcohol use, unsafe water and sanitation, and high blood pressure. Together the top five risk factors
cause 25 % of all deaths in the world and global life expectancy could be increased by 5 years if they
were reduced. Low-‐income countries as the Sub-‐Saharan are especially affected by unsafe water,
sanitation and hygiene. The report states that in 2004, 1.9 millions died because of unsafe water,
sanitation and hygiene. The region with the largest problem was Africa with 47 % (0.9 million) of all
deaths and children age 0-‐4 is affected the most, with almost 81 % (1.5 million) of all deaths (World
Health Organization, 2009).
Clearly, improved water can solve serious problems. It is the contamination of microorganisms from
faecal waste in water that threatens the health. Therefore methods of purifying water need to be
able to kill all types of pathogens (World Health Organization, 2002). The presence of Escherichia coli
works as an indicator of recent faecal contamination and the World Health Organization, WHO, has
therefore set the guideline to less than 1 E. coli in 100 ml of water (World Health Organization, 2008).
Having access to an improved water source is no guarantee for the water being pure. Faecal waste
from humans and animals can contaminate groundwater in wells and boreholes from above. There
3
are also problems with quantity as the households might not meet their daily needs when the
demand of groundwater is higher than the formation. (Nordström, 2005).
In a social perspective, it is the women who are responsible of collecting water in 64 % of the cases.
In 12 % of the cases it is children (age under 15) that are responsible. Research has shown that if it
takes longer than 30 minutes to collect water (i.e. walk to the water source and back), it is probable
that the amount of water collected decreases so that the family’s daily minimum requirement is not
met. The time lost due to making multiple trips in those cases is huge. In the Sub-‐Saharan countries
more than a quarter of the populations spend more than half an hour per day to collect water. If
water collection takes too much time, it will not be prioritized as the women responsible have many
household activities to attend to. If children are responsible for collecting water, it cannot take too
much time as going to school might suffer. It is hence not sustainable if the water collection point is
situated far from home (World Health Organization, 2010).
2.2 Solvatten
Solvatten is an invention by Swedish Petra Wadström, who is
also the CEO of the company Solvatten AB. The company
Solvatten AB is based in Stockholm in Sweden, and the
production takes place in Skåne, in the south of Sweden.
Solvatten AB is developing, marketing, and selling the
product Solvatten. The goal with the product is to provide
safe (drinkable) and warm water to people who lack access.
Solvatten is not yet marketed commercially, but reaches its
users by different project funded by grants, Non-‐
Governmental Organizations, NGOs, or companies (Solvatten
AB, 2010).
Solvatten is a water container, which can be placed in the

sun for purification and heating of water. The container holds Figure 1 The Solvatten Unit
10 litres of water and when placed in the sun for 2-‐6 hours (with permission from Solvatten AB)
the water will be drinkable. A filter, the UV-‐rays from the sun, and the heat will in combination make
the water meet the WHO Guidelines for Safe Water (< 1 E-‐coli / 100 ml water). Solvatten can be used
to clean water containing bacteria, viruses and parasites. The only thing Solvatten requires to purify
the water is the sun. There is hence no need for chemicals or electricity. Solvatten also has an
indicator, which shows when the water is safe to drink. Solvatten can be used many times without
needing any maintenance or spare parts. Given the right weather conditions, Solvatten can be used
up to 3 times per day (Solvatten AB, 2010).
Solvatten is specially designed for water purification. The transparent material allows for the right
frequency of UV-‐rays to get through to the water and inactivate the micro-‐organisms. The design of
the container is maximizing the turbulence in the water, making sure that all micro-‐organisms are
exposed to the UV-‐light (Uppfinnaren och Konstruktören, 2007).
The limitation of Solvatten is that it cannot improve chemical characteristics of water, e.g. make
saltwater drinkable water. Also, other chemical pollutants as for example arsenic, iron, and fluorides
cannot be removed. If the water purified with Solvatten is very turbid, it is good to let it sediment or
4
pre-‐filtrate the water before using Solvatten. Another limitation is that there are cloudy and rainy
days even in the warm developing countries. Solvatten users hence have to boil their water, or use
any other purification method, sometimes (Solvatten AB, 2010).
2.3 Comparison with Other Methods of Accessing Purified Water

There are plenty of methods for purifying water. To make the Life Cycle Assessment of Solvatten and
the analysis of Solvatten’s environmental impacts fair and thus useful, two additional purification
method’s environmental aspects are evaluated to compare impacts of the different methods. For the
comparative studies the methods of bottled water and boiling of water are chosen. This section aims
to describe other methods of purifying water as well as motivating the choice of complementary
environmental impact studies. The most widespread methods are described below concerning their
function and usage, limitations and environmental and social aspects. The section starts with a
description of other aspects of accessing clean water, which is important to take into consideration
when evaluating a product’s sustainability.
2.3.1 Clean Water and Sustainability

There are other aspects than quality of the purified water that needs to be considered when
evaluating a water cleaning device’s sustainability. The method needs to be integrated into daily life
of the users so the device is used after the education period. The method needs to be able to clean
enough water to cover the household need. It also has to be able to purify water with different
contaminations. There are different kinds of pathogens and occurrence of turbidity and organic
matter. As household duties take a lot of time, it is important that the user only has to spend a short
time to monitor the method. The method needs to be of low cost as well as easily accessed if
replacement parts are needed. A sudden income dip cannot cause the family to stop using the
method. Hence, the price needs to be low so the user is willing to pay (Sobseey et al., 2008).
For water not being re-‐contaminated it is important to handle the water properly. It is during
transport and storage most of the recontamination occurs, therefore it is important to use the right
containers. The best practice is when the purifying and storing of water could take place in the same
container. Otherwise it is hard to make sure that the storage container is disinfected correctly. Other
properties of the container that could be favourable are having a tap, a handle, a lid, and being made
of a lightweight, robust material. It is also positive if the container is used for water only, since this
would prevent contamination from other media (World Health Organization, 2002).
To make people of the developing countries use improved methods of cleaning water there is a need
for economic incentives and programs that support the communities to participate. The people also
need to be educated to completely accept the new method. It has been found that if such economic
and social factors are missing in the implementation of the new method, usage will be unsuccessful
With Solvatten, water is often treated and stored in the same vessel. It has a handle that makes it
user friendly, and it is made of a plastic that is durable and can withstand physical shocks, high
temperatures and UV. It is also equipped with screw-‐caps, making it difficult for re-‐contamination to
occur as water in the container cannot come in contact with hands and kitchen equipment. The
instructions of how to use Solvatten is glued onto the container, making them impossible to lose. The
instructions are simple to understand and do not require reading skills.
5
One of the problems with water is that it is not obvious if it is safe or not. Contamination by
pathogens cannot be seen with the eyes. Therefore, it is good if the method used has some kind of
indicator showing when the water is safe (World Health Organization, 2002). Solvatten has an
indicator showing a green happy smile when the water reaches the right temperature (Solvatten AB,
2010).
Safe water alone is apparently one option for achieving better health. Sanitation is very important as
well. The Millennium Development Goal 7 states that the proportion of world population without
access to drinking water and basic sanitation should be halved between 1990 and 2015 (United
Nations Millenium Development Goals, 2011). The sanitation goal seems not to be fulfilled though. In
1990, 46 % of the world population lacked access to improved sanitation and according to the 2010
prognosis 36 % will still lack access in 2015. Faecal contamination is a big problem with growing
populations, urban growth and global warming. Also, pathogens transfer in other ways than through
water; person-‐to-‐person or through food. Hygiene needs to be improved through other measures
than improved water sources as well (World Health Organization, 2002).
2.3.2 Descriptions of Other Alternatives

There are two types of methods to clean water; physical and chemical. The most commonly used
physical methods in households in developing countries includes boiling, UV radiation, filtering and
settling, while the most common chemical method is chlorination. Other chemical methods include
coagulation-‐flocculation, precipitation, adsorption and ion exchange but these are not as widespread
for usage in households (World Health Organization, 2002). The most widespread methods are
described below concerning their function and usage, limitations and environmental and social
aspects of their sustainability.
2.3.2.1 Boiling
Boiling is maybe the most widespread and commonly used method. Boiling effectively kills all
pathogens as bacteria, viruses, protozoa and spores. Most pathogens are killed at a temperature of
55-‐60 ȗ ĂŶĚ Ă ƚŝŵĞ ŽĨ Ă ĨĞǁ ŵŝŶƵƚĞƐ͘ dŚĞ ŵĞƚŚŽĚ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐ ŶŽ ŝŶĚicator of the pathogens being
destroyed, and therefore the WHO recommendation is that the water is brought to a rolling boil
;ϭϬϬȗͿ ũƵƐƚ ƚŽ ďĞ ƐƵƌĞ͘ ZĞĐŽŶƚĂŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶ ŝƐ an important issue while handling the water and the
recommendation is that the water is used soon after boiling, or reheated when needed. The large
use of fuel is a concern as wood is not easily accessed in many of the areas and therefore the method
can enhance deforestation and soil erosion. Even if wood is a renewable energy resource, the
concern is that more wood is used than allowed to grow back and the cost of buying wood becomes
very high. Also, smoke produced is a large health concern, as many cook inside their homes without
chimneys (World Health Organization, 2002).
2.3.2.2 Solar Disinfection with UV

To use the radiation from the sun to purify water is a historically accepted method. The UV-‐rays were
used in India as early as 2000 B.C. The UV-‐rays from the sun both heat the water and kill
microorganisms as bacteria, viruses and protozoa. Solar disinfection is very effective, and one of the
benefits is that the water will taste good as no additional chemicals are needed. On the downside,
the volume treated needs to be low, as the rays needs to penetrate the full volume. For penetration
to be possible, the vessel that water is stored in needs to be made of transparent material, which
allows the UV to penetrate, and preferably be positioned on a dark surface. Solvatten technology is
one example that uses this method to purify water. Benefits with Solvatten are the large volume (10
6
litres), the effectiveness of the process and the presence of an indicator. The principle of using solar
radiation to heat the water also allows great savings on fuel. Disadvantages are the price and the
availability. Another method is SODIS, which basically is a PET-‐bottle that is laid out in the sun to
absorb the rays. PET is a plastic material that does not release any additives when heated which is
good, but the material does not withstand UV in the long run and the bottle will be deformed. Also,
the surface of the bottle only allows a limited range of the UV spectra to penetrate and it is also
easily scratched and then the UV radiation will not penetrate the bottle as effectively. Therefore the
bottle needs to be changed periodically resulting in large waste production and large transport
volumes. SODIS advantage is the easy access, and disadvantages are the low volume, unreliable
effectiveness and the absence of an indicator.
When using UV-‐disinfection, it is important to let the temperature rise to at least 50-‐55 ȗC as bacteria
and other microorganism often thrive in temperatures around 40 ȗC. The method would then have
the opposite effect than wished for. If the container is not penetrated by the UV-‐rays, the energy
from the sun will heat the water, but the temperature necessary to kill the microorganisms will not
be reached. The advantage of utilizing the UV-‐rays is that disinfection can be achieved at a lower
temperature of the water. Also, many plastics release additives at higher temperatures, which is not
good to consume. Therefore, it is important to choose which container to use. Lamps emitting UV-‐
rays could also be used. This is probably better suited as a method for supplying water to a
community or municipality, as it requires power, which will be expensive on the household level
2.3.2.3 Chlorination
In the middle of the 19th century when it was understood that diseases were spread through
microorganisms, it was also understood that chemical agents could inactivate the same organisms.
That was the start of the usage of chlorine, and from the mid-‐20th century it is a widely accepted
method as it is practical and relatively cheap. It is used both on community and municipal level as
well as in households. A low concentration (a few milligrams chlorine/litre water) for a short period
of time (30 minutes) effectively kills all types of pathogens. The exception is a few bacteria that are
resistant. Particles and turbidity in the water can shield the microorganisms from the chlorination,
and then the success of the method will be lowered. Otherwise, the method is widely known for its
effectiveness. An advantage of the method is that the water cannot become re-‐contaminated and a
disadvantage is that the water will taste of chlorine after treatment. Another disadvantage is that it is
important to get the right dosage depending on amount and type of water. If the dosage is too low, it
is not effective. It is also an environmental hazard because chlorine is often misused and poured into
the water source resulting in no effect on pathogens but the environment at large suffers (World
Health Organization, 2002). Also, chlorinated organic compounds can form if adding chlorine to
water. These compounds are a serious health hazard as they often are carcinogenic (Nordström,
2005).
2.3.2.4 Filtering
There are many types of filters with different applications. Some are better for community use, while
some are better for household use. On community level, sand or other types of granular media is
common to use in filter applications. There are household versions available, including a two-‐bucket
system with the top one, holding the sand, having a perforated bottom. With this method it is
recommended that the water is chlorinated in advance though, making the method more expensive
7
and less useful. An easy and ancient method is to use cloth or paper as filter. The method is simply to
put the fibrous filter over the top of a clean vessel, and to pour the dirty water directly through it.
The pore size is too big to trap viruses and most bacteria, and therefore fibrous filters are mostly
used together with other methods. A third type of filters is the ceramic, made out of porous clay.
They are often designed as a candle, with the water pouring from the outside-‐in. There are also
commercial variants with for example silver coatings to reduce bio-‐film formation inside the filter. An
unexpected benefit of the candles is the fact that they can be produced locally and sold relatively
cheap. Inhabitants of the developing countries could hence make a business and earn some money
through supplying ceramic candle filters. However, the people producing have to be trained and
some kind of manufacturing facility has to be set up. Quality controls are also necessary for the
business to be reliable. The pore size of the ceramic filters can vary, but the ones made in developing
countries usually traps bacteria and some viruses. As they become clogged, the ability to capture
viruses is reduced. It is therefore very important that the filters are cleaned once in a while. Due to
this, the ceramic filter candles are quite unreliable and do not last long (World Health Organization,
2002).
Water that is dirty and muddy could cause extra trouble as some methods of cleaning the water
might be less effective than with clear water. UV disinfection is reduced as the UV-‐rays might not get
through to all the microorganisms. Chlorination might not work either due to the same reason. In
cases where water is muddy, pre-‐treatment with settling of the particles might be a good idea. The
filter removes the particles causing the turbidity, making UV-‐disinfection and chlorination effective
2.3.2.5 Sedimentation
Sedimentation is the process of heavy particles falling to the bottom of a container of water if it is
allowed to stand. Protozoa and parasites settle, as they are large enough. Viruses and bacteria are
too small to be forced by gravity to settle, but as these often live in aggregations the result is often
better than expected. The water has to be left undisturbed for a long period of time before the clean
water can be transferred gently to another storage vessel. The sedimentation vessel needs to be
cleaned between usage occasions to remove the settled particles and organisms. This is, along with
boiling and UV disinfection, a method that has been used for a very long time (World Health
Organization, 2002).
8
2.3.2.6 Large-‐Scale Methods
The most sustainable long-‐term method of producing purified water might be large-‐scale methods
on community or municipality level (Nordström, 2005). To introduce water treatment plant and
pipelines in communities in developing countries would mean easy access and better surveillance of
quality. For all villages in Africa, South America and Asia to have the same standards as the
developed countries should be seen as the long-‐term goal. It is not possible in any near future and
bottled water might be an alternative in the meantime. Bottled water is a large-‐scale method
produced in large plants giving the same benefits as water treatment plants. In plants it is easy to
keep the quality high, and to assure that the water is completely purified. The large-‐scale production
would also result in a lower cost, as soon as the plant is up and running. The bottles could be
relatively large (10 litres) and be equipped with a tap lowering the risk of recontamination. A
disadvantage of the bottled water is that the purified water itself requires transportation, which
leads to many and heavy transportations. The current infrastructure in many developing countries is
not designed for large regular transports by lorries. This also causes large emissions of carbon
dioxide. Also, increased usages of PET-‐bottles will demand a disposal system where the bottles are
taken care of and recycled. The cost of buying water might also be too high for the poor people of
developing countries, and they would still use water from unprotected sources.
2.3.3 Motivation of Comparative Studies

As described above, there are a number of ways of accessing safe water in developing countries. The
result from the LCA of Solvatten, the environmental impact, will in this report be compared with
some other ways of supplying clean water in Kenya. To decide what methods are the most relevant
to compare, a table with comparisons of different characteristics have been made. Table 1 below
compares Solvatten with boiling, chlorination, ceramic filter candles, plain sedimentation and bottled
waters on factors of water quality, taste, time of usage, cost and pros and cons of each method.
The methods chosen for comparison are boiling with firewood as fuel and bottled water. The
comparison is done to put the environmental advantages and disadvantages of Solvatten in a
perspective of other methods available today. Boiling is chosen, as it is the most commonly used
method in developing countries. As many of the countries are troubled by deforestation due to wood
collection, it is interesting to see the real environmental impacts of boiling water and compare it with
Solvatten. A simple LCA of boiling water is therefore made to compare the impacts. The comparison
with bottled water is chosen since large-‐scale methods is an important long-‐term goal. Bottled water
has some of the advantages like control over quality and possibility to keep costs low. Bottles need
an infrastructure of production facilities and roads for transportation as well as a social acceptance
among the people. Aspects of social and economic impacts on sustainability, not covered in an LCA,
hence needs to be examined in this comparison. To make a simple LCA of bottled water would also
result in an LCA fully based on assumptions, and the comparison with the results from Solvatten’s
LCA would thus be unreliable. Instead the full impacts of bottled water on sustainability are
discussed thoroughly.
9

Table 1 An Overview of Different Purifying Methods by Comparing Different Criteria.

Solvatten Boiling with woodfuels Chlorination Ceramic filter candle Plain sedimentation Bottled water
Quality of
High High High High Low or unsure. High
water*
Taste Good Smokey Tastes of chlorine Good Good Good
For user: Only time to buy
Time needed
10
Hours, but no need for special Boiling takes minutes, but hours are Long: preferably 1-‐2 water needed
for Short (~30min) Short (~30min)
attendance whilst. often needed to collect wood. days Production & Transports: Long
purification
(Days/Months?)
High at start, but can be used for a If wood is collected, low.
Cost Relatively low Moderate or high. Low High
long time. If wood is bought, high.
Easy. No need for
Socially accepted. Nothing is
special equipment.
Saves time and money. Good taste. needed except fire and a pot for Simple, effective,
Pros No recontamination. Great pretreatment. Large scale quality control.
Warm water. holding the water. No problems with can be made locally.
Can handle large
turbidity in water. Warm water.
volumes.
Bad taste. Chlorine is Maintainance.

Smoke produced indoors is Low microbial
Not useful without sun. Turbidity unhealthy. Possibility to Availiability. Produces a lot of waste.
Cons unhealthy. Possibility of burning efficency. Unreliable.
can cause problems. use to large dosages. Affordability. Cold Expensive for user. Cold water
accidents. Deforestaion. Cold water.
Availiability. Cold water. water
*All of the methods except Plain Sedimentation are listed to give a high quality of water. This means that all of the methods will give water that is sufficient for consuming and for hygenic use.
However, the chemical content of the water from the different methods will differ, and the Quality of the water received from all the methods will not be equal.
2.4 Life Cycle Assessment
To make a full Life Cycle Assessment, LCA, is complex. The following section describes the theory
around LCA in short including a definition, different purposes, how LCA was developed and a short
description of the methodology.
*All of the methods except Plain Sedimentation are listed to give a high quality of water. This means
that all of the methods will give water that is sufficient for consuming and for hygenic use. However,
the chemical content of the water from the different methods will differ, and the Quality of the
water received from all the methods will not be equal.
2.4.1 Definition and Purposes

A Life Cycle Assessment, LCA, is an environmental systems analysis tool, which is a detailed
description of a product’s inputs and outputs and the environmental impacts those infer. The phrase
“from cradle to grave” is often used in the context, as all steps from production, via usage, to
disposal of the product are considered. The analysis could also be “from cradle to gate”, where only
the production is considered. Depending on system boundaries chosen for the assessment, focus can
be put on different phases of the life cycle (Bauman & Tillman, 2004).
As concerns for environmental issues grew in the 1960s and 1970s, these issues needed to be
assessed in some way. LCA is such a tool to evaluate environmental impact of a product regarding
resource use, human health and ecology. An LCA can have different purposes. For characterization of
the product and identification of improvement possibilities LCA can be used as a tool to learn more
about the product. LCA can be used as a base in decision making regarding design and development
of commercial products as well as services in communities and nations (for example waste treatment
plans). Also, LCAs can be used in market communication for eco-‐labelling, environmental
declarations and benchmarking (Bauman & Tillman, 2004).
2.4.2 Industry Use of LCA

The Coca Cola Company conducted (with help from the US Midwest Research Institute) an LCA in the
late 1960s as they were considering to manufacture beverages in cans instead of glass bottles.
Historically, this is seen as the first Life Cycle Assessment, even though it has been debated. The Coca
Cola LCA was a comparison of two different packaging alternatives, and in fact, most of the early
LCAs considered different packaging options. The interest in products’ life cycles were raised with the
oil crises in the 1970s as resource use and waste management came to the public’s awareness. In
Sweden, TetraPak were interested in making a new type of bottle from PVC, which initiated a “from
cradle to grave” examination as the material caused a large environmental debate. Governments
started to become interested in the assessments due to the energy crises but the public interest
faded. In the 1980s environmental crises like the Chernobyl nuclear reactor explosion (1986) and the
Exxon Valdez oil spill (1989) caused the public awareness of environment rise again. It was first in
1991 that life cycle assessment was given its name. Before that several names were used, including
ecobalance, integral environmental analysis and environmental profiles. The methodology of the
assessment was not set, and depended on the purpose and application of the study (Bauman &
Tillman, 2004). In 1997 the International Organization for Standardization released the first standard
for LCA methodology, ISO 14040, which made the assessment repetitive and comparable. In 2006 an
updated version was released (International Organization for Standardization, 2006).
11
2.4.3 Criticisms and Limitations
The strength of a life cycle assessment is that it reflects the whole system of the product and not only
a few processes. Another advantage with the LCA method is that the results are connected to the
function of the product and not to the product itself, making comparison possible. LCA is one of the
most commonly used environmental systems analysis tools, but it has received some criticism and
has its limitations. These will be described in this section.
LCA for marketing purposes has been blamed for showing biased results of the company’s best
interest. To prevent this, an ISO-‐standard was developed, but it is always important to keep in mind
who ordered the study. When making assumptions and deciding the system boundaries, it is possible
to benefit the favoured results. Even though the ISO-‐standard was developed to achieve a more
neutral assessment, it will always be subjective, due to the required decisions of system boundaries
and data limitation assumptions. Also the decision of which environmental impacts that will be
looked upon, and how much scientific proof that is needed for a substance to be considered
hazardous will influence the study. The last step of the LCA is often weighting, the valuing of different
impacts against each other. This is also a very subjective part of the assessment. Different people
have different values and ideologies which make them weigh different categories differently. Due to
these reasons, it is important with high transparency to give a comprehensive view of the study.
Doing an LCA is also very time consuming, which can delay the change process. The results are also
only applicable to the set parameters, and a change somewhere in the process, will make the results
not useful for the new production. The data used in the assessment reflects the current status when
it comes to emissions and technology. If the disposal of the product will be 10 years from production,
the emission standards of the waste treatment might have changed a lot, and the environmental
impact of the product will not be accurate.
The study is also limited by the available data. Data gaps require an assumption, and the quality of
the assumption will determine the quality of the results. The data collecting process is very time
consuming, but can be shortened by the use of LCA databases. The databases include a lot of
different data for materials, processes, transport etc. The datasets are often an average set of data or
one example process somewhere. The dataset also has a geographical boundary, like Europe or
Switzerland where the data is collected. The time is a very limiting factor when doing an LCA as there
is always more detailed data to collect.
A limitation of the analysis is that it is not site-‐specific, resulting in that the complete details of the
environmental impacts cannot be indicated. For example some areas can be more sensitive to
emissions than others, and this will not show in an LCA. The system boundaries set in the study will
also be a limitation. The environmental impacts might occur after the time boundary set. For
example a landfill might have emissions long after the LCA study’s time boundary has been passed.
Another limitation of the life cycle assessment is the scientific research. This is not only the case for
LCA, but all environmental systems analysis tools. If a chemical for example has a carcinogen effect,
and this is not scientifically known, this can of course not be included in any method.
The LCA is an environmental systems analysis tool, which only takes into account the environmental
part of the sustainability concept. The economic and social aspects are not included. Hence, based
only on an LCA study, the sustainability of the product cannot be discussed. The other aspects should
therefore be included in a discussion to give a complete view of the impacts.
12
2.4.4 Basic Methodology
A life cycle assessment that follows the international standard is roughly made up of three parts;
Goal & Scope, Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) and Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA). The Goal & Scope
defines the goal and purpose of the study and the context of the study such as intended audience,
system boundaries, assumptions and limitations of the study and what environmental impact
categories the study focuses on. In the following inventory (LCI) a model of the system is built as a
flow chart of all environmentally relevant flows. Flows considered are from scarce resources in
contrast to flows like water vapour from combustion, which are usually ignored as they do not affect
the environment. Thereafter data is collected for all inputs and outputs in the modelled system and
the amount of resource use and emissions can be calculated. In the last part of the LCA, the results
from the inventory (i.e. the resource use and emissions) are turned into information on what
environmental impacts they imply by first sorting the inventory parameters according to the
environmental impact they contribute to and then calculating the total environmental impact
(Bauman & Tillman, 2004).

13
14
3 Goal and Scope
In the following section the goal and scope of the study will be described in detail. The goal will be
specified along with conditions for the assessment as intended audience and type of LCA. The scope
thereafter includes information on the functional unit, system boundaries, data quality
requirements, limitations in the study as well as which impact categories the study focuses on.
3.1 Goal
The goal of this study is to show the environmental impact of the product Solvatten through a Life
Cycle Assessment and compare it with other methods of assessing purified water. The objectives of
the study are:
x Identify the environmental strengths of the product for marketing purposes.
x Identify environmental weaknesses, to further look into improvements in the life cycle.
x Compare Solvatten with boiling water and bottled water.
x Discuss the sustainability of Solvatten, including a comparison with the above solutions for
water treatment.
The intended audience of the LCA is the company Solvatten AB. The results might be used internally
to improve the production, but foremost for marketing. The report is written to make publication
possible, with no specifics on materials et cetera. Confidential information is instead presented in the
Appendixes, and Solvatten AB can therefore control who receives the information.
3.1.1 Type of LCA

The LCA will be conducted in two parts; the first will be of a stand-‐alone type, meaning that only a
single product will be assessed. In this part only the product Solvatten will be looked upon. The
stand-‐alone type is beneficial for finding the parts of the life cycle with major and minor
environmental impacts. The second part of the LCA will be a comparative LCA, where the Solvatten
unit is compared with the method of boiling water over open fire and a comparative discussion with
purchasing bottled water.
3.2 Scope of the Study

The scope of the study gives information on the choices of functional unit, system boundaries,
impact categories, and data quality made to define the study.
15
3.2.1 Initial Flowchart
A simplified flowchart of the Solvatten life cycle has been made to show the main focuses, see Figure
2.
Figure 2 Initial Simplified Flowchart of the Solvatten Life Cycle from Cradle to Grave
The life cycle of a Solvatten unit is simply described by three phases; production, use and disposal.
The production phase is in Solvatten’s case, the most complex regarding data collection. The data
gathered mostly concerned the assembly of Solvatten including materials used and processes used to
form the subparts of Solvatten. The data was given by the production site of Solvatten, and from
their sub-‐contractors. The data collected was then connected to the database Ecoinvent of that
contained information on raw material acquisition, processing and production of materials. Data
were also gathered on all transports of materials from their production site, via Solvatten’s
production site, to market of use. These are shown as arrows in the flow chart. The use phase has no
environmental impact as only the UV-‐rays from the sun is needed to purify the water and the only
waste produced is the organic matter, that the filter catches. The disposal phase in the market of
use, Kenya, is very uncertain, as the country lacks a functioning municipal waste system. Therefore,
the disposal phase was thoroughly discussed, but not included in the data analysis of this LCA.
3.2.2 Functional Unit

An LCA connects the environmental impact to the function of the product rather than to the product
itself. Therefore a functional unit has to be chosen to quantify the performance of the system as a
reference unit used when comparing different products (Bauman & Tillman, 2004).
The functional unit in the stand-‐alone study is one Solvatten unit, responding to the amount of
purified water a Solvatten unit can produce during its entire life length. In the comparative boiling
study the functional unit is 10 litres of clean water (according to the WHO definition), meaning that
the environmental impact of boiling 10 litres of water and using a Solvatten unit once will be
compared.
3.2.3 System Boundaries

Some limits, i.e. system boundaries, have to be set to the system studied. Otherwise life cycles of
different products will interfere with the one of interest and the analysis will be too complex. Also, a
process in production can result in many different products giving rise to an allocation problem.
16
The system boundaries used in this LCA are:
x Geographical boundary: Production of Solvatten takes place in Skåne, Sweden and the
market of use is Kenya. Kenya is the primary market where Solvatten already is in use at
several sites. The place of use is set to be Nairobi, Kenya.
x Temporal boundary: Life length of Solvatten, 10 years.
x Boundaries in respect to natural systems: The life cycle of Solvatten starts with the extraction
of raw materials and ends when the unit has reached the place of use. For an indication of
how the waste scenario will influence the life cycle, the three different waste scenarios,
landfill, incineration, and recycling will be included with European standards.
3.2.4 Data Quality Requirements

Depending on what requirements are demanded for the data, the accuracy and uncertainty of the
assessment varies. As this is a stand-‐alone LCA, the data collected should be as accurate and detailed
as possible. Producers of Solvatten parts supplied contemporary data about materials, production
processes and transportations. Information on all parts was collected. The information was then
coupled to database inputs in SimaPro’s database Ecoinvent. Database inputs were chosen to match
location of production as far as possible.
3.2.5 Limitations and Assumptions

Parts of the Solvatten product with a weight less than 0.1 % of the total product weight are assumed
to result in an environmental impact that is not significant and were therefore disregarded in the
assessment. The weight of the indicator corresponds to 1.8 % of the total weight, but is made out of
eleven sub-‐parts of different materials which each weighs less than 0.1 % of the total product weight.
To not disregard the whole indicator, it is counted as one part of Solvatten, where parts in indicator
weighing less than 0.1 % of the total indicator weight are disregarded. A comprehensive list of all
Solvatten parts can be found in Appendix 1. Even though parts have been disregarded due to low
weight, material content has been collected. None of the disregarded parts contain anything that
could result in large environmental impact despite the low weight.
Transports are included for all parts with a weight over 0.1 % of Solvatten’s total weight. The
distances have been calculated as accurately as possible. The exact route of transport might differ
from time to time, and in some cases the exact production location are not known. Therefore some
assumptions are made based on average distances and most probable location.
3.2.6 Impact Categories and Impact Assessment Method

An environmental impact can be a number of different things, like for example global warming,
toxicity, and land occupation. When performing a Life Cycle Assessment it has to be specified what
impacts that will be looked upon. In the ISO standard it is listed that three different types of impact
should be taken into account. These are resource use, ecological consequences, and human health.
There are a number of pre-‐defined impact lists that can be used when deciding what impact
categories that will be included in the study. These defined impact lists are implemented in the
computer software used in this study, SimaPro. One of these is called Eco-‐Indicator 99 and will be
used in this study (Bauman & Tillman, 2004).

17

18
4 Life Cycle Inventory
This section contains information about the data used in the assessment; the collection, compilation,
and grouping. The full data set is shown in Appendix 1. Also a description of missing data and
assumptions is included in this section.
4.1 Data Collection Procedure

In the initial state of the data collection process, the Solvatten unit was divided into two major parts,
the container and the indicator. Most of the information was supplied by the two main
manufacturers. The unit was divided further into smaller parts making up the assembly. The weight-‐
% of all the parts was calculated and parts with less than 0.1 weight-‐% is considered to not to have a
significant environmental impact and is therefore excluded from the LCA. Materials used for all parts,
regardless of weight-‐%, was collected to be sure that no of the disregarded parts could have a high
environmental impact. The indicator is seen as one part of Solvatten, and parts within the indicator
with a weight-‐% of less than 0.1 of the indicator will be disregarded.
Below, in Figure 3, Solvatten and its different parts are pictured. One advantage with the unit is that
many of the parts can be changed if broken. The lids, indicator, filters et cetera could all be replaced
if function is damaged. The transparent lid and black container are glued together, and hence
difficult to replace.
Figure 3 The Different Parts of Solvatten Marked on a Solvatten Unit
A detailed flow chart of the assembly of Solvatten is presented below in Figure 4. It shows the
division of Solvatten into smaller parts and the materials and forming processes used in each part.
Data was collected on which materials and processes that is used to produce a Solvatten unit, and
SimaPro and the Ecoinvent database then provided information on raw materials and processes used
to make the final materials.
19

Figure 4 Detailed Flow Chart of Assembly of Solvatten (without classified information)

20
4.2 Inventory Data
The inventory is divided into production, transports, usage and disposal, which are the life cycle
phases shown in the general flow chart, Figure 2. Production includes raw material extraction and
processing, production of materials and sub-‐parts for Solvatten and the assembly of the final unit.
The data collected in this phase only includes the assembly and production of sub-‐parts though. The
data on raw material extraction and processing is supplied by the Ecoinvent database of SimaPro.
Transports are shown as arrows in the detailed flow chart, Figure 4. They include both transports of
materials from their production site to Solvatten production site, and transport of the final unit to
market of use. The usage of Solvatten is also included in the data analysis, but the only thing required
during this phase is water and sun-‐light and therefore no data collection was required for this phase.
The disposal phase includes a description of the probable waste scenarios for Solvatten.
4.2.1 Production
A lot of information was provided from the two manufacturers, about parts produced at their sites
and information about their suppliers. The materials needed for production of the parts were, by
contacting suppliers and producers, traced back to their production site. A material or process in the
SimaPro database similar to the information given by the suppliers or producers was then chosen to
be used in the assessment. A summary of the raw materials and processes and the corresponding
SimaPro input is listed in Appendix 2. For parts produced at the main production site, the material
efficiency for production of each part was provided. This was not available for parts produced
elsewhere, and therefore not included in the assessment. The parts produced at the main production
site are the biggest part of the product, and therefore it can be assumed that they have the biggest
contribution of material wasted.
The process of assembling the final Solvatten unit is not included in the data analysis, since no
comparative process could be found in the SimaPro database. Enough data for inserting a new
process in SimaPro could not be supplied by the main manufacturer, and therefore the assembly
process is not included in the data analysis. A short discussion on this process is included in Appendix
3.
Packaging materials used for all individual parts during transport to the final producer of Solvatten is
not included in the analysis. All parts used are bought in large quantities, and the packaging for each
part is assumed to be so small that the contribution to the total environmental impact per Solvatten
unit will be too small to give a significant impact. The packaging material used when transporting the
final Solvatten unit to the market of use, is included in the assessment, since the material used per
unit will be bigger.
The parts used in Solvatten are grouped to give an overview of the different parts. The groups are:
Black container, Transparent lid and caps, Indicator, Small plastic/Rubber parts, Metals, Glue and
Packaging. In Appendix 1 the parts in Solvatten are listed according to group.

21
4.2.2 Transports
The transports are included for parts in the final assembly, but for parts with a weight-‐% less than 0.1
the transports are not included. Transports are calculated from the material production site, via the
Solvatten production site, to the final destination in Nairobi, Kenya. Each supplier and producer gave
as detailed information as they were able to regarding way and means of transport.
In some cases the only information available about production sites was a very large geographical
area (like Asia or Italy), in these cases an assumption was made of either a likely production site, or a
place in the centre of the geographical area given. The assumption was based on the available
information about means of transport and likely production sites.
For the transportation of the final Solvatten unit from Skåne, Sweden, to Nairobi, Kenya, the weight
of the pallet, the container, and the packaging material is included in the transported weight.
Solvatten AB estimates that 5 % of the transports of the finished product are performed by air and 95
% by sea. The estimation is done by reviewing the future prospect list (Claire Wigg, Personal
Communication, 2011). A sensitivity analysis has been made to see how these assumptions affect the
study. The final destination of the product is said to be Nairobi, Kenya.
For all transports by lorry, the emission standard EURO4 has been used, except for the case where
the final product is transported from the ship in Mombasa to the final destination in Nairobi. In
Sweden, 23 % of trucks on the roads 2010 were EURO3, 22 % EURO4 and only 2,5 % EURO5
(Trafikanalys, 2010). The number of Euro4 lorries are increasing, whereas the Euro3 number is
decreasing and it is assumed therefore that Euro4 is the best representative of the lorries used
today. It is assumed that the Swedish statistics are fairly representative of Europe. In Kenya, it is
assumed that trucks used not are subject to any emission standard. Therefore, an input of “average
fleet” is used, combining trucks with EURO0-‐EURO4.
4.2.3 Disposal
The waste scenario for Solvatten is not known, partly due to that it is a relatively new product, and
partly since the waste management in countries where Solvatten is used is normally unstructured.
Information about the current waste situation in Kenya was supplied by Zanrec Plastics, a company
working with recycling on Zanzibar. In the rural areas where Solvatten is mostly used, waste is mainly
thrown in nature or incinerated in the proximity of the household without any emission treatment.
Nairobi city is dependent on an uncontrolled dumping site for the waste produced. But since not
sufficient data about quantities and emissions are available about these scenarios, the data analysis
of Solvatten’s life cycle will not include the disposal phase. Different waste scenarios will be
thoroughly discussed instead. For comparative reasons different waste scenarios with European
standards will be looked at. The different waste scenarios will be incineration, landfill, and recycling.
These scenarios are chosen to give guidance to probable scenarios in Kenya, though the effects in
Kenya probably are a lot worse where no controlled landfills or incinerators are accessible. As
Solvatten AB would like the unit to be recycled, this scenario is also included in the comparison.
22
4.3 Data Sources
The Life Cycle Inventory data used in this assessment is accessed from the Ecoinvent database.
Ecoinvent is integrated in the SimaPro software and compatible with the Eco-‐Indicator 99 Life Cycle
Impact Assessment method. The data in the Ecoinvent database is collected by research institutes
and consultants and are based on industrial data. Most of the Solvatten data used is based on
European situations, but some production sites are placed in Asia, the data is then assumed to be
relatively similar to the European data.
4.4 Assumptions and Missing Data

Data collection regarding materials and production methods used was possible for all parts of
Solvatten. In a few cases primary data supplied was general due to confidential reasons. This resulted
in making qualified assumptions. To make this LCA as transparent as possible all the assumptions
made are described in Appendix 3.
Most materials and processes have a corresponding data-‐set in the Ecoinvent database. For some
inputs, the corresponding dataset is not as obvious, or there is no useful data. In these cases a similar
material or process had to be used. For the materials and processes where it is not self-‐explanatory
why the database input were chosen, a description of the choices made, along with a motivation to
why, is found in Appendix 3.
For transports, there were also cases where information about production or distribution sites and
exact routes could not be obtained, and therefore assumptions had to be made. These cases are
described in Appendix 3.

23
24
5 Life Cycle Impact Assessment
In the Life Cycle Impact Assessment, LCIA, the results from the inventory (i.e. the resource use and
emissions) are turned into information on what environmental impacts they imply. This is in this LCA
done with the computer software SimaPro’s impact assessment method Eco-‐indicator 99. In this
section Eco-‐indicator 99 is described.
The Eco-‐indicator 99 used for Life Cycle Impact Assessment in this study is an impact assessment
method that describes environmental impact through eleven impact categories divided into three
damage categories; human health, ecosystem quality and resources. Eco-‐indicator 99 uses endpoint
impact categories. Endpoint categories are effects in the end of the cause-‐effect chain, compared to
midpoint categories, which are effects in the middle of the cause-‐effect chain. For the impact
category climate change, a midpoint effect is measured in kg CO2-‐equivalents, whereas the endpoint
effect could be for example Disability Adjusted Life Years, DALY, and hence reflect damage to the
human health. The endpoints are much more complex and uncertain to calculate, but are often more
useful. The impact categories will be described in this section (Product Ecology Consultants, 2001).
Three different versions of the Eco-‐Indicator 99 have been developed. The different versions use
different perspectives and hence values impacts differently. The perspectives are always value based
and cannot be set objective. Due to the subjectivity the three different versions are developed. The
versions contain perspectives from the Cultural theory; Individualist, Egalitarian, and Hierarchist. The
Individualist is interested in a very short time perspective, and only includes impacts which are
scientifically proven. The Egalitarian looks at a very long time perspective and even an indication of
impact is enough to include. The Hierarchist is between the other two and looks at a more balanced
time perspective and an agreement among the scientists determines if the impact should be included
or not. The version of Eco-‐indicator 99 used in this assessment is the one with the Hierarchist
perspective, which is the default version (Product Ecology Consultants, 2001).
The impact assessment is divided into classification and characterization, which are both required
according to the ISO-‐standard. The impact assessment can also include normalization, ranking,
grouping and weighting. Normalization and weighting is included in this study and will be described
in the following section (Bauman & Tillman, 2004).
5.1 Classification and Characterization

In the Life Cycle Inventory, there are data of emissions, resource use, land use, radiation et cetera
caused throughout the life cycle of Solvatten. To be able to analyse these, the emissions and
resources are assigned to different impact categories, this step is called classification. Different
emissions can be assigned to the same impact category, and one emission can be assigned to many
different impact categories (Product Ecology Consultants, 2010).
After the classification to impact categories, the emissions have to be multiplied with a
characterization factor to get the same unit. For example, CH4 has a 25 times higher impact on global
warming than CO2, and therefore CH4 has to be multiplied by a factor 25 to get the unit CO2-‐
equivalents. This step is the characterization (Product Ecology Consultants, 2010).
25
5.2 Impact Categories
The eleven impact categories of Eco-‐indicator 99 can be divided into three different damage
categories; resource use, human health and ecosystems. The impact categories, grouped according
to the damage categories, will be described below (Product Ecology Consultants, 2001).
5.2.1.1 Human health

The damage from impacts in the human health damage category has the unit Disability Adjusted Life
Years, DALY. The DALY unit has been developed for the WHO and the World Bank. DALY combines
the estimates of Years Lived Disabled, YLD, and Years of Lives Lost , YLL. 1 DALY indicates one year
lost for one individual, it also can indicate for example 10 years with 90 % health or 2 individuals
loosing 0.5 years (Product Ecology Consultants, 2001).
5.2.1.1.1 Carcinogens
Toxic chemicals in the surrounding environment can cause cancer. In Eco-‐Indicator 99 the
classification by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC, is used for a measurement
on carcinogenicity, how likely a substance is to cause cancer. From the IARC-‐information on
carcinogenicity the damage on human health can be calculated. The carcinogens are expressed in
DALY per kg emission (Product Ecology Consultants, 2001).
5.2.1.1.2 Respiratory organics

Respiratory organics are for example Volatile Organic Compounds, VOC. These substances can cause
problems with the human respiratory system. The damage to the human health from respiratory
organics is expressed in DALY per kg emitted substance (Product Ecology Consultants, 2001).
5.2.1.1.3 Respiratory inorganic

Inorganic substances are for example particulate matter, SOX, and NOX and can also cause problems
in the respiratory system. The respiratory inorganics are expressed in DALY per kg emitted substance
(Product Ecology Consultants, 2001).
5.2.1.1.4 Climate change

The climate change impact category measures the damage to human health as a result of climate
change. Emissions contributing to the climate change are for example CO2, CH4, and N2O. The
equivalence factors used in Eco-‐Indicator 99 are from the International Panel for Climate Change,
IPCC, and used after some modification. In Eco-‐Indicator 99 the climate change impact is included in
the human health category. The human health can be affected by climate change in a number of
ways, for example a change in climate can lead to a change in agricultural production which can give
malnutrition and hunger. It is important to keep in mind that the climate change does not only affect
the human health, but also the ecosystem quality. The damage from climate change is expressed in
DALYs per kg substance (Product Ecology Consultants, 2001).
5.2.1.1.5 Radiation
The radiation category is based on data from the French nuclear industry. The unit for damage on
human health from radiation is DALY per Becquerel (Product Ecology Consultants, 2001).
5.2.1.1.6 Ozone layer

The impact category ozone layer expresses the damage to human health from ozone layer depletion.
This is expressed in DALY per kg release of emission (Product Ecology Consultants, 2001).
26
5.2.1.2 Ecosystem Quality
The damage to ecosystem quality is measured in the species diversity. This is expressed as the
“percentage of species that are threatened or that disappeared from a given area during a certain
time”. The unit for damage in these impact categories is Potentially Disappeared Fraction, PDF. The
unit for damage to ecosystem quality is expressed as PDF*m2*yr (Product Ecology Consultants,
2001).
5.2.1.2.1 Ecotoxicity
The ecotoxicity is measured by the percentage of species living under toxic stress. The unit for this is
PDF*m2*yr per kg release of emission (Product Ecology Consultants, 2001).
5.2.1.2.2 Acidification/eutrophication
Acidification and eutrophication has been combined to one category. The damage from acidification
and eutrophication is measured by the damage to vascular plants. The unit for this impact category is
PDF*m2*yr per kg emissions to air (Product Ecology Consultants, 2001).
5.2.1.2.3 Land use

Land use is divided into two parts land occupation and land conversion. An example on land
occupation is for example building a new house in an already existing urban area. The occupied area
is prevented to restore itself to the natural occurrence of the area and this is therefore seen as a
damage. Land conversion is the conversion of land from one type to another. Included in the land
conversion is the restoration time of 30 years. Conversion data is suggested only to be used when
natural areas are converted into non-‐natural area types. The land use category is also divided into
local and regional effect. The unit for land use is PDF*m2*yr (Product Ecology Consultants, 2001).
5.2.1.3 Resources
In the damage category Resources, the indicators are calculated from the quality of the remaining
resource. The more mineral or fossil fuel that has been extracted, the more energy is required for
continued extraction. The damage is expressed in MJ surplus energy. The definition of the unit is that
“a damage of 1 means that due to a certain extraction further extraction of this resources in the
future will require one additional MJ of energy” (Product Ecology Consultants, 2001).
5.2.1.3.1 Minerals
The minerals available in the earth’s resources are divided into two categories; “in ore”, which is the
pure mineral available, and “ore”, which is the amount of ore available an average amount of mineral
is then assumed in the ore. The use of minerals is expressed in MJ surplus energy per kg extracted
material (Product Ecology Consultants, 2001).
5.2.1.3.2 Fossil fuels

The use of fossil fuels is expressed in MJ surplus energy per kg extracted fuel, m3 of extracted gas, or
per MJ extracted energy (Product Ecology Consultants, 2001).
5.3 Normalization
Normalization is used to see the environmental impact compared to a reference value. The reference
in Eco-‐Indicator 99 is the environmental impact of one average European person per year. The
environmental impact is then divided with a normalization factor to show the relative impact
(Product Ecology Consultants, 2010).
27
5.4 Weighting
Weighting is used to show the relative importance of different impact categories, and to produce a
Single Score. The Single Score is used to give a total environmental impact which can be used in
comparative life cycle assessments. The impact categories are multiplied with a weighting factor.
There are a number of ways to determine the weighting factors, for example a panel can be asked, or
monetary value can be used. In the Eco-‐Indicator 99 a written panel within the Swiss LCA group is
used. The weighted results are therefore not corresponding to the average European (Product
Ecology Consultants, 2001).
5.5 CO2-‐equivalents with ReCiPe

Another Life Cycle Impact Assessment method called ReCiPe was used for the amount of CO2-‐
eqvivalents that Solvatten produces during its lifetime. ReCiPe uses, like Eco-‐Indicator 99 the IPCC
CO2 equivalence factors for recalculation of emissions. In ReCiPe Climate change is a midpoint
indicator with the unit CO2-‐equivalents (ReCiPe, 2009).

28
6 Interpretation of Stand-‐Alone LCA
The results of the stand-‐alone LCA of Solvatten are presented in this section. Hence, the
interpretation is only of Solvatten’s environmental impact, not accounting for possible positive
benefits from decreased use of other water purifying methods. The Interpretation of Stand-‐Alone
LCA consists of three parts. The first part is the Results of the Life Cycle Assessment of the Solvatten
showing the main result from the Life Cycle Inventory (LCI), Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) and
the disposal in Kenya. In the second part an uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of the results is
discussed, to stress the reliability and trustworthiness of the results. The last part is a summary of the
key findings of the Life Cycle Assessment.
6.1 Results
Below, the results of the Life Cycle Assessment are presented. SimaPro is used to analyze the life
cycle from cradle to when the product is in Kenya ready to be used. The use phase has no
environmental impact as only water and sun energy are needed. The environmental impacts from
the disposal phase were impossible to analyse correctly in SimaPro due to a very different level of
development in Kenya compared to databases available. Therefore, the LCI and LCIA results are
presented first and after that the environmental impacts from the disposal are discussed. The LCI
result shows the total amounts of different substances used through the life cycle (cradle to use-‐
phase). In the LCIA results, the characterizations show the parts of Solvatten that give the largest
impact to the eleven environmental categories Eco-‐Indicator 99 studies, the normalization results
show these results compared to a reference value and the weighting result show the impact
categories’ relative importance.
6.1.1 Life Cycle Inventory Results

The Life Cycle Inventory Result list contains 720 substances in four different categories (raw material
inputs and releases to air, water and soil respectively). The inventory result does not reflect the full
life cycle, as the disposal phase is not included in the data analysis. If recycling the plastics and the
metals, levels of substances would decrease, and if incineration would be used, releases to air would
increase dramatically. This is important to keep in mind when interpreting the results. Table 2 below
shows the amounts released to air, soil and water of 15 substances. The 15 substances all have
relatively high normalisation damage factors, and hence contribute to the environmental impact of
Solvatten. The full Life Cycle Inventory can be found in Appendix 4.
29
Table 2 Life Cycle Inventory Results, of the Stand-‐alone Solvatten
study, Listing the Largest Emissions to Air, Soil, and Water
Substance Released to Amount [kg]

Particulates, < 2.5 um Air 2,43E-‐03
Particulates, > 10 um Air 3,84E-‐03
Dinitrogen monoxide Air 1,94E-‐04
Chromium Air 5,09E-‐06
Hexachlorbenzene Air 5,90E-‐10
Cadmium Air 1,68E-‐07
Benzo(a)pyrene Air 5,00E-‐08
Arsenic Soil 1,35E-‐08
Zinc Soil 4,33E-‐06
Lead Soil 6,27E-‐08
Copper, ion Water 1,03E-‐04
Cyanide Water 4,75E-‐06
Benzene Water 1,28E-‐04
Nickel, ion Water 2,51E-‐04
Chloroform Water 1,47E-‐10
6.1.2 Characterization Results

The results from the characterization of the life cycle inventory are shown below in Figure 5. In Figure
5, the bar for carcinogens show which parts of Solvatten add up to the total environmental impact of
carcinogens, and so on for the other ten impact categories. The black container and the transparent
lids and caps give the largest impacts for almost all of the impact categories. The exception is the
category of land use, where packaging of the finished product give the largest impact transport by
freight ship, transport by aircraft and the glue also gives a relatively large impact in most of the
categories. The impact categories cannot be compared as their units differ, as described in 5 Life
Cycle Impact Assessment.
30

Figure 5 Characterization Result, Showing the Impact from Different Parts of Solvatten on the
Different Impact Categories, in the Stand-‐alone Solvatten Study
31
6.1.3 Normalization Results
The normalization results show the characterization values compared to a reference value. In Eco-‐
Indicator 99 the reference is the environmental impact of one average European person in one year.
As with the characterization result, it is not possible to compare the impact categories as they have
different units. Figure 6 shows that Solvatten raw material extraction, production and transport from
Sweden to Kenya correspond to almost 0.5 % of one European person’s environmental impact on
fossil fuels during a year. The only other impact categories showing any significant response are
respiratory inorganics (around 0.07 %) and climate change (almost 0.03 %). Figure 7 shows the
results of Figure 6 grouped into damage categories. The damage categories are simply made up of
impact categories with same unit. It could be seen that Solvatten’s life cycle from cradle to market-‐
of-‐use has almost no impact on ecosystem quality, a total impact on human health of 0.1 % and on
resources of 0.5 % (% of an average European person’s environmental impact in one year). Table 3
shows the result in Figure 6 as a table.
Table 3 Normalised Results of the Stand-‐alone Solvatten Study,

Listing the Normalised Values of the Impacts Category Results
Impact Category
Carcinogens 0,008%
Resp. organics 0,000%
Resp. inorganics 0,068%
Climate change 0,024%
Radiation 0,000%
Ozone layer 0,000%
Ecotoxicity 0,004%
Acidification/ Eutrophication 0,007%
Land use 0,005%
Minerals 0,001%
Fossil fuels 0,497%

32
Figure 6 Normalization Result, Showing the Normalised Impact from Different Parts of Solvatten on the Different Impact Categories, in the Stand-‐alone
Solvatten Study
(y-‐axis: a value of 1 would correspond to the environmental impact of a European person during one year)
33

Figure 7 Normalization Result, Showing the Normalised Impact from Different Parts of Solvatten on the Different Damage Categories, in the
Stand-‐alone Solvatten Study
(y-‐axis: a value of 1 would correspond to the environmental impact of a European person during one year)
34
6.1.4 Weighted Result
Weighting of the normalized result makes it possible to compare the impact categories to each other.
Figure 8 shows that the environmental impact is largest in the category of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels
make up 80 % of Solvatten’s total impact on the environment, see Table 4. Respiratory inorganics are
responsible for 11 % of Solvatten’s total impact, and climate change account for 4 %. Carcinogens,
acidification/ eutrophication and land use give just over 1 % each. The five resulting categories
(respiratory organics, radiation, ozone layer, minerals and ecotoxicity) account for the last
percentages together. From the bars of fossil fuels, respiratory inorganics and climate change in
Figure 8 it is clear that the black container and the transparent lid and caps contribute most to the
environmental impact of Solvatten.
Table 4 Weighted Result – The Values of the Impact

Categories after Weighting, in the Stand-‐alone Solvatten
Study
Impact category [Pt] %

Carcinogens 0,024687 1,33%
Resp. organics 0,00066 0,04%
Resp. inorganics 0,204857 11,00%
Climate change 0,072669 3,90%
Radiation 0,000902 0,05%
Ozone layer 4,86E-‐05 0,00%
Ecotoxicity 0,015898 0,85%
Acidification/
Eutrophication 0,027323 1,47%
Land use 0,021126 1,13%
Minerals 0,003716 0,20%
Fossil fuels 1,489905 80,03%
Total 1,861792

35

Figure 8 Weighting Result, Showing the Weighted Impact from Different Parts of Solvatten on the Different Impact Categories, in the Stand-‐
alone Solvatten Study
36
6.1.5 Networks
In all of the LCIA results shown above, it has been the black container and the transparent lid and
caps giving large contributions to the impacts. To examine the cause of impact in each category,
characterization networks have been carefully reviewed. Characterization shows how the different
parts of Solvatten add up to the total impact in each category. Figure 9 shows the characterization
network of the fossil fuel category, which in the weighting result showed to correspond to 80 % of
Solvatten’s total environmental impact. The figure shows that the material of the transparent lid and
the material of the black container stand for 42.3 % and 23 % respectively of Solvatten’s total
environmental impact on the category of fossil fuels. The process used to form the plastic subparts of
Solvatten account for 13.3 % of the impact in the category. The networks of the six impact categories
yielding more than 1 % of Solvatten’s total impact respectively can be seen in Appendix 5. Evaluation
of these six impact categories’ network gives that the same materials and processes are responsible
for the largest impact in four of the six impact categories. In the fossil fuels, respiratory inorganics,
climate change and acidification /eutrophication categories the material of the transparent lid give
the highest impact (climate change, 44.5 %; fossil fuels, 42.3 %; respiratory inorganics, 36.4 %; and
acidification /eutrophication, 32.9 %). Other materials and processes yielding high impacts are the
material of the black container, the process used to form the plastic sub-‐parts, and transport by
freight ship and aircraft. In the impact category of carcinogens, the process used to form the plastic
sub-‐parts account for 68.7 % and one of the metals in the indicator account for 12.2 %. In the last
impact category, land use, the EU-‐pallet used when transporting the unit to its market of use,
account for 67.1 % and the process used to form the plastic sub-‐parts account for 24.3 %.
37

Figure 9 A Network of the Solvatten Assembly, Showing the Characterized Results of the Impact Category Fossil Fuels
38
6.1.6 Waste Scenarios in Kenya
In this life cycle assessment of Solvatten, it is assumed that Kenya in Africa is where the product is
used. Kenya is therefore also the place where the disposal phase takes place. Kenya has no proper
solid waste management, as there are no legal guidelines. In the area of Nairobi, the city council is
responsible for waste management and collects about 40 % of the produced waste. There are also
private collectors (around 60 companies), that collect 20 % of the waste. The remaining 40 % is left
uncollected. Most of the collecting is localized to the middle-‐income areas and in the low-‐income
areas there is no collecting at all by the city council. In these areas burning of waste is becoming
more common. There is one official dumping site, Dandora, which has been in use since 1981 and is
now considered to be full. Many illegal sites have appeared, as there is a fee to dump at Dandora.
Planning of waste management includes a new, modern, landfill. But this is a long-‐term goal and the
city council is now looking for financers and engineers (UN Environment Programme, 2007).
In the low-‐income areas open burning of waste and dumping of waste at road sides and river banks
are increasing instead. There are some recycling businesses in place, but this is focused onto product
areas with a lot of waste. People collect plastics and transport it to the recycling facility, where they
get paid per kg. Examples of product areas are bottles (polyethylene terephtalate, PET) and plastic
bags (Nylon, Polyethylene, PE, and Polypropylene, PP). When considering the rural areas, no solid
waste management exists. The waste produced is either burned openly or just dumped somewhere
in the nature. Also, the inhabitants are good at reusing things and often find new areas where old
products can come to use. Proper waste management’s largest problem is that there are no
economic possibilities or infrastructure to transport the waste to the biggest cities (Personal
communication, Fredrik Alfredsson, 2011).
The plastic materials of the black container and the transparent lid and caps account for 74 % of
Solvatten’s total weight and are therefore the main consideration if burning a Solvatten unit openly.
Complete incineration of the material of the black container would reduce the plastic to only carbon
dioxide and water. Abundance of oxygen is needed for such complete combustion though, and if
burning the container openly there probably is a shortage. According to Boettner et. al. (1973) only
30 % of the material is combusted if air flow is 100 cubic centimetres and heating rate if 5 °C per
minute. 70 % is hence put on landfill anyway. Carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, propylene, 1,3-‐
pentadiene and methane are the combustion products with highest concentration. The material of
the transparent lid and caps is burnt easily as volatile substances formed during combustion acts as
extra fuel and speeds process. The combustion of the material is also dependant on abundance of
oxygen, and with open burning there is no guarantee that enough oxygen is available. During
combustion, large amounts of heat, smoke and toxic substances are emitted, and therefore
treatment of the incineration products should be preferred. The remaining 26 % of the unit consists
of other plastic materials, rubbers and metals. The plastics and rubbers should mainly decompose to
carbon dioxide and water, but as there might be additives in the materials by-‐products can form and
potentially be harmful.
The disposal phase of Solvatten’s life cycle is not included in the assessment in SimaPro as the
situation in Kenya (and other developing countries) differs extensively from the database information
available. In reality, Kenya does not even have waste treatment methods; they are dependent on an
uncontrolled dumping site. Also, as Solvatten is in the start-‐up phase and the estimated life length of
the product is 10 years, the doubts about how disposal will be taken care of are many; How long will
39
the actual life length of Solvatten be? What options of waste treatment will be available? What
standards will the Kenyan facilities have?
To see how the disposal phase affects the life cycle and to compare different waste treatment
methods, three scenarios are made in SimaPro and compared. The three scenarios for waste
treatment are landfill, incineration and recycling and they are all based on the European standard
that the Ecoinvent Database of SimaPro contains. It is not probable that Kenya, or any other
developing country where Solvatten might be used, would have facilities with the same standards
when it comes to emissions and refining their waste. Moreover, it is not likely that this will have
changed when the life of the Solvatten unit comes to its end (time boundary; 10 years). This
comparison is done to stress the importance of taking care of the product properly when the use
phase comes to an end.
Figure 10 shows a comparison of the life cycle of Solvatten with the three different waste scenarios.
Landfill, which is the most probable scenario, shows high impacts (> 90 %) in all of the eleven
categories. In a landfill, organic waste will be degraded to gaseous pollutants and humus (Persson et
al., 2005). Also, rainwater flow through the masses, and the leachate formed will be polluted. To
hinder leachate to mix with the ground water, European standard landfills have sealings underneath
and on top. There are also systems to collect the leachate to clean it separately. In Sweden, landfills
are used when there is no other option available, and the landfills are controlled and fairly safe. In
Kenya and other developing countries it is not probable that the landfill facilities do not have the
same level of sealing underneath, and most definitely not on top (United Nations Human Settlements
Programme, 2010). The official landfill of Nairobi, Dandorra, is by UN referred to as an uncontrolled
dumping site, and such are normally the only waste scenario possible in developing countries like
Kenya.
Incineration and landfill seem to result in fairly equal environmental impacts in almost all of the
categories, except three; climate change, carcinogens and ecotoxicity. Incineration affects the
climate change environmental impact factor more than both landfill and recycling. This is of course
expected as burning of plastics release emissions of carbon dioxide and other volatile organic
compounds. The impact in the category of ecotoxicity is reduced to about 80 % of landfills level and
in the category to only 15 % if incineration is used instead.
Recycling is clearly the best option, showing the lowest bars in nine of the eleven categories. It is only
in the category of radiation that recycling is worse than both landfill and incineration and in the
category of carcinogens that recycling seems to have a slightly higher impact on carcinogens than
incineration. What is more notable is that the environmental impact is decreased to less than 60 % of
landfill’s or incineration’s impact if recycling is used.
Figure 11, Figure 12 and Figure 13 show the characterization of the life cycle of Solvatten with
disposal phase landfill, incineration and recycling respectively. For both landfill, Figure 11, and
incineration, Figure 12, it is the three impact categories of carcinogens, climate change and
ecotoxicity that show an increased impact due to the waste scenario. It is only incineration that
shows any significant impact on climate change. However, incineration’s largest environmental
impact is in the category of ecotoxicity, while landfill’s largest impact is in carcinogens. Incineration
gives small increases (less than 5 %-‐points) in respiratory inorganics, radiation, acidification/
eutrophication and minerals. Not included in the incineration scenario, is the avoided emissions from
40
production of energy, which would lead to a decrease in the environmental impact of this scenario.
Landfill shows smaller impacts in land use and minerals (less than 5 %-‐points) as well. Figure 13
clearly shows the benefits of recycling. In six of the eleven categories, recycling decreases the
environmental impact of Solvatten as less raw materials have to be extracted when recycling. When
recycling, extraction becomes an avoided process as the old material can be used again. This is
clearly positive for the environment as resources most often are scarce. Carcinogens, radiation and
ecotoxicity are the only categories where recycling yields an increased impact.
41
Figure 10 Comparison of the Impact of Waste Scenarios on the Impact Categories for Solvatten
42

Figure 11 Characterization Results of Solvatten with Waste Scenario: Landfill
43

Figure 12 Characterization Results of Solvatten with Waste Scenario: Incineration
44

Figure 13 Characterization Results of Solvatten with Waste Scenario: Recycling
45
6.1.7 Carbon Dioxide Equivalents
There is a range of gases affecting the climate and their ability to absorb heat radiation as well as
their life-‐times in the atmosphere varies. Hence, different gases affect the climate differently. Each of
the gases affecting the climate has a global warming potential (GWP) factor comparing the gas to
carbon dioxides warming potential. For a 100 year long period, the GWP-‐factor of carbon dioxide is
set to 1. For methane it is 25, meaning that methane affects the climate 25 times more than carbon
dioxide. Dinitrogen oxide has a GWP-‐factor of 298 and so on for all of the greenhouse gases.
Therefore, it is possible to recalculate a particular amount of one emission’s effect on global warming
in relation to carbon dioxide’s effect. This is called to calculate an emission’s carbon dioxide
equivalents. This has become a popular tool to compare different products effect on global warming
(Bernes, 2007).
The total emission of CO2 equivalents can be calculated by using a ReCiPe, another methodology for
impact assessments in SimaPro. The climate change impact category in ReCiPe is a midpoint
category, with a unit of kg CO2 equivalents. If analyzing the Solvatten LCI with ReCiPe, instead of Eco-‐
Indicator 99, it is found that the Solvatten raw material extraction, production and transport down to
Kenya correspond to 18 kg of CO2 equivalents. This can be seen in Table 5, together with a summary
of how many CO2 equivalents each part of Solvatten is responsible for. Figure 14 shows a network of
parts of Solvatten contributing to more than 1 % of the total environmental impact of climate change
in ReCiPe. It is clear that the material of the transparent lid and caps and the black container as well
as the process used to form these give the most impact.
If ReCiPe is used to calculate the environmental impact of Solvatten with the waste scenario of
European standard incineration used above in the comparison, the total release would be 24 kg of
CO2 equivalents, which can be seen in Table 6. Incineration would hence increase the release of CO2
equivalents with 33 %.
Table 5 states that one Solvatten unit’s production and transportation down to Kenya produce 18 kg
of CO2 equivalents. This can be compared to a Sony Ericsson cell phone that has been reported to
produce 23.8 kg of CO2 equivalents during its expected life length of 3.5 years (Sony Ericsson , n.d.).
The 23.8 kg include all phases of life, including waste scenario, and 3.6 % of the impact is reported to
be overhead impacts from Sony Ericsson’s offices and travel. The number has been calculated
through an LCA, but it is not stated which phone model that is used in the study. The computer
producer Dell reports that a typical business laptop produces 350 kg of CO2 equivalents (Dell, 2010).
This calculation was also done through an LCA and the lifespan of the computer was estimated to 4
years. Further, it was assumed that 75 % of the device was recycled and the rest was incinerated. The
British newspaper The Guardian has a section on their web page stating carbon dioxide equivalent
productions from various products. In August 2010, they stated that the internet releases 300 million
tonnes of CO2 equivalents each year, being equal to the fossil fuels burnt in Turkey in a year (The
Guardian, 2010). And in November 2010 they said that a load of laundry washed at 40 °C and dried
on the line produces 0.7 kg of CO2 (The Guardian, 2010).
46

Figure 14 A Network of the Solvatten Assembly, Showing the Characterized Results of the Impact Category Climate Change [cutoff: 1 %]
47
Table 5 Results from the Impact Category Climate Change Using the Impact
Assessment Method ReCiPe

Climate change kg CO2 eq

Total 18,03
Indicator 0,47
Black Container 4,56
Transparent Lid and Caps 9,70
Small Plastic/Rubber Parts 0,44
Metals 0,01
Glue 0,41
Packaging of finished Solvatten 0,18
Transport, lorry 16-‐32t, EURO4/RER U 0,09
Transport, transoceanic freight ship/OCE U 0,71
Transport, lorry >28t, fleet average/CH U 0,21
Transport, aircraft, freight, intercontinental/RER U 1,23

Table 6 Results from the Impact Category Climate Change Using the Impact Assessment Method ReCiPe,
Including the Disposal phase: Incineration
kg CO2 eq
Solvatten 18,03 raw material, production, transport to place of use, use phase
Incineration 6,13 disposal phase (no transports from place of use included)
Total 24,15

48
6.2 Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis
Uncertainties can appear in both the model and the data collected. As these uncertainties affect the
reliability of the results, it is important to analyze and keep them in mind when interpreting the
results.
Model uncertainties typically include uncertainties that the future holds, emissions from production
processes and waste treatments can for example be very different when the analysis is carried out
compared to when the emissions actually take place. Uncertainties can also arise if a database
process or material in SimaPro is for a country other than where the actual process takes place.
Other model uncertainties concern the choice of functional units and allocation basis. Data
uncertainties is for example inconsistencies in the collected data, as all information can be difficult to
gather and system boundaries set in the scope of the study can be stretched. Also, data inputs in
SimaPro that are not connected to a characterization factor will not show in the impact assessment.
An important reason for data uncertainties is the fact that the production processes differ depending
on the specific plant’s condition. When using databases SimaPro withhold, the data will be inexact as
the data for material or process varies (Product Ecology Consultants, 2010).
In 4 Life Cycle Inventory, data uncertainties resulting in incompleteness in the data set are described,
as well as model uncertainties of SimaPro not holding database inputs from the right country, or
exactly right material or process. In this section sensitivity analysis is carried out to see the impacts of
some of the assumptions made. The sensitivity analysis tells the difference in impacts when the value
assumed is varied (Product Ecology Consultants, 2010). In this LCA, the assumptions that are possible
to vary include freight from Sweden to Kenya with airplane or ship. This sensitivity analysis is
presented below.
6.2.1.1 Transport to Market of Use – Kenya

Today, Solvatten is transported mainly by freight ship from Gothenburg, Sweden to Mombasa,
Kenya. Solvatten AB estimates that around 95 % of all transports down to Kenya are by ship, and the
remaining 5 % is transported by airplane. But, as there are many start-‐up projects right now, maybe a
larger part will be transported by air the next months or even years. This is also due to the insecurity
about when freight ships will arrive in the port in Kenya (Personal communication, Johanna Felix,
2011). Due to this a sensitivity analysis of how the environmental impact will change if as much as 20
% of the transports down to Kenya will be by airplane instead. The increased level of air freight is
chosen after a discussion with Johanna Felix, Solvatten AB. The result is presented below in Figure 15
below. It is clear that the environmental impact increase in every single impact category, with the
largest increases in acidification/eutrophication, climate change, ozone layer, fossil fuels and
respiratory inorganics. Overall, the difference is quite small though. No category shows more than a
20 % increase.
6.2.1.2 Standard of Lorry Transports

In this LCA it is assumed that lorry transports are of EURO 4 standard in Europe and of average fleet
in Kenya. As the quality of lorries varies through Europe, the standard might be lower. The average
fleet is probably better in Europe than in Kenya, but as the input contains EURO0-‐EURO4 it is the best
option available since EURO3 is the lowest single standard in SimaPro. It is hence not possible to vary
the inputs of lorry transports in a way that would provide any interesting results.
49

Figure 15 Comparison of the Different Impact Categories of the Solvatten Unit Using 20 % and 5 % Air Freight
50
6.3 Key Findings
Key findings is basically a summary of the most important results described above.
The SimaPro analysis of Solvatten shows that it is the black container and the transparent lid and
caps that give the largest environmental impact through the life cycle from cradle to end-‐of-‐use
phase in Kenya. The process used to form these (and other plastic sub-‐parts of Solvatten) is a large
part of the environmental impact as well as the materials per se. When weighting the results it shows
that only six of the eleven impact categories correspond to 99 % of a Solvatten unit’s total
environmental impact. It is the impact categories of fossil fuels (80 %), respiratory inorganics (11 %)
and climate change (4 %) that contributes most to the total. When interpreting characterization
networks the six impact categories yielding 99 % of Solvatten’s total impact, the plastic material of
the transparent lid contributes mostly to four of the six impact categories. In the other two
categories it is the process used to form the plastics and the EU-‐pallet used when freighting the unit
down to Kenya that are responsible for the largest contributions. Overall, it is the plastic materials,
the process used to form these and the transports by freight ship and aircraft that contributes mostly
to Solvatten’s total environmental impact.
When normalizing the characterization results, it is only the category fossil fuels that have any
noteworthy impact. Solvatten’s impact on fossil fuels is comparable to 0.5 % of an average European
person’s impact of fossil fuels during one year. On the other hand, this is a positive result as the
environmental impact of Solvatten seen to all the other categories is very low. When grouping the
impact categories into damage categories, the impact on fossil fuels make up the whole impact on
resources, as minerals and land use barely have any impact. In the other two damage categories,
Solvatten has 0.1 % impact of an average European during a year on human health and almost no
impact (<0.02 %) on ecosystem quality. The impact on human health is made up from the impact of
respiratory inorganic and climate change as the other impact categories in the damage category has
barely any impact.
The production and transport of a final unit down to Kenya produces 18 kg of CO2 equivalents
according to the ReCiPe methodology of SimaPro, and if incinerated in a plant with European
standards, the number goes up to 24 kg. This is comparable to a cell phone produced by Sony
Ericsson (23.8 kg CO2 equivalents with disposal included).
A major finding when analyzing Solvatten’s life cycle is that attention has to be paid to the disposal of
the product. This is a problem that will rise in the future, as more Solvatten units will come to the
end of their life. In Kenya there is no properly functioning solid waste management and disposal rely
on a landfill from 1981. Unorganized dumping of waste has started to increase on riverbanks and
road sides as well as burning of waste with no control of the emissions. It is important for Solvatten
AB as a company to take their responsibility as a producer to make sure that the disposal phase of
their product does not cause any serious damage to the environment.

51
52
7 Comparative Studies
In this section of the report the environmental impacts of two other methods of assessing clean
water will be compared with Solvatten. The first method is boiling of water, the most commonly used
method for purifying water. A simple LCA of boiling water is therefore made, and the method and
results of this is described below. The second method in this comparison is bottled water. Bottled
water represents a large-‐scale method with benefits of control over both costs and quality. A simple
LCA of bottled water would be based on assumptions and simplifications, and will be scientifically
unreliable if done within the framework of a master thesis project. Therefore, the environmental
impacts of bottled water are discussed thoroughly.
7.1 Boiling
In this section the comparative LCA between Solvatten and boiling water is described. It contains a
Life Cycle Inventory with a description of the data used, as well as assumptions and calculations
made. The functional unit for this comparative study is 10 litres of clean water. That implies that the
environmental impact of purifying 10 litres of water with Solvatten (i.e. using Solvatten once) is
compared to boiling 10 litres of water.
7.1.1 Flowchart
Figure 16 shows a flowchart of the process of boiling water.

Figure 16 Simplified Flowchart of Boiling Water
7.1.2 Life Cycle Inventory

Data collection for the process of boiling water was performed by published articles on combustion
emissions and discussion with Johanna Felix, Solvatten AB. Solvatten AB have performed many
studies in Kenya which show the current habits concerning Solvatten, boiling and firewood use.
Below is a description of the data used and the assumptions made.
When boiling water in Kenya, only an aluminium pot, firewood and three stones are needed. The
water is heated by putting the three stones in the form of a triangle and the firewood placed in-‐
between them with the pot on top. An aluminium pot bought in Kenya was used to determine the
weight of the pots used. The pot contained 2.5 litres and the weight is 180 grams. The most
commonly used pot contains 10 litres. If a linear relationship of weight and volume is assumed, the
10 litre pot would weigh 720 grams, four times as much. The aluminium pot is punched out from a
metal sheet, and therefore it must be assumed that some material is lost within production. The
material required for the production is hence assumed to be 800 grams. Due to the label on the pot
53
bought in Kenya, listing place of production to be Kenya, the aluminium pot is assumed to be
produced in Nairobi. In the stand-‐alone LCA of Solvatten, no transport outside Nairobi is included in
the assessment. Since this LCA of boiling water is a comparative assessment, no transports are
included for the aluminium pot either.
A study performed by Vi-‐Skogen showed that 0.36 kg firewood was used to boil 1 litre of water
(Åhman, 2010). It is assumed that all firewood is collected in the proximity of the household, and that
no transportation of the firewood takes place. If the firewood has to be bought, there might be a
transportation of the wood. For burning the firewood, a new process was added in SimaPro.
Emissions used in the process are published by the European Environment Agency, EEA, in the
EMEP/EEA Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook. A complete list of the emissions used can be
found in Appendix 6. The final waste flow in the burning process is set to be wood ashes which can
be found in the substance list in SimaPro.
The life length of the aluminium pot, according to the ViSkogen study, is 6-‐12 months. Since the
aluminium pot might have other applications than just heating water, like heating food, an
assumption has been made that the aluminium pot would last 12 months if just used for boiling
water. The Vi-‐Skogen study also shows that 37 litres of water is heated per day, meaning that one
aluminium pot can boil 13,505 litres of water during its lifetime (ViSkogen, 2010). The functional unit
used for the comparative LCA is 10 litres of clean water. The 10 litres is divided by the amount of
water that the aluminium pot can produce during its lifetime to give the environmental impact of the
functional unit. The Solvatten unit is expected to have a lifetime of 10 years. One unit can produce on
average 14 litres/day which means that Solvatten can produce 51100 litres of water during its
lifetime (Åhman, 2010). As done for the aluminium pot, 10 litres is divided with the amount of water
that Solvatten can purify during its lifetime, to give the environmental impact for the functional unit.
7.1.3 LCIA Results

In this section the results from the comparative LCA of Solvatten and boiling water is listed.
The comparison between Solvatten and Boiling water in the 11 impact categories is shown in Figure
18. Solvatten has a lower environmental impact in nine of the eleven impact categories. Only in the
categories Ozone layer and Fossil fuels, Solvatten have a higher impact than boiling water. For the
categories Land use, Radiation, and Minerals the environmental impact of Solvatten is shown in the
figure. In the remaining six categories the environmental impact is so much larger for boiling water
than for Solvatten, that Solvatten’s impact is not even visible. Figure 18 shows the impacts categories
grouped together into the damage categories. It is visible here that Solvatten has a larger impact on
Resources, even though the impact from Boiling water is almost the same. Boiling water has the
highest impact on Human health and Ecosystem Quality, where the Solvatten results are not even
visible. Figure 19 shows the weighted values of the comparison. It clearly shows that the impact
category of Respiratory Organics from Boiling water have the highest impact. The Solvatten values
are not visible in the weighted diagram.
Wood is considered a renewable resource under certain conditions. Burning of wood is seen to have
no CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, since one tree that grows absorbs the same amount of carbon
dioxide when growing, as is released when combusted. However, the harvest of firewood can be
unsustainable if a larger amount of wood is combusted than allowed to grow back. Then there will be
an emission of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Unsustainable firewood harvesting leads to
54
deforestation. The deforestation is a problem in many developing countries, and Kenya is one of
them. Except for the emission of carbon dioxide, the deforestation can also lead to a loss of
biodiversity (FAO, 2010). Deforestation is not shown in SimaPro as LCAs are not site specific (Bauman
& Tillman, 2004). This is a disadvantage to the assessment. Another is that social and economic
impacts of a product are not shown.
55

Figure 17 Comparison of Solvatten (Red) and Boiling Water (Green): Figure Showing Characterisation Results Divided into the Impact Categories
56

Figure 18 Comparison of Solvatten (Red) and Boiling Water (Green): The Figure Showing Characterisation Results Divided into the Damage Categories
57

Figure 19 Comparison Solvatten (Red) and Boiling Water (Green): The Figure Shows Normalized Results Divided into Impact Categories
58
7.1.4 Disposal
The disposal scenarios are not included in the comparison between Solvatten and boiling water due
to the uncertain circumstances in Kenya. The waste produced from boiling water is the aluminium
pot and wood ashes. The wood ashes can be used as a fertilizer if spread in nature, and does not
need any waste treatment There are some small-‐scale recycling for aluminium in Kenya, hence one
option for the disposal is that the pot is recycled into a new pot (Karanja et al., 2004). The waste
treatment of Solvatten is discussed in section 8 Discussion. Since the waste treatment for Solvatten is
unknown, it is hard to make a comparison with the one of boiling water.
7.2 Water in PET-‐bottles

Purified water in a PET-‐bottle is common in many places in the world. It is a safe way to get access to
drinking water. A large manufacturing facility can more easily provide a high quality control, than a
small scale purifying method like boiling water and the use of Solvatten. For the comparison with
bottled water the study will not be performed as a data analysis. Instead a comparative discussion is
done. This section explains the material flow for PET-‐bottles through production, use phase and
disposal compared to Solvatten.
PET-‐bottles are produced from polyethylene terephthalate plastic that is blow-‐moulded into bottles.
The same raw material, crude oil, is used when producing PET-‐bottles as when producing the plastic
used in Solvatten. One PET-‐bottle containing 1.5 litres of water weighs 40-‐45 grams (PlasticsEurope,
2010). As previously calculated the Solvatten unit can produce 51,100 litres of water during its
lifetime. The amount of plastic needed for the same volume of water is hence almost 1,400 kg.
The Solvatten unit only requires sunlight to purify the water. If establishing a facility for bottled water
there has to be a production facility for the bottles as well as a facility for the purification of the
water. All of this will require material and energy in the building process and in the maintenance
process.
If produced locally, the transportation for one bottled of water most probably is lower than for a
Solvatten unit. As stated above, the amount of bottles required during one lifecycle of Solvatten is
large, and it can be assumed that the total transportation required for bottled water is significantly
higher than for one Solvatten unit.
In Kenya there are some recycling programs in place for PET-‐bottles. All of the PET-‐bottles will not be
recycled, and the remaining bottles will be put on landfills (Karanja et al., 2004). As describe above,
the plastics used in the Solvatten have no recycling program in place in Kenya.

59
60
8 Discussion
In the Discussion the results and questions raised during the analysis are discussed more extensively.
8.1 Stand-‐Alone LCA of Solvatten

This section will discuss the study which has assessed the Solvatten unit alone.
8.1.1 Cradle to end-‐of-‐use-‐phase LCA of Solvatten

The purpose of this LCA was to find both environmental strengths and weaknesses. The strengths can
be used in marketing of the product, while weaknesses are areas of improvement.
The most clear environmental strength shown by the life cycle assessment is that a Solvatten unit has
barely any impact on the damage category of ecosystem quality. The normalized result shows that
Solvatten give less than 0.02 % the ecosystem quality compared to an average European person’s
yearly impact. Ecosystem quality is measured in the unit of percentage of species that are threatened
or that disappeared from a given area during a certain time. The impact categories included in the
damage category are ecotoxicity, acidification/eutrophication, and land use. It is the acidification
/eutrophication category that shows the largest impact of the three and it is the material of the
transparent lid and caps as well as the transportation by freight ship that contributes the most.
Overall, it is apparent that the usage of Solvatten means almost no harm for species diversity.
Also, the damage category of human health has a low impact. Human health consists of the impact
categories of carcinogens, respiratory organics, respiratory inorganics, climate change, radiation and
ozone layer. Human health is measured in disability adjusted life years. A Solvatten unit corresponds
to 0.1 % of an average European person’s yearly impact, and it is the categories of respiratory
inorganics and climate change that contribute mostly. Respiratory inorganics include particulate
matter as well as SOX and NOX compounds and the climate change category measures how emissions
contributing to climate change affect the human health. In both of the categories, it is the material of
the transparent lid and caps that contributes mostly. The process of forming the plastics and
transportation by freight ship and airplane also give significant contributions to the impact
categories. Most of the impact categories in the human health damage category (four out of six)
show almost no impact at all, which must be considered a strength of Solvatten.
If the damage categories of ecosystem quality and human health can be considered as strengths of
Solvatten, the category of resources must be seen as the weak category for Solvatten. Resources
consist of the impact categories of land use, minerals and fossil fuels. The categories measure the
quality of the remaining resource, and it is the fossil fuel impact category that yields the major
contribution in this damage category. The impact of course comes from the main plastic materials of
Solvatten, i.e. the materials of the black container and the transparent lid.
8.1.1.1 Disregarded Materials and Process

In the goal and scope of this LCA, a weight boundary was set to not include parts with weight less
than 0.1 % of Solvatten’s total weight. After collection of all data, it was decided that the
masterbatches used to colour the plastics and the solvents of the glue used to attach the transparent
lid to the black container was to be disregarded as well. This was due to the vagueness of their
specific contents. A discussion of the environmental impact of the contents that is known is included
in Appendix 3. Assembly processes of Solvatten are also disregarded. Most of the assembly is done
61
by hand, but the facility in Skåne, Sweden, producing Solvatten has built a special device to apply the
glue. This assembly process is also discussed in Appendix 3.
8.1.1.2 Use Phase

The use phase of Solvatten has no environmental impact at all. To use Solvatten, potentially dirty
water and solar energy is the only inputs, and purified water is the output. Some organic waste can
gather on the filter when pouring the water into the container. Hence, when considering the stand-‐
alone LCA, Solvatten has no environmental impact in the use phase at all. Of course, using Solvatten
avoids the process of boiling or chlorinating water (i.e. using other purifying methods). The use phase
of Solvatten hence has potential environmental benefits of less fuel burnt, less chlorine spread and
so on. This is important to keep in mind (further discussed below), but for the stand-‐alone LCA
performed of Solvatten, the use phase has zero impact on the environment.
8.1.2 Disposal Phase of Solvatten in Kenya

As the population increase in Kenya and the country becomes more and more pronounced, the
amount of waste produced is also increasing. Today, the capital Nairobi only has one official landfill,
which has been in use for thirty years and is now considered to be full. Both the city council and
private companies are collecting waste, but only middle-‐ and high-‐income areas are reached. In the
low-‐income areas open burning of waste and dumping of waste at road sides and river banks are
increasing instead. Recycling businesses are up-‐and-‐coming, but only for materials with a lot of waste
like bottles and plastic bags. When considering the rural areas, no solid waste management exists.
The waste produced is either burned openly or just dumped somewhere in the nature. If enough
oxygen is available for the combustion process, mostly water and carbon dioxide should be formed.
This is hard to achieve during open burning though and toxic and harmful emissions can thus form
and be emitted during the combustion process. Open burning of plastic materials are therefore not
such a good idea (UN Environment Programme, 2007).
The comparison of European standard waste treatment scenarios clearly shows that landfill is the
worst option. As the situation is in Kenya right now, landfill is the most probable scenario. The
European standard of landfills has sealings underneath and on top, which is unlikely in Kenya. The
environmental impact by landfills shown in SimaPro is therefore probable to be even worse in Kenya.
UN refers to the official landfill of Nairobi as an uncontrolled dumping site, which in the same time is
the only option available. Recycling of Solvatten would be the best option as resources as fossil fuels
are ending, and it is desired to reuse the already extracted resources as far as possible (UN
Environment Programme, 2007). The up-‐and-‐coming recycling businesses in Kenya, that have the
granulation equipment in place, could be an option. It is important to remember that the quantities
of plastics produced by Solvatten, might be too small for these businesses to gain any profit from;
there has to be a demand for the specific plastic material that Solvatten is made of.
In rural areas in developing countries the traditional waste produced often is organic and hence
recycled. When introducing plastic products like Solvatten to these areas, it is important to
remember that there is no well-‐functioning municipal waste program. The increase in waste
produced in Kenya is also due to progress of many small business. The amount of waste produced by
each business might be small but all together the amounts are increasing quickly. This is an area
where Solvatten as a company needs to show their corporate responsibility. The amount of waste
produced from Solvatten is low, and it will not be profitable to create a facility just to be able to
62
recycle and take care of the product. Therefore the company needs to look into solutions of forming
some kind of agreement with a waste treatment facility to take care of the product when its life is
over. Maybe some kind of deposit can be repaid when a user returns an old or broken unit, as with
PET-‐bottles in Sweden, to make sure that no units are burned openly or just left in the environment.
8.2 Comparison of Solvatten with Other Sources of Purified Water
In this section the results from the comparative studies with boiling and bottled water will be
discussed.
8.2.1 Boiling Water

In the comparison between Solvatten and boiling water, boiling had the highest impact in the
majority of the impact categories. In only two of the impact categories, Solvatten had a higher value,
these were fossil fuels and ozone layer.
The reason for the higher value on fossil fuels is due to the plastic materials in the Solvatten unit,
which are produced from oil. Also the transports throughout the Solvatten lifecycle have an impact
on the fossil fuel resources and no transports are included in the water boiling. This is not a very
likely scenario even though the transports are probably not as many and long as in the Solvatten LCA,
since both access to raw material and production is assumed to take place locally in Africa.
In the remaining nine impact categories boiling water have a higher impact. If the values are
normalized, the respiratory organics have the absolute highest relative impact. This is due to the
burning of wood indoors, which is common in Kenya. The burning produces particulate matter and
volatile organic compounds, which have a big negative impact on the respiratory system.
The disposal scenarios are not included in the comparative study, this is due to the reason discussed
previously in the report of the unknown scenario. The only waste produced from boiling water is the
aluminium pot, which probably is recycled as Kenya has production facilities for aluminium.
The carbon dioxide emissions from burning firewood are carbon neutral, since the tree absorbed CO2
while growing. After using the tree for firewood, a new tree can grow and absorb the CO2 emitted
from the burning. However, Kenya has a problem with deforestation and if a new tree does not
absorb the CO2, there will an increase of CO2 available in the atmosphere. The increase in CO2 in the
atmosphere will in the end probably lead to climate change.
There are some differences between Solvatten and Boiling water which does not show in the LCA,
but still worth discussing. If not handled correctly hot water and fire can have impacts on both
human health and the ecosystem. Hot water and fire can cause burns. A fire can, if not contained,
cause big destruction in both rural and urban areas. The non-‐environmental factors do not show in
the computer analysis either. Hours spent on collecting firewood can be saved by the use of
Solvatten, since it does not require any special attendance after it is filled with water. As mentioned
earlier it is the women in the households that are mostly in charge of collecting the wood, and the
use of Solvatten will give the women time that they can put on more important things.
8.2.2 Water in PET-‐bottles

No LCA of PET-‐bottles was performed due to large uncertainties. It can be concluded that the
amount of plastic required to produce the plastic bottles containing the same amount of water that
one Solvatten unit can produce during its lifetime is enormous though. The bottled water requires
63
1,400 kg of plastic, which is a lot more than the 3 kg required to produce one Solvatten unit. As
already discussed, the largest environmental impact from the Solvatten unit originates from the
production of the plastic materials and the forming process of the plastic. It is hence likely that the
impact from PET is large as well.
The water produced in the Solvatten unit does only require sun light, and there is hence no
environmental impact from the purification process stage in the Solvatten lifecycle. The water for the
bottles needs to go through a purification process and be filled into bottles. The facilities where this
can be done, needs to be established and after establishment the processes requires energy. All of
this will have impact on the environment.
The transports related to the Solvatten unit are substantial, but the unit only is required to be
transported once. The transports for bottled water might be short, but they are many instead as the
amount of PET-‐bottles is large. Also, the bottled water has to be transported to the user, and the
waste has to be transported to the recycling facility or landfill.
In Kenya there are some recycling facilities in place for PET, and some bottles will therefore probably
be recycled into new bottles. It is very unlikely, though, that all bottles will be recycled. If the
Solvatten unit is put on landfill or in the nature, it is 3 kg compared to the 1400 kg of plastics required
for the plastic bottles. The ratio of PET-‐bottles that has to be recycled to give less plastic (crude oil)
extracted for bottles than for Solvatten is unlikely.
The Solvatten unit is expensive when bought, but since it is a onetime cost, less money have to be
spent on water during the near 10 years. For the bottled water the amount of money required to put
on water will be a lot higher than the cost of Solvatten.

64
8.3 Limitations to the Solvatten Study
In the theory section, some limitations to life cycle assessments were introduced. After performing
the LCA of Solvatten, some of these can be applied to this study. This is discussed below.
The LCA is not site-‐specific and does not take into account if the wood used as firewood is taken from
an area with deforestation problems. This is often the case in Kenya and this problem is difficult to
implement in the assessment. The water used in the Solvatten unit might similarly be taken from an
area with water shortage; this would not be included in the study. The water used in Solvatten would
probably have been used anyway, and this might therefore be considered irrelevant for the study.
The database inputs in SimaPro used in the study might not completely correspond to the correct
process used in the production of Solvatten. With the time limit and difficulty to collect detailed data,
the SimaPro databases have been used as a similar equivalent. Also some processes (e.g. the
assembly process) could not be found in the databases and detailed information could not be
gathered.
The comparison with other methods of purifying water is made difficult, since for Solvatten a lot of
data is available. The study of boiling water and bottled water is mainly based on assumptions. This
makes the comparison difficult and this should be kept in mind when interpreting the results.
The economical and social aspects are not included in the LCA study. The social aspect is very
important in the use of Solvatten. This will be included in the discussion to give a comprehensive
view of the use of Solvatten.
8.4 The Sustainability of Solvatten

The concept of sustainability includes environmental, economic and social factors. The LCA is an
analysis of Solvatten’s environmental impacts. In this section the economic and social factors are
discussed to put the product of Solvatten in the context of sustainability. When using Solvatten, the
stand-‐alone LCA concluded that there are no environmental impacts as only solar energy is the input
and some organic waste the only output except for the water. Usage of other water purifying
methods normally uses energy or chemicals that impact the environment negatively. This is of course
a large benefit for Solvatten.
None of the common methods can change chemical content of water, e.g. high sulphur or fluoride
contents. Such reductions only expensive methods like adsorption and ion exchange can manage. In
a health aspect this is of course negative for Solvatten and all of the common methods as water
available might be polluted with chemicals that are no good for the human body.
As described in 7 Comparative Studies boiling releases a lot of emissions that are avoided by
Solvatten as the water is about 55-‐70 °C when ready. For washing dishes or clothes and for hygiene
purposes that temperature often is sufficient. Even for some foods like corn porridge the
temperature is enough. It is hence only for some cooking, the water needs to be boiled to reach a
higher temperature. This saves a lot of money that would have been used for fuels, as well as it
improves health as cooking normally takes place inside and the emissions are toxic. Other purifying
methods (e.g. chlorination, sedimentation, filtering) does not achieve a higher temperature of the
water either. This is an advantage of UV-‐disinfection. Also, a Solvatten unit can be left in the sun, and
65
does not need any special attendance to work properly. This saves a lot of time, and further time
saving is achieved with Solvatten as described below.
It is often women and children who are responsible for the household work, including collecting
firewood and water. Household work is time consuming, and to reduce pressure from this, is
welcomed. The money and time saved by Solvatten can be used for all sorts of things. The
households can buy clothes and foods that they before could not afford. One family in Kenya for
example bought a cow (giving them milk) for the money saved. Children can go to school and have a
basic education and women might have the time to produce something they can sell at the local
market or even take on a part time job giving the household an extra income.
Households in Kenya that used Solvatten for a while have reported that they save about 75 % of their
costs on fuels, and about 100 % of their costs on doctor appointments. Solvatten improves the
hygiene of the people, and they really start to understand the importance of clean water. A large
part of the low quality water in Kenya is due to no waste treatment. It is easy for water to become
contaminated from faecal waste. The millennium goal 7, Ensure Environmental Sustainability,
declares that the proportion of world population without sustainable access to drinking water and
basic sanitation should be halved between 1990 and 2015. The drinking water target is very close to
being reached, while the sanitation part has lacked behind. It is important to remember that they are
closely intertwined; that improving sanitation will make drinking water more easily available.
The positive economic and health benefits of clean water through usage of Solvatten are large. It
would be very interesting to weight the negative environmental impacts of production and disposal
found in the stand-‐alone LCA against these positive benefits. In a life cycle assessment it is not
possible to do so though.

66
9 Conclusions
From the stand-‐alone LCA of Solvatten it can be concluded that the product has a low impact on the
environment during production and transports. Both the normalized and weighted results show
almost no impact in eight of the eleven impact categories evaluated. This is very positive for
Solvatten from an environmental point of view. The weighted results show that the category of fossil
fuels corresponds to 80 % of Solvatten’s total environmental impact. As the unit is made mostly out
of different plastic materials, this is expected. The other two categories showing any noteworthy
impact is respiratory inorganics (11 %) and climate change (4 %). When evaluating which parts of
Solvatten contribute to these two categories, the material of the black container and transparent lid
as well as the forming process used to form the plastics turn out to be the most important. It should
be remembered though, that the assembly process used to attach the container and lid to each other
is not included in the analysis, but could be very energy consuming as conditions include both high
temperature and high external pressure. The impact in the fossil fuel category corresponds to 0.5 %
of an average European’s yearly impact according to the normalized results. As the use phase of
Solvatten has no environmental impact, and the life length of one unit is ten years, the total
environmental impact of Solvatten during its entire lifetime is very low.
The local conditions in Kenya made it very difficult to include a waste scenario in the data analysis.
Kenya has no proper solid waste management and they are dependent on an uncontrolled landfill
that has been in use since the beginning of the 1980’s. When comparing landfills, incineration and
recycling, the latter is the superior alternative. During the first phases of Solvatten’s life cycle, the use
of fossil fuels is the main concern. If such resource use could be lowered by reusing materials instead
of extracting more from the non-‐renewable source it would be preferred. In Kenya, small recycling
businesses are growing at the moment. Private collectors gather material like PET-‐bottles and plastic-‐
bags, which are available in abundance, and get paid by kilo. For Solvatten, this is positive as the
option of recycling is possible in place in Kenya. But to recycle a unit every now and then, would not
yield any quantities that would be profitable for a recycling business to accept. Therefore, the
disposal of Solvatten has to be systemized in some way. Here Solvatten AB needs to show their
corporate social responsibility and come up with a liable, organized solution.
The comparative analysis with boiling of water and PET-‐bottles indicates that with the assumptions
made in the study and if the standard of the water achieved with Solvatten is sufficient, Solvatten is
environmentally better than both those alternatives. The chemical contents and temperature of the
water from the different methods differs and in the study it is only the amount of water that is
considered. In Kenya and many developing countries, deforestation is a problem, and the use of
wood fuel is therefore not sustainable. Also, a lot of particles are released, from the burning of wood,
causing health problems. For PET-‐bottles, a very general view has been included and indicates that
with the situation today enormous amounts of plastics are needed to reach the same volume as
Solvatten can produce during its life time. As it is the plastic materials and their forming processes
that cause the greatest environmental impacts for Solvatten, it is most certainly the same for PET. If
however, the conditions in Kenya change, and they no longer have problems with deforestation and
implement a functioning recycling system for their PET-‐bottles, the results may change as well.
When talking about sustainability social, economic and environmental factors should be included. An
LCA shows the environmental impacts of a product or service, but has difficulties with incorporating
social and economic aspects. During the use-‐phase, Solvatten has many positive impacts on these
67
two. The purification with Solvatten takes 2-‐6 hours, but the unit can be left unattended, freeing a lot
of time for other house hold duties. Also, as the water is around 55-‐70 °C after the purification, it is
only a few possible uses that needs further heating. For washing and hygiene purposes and drinking
the temperature often is enough. In the end, a lot less wood fuel is needed, saving both time from
collecting fuels and boiling the water. If buying wood fuels, a large share of the money spent can be
saved. Also, families using Solvatten have reported saving money from not having the need to visit
the doctor.
The production which today takes place in Sweden could be moved closer to the user, which would
save the transportation of the unit from Sweden to Kenya. However as described in this report,
Kenya does not even have a working waste management, and to set up a production facility with the
same conditions for workers and environmental standards as in Sweden could be difficult. Also,
Solvatten is not only designed for Kenya, but for many countries that lack clean water. Therefore, it is
of smaller value where the production actually takes place as raw materials has to be imported and
units exported anyways. A good idea might be to set up offices where assembly of the unit can take
place in the countries where Solvatten could be bought commercially in the future. In that case, the
production facility in Sweden can ensure the quality of the different subparts, while working
possibilities can be created in the countries developing countries.
Clean water and sustainable access is one of the targets in the United Nation’s Millennium
Development Goals to reduce poverty. For further development of the concerned countries through
poverty reduction, a small environmental impact has to be allowed. Therefore, Solvatten seems to be
a good solution bringing clean water to a very small impact per unit compared to a European’s yearly
impact.
The total environmental impact of the Solvatten unit compared to the boiling of water with fire wood
and bottled water is low. Also, one Solvatten unit is expected to last 10 years, and in such long time
period two alternative methods will have a very high environmental impact. The conclusion is
therefore that the Solvatten unit is a good alternative for purification of water.
68
10 Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Solvatten AB, and especially Petra Wadström (CEO) and Johanna Felix
(project manager), for giving us the possibility to do this life cycle assessment. We also would like to
thank Björn Frostell (Associate professor at KTH) for making us think twice about the big perspective
and Hanna Hillerström (Research engineer at KTH) for all the help and keeping us positive and in
good spirit. A special thanks goes to Lennart Seger at the main production site of Solvatten for a
great visit, where we learned a lot about plastics and forming of such, and for patiently answering
our questions and putting us in contact with subcontractors. And at last, thanks to all the
subcontractors of parts and materials that helpfully answered all of our questions.
69

70
11 References
Bauman, H. & Tillman, A.-‐M., 2004. The Hitch Hiker's Guide to LCA. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Bernes, C., 2007. En ännu varmare värld -‐ Växthuseffekten och klimatets förändringar. Stockholm:
Naturvårdsverket.
Boettner, E.A., Ball, G.L. & Weiss, B., 1973. Combustion Products from the Incineration of Plastics.
[Online] Available at: deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/3702/5/anh0435.0001.001.pdf
[Accessed February 2011].
Dell, 2010. Carbon Footprint of a Typical Business Laptop from Dell. [Online] Available at:
http://i.dell.com/sites/content/corporate/corp-‐comm/en/Documents/dell-‐laptop-‐carbon-‐footprint-‐
whitepaper.pdf [Accessed May 2011].
FAO, 2010. What woodfuels can do to mitigate climate change. Rome: FAO.
International Organization for Standardization, 2006. ISO standards for life cycle assessment to
promote sustainable development. [Online] Available at:
http://www.iso.org/iso/pressrelease.htm?refid=Ref1019 [Accessed February 2011].
Karanja, A.M., Ikiara, M.M. & Davies, T.C., 2004. Reuse, recover and recycling of Urban inorganic solid
waste in Nairobi. In B.e. al., ed. Solid Waste Management and Recycling. Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic Publishers. pp.161-‐94.
Nordström, A., 2005. Dricksvatten för en hållbarutveckling. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Persson, P.O. et al., 2005. Miljöskyddsteknik -‐ Strategier och teknik för ett hållbart miljöskydd.
Stockholm: Industriell Ekologi, KTH.
PlasticsEurope, 2010. PlasticsEurope -‐ PET bottles. [Online] Available at:

http://www.plasticseurope.org/what-‐is-‐plastic/types-‐of-‐plastics/pet/pet-‐bottles.aspx [Accessed 5
Maj 2011].
Product Ecology Consultants, 2001. Eco-‐indicator 99 -‐ Methodology Report.
Product Ecology Consultants, 2010. SimaPro7 -‐ Introduction to LCA. [Online] Available at:
http://www.pre.nl/content/manuals [Accessed February 2011].
ReCiPe, 2009. A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category
indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. [Online] Available at: http://www.lcia-‐recipe.net
[Accessed 15 Maj 2011].
Sobseey, M.D.S.C.E., Casanova, L.M., Brown, J.M. & Elliot, M.A., 2008. Point of Use Household
Drinking Water Filtration: A Practical Effective Solution for Providing Sustained Access to Safe
Drinking Water in the Developing World. Envrionmental Science and Engineering, 42(12), pp.4261-‐67.
Solvatten AB, 2010. Solvatten Official Website. [Online] Available at: www.solvatten.se [Accessed
February 2011].
71
Sony Ericsson , n.d. Carbon footprint -‐ Approach. [Online] Available at:
http://www.sonyericsson.com/cws/company-‐press-‐and-‐
jobs/sustainability/carbonfootprint?cc=gb&lc=en#tab-‐2 [Accessed May 2011].
The Guardian, 2010. What's the carbon footprint of … a load of laundry? [Online] Available at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-‐living-‐blog/2010/nov/25/carbon-‐footprint-‐load-‐
laundry [Accessed May 2011].
The Guardian, 2010. What's the carbon footprint of … the internet? [Online] Available at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/12/carbon-‐footprint-‐internet [Accessed May
2011].
Trafikanalys, 2010. Trafikanalys -‐ Fordon -‐ Fordon 2010 -‐ Tabell LB8 Lastbilar i trafik efter miljöklass,
årsvis 2001-‐2010. [Online] Available at: http://www.trafa.se/Statistik/Vagtrafik/Fordon/ [Accessed
May 2011].
UN Environment Programme, 2007. City of Nairobi Envrionmental Outlook. [Online] Available at:
http://www.unep.org/DEWA/Africa/docs/en/NCEO_Report_FF_New_Text.pdf [Accessed May 2011].
United Nations Human Settlements Programme, 2010. Solid Waste Management in the World's Cities
-‐ Water and Sanitation in the World's Cities 2010. London: Earthscan, on behalf of UN-‐HABITAT.
United Nations Millenium Development Goals, 2011. Fact Sheet on Goal 7. [Online] Available at:
www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/MDG_FS_7_EN.pdf [Accessed February 2011].
United Nations Millenium Development Goals, n.d. MDG Background. [Online] Available at:
www.un.org/milleniumgoals/bkgd.shtml [Accessed February 2011].
Uppfinnaren och Konstruktören, 2007. Strålande innovation renar dricksvatten med solenergi.
[Online] Available at: http://www.uppfinnaren.com/2007/nr3_08/petra.htm [Accessed February
2011].
ViSkogen, 2010. Final Report on Solvatten Pilot Market Project in Kenya.
World Health Organization, 2002. Managing Water in the Home: Accelerated Health Gains from
Improved Water Supply. Geneva: WHO Press.
World Health Organization, 2008. Guidelines for Drinking-‐water Quality, 3rd edition. Geneva: WHO
Press.
World Health Organization, 2009. Global Health Risks Summary Tables -‐ Attributable Deaths; risk
factors: age and sex. [Online] Available at:
http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/risk_factors/en/index.html [Accessed
February 2011].
World Health Organization, 2010. Progress on Sanitation and Drinking-‐Water: 2010 Update. Geneva:
WHO Press.
Åhman, J., 2010. Final Report on Solvatten Pilot Market Project in Kenya. Stockholm: Solvatten AB.
72

Personal Communication
Fredrik Alfredsson, Zanrec Plastics, Email, 14 April 2011
Information on the reality of plastic waste management in Zanzibar and Kenya.
Johanna Felix, Solvatten AB, E-‐mail, 21 February 2011
Information regarding future prospects of delivery of Solvatten to market-‐of-‐use.
73
12 Appendixes
Confidential information on materials, production processes and production sites cannot be
published officially. Therefore, such information is reported in appendices that Solvatten AB can
choose to publish independently. Here follows a list of the Appendixes belonging to this report.
Appendix 1 Grouping of Solvatten parts and weight-‐% of parts

Appendix 2 SimaPro inputs
Appendix 3 Assumptions and Missing Data
Appendix 4 Life Cycle Inventory Results
Appendix 5 Characterization Networks
Appendix 6 Emissions from burning firewood

74
TRITA-IM 2011:42
Industrial Ecology,
Royal Institute of Technology
www.ima.kth.se

2) Fulltext01

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2) Fulltext01

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Life Cycle Assessment and Sustainability

Aspects of Solvatten, a Water

Ulrika Isberg & Karin Nilsson

Master of Science Thesis

Life Cycle Assessment and Sustainability Aspects

Master of Science Thesis

1.2 Aim and Objectives

2.1 Water and Sanitation

Solvatten is a water container, which can be placed in the

2.3 Comparison with Other Methods of Accessing Purified Water

2.3.1 Clean Water and Sustainability

2.3.2 Descriptions of Other Alternatives

2.3.2.2 Solar Disinfection with UV

2.3.3 Motivation of Comparative Studies

Bad taste. Chlorine is Maintainance.

2.4.1 Definition and Purposes

2.4.2 Industry Use of LCA

3.1.1 Type of LCA

3.2 Scope of the Study

3.2.2 Functional Unit

3.2.3 System Boundaries

3.2.4 Data Quality Requirements

3.2.5 Limitations and Assumptions

3.2.6 Impact Categories and Impact Assessment Method

4.1 Data Collection Procedure

4.4 Assumptions and Missing Data

5.1 Classification and Characterization

5.2.1.1 Human health

5.2.1.1.2 Respiratory organics

5.2.1.1.3 Respiratory inorganic

5.2.1.1.4 Climate change

5.2.1.1.6 Ozone layer

5.2.1.2.3 Land use

5.2.1.3.2 Fossil fuels

5.5 CO2-­‐equivalents with ReCiPe

6.1.1 Life Cycle Inventory Results

Substance Released to Amount [kg]

6.1.2 Characterization Results

Table 3 Normalised Results of the Stand-­‐alone Solvatten Study,

Table 4 Weighted Result – The Values of the Impact

Impact category [Pt] %

Climate change kg CO2 eq

6.2.1.1 Transport to Market of Use – Kenya

6.2.1.2 Standard of Lorry Transports

7.1.2 Life Cycle Inventory

7.1.3 LCIA Results

7.2 Water in PET-­‐bottles

8.1 Stand-­‐Alone LCA of Solvatten

8.1.1 Cradle to end-­‐of-­‐use-­‐phase LCA of Solvatten

8.1.1.1 Disregarded Materials and Process

8.1.1.2 Use Phase

8.1.2 Disposal Phase of Solvatten in Kenya

8.2.1 Boiling Water

8.2.2 Water in PET-­‐bottles

8.4 The Sustainability of Solvatten

Nordström, A., 2005. Dricksvatten för en hållbarutveckling. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

PlasticsEurope, 2010. PlasticsEurope -­‐ PET bottles. [Online] Available at:

Product Ecology Consultants, 2001. Eco-­‐indicator 99 -­‐ Methodology Report.

 Appendix 1 Grouping of Solvatten parts and weight-­‐% of parts

You might also like

5.5 CO2-‐equivalents with ReCiPe

Table 3 Normalised Results of the Stand-‐alone Solvatten Study,

7.2 Water in PET-‐bottles

8.1 Stand-‐Alone LCA of Solvatten

8.1.1 Cradle to end-‐of-‐use-‐phase LCA of Solvatten

8.2.2 Water in PET-‐bottles

PlasticsEurope, 2010. PlasticsEurope -‐ PET bottles. [Online] Available at:

Product Ecology Consultants, 2001. Eco-‐indicator 99 -‐ Methodology Report.

Appendix 1 Grouping of Solvatten parts and weight-‐% of parts