Science of the Total Environment 515–516 (2015) 109–117

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv

A comparative life cycle assessment of conventional hand dryer and roll

paper towel as hand drying methods
Tijo Joseph a, Kelly Baah a, Ali Jahanfar a, Brajesh Dubey a,b,⁎
a
School of Engineering, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, Ontario N1G2W1, Canada
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology - Kharagpur, Kharagpur, India 721302

H I G H L I G H T S

• Comparative life cycle assessment of two prevalent hand drying methods was conducted.
• Two methods, warm air hand dryer use and paper towel use, assessed.
• Towel material and manufacturing and dryer electricity use major impact contributors.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A comparative life cycle assessment, under a cradle to gate scope, was carried out between two hand drying
Received 20 October 2014 methods namely conventional hand dryer use and dispenser issued roll paper towel use. The inventory analysis
Received in revised form 15 December 2014 for this study was aided by the deconstruction of a hand dryer and dispenser unit besides additional data provided
Accepted 3 January 2015
by the Physical Resources department, from the product system manufacturers and information from literature. The
Available online xxxx
LCA software SimaPro, supported by the ecoinvent and US-EI databases, was used towards establishing the environ-
Editor: D. Barcelo mental impacts associated with the lifecycle stages of both the compared product systems. The Impact 2002+
method was used for classification and characterization of these environmental impacts. An uncertainty analysis ad-
Keywords: dressing key input data and assumptions made, a sensitivity analysis covering the use intensity of the product sys-
Hand dryer tems and a scenario analysis looking at a US based use phase for the hand dryer were also conducted. Per functional
Paper towel unit, which is to achieve a pair of dried hands, the dispenser product system has a greater life cycle impact than the
Life cycle assessment dryer product system across three of four endpoint impact categories. The use group of lifecycle stages for the dis-
IMPACT 2002+ penser product system, which represents the cradle to gate lifecycle stages associated with the paper towels, consti-
Uncertainty analysis
tutes the major portion of this impact. For the dryer product system, the use group of lifecycle stages, which
essentially covers the electricity consumption during dryer operation, constitutes the major stake in the impact cat-
egories. It is evident from the results of this study that per dry, for a use phase supplied by Ontario's grid (2010 grid
mix scenario) and a United States based manufacturing scenario, the use of a conventional hand dryer (rated at
1800 W and under a 30 s use intensity) has a lesser environmental impact than with using two paper towels
(100% recycled content, unbleached and weighing 4 g) issued from a roll dispenser.
© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Since the middle of the 19th century, it has been identified that hand
hygiene is very important in reducing the possibility of infection from dis-
ease causing microbes (Best and Neuhauser, 2004). Several scientific
studies have been published since that time on hand hygiene and its ef-
fectiveness in curbing the spread of infectious diseases (Aiello et al.,
2008; Das et al., 2008; Han and Hlaing, 1989). Bloomfield et al. (2007)
suggested hands as the most significant entry point for microbial ingress
⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology - Kharagpur, Kharagpur, India 721302.
E-mail address: bdubey@uoguelph.ca (B. Dubey).
to the human body and highlighted the relevance of hand hygiene proce-
dures in controlling pathogen spread. The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention in the United States recommends drying hands after hand
washing because wet hands can take in and transmit much more germs
than if they were dry (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
2013). Therefore, in public settings in particular, hand drying is an impor-
tant closing procedure after hand washing. In general, there are three dif-
ferent means of hand drying and these are through using paper towels,
using cloth towels and using a hand dryer. All these three methods in-
volve the manufacture, use and disposal or recycling of products which
can ultimately affect the natural environment (Finnveden et al., 2009).
Growing public awareness on hygiene and rising hygiene standards is
increasing the demand for hand dryers and tissue products for use in

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.01.112
0048-9697/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
110 T. Joseph et al. / Science of the Total Environment 515–516 (2015) 109–117
public restrooms and in institutional, commercial and industrial settings.
The global tissue market, a significant percentage of that being paper
towel products, registered a consumption of 31.5 million tonnes in 2012
(UUtela, 2013). As far as this global market, North America has the highest
per capita consumption. On the other hand, around 2 million units of
hand dryers were shipped out in 2013 (TMR, 2014). Market research fore-
casts continued growth in both the tissue and hand dryer segments. At
the present time, paper towels dominate the hand drying market. Accord-
ing to a 2009 media report quoting a hand dryer manufacturer, the share
of paper towels in the drying market was around 90% at that time
(Sterrett, 2009). However, hand dryers are making an increasing foray
into the drying market.
In order to assess the environmental impact of products and services,
the most widely used tool is Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) otherwise known as
Life Cycle Assessment (Guinée, 2001). Using LCA, all material demand, en-
ergy requirements and environmental emissions associated with the
manufacture, use, transport and disposal phases of a product, through
its life cycle, are identified (Guinee et al., 2010; Joshi, 1999). A LCA study
can thus be used to compare products and processes so as to identify
the better option in terms of environmental performance and thus
make better informed decisions (Finnveden et al., 2009; Montalbo et al.,
2011).
There is concern that trees have to be felled to produce paper towels
leading to a common perception that hand dryers are more eco-
friendly. A review of literature shows that only a handful of LCA studies,
comparing paper towel and electric hand dryer as hand drying methods,
have been published to date (Budisulistiorini, 2007; Dettling and Margni,
2009; Environmental Resources Management, 2001; Montalbo et al.,
2011). However, the results from these studies do not allow for a consis-
tent conclusion to be derived as to whether dryer use or paper towel use
has a greater life cycle environmental impact. Further, majority of these
LCA studies were commissioned by dryer manufacturers and none looked
at a product use scenario based in Canada. This paper seeks to add to the
existing study base through a comparative LCA case study of two hand
drying methods in a university campus setting in Canada and in process,
providing an independent assessment of the better method solely from
an environmental sustainability point of view.
2. Methodology
LCAs typically include a goal and scope definition, inventory anal-
ysis, life cycle impact assessment and an interpretation phase (ISO,
2006a,b). An LCA methodology, in line with ISO14040:2006 and
ISO 14044:2006, is adopted in this study. This LCA is carried out
using the proprietary LCA software SimaPro® 7 with database sup-
port from ecoinvent v2 & US-EI databases available in SimaPro.
2.1. Goal and scope
The goal of this LCA study is to assess and compare the life cycle envi-
ronmental impact of using either paper towels or a warm air hand dryer
which are two available hand drying methods at the University of Guelph
(UoG) campus located in Ontario, Canada. For the purposes of this paper,
the product system consisting of paper towels and its dispenser unit is
termed the dispenser product system. The product system associated
with the hand dryer is termed the dryer product system. The scope of
this LCA is a cradle to gate system boundary and is applied to the different
life cycle stages of the two product systems, right from material and
manufacturing, transport of finished products and finally its use on cam-
pus at UoG. The end of life disposal and recycling scenarios are excluded
under the scope of this study.
2.2. Case study scenario
A hands-under type warm air hand dryer, rated at 1800 watts
(W), is compared to a controlled roll paper towel dispensing unit
that issues paper towels made from 100% recycled paper. The case
study is based on a United States (US) manufacturing scenario for
the hand dryer unit, the paper towel dispensing unit, the paper
towel rolls as well as for all associated packaging for both the product
systems. The electricity grid source mix powering the hand dryer
unit during its use phase is based on the 2012 grid scenario in
Ontario.
2.3. System boundary
The system boundaries selected in this study are presented in
Fig. 1. Under the framed system boundaries, the analysis covers
raw material extraction & refining, manufacturing of semi-finished
components for the hand dryer as well as for the dispenser unit,
manufacturing of the paper product and corrugated board packag-
ing, assembly of the components into the final finished product sys-
tems, transportation of product systems to the university campus
and lastly, their use phase on campus.
2.4. List of assumptions
The following summarises the key assumptions and scenarios con-
sidered in this study:
• Washroom users will not avail of both hand drying methods at the
same time.
• Paper towel use intensity is 2 sheets per dry and hand dryer usage is
30 s per dry.
• A five year product lifetime is considered for both the hand dryer and
dispenser units during which time there is no deterioration in their
operation or any requirement of maintenance.
• Over the considered lifetime of both the hand dryer and dispenser
unit, the per annum washroom footfall remains a constant.
• Only one type (100% recycled content, unbleached) of roll paper towel
is used as a dispenser consumable.
• Annual consumption of paper towel rolls at UoG translates to con-
sumption with no carry-over inventory, no stub roll waste and no
stock damage.
• A simple supply chain scenario is considered without distribution or
warehousing hubs.
• Semi-finished products (e.g., machined aluminium die-castings, cop-
per windings) manufactured by sub-suppliers using extracted and re-
fined raw materials, are fed to two assembly plants (one assembly
plant for the dispenser product system and another assembly plant
for the dryer product system) where they are first converted to fin-
ished product components (e.g., electric motor) from which the final
products (hand dryer, dispenser unit and paper towel rolls) are as-
sembled and packaged for onward shipment. All the sub-suppliers
are assumed to be located within a 250 km radius of the two main as-
sembly plants.
• The entire hand dryer and dispenser installation demand on campus is
met using only two delivery runs.
• A single shipment from the assembly factory to UoG provides for an
entire five year paper towel demand.
2.5. Functional unit
The functional unit qualifies and quantifies the obligatory properties
and performance output that should be associated with the product sys-
tem under study and is also the central reference unit to which all the
other data is normalised (Cooper, 2003; ISO, 2006a,b). The primary
goal of both the hand drying systems under study here is to assist wash-
room users at UoG in achieving a pair of dry hands before leaving the
restroom. On this basis, the functional unit for this study is defined as
 T. Joseph et al. / Science of the Total Environment 515–516 (2015) 109–117 111

Fig. 1. Selected system boundaries & life cycle stages for the dryer & dispenser product systems.

‘a pair of dry hands’. In defining the functional unit, the required dryness
level is not quantified. To the knowledge of the authors, there are no
standards available, common to both drying methods, which would
otherwise have allowed for a common basis in establishing dryness re-
quirements. Paper towels typically, can achieve a dryness efficiency of
above 90% (Redway and Fawdar, 2008). Warm air hand dryers too can
achieve a similar performance, but subject to the drying time. For the
purpose of this study, it is hypothesized that both product systems, sub-
ject to their typical use intensities, provide a satisfactory and compara-
ble dryness level to washroom users. Within the goal and scope of this
study, no other properties or technical details for both the product sys-
tems are considered relevant.
2.6. Reference flow & allocation of life cycle stages
The reference flow quantifies the material and energy flows that are
required to achieve the functional unit (Cooper, 2003). Along with the
functional unit, the reference flow allows for deriving a common basis
when conducting LCA studies of comparable product systems. Fig. 1 also
illustrates the life cycle stages associated with the functional unit. This
112 T. Joseph et al. / Science of the Total Environment 515–516 (2015) 109–117
begins with the extraction and refining of raw materials like trees, ores
and crude oil to yield outputs like paper, metals and plastics. Subjecting
these outputs to different semi-finishing operations, e.g., injection
moulding (plastics) and corrugation (paper) yields sub-components.
These sub-components go into building the final product systems. For
the dispenser product system, used paper towels generated during its
use phase go into a steel bin lined inside with a compostable grade
liner. At the end-of-life, the compostable liner and the used paper towels
undergo composting, while the dispenser unit is dismantled with its sub-
parts going into a landfill. The dryer unit, at its end-of-life, is also
disassembled and its sub-parts are either recycled or landfilled.
The material and energy flows required to achieve the life cycle
stages associated with the product systems delivering a pair of dry
hands form the basis of the reference flow. However, both the dispenser
and hand dryer units can achieve the functional unit, a pair of dry hands,
many times over during their respective lifetimes. Thus in this case, only
a portion of the life cycle stages of the hand dryer and dispenser unit can
be allocated when assigning the reference flow. The applicable alloca-
tion is derived as follows:
Amount of roll paper towel use at UoG per annum based on 873
sheets per 800 ft roll — 7,327,962 sheets/annum (R. Watson, person-
al communication, March 2013)
Estimated number of washroom users at UoG per annum based
on assigning a use intensity of two paper towels per washroom
user — 3,663,981 washroom users/annum
Estimated number of washroom users over the lifetime of both the
hand dryer and dispenser units (lifetime for both the hand dryer
unit and dispenser unit taken as five years) — 18,319,905 washroom
users
Calculated allocation based on an estimated installation figure of 500
hand dryers/dispenser units on campus — 2.73 × 10−5.
3. Life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis
Inventory analysis is carried out in order to quantify the inputs and
outputs (energy, materials, wastes etc.) associated with the life cycle
stages of both the dryer and dispenser product systems (De Smet and
Table 1
Lifecycle stages of dryer & dispenser product systems.
Dryer product system
Material & Production of hand dryer components (ore mining → material
manufacturing refining → semi-finished product forms)
Production of corrugated board packaging
Assembly of hand dryer from components
Transportation Shipment of hand dryer components from sub-suppliers to
the dryer assembly plant (within US)
Shipment of the assembled hand dryers from the factory in US
to UoG campus in Canada
Use Electricity consumption during hand dryer use (use phase is
based in Ontario, Canada)
Dispenser product system
Material & Production of dispenser components (ore mining → material
manufacturing refining → semi-finished product forms)
Assembly of dispenser unit from components
Production of corrugated board packaging (except that for
paper towel cases)
Transportation Shipment of dispenser components from sub-suppliers to the
dispenser assembly plant (within US)
Shipment of dispenser units from the assembly plant in US to
UoG campus in Canada
Use Paper towel consumption by washroom users (note that the
production of paper towel rolls and its associated packaging +
the transport of paper towel rolls to UoG campus is assigned
under this group)
Stalmans, 1996). The relevant life cycle stages for both the product sys-
tems, considering the scope of this study, were grouped under three
main headers — material and manufacturing, transport and use. The
groups and details of their stage components are further elaborated in
Table 1. Note should be made here that the use group for the dispenser
product system includes the production of paper towel rolls and its as-
sociated packaging and the transport of paper towel cases. Based on the
defined system boundaries and assumptions made, life cycle stages ex-
pected to be associated with waste bins (required to discard used paper
towels), liners required for the waste bins, and servicing/maintenance
activities for the dispenser and dryer units were excluded from the LCI.
The inventory analysis for this study is based on data provided by the
Physical Resources Department at UoG, data from product system man-
ufacturers, and information from technical literature. A hand dryer and
a dispenser unit, both exactly similar to models in use on campus, were
deconstructed (Fig. 2) towards developing their respective bill of mate-
rials (see Supplemental Table S-1) and thus forming the basis of the ma-
terial inventory analysis in this study. The only resource consumption
accounted for in both the product system assembly plants is electricity
use. Data regarding energy use in the dispenser assembly plant was
based on information provided by the dispenser manufacturer (Harvey.
M, personal communication, March 2013). For the hand dryer assembly
plant, similar data cited in a previous study was assigned as electricity
consumption (Dettling and Margni, 2009). The distance information
required under the transport group was computed using a mapping ser-
vice based on the present location of the product system manufacturers.
The two assembly plants were assigned to be distant from UoG campus
by 798 km and 1112 km, respectively, while all sub-suppliers to the as-
sembly plants were assigned a 250 km location distance. The power
consumption of the hand dryer was based off the manufacturer's spec-
ification sheet (1.8 kW rating) and a use intensity of 30 s per user, but no
phantom power draw during its period of non-use was considered. The
use intensity of paper towels was assigned as 2 sheets (weighing a total
of 4 g) per user.
Using SimaPro, appropriate unit processes available from the
ecoinvent and US-EI database libraries were assigned to the material,
energy and water resource flows associated with the life cycle stages
identified for both the product systems (see Supplemental Table S-2).
US grid supplied electricity was set against unit processes associated
with all material production and product manufacturing. This was
based on the fact that the entire manufacturing scenario is in the US.
For the hand dryer use phase, the electricity generation unit processes
were adjusted to reflect the power source mix scenario for Ontario in
2012 (57% nuclear, 22% hydro, 15% natural gas, 2.7% coal, 3.3% wind).
4. Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA)
Life cycle impact assessment ascertains the environmental impacts
that occur during the life cycle stages of the product systems and is
based on the LCI data and subject to the reference flow (Environmental
Resources Management, 2001; Jolliet et al., 2003). For this study, Impact
2002+®, a method available in SimaPro, was selected for the classifica-
tion and characterization of the environmental impacts. Using Impact
2002+ also allowed for comparison with previously published work.
The Impact 2002+ method evaluates the environmental impact across
fifteen mid-point categories. It then assigns summed up scores, quantify-
ing damages to human health and the environment as well as resource
depletion, on to four endpoint categories (Dettling and Margni, 2009;
Jolliet et al., 2003). These endpoint or otherwise called damage categories
are climate change (referred to as ‘global warming’ henceforth in this
report) expressed in terms of gramme carbon dioxide equivalent
(g CO2 eq), human health quantified by an estimation of lost years
of human life and with its unit as disability adjusted life years (DALYs),
ecosystem quality covering species loss and expressed in units of po-
tentially disappeared fraction of species per square centimetre per
year (PDF·cm2·yr) and finally, resources reported in terms of unit
 T. Joseph et al. / Science of the Total Environment 515–516 (2015) 109–117 113

Fig. 2. Deconstructed hand dryer & dispenser units.

kilojoules primary (kJ Primary) and quantifying depletion of resources
(Dettling and Margni, 2009; Jolliet et al., 2003).
5. Interpretation
In this section, the LCIA results are interpreted towards determining
how the two studied product systems comparatively score. Fig. 3
illustrates the resulting impact across the four endpoint categories, for
both the product systems, as a result of achieving the functional unit.
For each damage category, the depicted total impact in Fig. 3 has also
been broken down across the three life cycle stage groups defined
earlier, namely, material and manufacturing, transport and use. Across
three of these endpoint categories, namely, global warming, human
health, and ecosystem quality, the use of the dispenser product system
has a greater impact (by 162%, 38% and 145%, respectively) than with
using the dryer product system. However, in the resources endpoint
category, the dryer product system has a greater impact which is pri-
marily contributed to by its use group or in essence, by its use (87%). No-
tably for the dryer product system, electricity derived from nuclear and
natural gas sources alone contributes to 85% of the impact in the re-
sources endpoint category. For the dispenser product system, the use
group, which in essence translates to the cradle to gate impact associat-
ed with the two paper sheets, is the significant contributor across all its
four endpoint impact categories (range 93 to 99%).
5.1. Impact contribution analysis
As mentioned earlier, the major impact for the dispenser product
system is from its use group (range 93 to 99%). A contribution analysis
conducted on the use group of the dispenser product system indicates

Fig. 3. Comparison of the environmental impacts of dryer (dryer product system) and paper towel (dispenser product system) use based on Impact 2002+ endpoint indicators during the
phases of use, transport and material & manufacturing.
114 T. Joseph et al. / Science of the Total Environment 515–516 (2015) 109–117
Fig. 4. Contribution equity of lifecycle stages within the use group of the dispenser product
system.
that the unit processes associated with raw material extraction and
paper towel production life cycle stages, combined, contribute the
major share (ranging from 74 to 79%) to the total impact in each end
point category (Fig. 4). This is followed by the transport of roll towel
cases from the assembly plant to UoG campus with its share ranging
from 14 to 22%. For the dryer product system, the use and the material
& manufacturing groups, together, hold the major stake (N98%) as far as
total impact in each end point category.
5.2. Uncertainty analysis
In a LCA study, it is important to assess the amount of associated un-
certainty, whether with input data, with assumptions made or with
chosen scenarios, in order to ascertain the robustness of the final life
cycle assessment results (Gregory et al., 2013; Ross et al., 2002). Scenar-
io analysis and sensitivity analysis that follow in Sections 5.3 and 5.4, re-
spectively, can be regarded as methods to establish how uncertainty
impacts the outcome of a LCA study. In this section, uncertainty aspects
ascertained as probable for this study is first reviewed.
• Hand dryer & paper towel usage — A user pattern survey on UoG cam-
pus conducted by the authors and guidance from previous studies
(Dettling and Margni, 2009; Montalbo et al., 2011) corroborate the se-
lected 30 s per dry and 2 sheets per dry use intensities. Moreover, the
dispenser in this case is a controlled-use towel dispenser which deters
usage excessiveness. It is however occasionally possible that the hand
dryer can be used for more than 30 s per dry (start–stop cycle setting
is 30 s) or for a use intensity of more or less number of paper towels
per dry. In the event of the former, it will result in more electricity con-
sumption and correspondingly increase the associated environmental
impact. Likewise, a lower or higher paper towel use intensity will af-
fect the resource flows associated with life cycle stages involving
paper towels. A sensitivity analysis was thus assigned to investigate
the impact of varying use intensities for both the product systems. A
scenario analysis was also assigned for the hand dryer to understand
how a change in the energy sources supplying the local grid could af-
fect the use phase impact and thus the overall results.
• Number of washroom users — Over the time horizon of five years,
considered as service life for both the product systems, if more or
less number of washroom users were to avail of the hand drying ser-
vice, this would change the presently estimated ‘18,319,905 wash-
room users’ five year figure. In other words, the allocation value to
be applied to the reference flow will change, but equally for both the
product systems. In a scenario that enables a higher allocation of a
pair of dry hands against a dispenser or hand dryer unit, the environ-
mental impact associated with the material and manufacturing group
of both the product systems, per functional unit, will be reduced. The
impact resulting from the use group, for both product systems, will
however remain the same.
• Manufacturing life cycle stages — Assumptions applied to the
manufacturing scenario in both the hand dryer and dispenser assem-
bly plants are not exact representations. For instance, electric motors
are typically sourced as a single module from an external supplier.
However, in this study, it is assumed that sub-components like copper
windings are fed to the hand dryer assembly plant where, the electric
motor is put together from its sub-parts before it is finally included in
the hand dryer assembly. Capital equipment and scrap generation, in-
herent to any factory operation, has not been accounted for in this
study. Further, for both the product system assembly plants, only
electricity has been considered as resource consumption. Evidently,
there are other resources like natural gas which are consumed during
the operation of both these plants. However, review of literature
(Dettling and Margni, 2009; Environmental Resources Management,
2001; Gregory et al., 2013) suggests that omission of capital equip-
ment and of other resources used in the operation of both the product
system assembly plants will not substantially impact the overall re-
sults of the comparative assessment.
• Transport/supply chain life cycle stages — With respect to logistics,
this study considers a simple supply chain scenario and the burden as-
sociated with warehousing and distribution is not accounted for. The
envisaged scenario in this study is that only three separate truck
runs, one catering to the shipment of an entire five year paper towel
demand, one to the dispatch of 500 hand dryer units and a third run
to the shipment of 500 dispenser units, are required to fulfil the full
transport run requirements to the UoG campus. While this is a fair as-
sumption to make as far as the hand dryer and dispenser units, this is
not the case with the roll paper towel shipment as multiple runs may
be required based on the purchasing department's ordering frequen-
cy. Nevertheless, even with an accurate representation of the supply
chain scenario, it is assessed, based on the results from this study,
that the impact from the transport group will still remain insignificant
compared to the other group contributions.
5.3. Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analysis identifies how changing a key assumption in the
LCA study affects the responsiveness of the LCIA results to the respective
input. A sensitivity analysis was carried out covering use intensity, clas-
sified as low, medium and high, for both the product systems. Paper
towel use with 1, 2 or 3 towels and under hand dryer drying times of
15, 30, and 45 s, were analysed. The results of this analysis (Fig. 5) indi-
cate that overall, the dispenser product system is more sensitive to use
intensity than the dryer product system. This is particularly exemplified
for two damage categories, namely, global warming and ecosystem
quality, where the respective plot lines as seen in Fig. 5, indicate a
much higher slope. The sensitivity analysis results also indicate that if
a comparison of the product system impacts, in the human health end
point category, is made with the dryer under high use intensity and dis-
penser product system under low use intensity, then contrary to the
baseline case result for this damage category, the dryer product system
will have the higher impact. Likewise, the resources end point category
also witnesses a reversal of the baseline case result when, a product sys-
tem impact comparison is made with the dispenser product system
under high use intensity and the dryer product system under medium
or low use intensity.
5.4. Scenario analysis
The use phase of the hand dryer is solely related to its electricity con-
sumption and under the context of this study, is supplied from the On-
tario power grid. In order to demonstrate the effect of supplying the use
 T. Joseph et al. / Science of the Total Environment 515–516 (2015) 109–117 115

Fig. 5. Sensitivity analysis for use intensity of the dryer and dispenser product systems.

phase with grid electricity from a different mix of sources, an impact as-
sessment was carried out considering a US based use phase scenario for
the hand dryer. The result of this scenario analysis, laid out in Table 2,
shows a significant increase in the overall impact under a US grid supply
scenario. Across three damage categories, global warming, human
health and ecosystem quality, this impact change ranges from 96 to
259%. When the US grid supply based revised impact figures for the
dryer product system is then compared to the corresponding impacts
for the dispenser product system, it is higher in three of the damage cat-
egories by an average of around 42% (Table 3). The US supply grid relies
mainly on coal as a source fuel (~ 50%) with natural gas and nuclear
power following as the other important sources (~20% each). This is in
contrast to the 2012 scenario in Ontario where the contribution of
coal as a source fuel was b 3%. Evidently, the increment in total impact
under a US grid supply for the use phase of the dryer is due to this
change in the mix of source fuels powering the grid.
6. Results & discussion
The results from this study indicate that per dry, the use of a warm
air hand dryer has a lesser overall environmental impact than with
using paper towels. This is based on a use phase located in Ontario,
Canada and a US based manufacturing scenario for both the product
systems. For the dispenser product system, raw material production
and manufacturing associated with paper towels alone contribute the
major impact (N 70% share) in each damage category. This is followed
by the transport of finished paper towel rolls to the end user which con-
tributes a greater than 13% share to each end point category. For the

Table 2
Scenario analysis of Ontario grid supply versus US grid supply for the hand dryer use phase.

Column A — Ontario grid scenario Column B — US grid scenario % Change in column B versus column A

Global warming (g CO2 eq) 3.6 12.9 259

Human health (DALYs) 4.82E−09 1.01E−08 109
Ecosystem quality (PDF·cm2·yr) 13.2 25.9 96
Resources (kJ Primary) 196.2 211.3 8
116 T. Joseph et al. / Science of the Total Environment 515–516 (2015) 109–117

Table 3
Comparison of revised environmental impacts based on a US use scenario.

Column C — dryer product system (use scenario in US) Column D — dispenser product system % Difference — column C over column D

Global warming (g CO2 eq) 12.9 9.4 37

Human health (DALYs) 1.01E−08 6.63E−09 52
Ecosystem quality (PDF·cm2·yr) 25.9 32.2 −20
Resources (kJ Primary) 211.3 152.7 38

dryer product system, the raw material production and electricity con- However another LCA study prepared by Quantis in 2009 based on
sumed during the assembly of the dryer unit and most significantly, a US manufacturing and use scenario, reported hand dryer use as
electricity consumed during dryer use, combined, dominate the impact having a higher overall impact (Dettling and Margni, 2009). A report
(N98% share) in all four endpoint categories. by Montalbo et al. (2011) comparing various hand drying systems
reported that overall, the environmental impact caused by warm
air hand dryer use stood higher than with using paper towels. This
6.1. Comparison with previous studies
study was based on a material production and manufacturing sce-
nario in China except for paper towels (US based manufacture)
In order to allow for consistency in benchmarking with prior studies,
and a US based use phase. Table 4 is a summary of the final compar-
only LCA study scenarios comparing warm air hand dryer use with the
ative assessment results (baseline scenario) covering the selected
use of paper towels manufactured from 100% recycled stock, were consid-
case studies and the present study.
ered. This led to selecting four previous LCA studies for benchmarking.
The global warming potential (GWP) metric associated with the
While the present study is based on a cradle to gate scope unlike all
global warming endpoint category is a universal and very commonly
four prior LCA studies which are cradle to grave, past studies suggest
used comparison environmental performance metric (Montalbo et al.,
that omission of the end-of-life stages will barely change the impact for
2011). The corresponding GWP metric as ascertained from the four
the dryer product system. On the other hand, for the dispenser product
past LCA studies is also presented in Table 4. Reviewing the study results
system, the impact could shift with prior studies suggesting a possible de-
in Table 4, there is no consistent conclusion as to the product system
viation of up to 20% in the global warming endpoint category and primar-
with the lesser impact. It is observed from Montalbo et al. (2011) and
ily contributed to by methane emission (Dettling and Margni, 2009;
the present study that this inconsistency in final results can be attribut-
Montalbo et al., 2011). As for the other endpoint categories, impact con-
ed to differences in material and process data, the inventory data source
tribution by the end-of-life stages for the dispenser product system, is ob-
for the unit processes, the manufacturing and use location, use in-
served to be of much lesser significance (Dettling and Margni, 2009;
tensity of product systems per functional unit, estimated reference
Montalbo et al., 2011). Considering the margins in the impact difference
flow, power rating of the hand dryer, grid mix for both the manufactur-
between the two product systems in this study, it is assessed that ac-
ing and use stages, LCIA and GWP calculation methodology adopted
counting for end-of-life will not affect the final outcome, which is that
and chosen end of life disposal scenario (recycling, incineration, or
the dispenser product system has a higher impact across three of the
landfilling). Montalbo et al. (2011) in their case study carried out a sce-
four endpoint categories.
nario analysis based on Switzerland's grid mix in place of their study's
Landfilling of waste paper which has nearly all its impact in the glob-
baseline scenario and reported scenario specific GWP metric values of
al warming endpoint category, waste transport to the landfill and use of
3.36 g CO2 eq and 10 g CO2 eq for the dryer and dispenser product sys-
the bin liner have been reported as the major equity contributors to the
tems, respectively. Though not an exact representation, the Swiss grid
end-of-life impact in the global warming endpoint category (Dettling
mix is much more representative of the Ontario grid mix baseline sce-
and Margni, 2009). However, unlike the end-of-life scenario considered
nario used in this study. On this basis, it is observed that the GWP metric
in all four past studies, the present study envisages composting of the
values of 3.6 g CO2 eq and 9.4 g CO2 eq estimated in this study for the
waste paper towels and the disposable bin liner. This is a practice that
dryer and dispenser product systems, respectively, are both within
is seeing increased adoption across university campuses as an alterna-
range of values derived in Montalbo et al. (2011) for the Swiss grid
tive to landfilling. Composting is an aerobic process unlike the methane
mix scenario.
generating anaerobic decomposition that occurs in landfills. A well-
managed composting process produces little to no methane. This only
affirms the assessment that end-of-life stages are of much lesser impor- 6.2. Conclusions
tance for this study. A discussion of the comparative assessment pre-
sented in the four chosen LCA studies follows. The present study compared the environmental footprint resulting
A streamlined LCA study conducted in 2001 and based on a European from the use of a warm air hand dryer and the use of paper towels as
fuel mix, reported hand dryer use as having a smaller environmental foot- two alternative hand drying methods using a university campus as an
print than paper towel use (Environmental Resources Management, example setting of a community. Similar hand drying methods are
2001). A similar result was also obtained by Budisulistiorini (2007) used in commercial, institutional and industrial settings in North
in a separate study at the University of Melbourne in Australia. America and elsewhere in the developed and developing world. The

Table 4
Summary of comparative LCA results — recycled paper towel use versus hand dryer use.

Year Comparative assessment of overall environmental impact Dryer product system Dispenser product system References
(hand dryer vs paper towel) g CO2 eq g CO2 \eq

2001 Dryer (2400 W) b paper towel (2.5 sheets) 12.4 16.8–48.4 Environmental Resources Management (2001)
2007 Dryer (1000 W) b paper towel (2 sheets) 10.3 10.6 Budisulistiorini (2007)
2009 Dryer (2300 W) N paper towel (2 sheets) 17.3 17.3 Dettling and Margni (2009)
2011 Dryer (2300 W) N paper towel (2 sheets) 17.2 14.8 Montalbo et al. (2011)
2013 Dryer (1800 W) b paper towel (2 sheets) 3.6 9.4 Present study
 T. Joseph et al. / Science of the Total Environment 515–516 (2015) 109–117
use intensity per functional unit and the electric grid mix are identified
as two key elements, which upon varying from the study's baseline sce-
nario, can affect the environmental impact results with a high degree of
responsiveness. A more carbon intensive grid mix powering hand dryer
use can result in the use of paper towels turning out to be the better
choice for the environment. So while in the present study, the dryer
product system is clearly the better choice offering a lesser environmen-
tal impact, this cannot be generalised for all comparative LCAs between
warm air dryer use and paper towel use. This case specific nature of the
outcome of the comparative LCA is mainly influenced by the electric
grid mix available at the manufacturing and use locations of both the
product systems. This study thus establishes the relevance of a case-
by-case approach for comparative LCA studies between conventional
hand dryer use and paper towel use. Further, the authors would also
like to point out that in a comparative LCA study such as this, the
focus of assessment is from an environmental sustainability perspective.
Besides the environmental effect, a final call on a better performing
product system should also follow from taking into account other con-
siderations such as hygiene efficacy.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Barb Baxter (UoG), Ed Martin
(UoG), and Rob Watson (Swish) for their collaboration in providing
the information and data for this study. The guidance provided by Eli
Wasserman (UoG) during this project is also gratefully acknowledged.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.01.112.
References
Aiello, A.E., Coulborn, R.M., Perez, V., Larson, E.L., 2008. Effect of hand hygiene on
infectious disease risk in the community setting: a meta-analysis. Am. J. Public Health
98 (8), 1372–1381.
Best, M., Neuhauser, D., 2004. Ignaz Semmelweis and the birth of infection control. Qual.
Saf. Health Care 13 (3), 233–234.
Bloomfield, S.F., Aiello, A.E., Cookson, B., O'Boyle, C., Larson, E.L., 2007. The effectiveness of
hand hygiene procedures in reducing the risks of infections in home and community
settings including hand washing and alcohol-based hand sanitizers. Am. J. Infect.
Control 35 (10), S27–S64.
Budisulistiorini, S.H., 2007. Life cycle assessment of paper towel and electric dryer as hand
drying method in the University of Melbourne. TEKNIK 28 (2), 132–141.
117
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013. Handwashing: Clean Hands Save Lives.
http://www.cdc.gov/handwashing/show-me-the-science-handwashing.html (Accessed
01 June 2014).
Cooper, J.S., 2003. Specifying functional units and reference flows for comparable alterna-
tives. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 8 (6), 337–349.
Das, A., Mandal, L., Chatterjee, S.S., Ray, P., Marwaha, R.K., 2008. Is hand washing safe?
J. Hosp. Infect. 69 (3), 303–304.
De Smet, B., Stalmans, M., 1996. LCI data and data quality. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 1 (2),
96–104.
Dettling, J., Margni, M., 2009. Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of hand
Drying Systems: The XLERATOR Hand Dryer, Conventional Hand Dryers and Paper
Towel Systems. http://www.exceldryer.com/PDFs/LCAFinal9-091.pdf (Accessed 01
June 2014).
Environmental Resources Management, 2001. Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment Study.
http://www.airdri.com/script/AirdriBobrick.pdf (Accessed 01 March 2013).
Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M.Z., Ekvall, T., Guinee, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S., Koehler, A.,
Pennington, D., Suh, S., 2009. Recent developments in life cycle assessment.
J. Environ. Manag. 91 (1), 1–21.
Gregory, J.R., Montalbo, T.M., Kirchain, R.E., 2013. Analyzing uncertainty in a comparative
life cycle assessment of hand drying systems. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18 (8),
1605–1617.
Guinée, J., 2001. Handbook on life cycle assessment — operational guide to the ISO
standards. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 6 (5), 255.
Guinee, J.B., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Zamagni, A., Masoni, P., Buonamici, R., Ekvall, T.,
Rydberg, T., 2010. Life cycle assessment: past, present, and future†. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 45 (1), 90–96.
Han, A.M., Hlaing, T., 1989. Prevention of diarrhoea and dysentery by hand washing.
Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 83 (1), 128–131.
ISO, E., 2006a. 14040: 2006. Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment — Princi-
ples and Framework. European Committee for Standardization.
ISO, E., 2006b. 14044: 2006. Environmental Management–Life Cycle Assessment — Re-
quirements and Guidelines. European Committee for Standardization.
Jolliet, O., Margni, M., Charles, R., Humbert, S., Payet, J., Rebitzer, G., Rosenbaum, R., 2003.
Impact 2002+: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int. J. Life Cycle As-
sess. 8 (6), 324–330.
Joshi, S., 1999. Product environmental life‐cycle assessment using input‐output tech-
niques. J. Ind. Ecol. 3 (2–3), 95–120.
Montalbo, T., Gregory, J., Kirchain, R., 2011. Life Cycle Assessment of Hand Drying Systems.
Materials Systems Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
MA, USA.
Redway, K., Fawdar, S., 2008. A comparative study of three different hand drying
methods: paper towel, warm air dryer, jet air dryer. European Tissue Symposium,
p. 34.
Ross, S., Evans, D., Webber, M., 2002. How LCA studies deal with uncertainty. Int. J. Life
Cycle Assess. 7 (1), 47–52.
Sterrett, D., 2009. Hand-dryer Giant Feeling the Heat. Retrieved November 1, 2014, from,
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20091017/ISSUE01/100032522/hand-dryer-
giant-feeling-the-heat (October 17).
TMR, 2014. Hand Dryer Market is Expected to Reach USD 930.8 Million in 2020. Retrieved
November 1, 2014, from, http://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/pressrelease/
hand-dryer-market.htm (August 26).
UUtela, E., 2013. Global Tissue Consumption Reaches a New High. Retrieved November 1,
2014, from, http://ppimagazine.com/tissue/global/end-user-projects/global-tissue-
consumption-reaches-new-high (October 8).