Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Green Seal-Compliant Industrial and Institutional Cleaning Products Online Resources

Transcription

1 Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Green Seal-Compliant Industrial and Institutional Cleaning Products Online Resources Published in: International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, [May 2012, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp ] Amit Kapur, Cheryl Baldwin a, Nana Wilberforce, Giovanna McClenachan, Mark Rentschler a Cheryl Baldwin PhD Green Seal, 1001 Connecticut Ave, NW, DC, USA standards@greenseal.org fax:

2 Product formulation profiles Table 1 Composition of multi-purpose cleaner Compliant Conventional Ingredient Weight (%) Ingredient Weight (%) Alcohol ethoxylate 5-18 Alkylphenol ethoxylate 5-15 Alkyl polyglucoside 0-15 Ethylene glycol butyl ether 0-5 Anionic surfactant 1-5 Sodium carbonate 0-5 Sodium citrate 0-5 Sodium hydroxide 0-5 Water rest Water rest Table 2 Composition of hydrogen peroxide cleaner Ingredient Weight (%) Alcohol ethoxylate 7-13 Hydrogen peroxide 1-5 Sodium xylene sulfonate 0-5 Water rest Table 3 Composition of glass cleaner Compliant Conventional Ingredient Weight (%) Ingredient Weight (%) Diethylene glycol ethyl ether 2-5 Alcohol ethoxylate 2 Ethyl alcohol Alkylphenol ethoxylate 2 Lauryl glucoside 5-10 Ethylene glycol butyl ether Sodium lauryl sulfate 1-5 Isopropyl alcohol 10 Sodium xylene sulfonate 5-10 Sodium lauryl sulfate 2 Water rest Water Rest Table 4 Composition of restroom cleaner Compliant Conventional Ingredient Weight (%) Ingredient Weight (%) Alcohol ethoxylate 1-5 Ethoxylated phenol 0-5 Citric acid 1-5 Hypochlorite bleach 0-5 Diethylene glycol butyl ether 5-10 Phosphoric acid Lauryl glucoside 1-5 Sodium carbonate 0-2 Water rest Water rest

3 LCI datasets for each cleaning ingredient Table 5 LCI datasets for chemical ingredients in cleaning products Ingredient LCI dataset Alcohol ethoxylate Ethoxylated alcohol (AE3 and AE7 ) from petrochemical Alkyl polyglucoside Hirsinger and Schick (1995) Alkylphenol ethoxylate 1 mole of nonylphenol and 6 moles of ethylene oxide; LCI of nonylphenol from CPM LCA database 1 Anionic surfactant Alkylbenzene sulfonate, linear (petrochemical) Citric acid Acetic acid a Diethylene glycol ethyl ether 2 moles of ethylene oxide and 1mole of n-ethanol Diethylene glycol butyl ether 2 moles of ethylene oxide and 1 mole of n-butanol Ethyl alcohol Ethanol from ethylene Ethylene glycol butyl ether 1 mole of ethylene oxide and 1 mole of n-butanol Ethoxylated phenol 1 mole of nonylphenol and 6 moles of ethylene oxide; LCI of nonylphenol from CPM LCA database Hydrogen peroxide Hydrogen peroxide 50% in water Hypochlorite bleach Sodium hypochlorite (15% in water) Lauryl glucoside Hirsinger and Schick (1995) Isopropyl alcohol Isopropanol Phosphoric acid Phosphoric acid (industrial grade 85% in water) Sodium carbonate Sodium carbonate from ammonium chloride Sodium citrate Acetic acid a Sodium hydroxide Sodium hydroxide Sodium lauryl sulfate Fatty alcohol sulfate (petrochemical) Sodium xylene sulfonate Adami (2009) Water Tap water at user and Deionized water at plant a - proxy 1 (Accessed 4th April, 2011)

4 Fig. 1 Contribution to terrestrial ecotoxicity impacts for compliant general-purpose cleaner

5 Fig. 2 Contribution to agricultural land occupation impacts for compliant general-purpose cleaner

6 Fig. 3 Contribution to natural land trans impacts for compliant general-purpose cleaner

7 Fig. 4 Contribution to water depletion impacts for compliant glass cleaner

8 Fig. 5 Contribution to water depletion impacts for RTU glass cleaner

9 Fig. 6 Contribution to natural land trans impacts for the compliant glass cleaner

10 Glass cleaner The life cycle impact assessment results for the glass cleaner are shown in Table 6. The RTU glass cleaner has higher environmental burdens in most impact categories than other glass cleaners included in the study. For the compliant glass cleaner, the water depletion, agricultural land occupation, and natural land trans impacts are higher than other glass cleaner products. In the compliant glass cleaner, the product formulation accounts for 43% of the water depletion impacts (Refer Online Resource 2) where as in the RTU product, the product formulation contribution is 24% (Refer Online Resource 2). The water required for irrigation of palm fruits is the major source of water use in the compliant product. The land use impacts in the compliant glass cleaner are on account of harvesting of coconut nuts and farming of grain maize used in the production of fatty alcohol from coconut oil and glucose, respectively (Refer Online Resource 2). Table 6 Life cycle impact assessment results of Glass cleaners (baseline scenario) Impact category Unit Compliant RTU Conventional concentrate Climate change kg CO 2 eq 4.76E E E+00 Ozone depletion kg CFC-11 eq 2.18E E E-07 Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 1.25E E E+00 kg NMVOC 1.96E E E-02 Particulate matter kg PM 10 eq 6.99E E E-03 Ionising radiation kg U235 eq 3.39E E E-01 Terrestrial acidification kg SO 2 eq 2.09E E E-02 Freshwater eutrophication kg P eq 8.22E E E-04 Marine eutrophication kg N eq 1.19E E E-03 Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 2.15E E E-04 Freshwater ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 3.06E E E-02 Marine ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 2.62E E E-02 Agricultural land occupation m 2 a 1.67E E E-02 Urban land occupation m 2 a 2.16E E E-02 Natural land trans m E E E-04 Water depletion m E E E-01 Metal depletion kg Fe eq 1.40E E E-01 Fossil depletion kg oil eq 2.27E E E+00 Table 7 Breakdown of life cycle impact assessment results by life cycle stage for compliant glass cleaner Impact category Formulation Packaging Distribution Use EoL EoL Wastewater

11 Packaging Climate change 75.2% 6.5% 17.1% 0.7% -0.5% 0.9% Ozone depletion 97.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.5% 0.3% 1.3% Human toxicity 57.5% 0.3% 33.4% 1.4% 5.2% 2.2% 61.2% 7.1% 31.1% 0.5% -0.8% 0.9% Particulate matter 72.0% 4.5% 21.4% 0.8% -0.3% 1.5% Ionising radiation 93.5% 0.1% 0.0% 3.0% 1.1% 2.4% Terrestrial acidification 73.3% 4.6% 19.7% 0.9% -0.2% 1.7% Freshwater eutrophication 84.9% 0.5% 0.0% 2.0% 0.7% 11.9% Marine eutrophication 63.9% 1.7% 17.5% 0.3% 1.3% 15.3% Terrestrial ecotoxicity 99.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Freshwater ecotoxicity 57.9% 0.5% 8.8% 1.7% 29.1% 2.0% Marine ecotoxicity 52.2% 0.4% 10.6% 1.3% 33.2% 2.2% Agricultural land occupation 99.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Urban land occupation 87.8% 0.1% 0.0% 6.3% 2.7% 3.1% Natural land trans 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Water depletion 42.8% 0.3% 0.0% 56.5% 0.0% 0.4% Metal depletion 91.9% 0.2% 0.0% 1.2% 0.3% 6.4% Fossil depletion 77.2% 12.1% 11.6% 0.4% -1.8% 0.4% Non-renewable energy 77.8% 12.1% 10.9% 0.5% -1.7% 0.5% Renewable energy 99.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.2% -0.1% 0.1% Table 8 Breakdown of life cycle impact assessment results by life cycle stage for RTU glass cleaner Impact category Formulation Packaging Distribution Use EoL EoL Wastewater Packaging Climate change 11.1% 41.5% 50.2% 0.0% -3.0% 0.2% Ozone depletion 80.1% 2.4% 0.3% 0.0% 15.4% 1.8% Human toxicity 5.5% 1.2% 69.7% 0.0% 23.3% 0.3% 8.5% 31.4% 63.5% 0.0% -3.5% 0.1% Particulate matter 9.7% 29.0% 63.0% 0.0% -2.0% 0.3% Ionising radiation 57.5% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 37.9% 2.4% Terrestrial acidification 11.4% 30.0% 59.8% 0.0% -1.6% 0.3% Freshwater eutrophication 50.5% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0% 21.8% 10.9% Marine eutrophication 4.0% 14.2% 67.0% 0.0% 11.1% 3.7% Terrestrial ecotoxicity 52.2% 13.3% 5.6% 0.0% 23.7% 5.2% Freshwater ecotoxicity 2.7% 1.5% 11.7% 0.0% 83.9% 0.2% Marine ecotoxicity 2.8% 1.0% 12.3% 0.0% 83.7% 0.2% Agricultural land occupation 80.5% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 17.2% 1.3% Urban land occupation 33.6% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 62.0% 2.0% Natural land trans 235.4% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% % 1.2% Water depletion 86.6% 13.4% 0.0% 0.0% -0.5% 0.4%

12 Metal depletion 80.0% 5.1% 0.0% 0.0% 9.4% 5.5% Fossil depletion 14.5% 65.8% 29.2% 0.0% -9.6% 0.1% Non-renewable energy 14.5% 67.1% 27.9% 0.0% -9.6% 0.1% Renewable energy 14.6% 96.4% 0.0% 0.0% -11.4% 0.4% Table 9 Breakdown of normalized life cycle impact assessment results by life cycle stage for compliant glass cleaner Impact category Formulation Packaging Distribution Use EoL Packaging EoL Wastewater Climate change 5.23E E E E E E-06 Ozone depletion 5.70E E E E E E-08 Human toxicity 5.98E E E E E E E E E E E E-06 Particulate matter 3.60E E E E E E-06 Ionising radiation 2.43E E E E E E-06 Terrestrial acidification 4.04E E E E E E-06 Freshwater eutrophication 5.54E E E E E E-04 Marine eutrophication 8.55E E E E E E-04 Terrestrial ecotoxicity 3.34E E E E E E-06 Freshwater ecotoxicity 4.16E E E E E E-04 Marine ecotoxicity 1.03E E E E E E-04 Agricultural land occupation 3.10E E E E E E-08 Urban land occupation 2.47E E E E E E-07 Natural land trans 1.21E E E E E E-07 Water depletion 0.00E E E E E E+00 Metal depletion 2.91E E E E E E-05 Fossil depletion 1.29E E E E E E-06 Table 10 Breakdown of normalized life cycle impact assessment results by life cycle stage for RTU glass cleaner Impact category Formulation Packaging Distribution Use EoL Packaging EoL Wastewater Climate change 9.28E E E E E E-05 Ozone depletion 7.71E E E E E E-07 Human toxicity 9.72E E E E E E E E E E E E-06 Particulate matter 5.84E E E E E E-05 Ionising radiation 3.26E E E E E E-05 Terrestrial acidification 7.30E E E E E E-05 Freshwater eutrophication 7.95E E E E E E-03 Marine eutrophication 4.98E E E E E E-04 Terrestrial ecotoxicity 4.85E E E E E E-06 Freshwater ecotoxicity 5.19E E E E E E-04 Marine ecotoxicity 1.68E E E E E E-04

13 Agricultural land occupation 1.34E E E E E E-07 Urban land occupation 3.16E E E E E E-06 Natural land trans 5.64E E E E E E-07 Water depletion 0.00E E E E E E+00 Metal depletion 6.50E E E E E E-05 Fossil depletion 3.40E E E E E E-05 Table 11 Changes in life cycle impact assessment results from glass cleaner baseline scenario (finished product distance reduced to 160 km) Impact category Compliant RTU Climate change -15.4% -45.2% Ozone depletion 0.0% -0.3% Human toxicity -30.1% -62.7% -28.0% -57.1% Particulate matter -19.3% -56.7% Ionising radiation 0.0% 0.0% Terrestrial acidification -17.8% -53.9% Freshwater eutrophication 0.0% 0.0% Marine eutrophication -15.7% -60.3% Terrestrial ecotoxicity 0.0% -5.1% Freshwater ecotoxicity -7.9% -10.6% Marine ecotoxicity -9.6% -11.1% Agricultural land occupation 0.0% 0.0% Urban land occupation 0.0% 0.0% Natural land trans 0.0% 0.0% Water depletion 0.0% 0.0% Metal depletion 0.0% 0.0% Fossil depletion -10.5% -26.3% Non-renewable energy -9.8% -25.1% Renewable energy 0.0% 0.0% Table 12 Changes in life cycle impact assessment results from compliant glass cleaner baseline scenario (higher number of bio-based ingredients) Impact category Compliant Climate change -2.8% Ozone depletion -0.8% Human toxicity 0.1% -4.2% Particulate matter -0.4% Ionising radiation 0.4%

14 Terrestrial acidification -2.0% Freshwater eutrophication -0.1% Marine eutrophication 4.1% Terrestrial ecotoxicity 0.0% Freshwater ecotoxicity -0.1% Marine ecotoxicity 0.2% Agricultural land occupation 74.4% Urban land occupation 0.2% Natural land trans 121.2% Water depletion -0.1% Metal depletion -0.1% Fossil depletion -7.4% Non-renewable energy -6.9% Renewable energy 54.6%

15 Restroom cleaner The life cycle impact assessment results of the restroom cleaner are shown in Table 13. Similar to generalpurpose and glass cleaners, the RTU restroom cleaner has higher environmental burdens in most impact categories as compared to compliant and conventional concentrate restroom cleaners. The terrestrial ecotoxicity and land use impacts are higher for the compliant product on account of use of biobased ingredients (i.e. coconut and palm). Table 13 Life cycle impact assessment results of Restroom cleaners (baseline scenario) Impact category Unit Compliant RTU Conventional concentrate Climate change kg CO 2 eq 3.90E E E+00 Ozone depletion kg CFC-11 eq 1.49E E E-07 Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 1.21E E E+00 kg NMVOC 1.88E E E-02 Particulate matter kg PM 10 eq 5.87E E E-02 Ionising radiation kg U235 eq 2.59E E E-01 Terrestrial acidification kg SO 2 eq 1.75E E E-02 Freshwater eutrophication kg P eq 6.73E E E-03 Marine eutrophication kg N eq 9.74E E E-02 Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 1.08E E E-04 Freshwater ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 2.92E E E-02 Marine ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 2.63E E E-02 Agricultural land occupation m 2 a 8.39E E E-02 Urban land occupation m 2 a 1.69E E E-01 Natural land trans m E E E-04 Water depletion m E E E-01 Metal depletion kg Fe eq 1.25E E E-01 Fossil depletion kg oil eq 2.35E E E+00 Table 14 Breakdown of life cycle impact assessment results by life cycle stage for compliant restroom cleaner Impact category Formulation Packaging Distribution Use EoL EoL Wastewater Packaging Climate change 62.5% 9.9% 25.9% 1.1% -0.7% 1.4% Ozone depletion 95.9% 0.1% 0.0% 1.0% 0.6% 2.4% Human toxicity 46.0% 0.3% 42.5% 1.8% 6.6% 2.8% 49.8% 9.2% 40.2% 0.6% -1.0% 1.2% Particulate matter 58.7% 6.7% 31.5% 1.2% -0.5% 2.3% Ionising radiation 89.5% 0.1% 0.0% 4.8% 1.8% 3.9% Terrestrial acidification 60.5% 6.8% 29.2% 1.3% -0.3% 2.5% Freshwater eutrophication 77.2% 0.8% 0.0% 3.0% 1.0% 18.0% Marine eutrophication 45.2% 2.6% 26.6% 0.4% 2.0% 23.2%

16 Terrestrial ecotoxicity 99.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% Freshwater ecotoxicity 45.4% 0.7% 11.4% 2.2% 37.7% 2.6% Marine ecotoxicity 41.0% 0.5% 13.1% 1.6% 41.0% 2.8% Agricultural land occupation 99.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% Urban land occupation 80.6% 0.2% 0.0% 10.0% 4.3% 4.9% Natural land trans 99.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% -0.1% 0.0% Water depletion 24.8% 0.4% 0.0% 74.3% 0.0% 0.5% Metal depletion 88.8% 0.2% 0.0% 1.6% 0.4% 8.9% Fossil depletion 72.6% 14.5% 14.0% 0.5% -2.1% 0.5% Non-renewable energy 73.0% 14.7% 13.2% 0.6% -2.1% 0.6% Renewable energy 97.5% 1.9% 0.0% 0.6% -0.2% 0.3% Table 15 Breakdown of life cycle impact assessment results by life cycle stage for RTU restroom cleaner Impact category Formulation Packaging Distribution Use EoL EoL Wastewater Packaging Climate change 7.2% 43.4% 52.5% 0.0% -3.2% 0.2% Ozone depletion 78.2% 2.7% 0.3% 0.0% 16.9% 1.9% Human toxicity 9.3% 1.2% 66.9% 0.0% 22.3% 0.3% 4.7% 32.7% 66.1% 0.0% -3.7% 0.1% Particulate matter 15.8% 27.1% 58.7% 0.0% -1.9% 0.3% Ionising radiation 70.5% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 26.3% 1.7% Terrestrial acidification 19.5% 27.2% 54.4% 0.0% -1.4% 0.3% Freshwater eutrophication 90.2% 3.3% 0.0% 0.0% 4.3% 2.2% Marine eutrophication 4.2% 14.2% 66.9% 0.0% 11.1% 3.6% Terrestrial ecotoxicity 79.9% 5.6% 2.4% 0.0% 10.0% 2.2% Freshwater ecotoxicity 8.4% 1.4% 11.1% 0.0% 79.0% 0.2% Marine ecotoxicity 8.5% 1.0% 11.6% 0.0% 78.8% 0.2% Agricultural land occupation 84.9% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 13.3% 1.0% Urban land occupation 90.8% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 8.6% 0.3% Natural land trans 231.8% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% % 1.2% Water depletion 91.3% 8.7% 0.0% 0.0% -0.3% 0.3% Metal depletion 82.8% 4.4% 0.0% 0.0% 8.1% 4.8% Fossil depletion 5.5% 72.7% 32.3% 0.0% -10.6% 0.1% Non-renewable energy 5.9% 73.8% 30.7% 0.0% -10.6% 0.1% Renewable energy 18.7% 91.7% 0.0% 0.0% -10.9% 0.4% Table 16 Breakdown of normalized life cycle impact assessment results by life cycle stage for compliant restroom cleaner Impact category Formulation Packaging Distribution Use EoL EoL Packaging Wastewater Climate change 3.56E E E E E E-06 Ozone depletion 3.82E E E E E E-08

17 Human toxicity 4.66E E E E E E E E E E E E-06 Particulate matter 2.47E E E E E E-06 Ionising radiation 1.77E E E E E E-06 Terrestrial acidification 2.79E E E E E E-05 Freshwater eutrophication 4.12E E E E E E-04 Marine eutrophication 4.93E E E E E E-04 Terrestrial ecotoxicity 1.67E E E E E E-06 Freshwater ecotoxicity 3.12E E E E E E-04 Marine ecotoxicity 8.15E E E E E E-04 Agricultural land occupation 1.55E E E E E E-07 Urban land occupation 1.77E E E E E E-06 Natural land trans 6.10E E E E E E-07 Water depletion 0.00E E E E E E+00 Metal depletion 2.51E E E E E E-05 Fossil depletion 1.25E E E E E E-06 Table 17 Breakdown of normalized life cycle impact assessment results by life cycle stage for RTU restroom cleaner Impact category Formulation Packaging Distribution Use EoL EoL Packaging Wastewater Climate change 3.22E E E E E E-06 Ozone depletion 3.84E E E E E E-08 Human toxicity 9.61E E E E E E E E E E E E-06 Particulate matter 5.71E E E E E E-06 Ionising radiation 3.24E E E E E E-06 Terrestrial acidification 7.73E E E E E E-05 Freshwater eutrophication 4.02E E E E E E-04 Marine eutrophication 2.88E E E E E E-04 Terrestrial ecotoxicity 9.91E E E E E E-06 Freshwater ecotoxicity 9.49E E E E E E-04 Marine ecotoxicity 3.03E E E E E E-04 Agricultural land occupation 1.02E E E E E E-07 Urban land occupation 3.45E E E E E E-06 Natural land trans 3.20E E E E E E-07 Water depletion 0.00E E E E E E+00 Metal depletion 4.39E E E E E E-05 Fossil depletion 6.49E E E E E E-06 Table 18 Changes in life cycle impact assessment results from restroom cleaner baseline scenario (finished product distance reduced to 160 km)

18 Impact category Compliant RTU Climate change -23.3% -47.2% Ozone depletion 0.0% -0.3% Human toxicity -38.2% -60.2% -36.2% -59.5% Particulate matter -28.4% -52.9% Ionising radiation 0.0% 0.0% Terrestrial acidification -26.3% -48.9% Freshwater eutrophication 0.0% 0.0% Marine eutrophication -23.9% -60.2% Terrestrial ecotoxicity 0.0% -2.1% Freshwater ecotoxicity -10.3% -10.0% Marine ecotoxicity -11.8% -10.5% Agricultural land occupation 0.0% 0.0% Urban land occupation 0.0% 0.0% Natural land trans 0.0% 0.0% Water depletion 0.0% 0.0% Metal depletion 0.0% 0.0% Fossil depletion -12.6% -29.1% Non-renewable energy -11.9% -27.7% Renewable energy 0.0% 0.0% Table 19 Changes in life cycle impact assessment results from compliant restroom cleaner baseline scenario (higher number of bio-based ingredients) Impact category Compliant Climate change -2.2% Ozone depletion -0.8% Human toxicity 0.2% -2.2% Particulate matter 0.6% Ionising radiation 0.9% Terrestrial acidification -0.4% Freshwater eutrophication 0.2% Marine eutrophication 4.1% Terrestrial ecotoxicity 0.0% Freshwater ecotoxicity 0.1% Marine ecotoxicity 0.3% Agricultural land occupation 108.5% Urban land occupation 0.5% Natural land trans 175.6% Water depletion 0.0%

19 Metal depletion 0.2% Fossil depletion -4.9% Non-renewable energy -4.7% Renewable energy 84.1%