Sun - 2005 - Integrated Environmental Assessment of Industrial

THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES
SCHOOL OF MECHANICAL AND MANUFACTURING ENGINEERING
INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF

INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS
By
MINGBO SUN
A thesis submitted in fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
July 2004
ABSTRACT
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) has been successfully used as an environmental

assessment tool for the development of ecologically sustainable products. The
application of LCA in the early design stage has been constrained by the requirement of
large amounts of data and time for carrying out the assessment. In addition, the
complexity of LCA causes further difficulties for product developers.
In order to integrate the environmental assessment into the process of product

development, this research proposes an integrated decision model for sustainable
product development and a simplified LCA approach for the application in the early
stage of product design. The main advantage of the proposed model is that it
incorporates the environmental aspects of product development into the existing product
development framework. It enables designers to strike a balance between the product’s
environmental performance and other traditional design objectives.
The simplified LCA approach is based on the concept and application of Environmental
Impact Drivers. Material-based environmental impacts and Energy-based environmental
impacts are used to predict the total environmental impact of a product. Two sets of
impact drivers were developed accordingly. The Material-based Impact Drivers were
identified by classifying materials into 16 groups according to the nature of the
materials and their environmental performance. Energy-based Impact Drivers were
developed for various energy sources in major industrial regions.
Product LCA cases were used to verify the proposed methods. The results computed by
the application of the impact drivers were compared with the results of full LCA studies.
It is concluded that with the proposed approach, the product’s environmental
performance can be assessed in a very short time and with very basic data input
requirements and acceptable accuracy.
-i-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are many people who I wish to thank for their contribution and support to the
completion of this thesis.
Firstly, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Professor

Kaebernick, for his technical directions and encouragement during the entire research
program. His expertise, practical orientation and thoroughness were critical to the
success of this thesis. To my co-supervisor Dr. Kayis, I am especially grateful for her
sustained support and encouragement all the way through my study at UNSW. They are
inspirational educators, not only have they been a valuable source of knowledge to me
but also important mentors. Thank you, I am so fortunate to have been your student.
With your guidance I thoroughly enjoyed my PhD adventure and gained so much.
Many thanks to my friends and fellow students. I would not have been able to go
through the journey without the generous support from you all. I appreciate your
friendship as well as your sharing insights and comments. Special thanks go to Dr. Kara
for his helpful comments and invaluable suggestions, and to Sharon and Mary for their
administrative help. My great appreciations are extended to CRC-IMST for providing
the scholarship.
Finally, I want to acknowledge my family. They have all been sources of

encouragement and support. My dearest thanks go to my parents, for the love and
dedication they poured into my education, for continually fostering my intellectual and
personal growth; to my husband Yong Tao, for his love and patience, for his
understanding and sacrificially giving. Thank you so much for your unconditional
support throughout my pursuits.
Thank you all very much.
-ii-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction
1.1 Environmental Issues and Challenges to the Industry 1-1

1.1.1 Motivators for Industry to ‘Go Green’ 1-2
1.1.2 Sustainable Product Development 1-3
1.1.3 Product Environmental Assessment 1-4
1.2 Research Initiation 1-4
1.3 Scope and Approach of the Research 1-6
1.4 Outline of the Thesis 1-7
2 Literature Review
2.1 Ecologically Sustainable Development and the Industry 2-1

2.1.1 Industry’s Movement towards ESD 2-2
2.1.2 Tools for Improving Environmental Performance 2-3
2.2 The Design Issues and DfE 2-4
2.2.1 Product Design 2-4
2.2.2 Design for Environment (DfE) 2-7
2.3 Environmental Life Cycle Assessment 2-7
2.3.1 Life Cycle Engineering/Life Cycle Design 2-7
2.3.2 Life Cycle Assessment Methodology 2-8
2.3.3 LCA Tools 2-11
2.3.4 LCA Application 2-14
2.3.5 LCA Limitations 2-16
2.4 Research Needs 2-17
2.4.1 Needs for an Integrated Product Development Model 2-17
2.4.2 Needs for a Simplified LCA Approach 2-18
-iii-
3 Integrated Decision Model
3.1 Product Design Objectives 3-1

3.1.1 Current Product Design Practice 3-1
3.1.2 Sustainable Product Development 3-2
3.2 An Integrated Decision Model 3-4
3.3 Case Studies 3-9
3.3.1 Case Study: Coffee Machine 3-9
3.3.2 Case Study: Computer Monitor 3-12
3.4 Conclusion 3-15
4 The Simplified Environmental Assessment Approach
4.1 Background 4-1

4.1.1 Product Classification and Group Technology 4-1
4.1.2 The Pilot Study 4-6
4.2 The Simplified Approach 4-8
4.3 Conclusion 3-11
5 The Environmental Impact Drivers
5.1 Material-Based Environmental Impacts Drivers 5-1

5.1.1 Grouping of Materials 5-2
5.1.2 Initial Grouping Attempts 5-3
5.1.3 Grouping According to Generic Material Categories 5-8
5.1.3.1 Grouping of Non-Metals 5-9
5.1.3.2 Grouping of Ferrous Metals 5-14
5.1.3.3 Grouping of Non-ferrous Metals 5-17
5.1.4 Material Groups and their Environmental Impact Drivers 5-18
5.1.5 Life Cycle Inventory Analysis for Material Groups 5-25
5.1.6 Case Studies 5-28
5.1.6.1 Coffee Machine 5-28
5.1.6.2 Disposable Shavers 5-32
-iv-
5.2 Energy-Based Environmental Impact Drivers 5-34
5.3 Conclusion 5-37
6 Verification and Case Studies
6.1 The Verification of the Simplified Approach 6-1

6.2 Correlation Between Product Environmental Impact and
Lifetime Energy Use for Active Products 6-8
6.3 Case Studies 6-10
6.3.1 Kettle 6-10
6.3.1.1 The LCA Impact Profile of the Kettle 6-11
6.3.1.2 The Simplified Assessment of the Kettle 6-13
6.3.1.3 The Eco-design Alternative of the Kettle 6-13
6.3.2 Toaster 6-16
6.3.2.1 The LCA Impact Profile of the Toaster 6-16
6.3.2.2 The Simplified Assessment of the Toaster 6-18
6.3.2.3 The Eco-design Alternative of the Toaster 6-13
6.4 Conclusion 6-22
7 Conclusion
7.1 Research Contributions 7-1

7.2 Future Research 7-3
Reference
-v-
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Impact categories adopted by different LCA methods

Table 2.2 LCA tools
Table 3.1 Example for paired comparison of design objectives
Table 3.2 Ranking features of product development projects
Table 3.3 Decision guidelines for paired comparison
Table 3.4 Features of home appliances
Table 3.5 Relative importance of design objectives for a coffee machine
Table 3.6 Total performance of design alternatives for a coffee machine
Table 3.7 Features of computer industry
Table 3.8 Relative importance of design objectives for a computer monitor
Table 3.9 Total Performance of design alternatives for computer monitor
Table 4.1 Examples of environmentally driven product classification
Table 5.1 Environmental parameters used in grouping analyses
Table 5.2 Mechanical properties for 17 material groups
Table 5.3 Descriptions of the 16 material groups
Table 5.4 Material groups and Material-based Environmental Impact Drivers
Table 5.5 Short LCI list for material groups
Table 5.6 Major environmental impact categories for material groups
Table 5.7 Comparison of computed impacts and LCA results for model Sima
Table 5.8 Comparison of computed impacts and LCA results for model Pro
Table 5.9 The computed environmental impacts for disposable shavers
Table 5.10 Energy based Environmental Impact Drivers and the Major Substances
Table 5.11 Major environmental impact categories for Energy-based Impact Drivers
Table 6.1 Product environmental impact indicator and life cycle phases
Table 6.2 Environmental Impact Indicator for 43 product cases computed by the
simplified approach
Table 6.3 Environmental impacts with energy consumption from different regions
Table 6.4 Environmental impact of the kettle life cycle
Table 6.5 Features of a kettle
-vi-
Table 6.6 Relative importance of design objectives for a kettle
Table 6.7 Total performance of design alternatives for the kettle
Table 6.8 Environmental impact of toaster life cycle
Table 6.9 Features of the toaster
Table 6.10 Relative importance of design objectives for the toaster
Table 6.11 Total performance of design alternatives for the toaster
-vii-
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Representation of the design process (Rose, 2000)

Figure 2.2 Design degree of freedom and cost of changes
Figure 2.3 Generic representation of product life cycle
Figure 2.4 Design for Environment Tools and Costs
Figure 2.5 Aggregation levels of LCA results for different audience
Figure 3.1 Trade-off models for current design decision
Figure 3.2 General structure of an environmental life cycle assessment as part of a
comprehensive product assessment
Figure 3.3 Trade-off model for sustainable product development
Figure 5.1 ECO’99 weighted environmental impact and elasticity modulus for
material groups
Figure 5.2 Eco-Indicator 99 analyses for Glass & Ceramics
Figure 5.3 Eco-Indicator 99 analyses for Paper & Board
Figure 5.4 Eco-Indicator 99 analysis for Polymer
Figure 5.5 Eco-Indicator 99 analysis for Wood
Figure 5.6 Summarized dendrogram using average linkage for cluster analysis of
ferrous metals
Figure 5.7 Relationship between Nickel content in ferrous metals and Eco-Indicator
99 single score
Figure 5.8 Eco-Indicator 99 analysis for Non-ferrous Metals
Figure 5.9 Grouping solutions and accuracies
Figure 5.10 Environmental profile of the disposable shavers life cycle
Figure 5.11 Major substances for the environmental impact of disposable shavers
Figure 6.1 Deviations of computed value compared to LCA results for 43 product
cases
Figure 6.2 Correlations between product environmental impacts and lifetime energy
consumption for 3 regions.
Figure 6.3 Environmental profile of the kettle life cycle
Figure 6.4 Major substances for the environmental impact of the kettle life cycle
-viii-
Figure 6.5 Environmental profile of the toaster life cycle
Figure 6.6 Major substances for the environmental impact of the toaster life cycle
-ix-
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
DE The Energy-based Environmental Impact Drivers

DM The Material-based Environmental Impact Drivers
DE Development Expenses
DfE Design for Environment
DS Development Speed
EMS Environmental Management System
EP Environmental Performance
ESD Ecologically Sustainable Development
I The total Environmental Performance Indicator
IE The Energy-based Environmental Impact of the product
IM The Material-based Environmental Impact of the product
LCA Life Cycle Assessment
LCD Life Cycle Design
LCE Life Cycle Engineering
LCI Life Cycle Inventory
Pi Target performance level of the design objective i
PC Product Cost
PP Product Performance
QFD Quality Function Deployment
SETAC Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
TP The Total Performance of a design alternative
Xi Performance level of the design objective i for a design alternative
Wi Weighting factor of a design objective
-x-
Chapter 1Introduction
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This chapter gives a short description of the impetus of integrating environmental

assessment in the product development decision process and the motivation of
developing a simplified Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach to facilitate the LCA
practices of designers. It then introduces aims, scope and methodology of this research
on product environmental assessment. Finally, the thesis structure is explained at the
end of the chapter.
1.1 Environmental Issues and Challenges to the Industry
For the last two hundred years, industrial systems have achieved massive growths in
prosperity and manufactured capital, but at a severe price of the rapid declining of
natural capital (Hawken, 1999). Concerns for future generations and the alarming rate of
deterioration of Eco-systems provide the impetus for Ecologically Sustainable
Development (ESD). Since the birth of environmentalism in the 1960s, the general
concept and key principles of ESD were introduced to the mainstream after more than
two decades of development. The most widely cited definition of the ESD concept
comes from a report of Our Common Future, also known as the Brundtland report. The
report defines "sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs"
(WCED, 1987). Following this in 1992, the Earth Summit - United Nations Conference
on Environment and Development (UNCED), outlined the world’s commitment to
sustainability. Nowadays, the environmental issues are no longer only a task for
environmental specialists or a small group of idealists. Goals for achieving ecologically
sustainable development have been set up by countries and companies.
1-1
1.1.1 Motivators for Industry to ‘Go Green’
In the last two decades, many industrial activities have been regulated from the
environmental perspectives (Stevels, 2000). Originally, the main focus of legislation has
been on production processes. The solutions to environmental damages were sought
through investments in machinery and equipment for the ‘end-of-pipe’ remediation
based on the principle of ‘polluter pays’. Little or no regulation existed for products or
the design of products.
Learning from the past, ‘end-of-pipe’ legislation had limited effect on improving
environmental performance. In recent developments, the ‘polluter pays’ principle has
been shifted to the ‘producer pays’ principle, thus transferring the responsibility to
manufacturers of products. New solutions of environmental issues seek to address the
root causes instead of the effects, by taking the causes into account when the product is
originally designed.
Consumers’ and other stakeholders’ push for continuous environmental improvements

is also an important driver. In the tough competitive marketplace, environmental
compatibility breaks ties at the shelf (Ottman, 1998). Where competing companies'
products are closely matched, the fact that a particular company has included
environmental criteria into the product’s design may sway the customer to purchase that
product over and above the product of competitors (Lucacher, 1996).
Another driving force comes from the competition. Competitors that make progress in
environmental issues put pressure on the ‘fence-sitters’ to improve environmental
performance. Companies are developing environmental strategies, roadmaps and
programs as they recognized that failing to take steps forward in environmental
initiatives may mean loss of competitiveness in the market place (Stevels, 2000).
Increasing its profitability is still the main driver for a company to take environmental
aspects into consideration. The increasing costs of materials and energy, urge
companies to implement environmental initiatives that reduce operating costs and
increase quality. As a result of stricter legislation on disposal practices, the costs of
1-2
disposal have been rising over the last decade. A financial benefit can also be achieved
by generating less waste and by design for reuse and recycling.
These “ green drivers” have lead to challenges and opportunities for the industry, to
make changes on the conventional paradigm of product development and corporate
operation. The following section outlines the issues faced by companies to integrate
environmental considerations into to their product development process.
1.1.2 Sustainable Product Development
With the change of environmental attitude in general, industry is moving from a reactive
approach to a proactive approach. The focus concerning environmental problems has
also shifted from process related issues to product related issues. Sustainable product
development has become increasingly important. It is recognized that decisions on the
product system at stages of product development have significant influence on the kind
and amount of impact they make on the environment. Therefore, a successful way to
minimize the environmental burden is to integrate environmental aspects in the existing
product development process (Hanssen, 1999).
In light of sustainable product development, the design decision-makers have to contend

with the pressure of creating and designing product systems to meet the functional
requirements, cost and economy, quality, flexibility, time-to-market, rapidly evolving
new technologies, shorter life cycles, globalization, increasing competition and the
rapidly increasing environmental awareness (Fischer, 1993; Gardiner, 1996).
The challenge and responsibility posed to designers is therefore to strike a balance

among multiple conflicting goals while remaining competitive. Developing tools and
evaluation models for environmentally friendly product development is necessary in
order to gain market share, adhere to legislation and maintain competitive advantage.
The integration of environmental aspects into the product development process requires
both, a technical approach and a systematic product decision-making framework
reflecting the company’s environmental policy. These issues are addressed through this
research and the proposed methodology is presented in Chapters 3, 4, and 5.
1-3
1.1.3 Product Environmental Assessment
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) has become a standard tool for analyzing environmental
effects of products and processes. The ISO standard defines LCA as a compilation and
evaluation of the inputs and outputs and the potential environmental impacts of a
product system through its lifecycle. The aims are to understand and evaluate the
magnitude and significance of potential environmental impacts of a product system and
determine ways of reducing the associated environmental damage at all stages, from
raw materials acquisition, production, distribution, to customer use, recycling, reuse,
and disposal.
So far, LCA has been the most sophisticated method to assess environmental impacts of
products. It provides a systematic, comprehensive inventory and impact assessment of
the full environmental implications associated with the products’ entire life cycle. LCA
has been applied in many industries as a proactive approach for integrating pollution
prevention and resource conservation strategies into the development of more
ecologically and economically sustainable product systems.
There is however a continuing concern associated with LCA activities, which is the cost
and time required for conducting LCA. Furthermore, Stevels (2000) indicated that LCA
has limited applicability because, as a holistic approach, it requires delineation of all
environmental effects irrespective of their position in the life or their origin. The
resolved product and detailed product information, however, are not yet available in the
early stages of product development. Detailed reviews on the LCA methodology and its
applications are presented in Chapter 2.
1.2 Research Initiation
The trend towards sustainable development is driving many companies to consider

environmental issues in the process of product development. The early design stages
typically incorporate decisions on a product’s basic physical configuration and product
specifications (Krishnan et al., 2001). This phase is also considered to have most effect
1-4
on the products’ environmental performance (Bhamra et al., 1999; Frei and Zuest, 1997;
Fiksel, 1996; US Congress, 1992). Decisions from this phase are then often frozen due
to the large amount of resources of time, manpower, and money needed to change the
path as product launch deadlines approach.
Therefore, the product’s environmental performance needs to be considered in the

evaluation of design alternatives together with the other traditional design objectives,
such as functional performance, cost and time to market. This requires that designers be
able to conduct timely assessment on environmental performance of many alternative
concepts early in the design process.
In the early design stages, there are particular difficulties on environmental assessment.
On the one hand, competing product concepts are numerous and have dramatic
differences, but detailed information is not available. On the other hand, multi-attribute
tradeoffs and decisions must be made quickly. Therefore the use of detailed LCA
methods is of limited value for this phase because of the amount of time and
information needed to develop the parametric LCA models.
According to literature, there has been extensive research into methods for reducing
environmental impacts at the manufacturing stages. Only recently, efforts have been
altered from reactive ‘end-of-pipe’ solutions to proactive prevention at source solutions.
Currently, the research for improving the environmental performance in the process of
product development is lagging far behind the process improvement work.
The need for an analytically based decision-making framework for the integration of
environmental criteria into the design process has motivated the development of a
decision model for sustainable product development. A simplified LCA approach is
proposed in this research, to facilitate the application of environmental assessment in
the early stages of product development.
1-5
1.3 Scope and Approach of the Research
The main objective of the research is to develop a full methodology for designers to
integrate the product’s environmental performance into the early design stage, and to
consider it under the same framework together with the traditional design objectives. As
the core part of the methodology, the simplified LCA approach must be a quick and
easy predictive tool that is understandable and practical to the designers, without
requiring specialist environmental knowledge. The following presents the major aspects
of this research:
• Development of Environmental Impact Drivers (D), including Material-based

Environmental Impact Drivers (DM) and Energy-based Environmental Impact
Drivers (DE). This enables designers to have a quick estimation of the
environmental impacts associated with the energy consumption and material
usage of a design alternative.
• Development of a simplified LCA approach for the application at the early

stages of product development on the basis of the identified drivers DE and DM,
to generate the products’ Environmental Performance Indicator (I).
• Development of an integrated decision model for sustainable product

development, which incorporates the product’s environmental performance,
measured by the Environmental Performance Indicator (I), and balances it with
other design objectives.
• Investigation into the applicability of the integrated decision model and the
simplified LCA approach.
The research methods used in this study include a literature review, case studies and
statistical analysis. In the review of literature, information in the field of approaches to
sustainable product development, environmental policies, environmental standards and
strategies, life cycle engineering, product life cycle assessment methodologies and tools,
1-6
material and product classifications, has been investigated through searching of books,
journals, conference proceedings, and dissertations.
In the sourcing of case studies, LCA data for 394 material cases have been derived from
the IDEMAT (2002) database and the databases in the SimaPro (2002) software
package. Forty-three product LCA cases have been collected from publications,
references, corporate documents, marketing and publicity documentation, organization
documentation and others. The gathered LCA documentations were either detailed
reports or summarized reports. For the latter case where appropriate information was
available, an initial LCA was performed. In the cases of missing data, these were
generated from reference books and databases as well as information from suppliers,
retailers, and manufacturers.
In order to make a valid comparison, all the product and material cases used in this
study were assessed by the SimaPro 5.0 LCA software package using the evaluation
method of Eco-Indicator 99 H/A (Geodkoop, 1999). It is based on normalization values
for Europe in a hierarchist (H) valuation perspective (balanced time perspective,
consensus among scientists determines inclusion of effects) and average weighting (A)
(human health 40%, ecosystem quality 40% and resources 20%). The SimaPro LCA
software was developed by Pre Consultants in the Netherlands, to calculate the Life
Cycle Inventories, classification, characterization, and evaluation indicator results. The
explanation of the eleven impact categories is included in Appendix A.
For the development of environmental impact drivers, classification tools such as simple
ordinal comparisons and hierarchical clustering were applied. Various classification
criteria were adopted in the attempt to identify material groups. The material-based
environmental impact drivers were developed by classifying materials into groups based
on the nature of the material and their environmental performance.
1.4 Outline of the Thesis
A literature review is presented in Chapter 2. Information on the research areas of

Ecologically Sustainable Development, industry’s movement towards ESD was
1-7
investigated. Existing literature on product design issues and Design for Environment,
Life Cycle Assessment methodology, relevant LCA tools, LCA applications and
limitations were reviewed. The literature review led to the establishment of the study
background and the problem formulation for this research.
Chapter 3 is devoted to the integration of the product’s environmental performance into

the decision making process during the early stage of product design. This chapter
provides an integrated decision model for sustainable product development. The aim is
to balance the environmental performance of a product against traditional design
objectives at the early stage of product development. It also presents a weighting system
to assess the total performance of competing design alternatives. The methodology
provides a coherent evaluation of design alternatives with the consideration of their
environmental performance. Case studies were conducted to investigate the effect of
introducing environmental performance into the decision model.
Chapter 4 discusses the review of environmentally driven product classification and the
pilot study on using Group Technology to simplify product environmental assessment.
A simplified LCA approach is proposed including both energy–based environmental
impact and material-based environmental impact in the estimation of the product’s
environmental performance. The concept of Environmental Impact Drivers (D),which
represent the key factors that determine the environmental impacts associated with a
product system, is applied to the calculation of Energy-based Environmental Impact (IE)
and Material-based Environmental Impact (IM) .
Chapter 5 presents the development of two sets of Environmental Impact Drivers. They
are Material-based Environmental Impact Drivers (DM) and Energy-based
Environmental Impact Drivers (DE). Based on the analysis of the materials’ physical,
mechanical and environmental properties, materials were classified into groups
according to the type of material and their environmental performance. A Material
based Environmental Impact Driver was defined for each group. By mapping materials
into the index of DM, the material-based environmental impacts of a design alternative
can be evaluated on the basis of a few material groups. This enables designers to have a
timely assessment on the material-based environmental impacts with acceptable
1-8
accuracy. Analysis on life cycle inventory is also provided for each material group.
Energy-based Environmental Impact Drivers were identified, representing
environmental impacts associated with the energy consumption from different sources
in different regions.
Chapter 6 presents the application of the proposed simplified LCA approach and
Environmental Impact Drivers. The calculations use very simple input data, and the
evaluation can be completed in a very short time. The computed results were compared
with results from LCA cases studies for verification. Further simplification can be
achieved by using simple regression equations for active products.
Chapter 7 summarizes the main research findings of this thesis including the crucial
lessons and observations resulting from the research. In addition, this chapter identifies
opportunities for future research.
Appendix A explains the eleven environmental impact categories used by the method of
Eco-indicator 99. Appendix B lists the material cases and their environmental impact in
damage categories. Appendix C includes the substances with major contribution to the
materials’ environmental performance. Appendix D describes the product LCA cases
included in this research. The list of publications is presented in Appendix E.
1-9
Chapter 2 Literature Review
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Chapter 2 presents a literature review on the research background of Ecologically

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

Sustainable Development are introduced worldwide, including:
• Intergenerational equity
2-1
• Intragenerational equity
• Precautionary principle- dealing cautiously with risk
• Global issues
2.1.1 Industry’s Movement towards ESD
A number of surveys (Pezzoli, 1997) indicate that industries have recognized their
important roles in the movement towards Ecologically Sustainable Development. A
primary concern is how to manage their environmental impacts effectively and
efficiently. Manufacturers are facing the challenge on the more effective use of natural
resources and the reduction of environmental impacts during the product life cycle,
while still meeting customer’s demands for high quality and affordable products
(Alting, 1998). A balance among these conflicting goals has to be achieved in order to
keep competitiveness.
Historically, industry responded with solutions of ‘End-of-pipe’ remediation, which are

rather reactionary, profit reducing and thus eventually they threaten its existence.
Recently, by making efforts to understand the environmental impacts caused by their
activities, industry realised that addressing environmental issues could be a source of
competitive advantage. Forward-thinking companies are shifting rapidly from a strategy
of regulatory compliance to one of proactive environmental management. By taking
advantage of regulatory requirements, companies enhance their competitiveness through
strategies offering ecological as well as financial opportunities (Porter et al., 1995).
Developing proactive and innovative responses turns out to be more cost effective than
developing processes that negate the effects after the fact (Persson, 1996; Sheng et al.,
1995).
From this perspective, environmental considerations are portrayed not as a cost of doing
business but as catalysts for innovation and new market opportunities (Azzone et al.,
1997; Walley and Whitehead, 1994). Invoking sound business sense, these interventions
provide opportunities for improved environmental protection, direct cost reductions,
savings on waste management cost, reduced health and safety risk for both public and
employee and improved operation and profit standing (Kedldgaard, 1995; Porter and
2-2
Esty, 1998; Lanjouw, 1996; Stevels, 1999). Proactive environmental policy has been
used as a marketing tool by industrial-oriented firms (Davis, 1992; Murphy and
Gouldson, 2000).
2.1.2 Tools for Improving Environmental Performance
Research programs have been initiated to develop tools for evaluating and improving
companies’ environmental performance, so that environmental concerns can be
integrated in the product development and design process (Rombouts, 1998; Steen,
1999). These programs include: the Swedish product Ecology Project, the Nordic
project on Environmentally sound product development, the various Dutch Programs
e.g. Eco-Indicator (Goedkoop et al., 1999), Eco-design, Million and the Promise, the
Danish Programs e.g. Materials Technology, Quality Function Deployment (QFD) and
EDIP (Wenzel et al., 1997) programmes, the American Life Cycle Design Project
(Keoleian et al., 1995) and the German strategies for industrial production in the 21
century. These projects indicate how the industries place priority on addressing
environmental issues.
New concepts and systematic approaches for environmental management have been
developed and applied by industry. Examples may include Total Quality and
Environmental Management (TQEM), Industrial Ecology (Allenby, 1999), Product
Stewardship, Cleaner Production, Product-oriented Environmental Management System
(P-EMS), Concurrent Engineering, Ecologically Sustainable Manufacturing (ESM),
Green Design and Manufacture practices, ISO 14000 series standards for environmental
management etc.
At the same time, a handful of techniques are dedicated for the application of Design for
the Environment (DfE) concept, e.g. energy audits, pollution prevention and guidelines
for parts recovery and recycling, design of disassembly, design of reuse/recycling,
Material Input Per Service (MIPS), reverse distribution and life design (Biswas et al.,
1995); Environmental benchmarking is an effective engineering and environmental tool
for comparing products of similar functions or in similar market segments (Jansen et al.,
1998).
2-3
2.2 The Design Issues and DfE
Cleaner production requires the continuous application of an integrated preventive

environmental strategy to processes and products so as to reduce risks to humans and
environment. It is achieved by applying know-how, by improving technology, and /or
by changing management attitudes. Design for Environment and Life Cycle Assessment
are major concepts and techniques for Cleaner Production. These techniques are
described in more details in the following sections.
2.2.1 Product Design
Design can be described as a set of decisions taken to solve a particular set of product
requirements. The traditional definition of a well-designed product is one that performs
its functions successfully. It is the product manufactured efficiently using appropriate
materials and techniques, is easy to use, is safe, offers good value for money and looks
attractive (Mackenzie, 1996).
As an innovation to the traditional design procedure, concurrent engineering practice

simultaneously considers product and manufacturing design. As shown in Figure 2.1,
during product design, decisions are made regarding manufacturing, distribution,
marketing, consumer usage, servicing and end-of-life. Decisions on the choices of
material, resources and processes, together with the energy, service, and disposal
influence the use of the product outside the firm and ultimately determine the
characteristics of the waste streams. Thus design decisions profoundly influence the
entire life cycle of the product. Graedel and Allenby (1995) cited design as the stage
that has the strongest influence on the product’s environmental impact.
2-4
Product Manufac Distri- Market- Servic- End-of-

Strategy Consumer
Design -turing bution ing ing Life
Market
Survey
Idea
Generation
Figure 2.1 Representation of the design process (Rose, 2000)
Figure 2.2 shows the phases of product design: product definition /product planning,
conceptual design, embodiment design and detail design. Product definition is an initial
phase in the product development process. It is at this stage where design decisions are
at the highest degree of freedom, have the most influence on the developed product
system, and the changes are the most cost effective.
The conceptual design is the most important phase in concurrent engineering after the
product definition phase. Approximately 80% of a product’s life cycle costs are
determined through design choices, such as materials and manufacturing process
selections in this phase. Conceptual design comprises concept definition, exploration,
evaluation and selection (Allen et al., 1998). Detail design is the actual physical design
of the product. As shown in Figure 2.2, design problems found later in the design
process (embodiment or detailed design stages) cause costly and time-consuming
redesign of the product, and may delay the product’s introduction to the market.
2-5
Design Degree Cost of Changes

of Freedom
Detail of
Information
Product Conceptual Detail Production,

Definition Design Design Use, Disposal
Figure 2.2 Design degree of freedom and cost of changes (Soriano, 2001)(modified)
As the marketplace has become increasingly competitive, product designers cannot

afford to optimise the design with respect to just the traditional functional requirements
(i.e. product performance). They must insure that the product excels in all other aspects
that lead to customer satisfaction and product profitability such as cost, quality,
reliability and environmental impact (Sarbacker, 1998). Design for X is an integrated
approach to designing products and processes for cost effective, high quality life cycle
management. 'DfX' tools have been developed to help achieve the diverse product
requirements, including:
• Design for Assembly (Boothroyd et al., 1994);

• Design for Process/Design for Producibility (Bralla, 1986);
• Design for Serviceability (Gershenson et al., 1991);
• Design for Ownership Quality (Kmenta et al., 1999);
• Design for Environment (Graedel, 1995);
• Design for Product Retirement (Ishii et al., 1994);
• Design for Recyclability (Ishii et al., 1996);
• Design for End-of-Life (Rose et al., 2000);
• Design for Product Variety (Martin, 2000); and
• Design for Supply Chain (Esterman et al., 1999)
2-6
2.2.2 Design for Environment (DfE)
Design for Environment is based on the Design for X paradigm. It is the systematic
consideration of design performance with respect to environmental objectives over the
entire product life cycle (Boks, 2000). Keoleian et al. (1995) defines DfE as an umbrella
term for approaches and activities that incorporate environmental criteria into the design
of new products and the redesign of existing ones. In the DfE process, the environment
is given the same status as the more traditional product values such as profit,
functionality, and overall quality. With the focus of environmental protection measures
shifting from site-oriented towards a product-oriented view, companies have introduced
Design for Environment to minimise the environmental damages caused by its products.
Design pressure comes from the fact that environmental conscious products do not
always sell in the retail market because consumers still use other criteria such as
function and price. Designers cannot trade-off all other product attributes with being
green. The priority is still product function and purpose (Allenby, 1995; Gertsakis,
2000). Therefore firms that are able to design high quality and environmentally sound
products will enjoy a competitive advantage. The environmental performance can add a
premium to some products or introduce a “feel-good” factor to customers and their
businesses (BATE, 1998a-d). Addressing the variety of competing and challenging
demands, DfE has become an innovative strategy for achieving good performance,
ecologically as well as the economically.
2.3 Environmental Life Cycle Assessment
2.3.1 Life Cycle Engineering/Life Cycle Design
Life Cycle Engineering is engineering activities which include: the application of

technological and scientific principles to the design and manufacture of products, with
the goal of protecting the environmental and conserving resources, while encouraging
economic progress, keeping in mind the need for sustainability and at the same time
optimising the product life cycle and minimizing pollution and waste (Jeswiet, 2003).
Figure 2.3 provides the generic product life phases from material extraction to product
2-7
end-of-life. According to the study purpose other phases such as transportation,

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

Production Manufacturing Usage Disposal
Figure 2.3 Generic representation of product life cycle (Rose, 2000)
The use of life cycle concepts in product design is considered as a great opportunity to
bring about innovative products that fulfil the requirements of the industry, customers
and society. The developed product can be optimised for individual life cycle phases.
Life Cycle Design (LCD) however aims to optimise these stages together, instead of
separately. It is a proactive approach for integrating pollution prevention and resource
conservation strategies into the development of more ecologically and economically
sustainable product systems. The process requires tradeoffs to develop the optimal
design that balances the gains and losses in all the stages of product life cycle.
Keolerian et al. (1995) defines the aim of LCD as minimising aggregate risks and
impacts over the entire life cycle of a product, through striking a balance of
environmental performance, cost, cultural, legal, and technical requirements of a
product system. A product goes through the following stages in LCD: need recognition,
design/development, manufacturing and assembly, distribution, usage and service,
recycling, reuse, disposal and the ultimate fate of residuals (Alting, 1993). Other terms
such as Green Design, Eco Design, Environmental Conscious Design and Clean Design
are also widely used. Although the wording may have different meaning, the terms
generally have the same goal (Lagerstedt, 2003).
2-8
2.3.2 Life Cycle Assessment Methodology
The term LCA dates back to the 1960’s and 1970’s (Boustead, 1996), when the world
recognised the potential problems of resource scarcity and the climate changes caused
by pollution of the atmosphere. Product LCA methodologies and frameworks had been
developed in the 1980’s, but its practices had remained on a limited scale. In the early
1990’s industry, governmental and academic interest in LCA was revived on an
international scale, and thereafter became a famous buzzword in conferences,
workshops and seminars. LCA has gained more attention because it can highlight the
“hot spots” in a product life cycle, which have significant contribution to the total
environmental impacts. It also can keep track of impacts that are merely shifted from
one life cycle phase to another.
Life cycle assessment is one of the major tools used in implementing Design for
Environment and Cleaner Production. ISO 14000 series defines LCA as “ a holistic
environmental accounting procedure which quantifies and evaluates all wastes
discharged to the environment and energy and raw materials consumed throughout the
entire life-cycle, beginning with sourcing raw materials from the earth through
manufacturing and distribution to consumer use and disposal.”
It is a useful technique for examining and improving the environmental impact of a

product at all stages of its life cycle including the ecological rucksack carried by all its
ingredients and the impacts of its production, use and disposal. After the establishment
of study purpose and system boundary, actual analysis begins with the inventory
analysis stage wherein the characteristics of a system are described quantitatively, in
terms of raw material and energy inputs and emissions to the air, water, soil, non-
material emission and solid wastes. Then at the impact assessment stage, inputs and
outputs identified at the inventory stage are linked to environmental effects and
qualitatively evaluated. This involves classification and characterisation of the
inventory, normalisation and evaluation. Lastly, the improvement stage provides the
means to consider alternatives for redesigning the product system such that it satisfies
the same functions but with minimised environmental burden. These four components
of the LCA methodology are described in more detail in the following sections.
2-9
The first stage of LCA, goal definition and scoping, defines the purpose of the study,
the expected product of the study, the boundary conditions, and the assumptions
(SETAC, 1993).
The second stage of the LCA process is the life cycle inventory. The LCI quantifies the
resource use, energy use, and environmental releases associated with the system being
evaluated. For a product life cycle, the analysis involves all steps in the life cycle of
each component of the product being studied. This stage of LCA is critical because the
LCI results are needed to perform any type of quantitative impact assessment. If impact
assessment is not performed, then LCI results can be used directly to perform
improvement assessment based on energy and emission results, not on effects on health
or the environment.
Once the inputs and outputs of a system have been quantified by LCI, impact
assessment can be performed. The inventory analysis stage doesn't directly assess the
environmental impacts of the inputs and outputs. It provides the information for the
impact assessment. The impact assessment then converts the data from inventory
analysis into descriptions of the environmental impact. Conceptually impact assessment
consists of three stages:
• Classification is the assignment of LCI inputs and outputs to impact groups. It is

the process of assignment and initial aggregation of LCI data into relatively
homogeneous impact groups;
• Characterization is the process of developing conversion models to translate LCI

and supplemental data to impact descriptors; The process of identifying impacts
of concern and selecting actual or surrogate characteristics to describe impacts;
• Valuation is the assignment of relative values or weights to different impacts,

allowing integration across all impact categories.
2-10
The fourth stage is improvement assessment. It is analysis of information from impact

assessment for evaluation and implementation of opportunities to make an
environmental improvement in a product or process. The goal is to identify those parts
of the system that can be changed to reduce the overall burden or impact of the product
or service system (Curran, 1994).
2.3.3 LCA Tools
LCA tools can be as simple as a qualitative assessment based on preferences or

quantitative assessment of impacts at the various phases of the products life cycle. The
applied classification and evaluation model vary among the methods. Table 2.1 shows
the environmental impact categories adopted by the methods of Eco-indicator 95, Eco-
indicator 99, EPS 2000 (Steen, 1999), and CML 2 baseline (2001). LCA practitioners
have to be aware of such differences, and the appropriate LCA tool should be selected
in accordance to the goal definition of LCA study.
2-11
Table 2.1 Impact categories adopted by different LCA methods
Methods Eco-indicator 95 Eco-indicator 99 EPS 2000 CML 2 baseline

2000
• Green house • Carcinogenic • Life • Abiotic
• Ozone layer substances expectancy depletion

• Acidification • Respiratory • Severe • Global
• Eutrophication effects morbidity warming
• Heavy metals (organics) • Morbidity • Ozone layer
• Carcinogens • Respiratory • Nuisance depletion
• Winter smog effects • Crop growth • Human toxicity
• Summer smog (inorganics) capacity • Fresh water
• Pesticides • Climate • Wood growth aquatic
• Energy change capacity ecotoxicity
resources • Radiation • Fish and meat • Marine aquatic
Impact • Solid waste • Ozone layer production ecotoxicity
Categories depletion solid • Terrestrial
• Ecotoxicity acidification ecotoxicity
• Acidification/ • Prod. Cap. • Photochemical
Eutrophication Irrigation oxidation
• Land use water • Acidification
• Depletion of • Prod. Cap. • Eutrophication
minerals Drinking
• Depletion of water
fossil fuels • Depletion of
reserves
• Species
extinction
Available LCA tools range from simple checklists to abridged and full LCA tools,
others including: matrix approaches and abridged LCA (Graedel et al., 1995), Eco-
Quantum, Volvo’s Environmental Profile tool, (Eagan et al., 1995), Screening LCA
(Bretz and Frankhauser, 1996), Interactive Screening LCA (Fleisher et al., 1997),
MECO Principle (Wenzel, 1997), Oil points (Bey and Lenau, 1999), Surrogate LCA
2-12
(Sousa et al., 1999), Eco Functional Matrix (Lagerstedt, 2003) and Integrated Economic
and Environmental Assessment through Activity Based LCA( Emblamsvag and Bras,
1999). Some other tools are summarized in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2 LCA tools (Menke et al., 1996)
Type of LCA LCA tools
Life cycle Inventory The Boustead Model, Euklid, JEM-LCA, LCAiT
EDIP LCV tool, EIME, Gabi, PEMS,

Full LCA
LCAdvantage, SimaPro, TEAM, Umberto, Wisard
Specialized LCA ECOPACK2001, Ecopro 1.4, KCL ECO, Repaq.
NOH, Eco-indicator 95 Manual for designers, MET

Abridged LCA
Matrices method, AT&T product improvement
Matrix LCA
matrix and target plot, Ecoscan 2.0, Eco-it
Simple guidelines such as Ecodesign Tools by Pre

Checklists
consultant
In the early stages of LCA development, much focus was given to the very long,
detailed and expensive studies. In recent years, the clear trend towards screening and
simplified studies can be observed. Conceptually, a full LCA is an extremely useful
tool. However, it may be rather costly (particularly for small firms), time consuming
and sometimes not easy to communicate with non-experts (Hockerts, 1998; Guinee et
al. 2001). According to the study by RTI, while the use of streamlined LCA methods
has been attempted and appears to be increasing as practitioners seek less expensive
methods that yield timely results, great care has to be exercised. Streamlining will
always incur the risk of obtaining a result that is different to that of a full LCA (Curran,
1996 and Mueller, 1999).
As shown in figure 2.4, LCA methodologies and tools vary widely in terms of goals,
implementation time, and amount of quantification, data requirements and costs.
2-13
Compared to simple qualitative studies, full quantitative LCAs require most detailed
data, they are more time-consuming and costly.
Time
& Cost Full LCA
Streamlined LCA
Abridged LCA
DfE checklists
& Matrix LCA Required Data
& Complexity
Figure 2.4 Design for Environment Tools and Costs (Soriano, 2000) (modified)
2.3.4 LCA Application
LCA has been applied in many industries and countries, and is considered as a useful
tool for the designers to get an overall environmental insight in the products. Curran
(1996) listed over a hundred LCA case studies or related studies. Since the first LCA
case study on beverage containers in 1960s, LCA studies covered raw materials,
processes and products e.g. chemicals, copper, aluminium, iron and steel products,
cement, concrete, plastics, beverage containers for beer, milk juice and soft drink,
napkins, towels, diapers, air products, pulp and paper products, particleboard, sealants,
adhesives, carpets, textiles, surgical drapes and gowns, paint, wood, glass, and many
other. These studies were performed for government agencies, industry organizations
and societies and large industrial firms.
Results of a survey indicated that LCA studies had been carried out in four countries,
namely: 288 studies in Germany, 149 in Switzerland, 145 in Sweden and 27 in Italy
(Frankl and Rubik, 2000). Recent conferences held in Japan, Canada and USA have
also shown a multitude of LCA applications, such as automotive body systems, painting
and tires (Dewulf et al., 1999), Telecommunication products (Scheller and Hoffman,
1998).
2-14
Although many variations exist in LCA applications, the methodological framework for
LCA following SETAC guidelines has been internationally recognized and roughly
agreed upon. ISO 14042 describes the obligatory elements, e.g. classification and
characterization in LCA practices, in distinction to the optional elements, e.g.
normalization, ranking, grouping and weighting.
A recent survey (Frankl and Rubik, 2000) on how LCA is used reveals that the most
common reasons for the application of LCA are for internal purposes:
• Product improvement
• Support for strategic choices
• Benchmarking
• External communication
The use of LCA as a tool for product-oriented environmental management is now

widely accepted, and it has been applied to product improvement, the design of new
products, and ecolabelling programs. Addressing different audiences for different
purposes, information from LCA applications may be presented at different aggregation
levels in various formats (shown in Figure 2.5).
LCA experts
Aggregated scores Eco-indicators
& some details
All details
Product Designers
managers EMS
specialists
Figure 2.5 Aggregation levels of LCA results for different audience

(SimaPro, 2002)(modified)
2-15
Software packages, such as SimaPro and Gabi, are now available in the market to
reduce the difficulty and cost of conducting LCA studies. Instant LCAs can be
requested online using the Economic Input-Output LCA tool by Carnegie Mellon
University’s Green Design Initiatives (McMichael, 1999). There are also a number of
websites for organizations offering consultancies, training and LCA softwares.
However, to interpret the online results properly, users have to be cautious about the
setting of system boundary, the criteria of classification and normalization etc.
2.3.5 LCA Limitations
Recently, constraints on LCA application were observed as LCA had moved away from
design and designers and had become the preserve of central environmental departments
(Evans et al., 1999). Other concerns include the availability of accurate/complete
information, the complexity of LCA studies, as well as the required cost and time.
To yield reliable results, significant financial resources are required to conduct a LCA
study. Large collaborative industry LCA studies would cost between 0.5 and 1.0 million
ECU and could take a number of years to complete. Smaller studies for individual
clients could cost from 10,000 to 200,000 ECU and may take 4-6 months to complete
(Socolow et al., 1997). Hence then, the application of LCA is confined to large
companies and low LCA activity is found within the SME’s.
There are difficulties with the clarification of assumptions and the specification of
impacts. Claims based on LCA studies, especially comparative claims are especially
tricky. They may be misleading or ill founded. People unfamiliar with LCA may
wrongly assume they are being informed about the total environmental impact of the
product or wrongly assume that one product is better than another.
Taking these problems into account, Green and Ryan (2001) conclude that for most
manufactured products, a full LCA is too costly, too time consuming and too complex
in its results, to be of practical value to designers and manufacturers. They also pointed
out that simplified LCA procedures could be used to very good effect.
2-16
Furthermore LCA application has been even more difficult for new or evolving
products. Carrying out an LCA requires fully developed products, i.e. existing products
or products that are at least precisely defined with data which is available or attainable
through research or experiment (Walker, 1995; Akermark, 1999). At the beginning of
the design process knowledge about the product is limited, the data for a particular
application may not be available, simply because suppliers or the government do not
collect environmental data or suppliers are too small to commit enough resources to
generate the appropriate data.
On the other hand, resources or available data may be used on irrelevant issues. For
example, 90% of the environmental impact of a washing machine comes from energy,
water and detergent consumption during product use. If the best practices were used in
production, distribution and disposal phases, this would represent only 10% of the
impact. Thus, best practice in the usage phase would have more relevance (Hinnells,
1993).
2.4 Research Needs
2.4.1 Needs for an Integrated Product Development Model
To approach environmentally sound product design goals, environmental requirements

must be integrated into the design process together with economic restrictions and
technical feasibilities, translated and transformed in such a way that the environmental
considerations can be accounted for and evaluated together with the rest of the design
parameters.
Raar (1994) maintained the existence of classic tradeoffs between profits and the speed
of product development cycles, and environmental objectives. This, to some extent,
dictates the range and level of detail in proactive or innovative analyses. Partial
approaches pose the question of tackling the right issues to optimise environmental
efforts. Therefore, an integrated analytical model is important to trade off environmental
performance and other design objectives, and make comparison among design
alternatives. As the value of environmental impacts associated with a product system is
2-17
hard to be assessed accurately and is rather subjective, approximate measurements may

be developed to facilitate the decision-making process.
2.4.2 Needs for a Simplified LCA Approach
Weidema (2000) pointed out that efficiency and effectiveness could be derived from
correct identification of the object of the study, correct modelling of the system under
study and prioritising first before going into full LCA. At the same time, it must be
understood that designers are not being transformed into environmental scientists
(Gertsakis and Mussett, 2000), instead designers need more easy to use methods
adapted to their work place and expertise (Lagerstedt and Luttropp, 2001). In the highly
dimensional, fast-paced trade-off analyses at the early design stages, qualitative
information is difficult to use. A simplified quantitative LCA approach, which is easy to
use and understood by designers, requires less data input and generates timely results, is
needed to approach environmentally sound product development.
2-18
Chapter 3 Integrated Decision model
CHAPTER 3
INTEGRATED DECISION MODEL
This chapter provides an integrated decision model for sustainable product development
with the aim to balance the environmental performance of a product against traditional
design objectives. It also presents a weighting system to assess the total performance of
competing design alternatives. The methodology enables a coherent evaluation of
design alternatives with considerations on their environmental performance.
3.1 Product Design Objectives
The need for introducing environmental requirements into the design and development
of new products has already been discussed for more than a decade (Keith, 1997).
Today it is generally agreed that a successful way to minimize the environmental burden
is to integrate environmental aspects in the existing product development process
(Hanssen, 1999). Product development is now considered as an extremely important
area in terms of environmental improvements. The question however, remains of how
important is it to apply environmental criteria to a product design, and how can we
compare environmental requirements with the traditional design objectives such as cost,
function, and quality (Bhamra, 1999; Borland, 1998).
3.1.1 Current Product Design Practice
Current practices of product development in manufacturing companies are still

predominantly based on traditional cost/profit models (Asiedu and Gu, 1998), aiming at
achieving high quality of a product at low cost and high profit. The paradigm of
product development towards low cost and high profits is unlikely to change
significantly in the near future, if ever. Companies will have to continue to make
profits for their existence. Environmental requirements are mainly considered as an
3-1
unavoidable "must", which generates additional design constraints and increases the
costs (Bhamra, 1999; Borland, 1998; Fiksel, 1996). In an approach like this,
environmental assessments are carried out fairly late in the product development
process. They are not integrated with existing development activities, and they are
likely to increase the development costs.
Traditionally, three key objectives have been used for decision-making in a design
process, namely Product Performance (PP), Product Cost (PC), and Development
Expenses (DE) (Figure 3.1). In other words, decisions were based on the question:
"How much money can we spend in order to develop a product with low cost and high
performance?" During the last two decades, alongside with the introduction of
Concurrent Engineering, a fourth objective was added, caused by the need for
shortening the time-to-market. This is the objective of Development Speed (DS).
Traditional Time-to-Market
PP PP DS
PC DE PC DE
Figure 3.1 Trade-off models for current design decision
3.1.2 Sustainable Product Development
From the perspective of sustainable product development, one problem being identified
is that environmental parameters are not always included in the product design phase.
The environmental impact of a product has traditionally been assessed after the design
of the product and its related manufacturing activities were completed. In order to have
the highest effectiveness, an overall goal should be established in product development
and the environmental issues must not be treated in isolation. Sustainable product
development therefore requires the balance of the product environmental performance
3-2
with other design objectives such as product cost, product performance, development
speed and development cost. A key point is to have an integrated decision tool to
compare the environmental considerations with other requirements.
As suggested by Osnowski and Rubik (1987), LCA might be seen as part of a more
comprehensive assessment of products. Figure 3.2 shows the general structure of LCA
as part of comprehensive product assessment, including environmental assessment,
consumer safety, cost and other aspects. The first component of such a broad approach,
the general goal definition, specifies the role of the different assessment lines and is
distinguished from the goal definition component as part of the environmental LCA.
The same holds true for the general valuation.
In the general valuation, the results of different assessment lines are weighted against
each other. The existence of classic tradeoffs between profits and environmental
objectives requires the designers to balance between environmental performance and the
needs to reduce cost and time to market, improve product quality, while meeting
customer requirements. In order to have a coherent evaluation on design alternatives,
these difficult environmental trade-off decisions must be placed within the same
analytic context.
3-3
General Goal Definition
Life cycle assessment

Environmental life cycle
of other aspects:
assessment
• Customer safety
• Cost
Goal definition • Employment
• Convenience of
use
Inventory
• Etc.
Classification
Improvement
Valuation
analysis
General Valuation
Application
Improvement Design Ecolabelling Etc.
Figure 3.2 General structure of an environmental life cycle assessment as part of a

comprehensive product assessment (Heijungs et al., 1992)
3.2 An Integrated Decision Model
A workable integrated decision model is therefore important to serve the purpose of

balancing environmental performance and other design objectives and making
comparisons between design alternatives. Based on such a model, opportunities for
simultaneous improvement of several objectives can be exploited and unavoidable
3-4
trade-offs are addressed directly. In the proposed trade-off model for sustainable
product design, a fifth objective, the Environmental Performance (EP) is introduced to
the concurrent product development model, representing the total environmental
impacts of a product system.
Sustainable Development
EP
PP DS
PC DE
Figure 3.3 Trade-off model for sustainable product development
The advantage of this approach is that the environmental requirements are fully
integrated in the process, enjoying the same importance rating as all the traditional
objectives. The techniques for evaluating and balancing multiple objectives are well
established. The new objective, the Environmental Performance, can be evaluated by
applying various Life Cycle Assessment tools, which lead to an Environmental
Performance Indicator (I) representing the aggregate environmental impacts over the
product’s life cycle. A product’s Environmental Performance Indicator can also be
generated by a simplified Life Cycle Assessment approach presented in chapters 4 and 5,
or other LCA methods. The purpose is to minimize the aggregate environmental
impacts over the entire life cycle of a product through striking a balance of
environmental performance and other requirements of a product system.
As shown in figure 3.3, the five key objectives of sustainable product development are
all related to each other. The relationships are usually counteractive. This means for a
comparison of one pair of objectives, if we improve the performance of one objective,
the other objective will suffer. This is a trade-off in product development. As indicated
in the figure, the five objectives lead to ten trade-offs for sustainable product
development.
3-5
The ten trade-offs in the decision model can be used for evaluating design alternatives.
The Total Performance (TP) of a design alternative is evaluated as a function of
multiple attributors.
n
Pi − X i
TP = ∑ Wi (3-1)
i =1 Pi
Where:
Xi = performance level of the design objective i for a design alternative;
Pi = target performance level of the design objective i;
Wi = weighting factor of a design objective;
n = number of design objectives;
Pi can be derived from previous project data, through benchmarking with competitors,
or as a result from structured product development procedures, such as Quality Function
Deployment, in accordance with the manufacturer’s product strategy.
The weighting factor, Wi, reflects the relative importance of each design objective
perceived by the company. It is dictated by the market and ultimately by the customer.
In order to establish the weighting factor, the method of paired comparison is used for
the five design objectives. Table 3.1 shows the example for the paired comparison.
Table 3.1 Example for paired comparison of design objectives
PP PC DE DS EP Total Weight
PP PP PP DE PP PP/EP
PC PP PC PC DS PC
DE DE PC DE DE DE/EP
DS PP DS DE DS EP
EP PP/EP PC DE/EP EP EP
3-6
In the assessment two objectives are compared at a time by answering the question,
which one is more important? For instance, for the comparison of PP and PC there are
three possible answers: PP, PC or PP/PC where both objectives are of equal importance.
The weight is then calculated as percentage of the total (see example in section 3.3).
At a glance, the decisions on importance seem to be fairly subjective, since they depend
on a company’s design strategy. However, such strategies are based on well-established
ground rules, which in their turn depend on the characteristics of the product and its
market. Fortunately the differentiation of importance levels is usually fairly obvious so
that a simple description of product characteristics is sufficient. These characteristics
can be described by a set of typical product features. For the purpose of this study, five
important product development features were identified as shown in Table 3.2. The
product characteristics can then be described by ranking the features at low, medium or
high.
Table3.2 Ranking features of product development projects
Features of product development projects Low/Short Medium High/Long
Technology level of the product
Speed of technical development
Product life cycle
Price competitiveness
Environmental awareness of the market
In order to apply the product characteristics in the decision process of the paired
comparison, a set of decision guidelines has been established as shown in Table 3.3.
The guidelines are a reflection of common knowledge and current industry practice
(Barry, 1997; Erik et al., 1997). They are of generic nature and can be modified to
reflect specific product development strategies of a company.
3-7
Table 3.3 Decision guidelines for paired comparison
Trade-offs Preference Comments

PP For most cases, PP is of more importance.
PP-PC For products with long product lifecycle, and low
PP / PC
technology level.
PP-DE PP For most cases, PP is of more importance.
• Product life times are long;

• Time to peak sales is large;
PP • Average product margins are slowly
declining over time;
PP-DS • Sales rate is large;
• Product life times are short;

• Time to peak sales is small, or
PP/DS
• Average product margins are sharply
declining over time.
PP For most cases, PP is of more importance.
For products with a target market of high

PP-EP
PP/EP environmental consciousness. (e.g. home
appliances)
PC-DE PC For most cases, PC is of more importance.
PC For most cases, PC is of more importance.

PC-DS Average product margins are sharply declining over
DS
time.
PC For most cases, PC is of more importance.

PC-EP
PC/EP environmental consciousness. (e.g. home
appliances)
3-8
Table 3.3 Decision guidelines for paired comparison (Con.)
Trade-offs Preference Comments

DE-DS DS For most cases, DS is of more importance.
DE/EP For products with low environmental concerns.

DE-EP
EP For most cases, EP is of more importance.
DS For most cases, DS is of more importance.

DS-EP
DS/EP environmental consciousness. (e.g. home
appliances)
3.3 Case Studies
To verify the integrated decision model, two case studies were conducted. The input
data for the case studies were collected from various sources such as publications and
non-confidential company information.
3.3.1 Case Study: Coffee Machine
In the first case study, design alternatives A and B for a coffee machine with 10-cup
capacity are investigated. Alternative A has a glass jug, using heating elements to keep
the coffee warm. Alternative B has a thermos jug with no heating elements to keep the
coffee warm. The product development and cost data for alternatives A and B were
derived from the development project of Braun’s KF 40 coffee machine series (Robert
et al., 1996). The desired performance levels of Product Cost (PC), Product
Performance (PP), Development Expenses (DE) and Development Speed (DS) were
derived from public information on new product development of electrical products.
3-9
Table 3.4 Features of home appliances
Features of product development project Low/short Medium High/long
Technology level of the product X
Speed of technical development X
Product life cycle X
Price Competitiveness X
Environmental awareness of the market X
Table 3.4 shows the development features of home appliances. A typical feature is the
long product life cycle in the order of 10 to 20 years, resulting in a medium speed of
technical development. In addition, there is a high environmental awareness in the
market due to the active nature of the product and the fact that most of the
environmental impact occurs mainly during the usage stage. By using this information,
the relative importance of the design objectives was calculated as given in Table 3.5.
Table 3.5 Relative importance of design objectives for a coffee machine
PP PP PP PP DS PP/EP 3.5 23.33%
PC PP PC PC DS EP 2 13.33%
DE PP PC DE DS EP 1 6.67%
DS DS DS DS DS DS/EP 4.5 30.00%
EP PP/EP EP EP DS/EP EP 4 26.67%
The results indicate that Product Performance (PP), Development Speed (DS), and
Environmental Performance (EP) have the highest weight, whereas Product Cost (PC)
and Development Expenses (DE) have a lower ranking. Using these weighting factors,
the Total Performance for design alternatives A and B was calculated and is given in
Table 3.6.
3-10
Table 3.6 Total performance of design alternatives for a coffee machine
Target Performance
Weighting Factor
Performance Levels of Design
Design (∑Wi=100)
Levels Alternatives
Objectives
(Wi) With EP Without (Pi) A (Xi) B (Xi)
EP*
Product Cost Wc 13.33 20 Pc (DM) 31 30 35
Product
Wp 23.33 30 Pp (points) 100 100 110
Performance
Environmental
Wen 26.67 N/A Pen (mPts) 427 520 370
Performance
Development Pex (106

Wex 6.67 10 1 1 1
Expense DM)
Development Speed
Ws 30 40 Ps (months) 18 22 22
(months)
n
Pi − X i -12.03 -2.48
Total Performance TP = ∑Wi
i =1 Pi
-8.24* -8.47*
* Denotes the calculations without Environmental Performance included.
In the calculation, the performance levels of Product Cost, Environmental Performance,

Development Expenses and Development Speed are attributes, for which a smaller
value is preferred. Product Performance is the only attribute, for which a larger value is
preferred. The Environmental Performance Indicators (I) of the design alternatives A
and B were calculated by using a simplified LCA approach (Soriano and Kaebernick,
1999) with the Environmental Impact Driver (DE) identified as the lifetime energy
consumption. The equation of I = 1.2DE + 69.9 (Soriano and Kaebernick, 1999) was
adopted to estimate the Environmental Performance for alternatives A and B, with the
result shown in Table 3.6.
The results for the Total Performance show negative figures, which means that both
design alternatives do not reach the target performance level. The smaller negative
3-11
value is closer to the desired performance, therefore alternative B is the better design. In
order to investigate the effect of EP on the model, the total performance for the
alternatives A and B was also calculated without including EP, and the results are
shown in Table 3.6. In this case, the alternative A performs slightly better than
alternative B, or we can say they are almost equal. This clearly indicates that EP has a
significant effect on the product decision process and it should be included in the
trade-off model.
3.3.2 Case Study: Computer Monitor
As a second case study, a high-tech product, a computer monitor was selected to

demonstrate the function of the model (van Mier et al., 1996). The selected monitor is a
17” “multi-scan” monitor with a built-in stand-by mode to comply with EPA’s power
consumption regulation. It is a high-end monitor, which is mainly produced for the
professional market. Alternative A is a current model with power consumption of 100W
in operation mode and 15W in stand-by mode. Alternative B has a complete redesign of
the circuitry on the Printed Wire Boards (PWBs) with operation and stand-by power of
80W and 1.0W respectively. The features of a high-tech market are described in Table
3.7, characterized by high technology, high development speed and price competition,
but very short product life.
Table 3.7 Features of computer industry
Price competitiveness X
3-12
The importance weightings for the design objectives (Table 3.8) highlight a scenario in
which Product Performance and Development Speed are the key objectives whereas
Development Expenses and Environmental Performance are ranked fairly low.
Table 3.8 Relative importance of design objectives for a computer monitor
PP PP PP PP PP/DS PP 4.5 30.00%
PC PP PC PC DS PC 3 20.00%
DE PP PC DE DS DE/EP 1.5 10.00%
DS PP/DS DS DS DS DS 4.5 30.00%
EP PP PC DE/EP DS EP 1.5 10.00%
3-13
Table 3.9 Total Performance of design alternatives for computer monitor
Target Performance
Weighting Factor
Performance Levels of Design
(∑Wi=100)
Design Levels Alternatives
Objectives
With Without
(Wi) (Pi) A (Xi) B (Xi)
EP EP*
Product Cost Wc 20 20 Pc (DM) 500 500 507
Product
Wp 30 35 Pp (points) 100 100 110
Performance
Environmental
Wen 10 N/A Pen (mPts) 2914 2914 2184
Performance
Development Pex (106

Wex 10 10 5 5 7
Expense ($) DM)
Development
Ws 30 35 Ps (months) 18 20 22
Speed (month)
n
Pi − X i -3.33 -5.44
Total Performance TP = ∑Wi
i =1 Pi
-3.89* -8.56*
* Denotes the calculations without Environmental Performance included.
Table 3.9 presents the results for the Total Performance of alternatives A and B. As in
the previous case study, EP was calculated by using the simplified LCA approach with
the same Environmental Impact Driver, since both products belong to the same category
of energy based products (Kaebernick and Soriano, 2000). In this case alternative A
shows a better Total Performance than alternative B, despite the fact that alternative B
has the better and highly ranked Product Performance. This demonstrates the effect of a
typical trade-off with the other objectives.
The effect of EP was again investigated by setting the weighting of EP to zero, which
represents the traditional decision making environment. According to the calculations,
alternative A is still the desirable option due to the low weighting of EP for a computer
product.
3-14
3.4 Conclusion
This chapter presented a framework for integrating the Environmental Performance of a

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

APPROACH
Chapter 4 presents the development of a simplified environmental assessment approach.

The first section includes a review of product classification and an introduction of a
pilot study of applying group technology on the simplification of product environmental
assessment. The results of the existing studies provide the rationale of using an
Energy-based Environmental Impact (IE) and a Material-based Environmental Impact
(IM) to estimate a product’s environmental performance. The concept of an
environmental impact driver is adopted to calculate the IE and IM.
4.1 Background
In the decision model for sustainable product development proposed in Chapter 3,

various Life Cycle Assessment tools can be applied to evaluate the product’s
Environmental Performance. A full LCA however has limited value at this stage, as it is
very time consuming and requires very specific data, which is normally not available in
the early stages of product development. Simplified LCA tools are very useful in this
stage for estimating the environmental impacts of product alternatives and for predicting
environmental costs or burdens for manufacturers. In this study, a simplified LCA
approach was developed by looking at the dominant factors of the products’
environmental impacts.
4.1.1 Product Classification and Group Technology
Similar to Group Technology (Chang et al., 1998), classification is a separation process

wherein items are clustered into groups based on the presence or absence of product
characteristics or attributes. The grouping activity is based on the idea that products
4-1
Assessment Approach
classification could provide a useful and meaningful map to supply relevant information
for predicting and decision-making (Arabie et al, 1996; Aldenderfer and Blashfield,
1985).
Product classification can be conducted by identifying similarities among various

properties of different products. Classification criteria may vary according to different
perspectives, decision variables and the purpose of classification. Krishnan and Ulrich
(2001) refer to four perspectives reflecting different product development decision
frameworks:
• Marketing: The product is a bundle of attributes, product attribute levels and

price are examples of decision variables;
• Organizations: The product is an artifact resulting from an organizational

process. Product development team structure and incentives are examples of
decision variables;
• Engineering design: The product is a complex assembly of interacting

components. Product size, shape, function, dimension are examples of decision
variables;
• Operations management: The product is a sequence of development and/or

production process steps; development process sequence and schedule and point
of differentiation in production process are examples of decision variables.
For example, from an organizational perspective, distinct incentives on product

development can drive the classification of products into technology-push products,
platform products, process-intensive products and customized products (Ulrich and
Eppinger, 2000). Specific engineering variables such as type of materials, size or
lifetime can also serve as classification criteria. When adopting an operations
management perspective, manufacturing processes can be used as the classification
criteria.
4-2
Assessment Approach
In view of sustainable product development, environmental performance can be

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

strategies early in end-of-life Recycle (separate first);
the design cycle treatment (e.g. Recycle (shred first);
(Rose et al., 2000) number of parts,
wear-out life)
Identify Product descriptors B1: Durable, high-mass household
environmentally- (e.g. lifetime, appliances, with efficient energy
driven product recycled content, consumption during use (active);
categories (Sousa, energy source, B2: Durable, low-mass consumer
2003) mass, operational products, with a significant amount of
mode) plastic materials, and with energy
consumption during use (active);
B3: Durable electronic consumer
products, with a significant amount of
ceramic/glass materials, and with energy
consumption during the use phase
(active);
B4: Non-durable, low-mass consumer
products, with no energy consumption
during use (passive);
B5: Low-mass consumer products, with
a significant amount of fiber materials,
and with external energy consumption
for maintenance during the use phase
(active);
B6: Durable, recyclable products, with
external energy consumption for
mobility during the use phase (active);
B7: Durable, low-mass, recyclable
products, with a significant amount of
metals, and with external energy
consumption for maintenance during the
use phase (active);
4-4
Assessment Approach
Hanssen (1996) analyzed 18 different LCA studies of product systems to investigate

environmental impacts related to specific product groups. Criteria used for classification
focused on functional properties during the use phase and included chemical
transformation, energy conversion, and transportable vs. stationary products (see Table
4.1). Despite of the uncertainty and variation in the LCA studies, relevant trends were
identified:
• The most important life-cycle stages were generally raw material production and
product use. For both life cycle phases, conversion of fossil energy to electricity,
process energy, heat or transport was a dominating factor. The production phase,
distribution phase and production of packaging were in most product types of
very low relevance.
• Raw material production was dominant for products being chemically

transformed, stationary products without energy conversion, and transportable
products without energy conversion. Use phase was important for products
being chemically transformed, stationary products with energy conversion, and
transportable products with energy conversion. Waste generation was relevant
for products being chemically transformed, and stationary products with energy
conversion.
A hierarchical analysis of 61 products was conducted by Sousa et al. (2003) using

high-level product characteristics as the clustering variables, the identified 7 product
categories in Cut B (see Table 4.1) and 4 product categories in Cut A:
• A1 (B1, B2, B3): Durable products, with a significant amount of plastics or

ceramics/glass, and with power consumption (e.g. Refrigerators, vacuum
cleaners, mini-vacuum cleaner, coffee makers, washing machine, radios, juice
squeezers, heater, LCDs, TVs);
• A2 (B4): Generally non-durable, low-mass products, and with no power

consumption (e.g. Paper bag, coffee filter, dust bag, PE bag, PP crate,
4-5
Assessment Approach
showerhead, disposable diaper, coatings, antifreezes, disposable towel, chairs,

plastic fender);
• A3 (B5): Low-mass products, with a significant amount of fiber materials in

their composition, and with no (internal) power consumption (e.g. Home and
commercial washed cloth diapers, reusable towel);
• A4 (B6, B7): Durable, recyclable products, made primarily of metals, and with
(external) power consumption (e.g. BIWs, car fenders, sauce pans).
4.1.2 The Pilot Study
In order to find groups of products with common features that produce insight into key
points for the design or improvement of environmentally sound products, Kaebernick
and Soriano (2000) carried out a pilot study on 33 product cases in 17 product types.
The analysis was based on the principles of Group Technology (Chang et. al, 1998),
using both product characteristics and environmental performance indicators as the
clustering variables. Results from the clustering attempts are summarized below:
Attempt 1: Clustering by comparing impact contributions at each life cycle phase
Grouping was done by analysing the temporal distribution of environmental burdens

during the product life cycle, which was divided into the four discrete phases: material
production, product manufacture, product usage and disposal. Using the LCA results,
the impact indicator contributions across the product’s life cycle phases were expressed
in relative weights as percentages of total impact. Three major clusters were recognized:
• Group 1, where most of the environmental impact is caused by the production

of the material (90% of the total impact on the average for products in this
group);
• Group 2, where the major impact is attributed to the use of the product (an
average of 89% of the total impact for products in this group;
4-6
Assessment Approach
• Group 3, where both material and usage phases contribute significantly to the
total environmental impact of the product.
Attempt 2: Clustering by comparing contributions by material type component
Products were classified by the material types that bring about the most significant
impact during the material production phase. This attempt resulted in two major
clusters:
• The first group are products that have steel, plastic or wood as the dominant
material type. In this group, the main materials not only contribute to the major
impact but also represent the bulk of the product mass. A single material usually
contributes the top 70% of the impact.
• The second group is characterized by having copper, and a few other vital
materials such as CFC, aluminium or zinc contributing 30% to 60% of material
impact despite relatively low contribution to product mass.
Attempt 3: Clustering by comparing impact contribution by indicator classes
Products were classified according to the contribution of the impact indicator classes
leading to four groups:
• Group 1: where acidification is the top environmental issue followed by summer

smog;
• Group 2: where acidification is still the main issue but winter smog becomes
secondary;
• Group 3: where acidification and heavy metals are equally significant issues;
4-7
Assessment Approach
• Group 4 where a few issues such as heavy metal, summer smog, acidification
and green house effect all combine as significant environmental concerns.
Attempt 4: Clustering using a hierarchical approach
Multiple variables and their degree of association were measured applying hierarchical
cluster analysis. The variables are the mass, service life, frequency of use, energy
requirements, the presence or absence of environmental issues such as green house
effect, acidification, heavy metals, carcinogen, winter smog, summer smog, and ozone
depletion. The agglomerative hierarchical clustering showed two major clusters:
• Group A consists of cases that manifest intensity of the environmental impact at

the usage phase (e.g., coffee makers, TVs, and washing machine etc.). The mean
contribution of the usage phase is 85%.
• Group B includes products with the greatest environmental impact deriving from
the stage of material production (e.g., paper bag, PE bag, and furniture etc.).
The grouping of products defined by Attempt 1 and Attempt 4 relates partially to the
ones defined by Sousa et al (2003) and Akermark’s (1999) classification of products as
“active” if energy is needed for the product to perform its function and “passive”
otherwise. For example, in Attempt 1, Group 1 manifests “passive” attribute while for
groups 2 and 3 the “active attributes”. Group A of the Attempt 4 consists of “active”
products, and Group B comprises “passive” products. The grouping results also
confirmed general patterns proposed by Hanssen (1996), who identified the material
production and product use as the dominant factors of a product’s environmental
performance.
4.2 The Simplified Approach
The hierarchical product classification provides a structure for looking at the degree of
association among products as affected by the most general to very specific criteria. In
4-8
Assessment Approach
the pilot study, Kaebernick and Soriano (2000) explored the use of clustering results to
the development of a simplified product design assessment tool.
For products in the Group A, a high degree of correlation was identified between the
total product environmental impact and the total energy usage over its lifetime.
Therefore, it was suggested that the environmental impact of the product in Group A be
calculated as a function of the product’s total energy consumption in kWh and the
environmental impact associated with one kWh electricity. For Group B, because of the
large variety of materials involved in the products, only a fair correlation exists between
the total environmental impact and the product mass, which is affected by the type of
materials selected and the amount used. Furthermore, product groups identified by the
Attempt 1 (Soriano, 2001) and the Cut B (Sousa, 2003), indicate that sub-groups of
active products exist with significant environmental impacts from both material and
product usage phases. Altogether, the previous grouping attempts offer point solutions
for certain product groups, but do not cover the full range of product types in a
satisfactory manner.
In view of the results from these studies, a simplified environmental assessment

approach is proposed considering both energy-based impact and material-based impact
of the product. The basic concept of the approach is as follows. The total Environmental
Performance Indicator (I) of a product can be calculated by:
I = IE + IM (pts) (4-1)
The aim of the new simplified approach is to achieve better accuracy and efficiency,
instead of attempting more product classifications or investigating subgroups. Therefore
further effort of this research was focused on the development of more reliable
environmental impact drivers for the calculation of IE and IM.
Similar to the cost drivers used in Activity Based Costing, Environmental Impact
Drivers were proposed for calculating the environmental impact of a product
(Kaebernick and Soriano, 2000). An impact driver represents the key factors that
4-9
Assessment Approach
determine the impact of a product, and the driver has to have a good correlation with the
total impact of the product. The development of Energy-based Environmental Impact
Drivers (DE) and Material-based Impact Drivers (DM) will be discussed in chapter 5 in
more details.
The energy-based Environmental Performance Indicator (IE) can be estimated by the

following equation.
n
IE = ∑( E ∗ D
i =1
i Ei ) (pts) (4-2)
Where:
Ei = Lifetime energy consumption for energy source i (kWh).

DEi = Energy-based Environmental Impact Driver for energy source i (pts/kWh).
In the calculation, for a product consuming energy from n energy sources, IE is

described as the sum of the product of energy consumption and the relevant Impact
Drivers. For products with a single energy source the calculation becomes very simple.
Energy sources will be defined in Chapter 5.
The material-based Environmental Impact Driver (DM) can be applied as coefficient to

the mass of material to estimate the environmental impact for all members of a material
group. Material groups will be defined in Chapter 5. The Material-based environmental
impact of a product design can be estimated by the following equation:
n
I M = ∑Wi ∗ DM i (pts) (4-3)
i =1
Where:
IM = Material-based environmental performance indicator (pts)
Wi = Mass of materials in group i (kg);
DMi = Material-based Environmental Impact Driver for material group i (pts/kg)
4-10
Assessment Approach
In the calculation, for a product composed of n material groups, the Material-based

Environmental Performance Indicator (IM) is described as the sum of the products of
material mass and material-based Environmental Impact Drivers (DM). The equation
states the mass relationships observed from the pilot study. That is, the product’s
environmental impact increases with the amount of material used and the rate of
increase is determined by the types of materials. This simplified calculation can be
carried out at the early design stage with very basic data.
4.3 Conclusion
Based on the review of environmentally driven product classification and the results
from the pilot study, the simplified approach considers both Energy-based impacts and
Material-based impacts for all product groups. It is obvious that for “passive” products,
associated with no Energy-based impacts, the total Environmental Performance
Indicator (I) equals to IM. The application of environmental impact drivers DE and DM
enables the simplified approach to yield timely results with the least information
requirements.
4-11
Chapter 5 The Environmental Impact Drivers
CHAPTER 5
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DRIVERS
This chapter focuses on the development of Environmental Impact Drivers as the basis
for the simplified environmental assessment approach described in Chapter 4. It
presents the analysis on environmental impacts associated with material selection of a
product design. Materials are classified into groups in the perspective of their
environmental performance. The development of Material based Environmental Impact
Drivers (DM) is described and the environmental Life Cycle Inventory analysis for each
material group is discussed. Energy-based Environmental Impact Drivers (DE) is also
identified, representing environmental impacts associated with the energy consumption
from different sources in different regions.
5.1 Material-Based Environmental Impacts Drivers
In the early stage of product development, detailed quantitative information of applied

materials is not available, and designers usually do not have access to a comprehensive
environmental database. Many studies were conducted in order to facilitate
environmentally friendly material selection by providing summarized information about
environmental properties of materials. For the purpose of selecting a material with
optimal environmental impact and the consideration of a wide range of other parameters,
Ashby (1999) developed charts, relating different material properties to each other.
Holloway’s (1998) material selection charts present the relationship between material
properties (modulus and strength) and air and water pollution.
The environmental impact of materials occurs in many different ways. Therefore, it

cannot be assured that optimization for minimum energy, water or air pollution will
cover the most important environmental aspects. An aggregated LCA single score,
representing the total environmental impact of a material, is hence more informative for
5-1
the designers. The environmental impact of materials can be calculated by multiplying

the mass of the material with an environmental index. However a list of indices with
specific details for each material will be cumbersome, if not difficult. Classifying
materials into groups and identifying representative impact drivers for each group of
materials is therefore a likely solution for generating an accurate estimate of the impact
indicator, while being consistent with the aim of simplifying the assessment procedure.
In this study, a Material-based Environmental Impact Driver (DM) was defined for each
identified material group, expressed in Eco-indicator single score. At the same time, the
Life Cycle Inventory was investigated for each material group to provide insights into
the substances with major contribution to the environmental impact of the group as well
as the associated environmental issues and damages.
5.1.1 Grouping of Materials
The aim of the grouping analysis was to classify materials into groups, which satisfy
two key requirements. First, they must be meaningful to and easily understood by
product designers. The characteristics of group members should be similar enough to
allow the identification and the usage of one Environmental Impact Driver (DM) for a
simplified impact evaluation for each material in the group. Second, they must be
representative for the materials’ environmental performance,
In the analysis, 594 material cases in 6 basic material categories were investigated. They
are Glass & Ceramics, Ferrous Metals, Non-ferrous Metals, Paper & Board, Polymer,
and Wood. The materials in these categories are of primary importance to product
designers.
The LCA results for the material cases were derived from data bases included in the
SimaPro software package. The mechanical and physical properties of the materials
were taken from the IDEMAT (2002) material database. The analysis covered the
materials’ environmental lifecycle inventory substances, the classification in 11 impact
categories, the 3 damage categories and the total impact in the single score according to
5-2
the method Eco-Indicator 99 H/A (Geodkoop et. al, 1999). The mechanical and physical
properties of the materials, such as strength and density, were also investigated.
The material cases in the databases were reviewed to ensure their data quality and
consistency. Cases of recycled materials were separated from the data set. Then poor
quality data and duplicates/triplicates (i.e. LCAs of the same material conducted by
different organizations) were removed according to the Data Quality Indicator and
documentation provided by the SimaPro database. After the review, 397 material cases
were maintained for further analysis.
5.1.2 Initial Grouping Attempts
At first, grouping attempts were conducted by applying cluster analysis in SPSS, using
various combinations of the environmental parameters as grouping criteria. Table 5.1
shows the 3 environmental damage categories, 11 impact categories and examples of
some major substances considered as environmental parameters for the grouping
analyses. The grouping results generally presented good similarity on the environmental
performance of group members. However, each material group contained a mix of
materials from various generic material categories. This makes the material groups
incomprehensible and impracticable for designers.
5-3
Table 5.1 Environmental parameters used in grouping analyses
Environmental Environmental Impact Examples of Major

Damage Categories categories Substances
• Carcinogens
• Resp. organics CO2, CFC, NOx, Dust;
Human Health • Resp. inorganics
• Climate change
• Radiation Ozone layer
• Ecotoxicity Heavy metals, NOx, SOx,
Ecosystem Quality • Acidification/Eutrophication Conv. to continuous urban
• Land use land;
• Depletion of minerals Copper in ore, Nickel in
Resources • Depletion of fossil fuels ore, Coal, Crude oil,
Natural gas;
Linear regression analysis and multivariate analysis were applied to investigate

correlations between the material’s physical parameters (e.g. density, elasticity modulus
and tensile strength) and environmental parameters (e.g. CO2, NOx and weighted
environmental impact in Eco-Indicator 99 single score) (Rydh and Sun, 2003). The idea is
that if relationships exist, the material’s physical properties can be used to predict the
environmental performance of a material, and material groups can be identified according
to the physical properties. Table 5.2 presents average values for mechanical properties
calculated from data of 214 material cases in 17 material groups.
5-4
Table 5.2 Mechanical properties for 17 material groups (Rydh and Sun, 2003)
Elasticity Yield
Total Density CV CV CV
Class Group modulus strength
(n) (Mg/m3) (%) (%) (%)
(GN/m2) (MN/m2)
Non-ferrous 8
Metals 22 8.2 30 166 53 593 42
(Cu etc)
Non-ferrous 5
Metals 26 5.0 49 126 66 223 47
(Al etc)
Metals Ferrous Ni>5% 12 7.7 3.9 193 5.1 362 40
Metals Ferrous Ni<5% 10 7.7 2.1 204 5.3 627 38
Metals Ferrous Ni=0% 40 7.8 1.9 201 4.2 452 69
Composites Composites 2 1.6 17 103 45 - -
Glasses Glasses 2 3.1 23 94 - 3600 -
Porous Porous
5 2.5 6.7 58 45 173 85
Ceramics Ceramics
Thermosets
Polymers 2 2.0 54 2.1 55 65 -
epoxy
Polymers Thermoplastics 50 1.1 22 2.2 59 33 47
Polymer Thermosets
6 0.060 - 0.040 - 2 89
foams PUR foam
Elastomers Rubbers 3 0.90 5.5 0.0052 28 - -
Woods High
Woods 5 0.87 - 15 - -
impact
Woods Medium
Woods 4 0.81 20 11 24 - -
impact
Woods Low
Woods 5 0.67 20 10 9 - -
impact
Paper Cardboards 10 0.60 - 0.80 - - -
Paper Papers 7 0.60 - 0.80 - - -
CV, Coefficient of variance= standard deviation/average · 100%
5-5
Metals, which do not contain iron, were assigned to one of three groups depending on
density. The group of Non-ferrous metals 8, with an average density of 8.2 Mg/m3
(ranging from 5.7 to 10.7), included Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo and alloys of Cu, Ni and Ti.
Cobalt, tin and platinum group metals were not assigned to any groups since their
weighted environmental impact was several times higher than for all other groups. The
Eco-indicator single score value was 2.4 and 6.8 times higher (for Co and Sn,
respectively) than for the group of Non-ferrous 8. Therefore a specific value has to be
used for these materials.
The group Non-ferrous metals 5 had an average density of 5.0 Mg/m3 (from1.8 to 7.5)
and included Al, Cd, Cr, Mg, Mn, Si, Zn and alloys of Al, Mg and Zn. Two outliers
were Pb and W (density 11 and 19 Mg/m3, respectively), which were included in this
group according to their environmental properties.
For metals containing iron, three different groups were distinguished depending on
their content of nickel. Equation 5-1 shows the relationship between the nickel content
of the metal (CNi, wt%) and the Eco-Indicator 99 single score, EIECO’99 (Pts/kg). The
regression coefficient is 0.79 and the linear relationship indicates a fairly good
correlation between the nickel content and the environmental impact of the metal.
EI ECO'99 = 0.0314 cNi + 0.0855 (Pts/kg) (5-1)
Ferrous metals with nickel concentrations >5wt% and <5wt% made up two different
groups. The third group of Ferrous metals contained no nickel. Stainless steels could be
found in all three groups due to the use of alloying metals other than nickel.
Composites included glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP) and carbon fibre
reinforced polymer (CFRP). Data availability was low for this group but it was
included to provide an estimate. The group Porous Ceramics included ceramics, cement
and concrete. The group of Glasses included sodium and SiO2 glass. Data for the group
of Thermosets was limited, foams of thermosets were included in the group Thermosets
5-6
polyurethane (PUR foam). The group of thermoplastics included a broad range of

polymers e.g. ABS, HDPE, PA, PC, PE, PMMA, PP, PS, PVC and PET.
The class of paper and woods was divided into Paper, Cardboard and three groups of
woods. The grouping of woods was based on environmental properties only, since no
mechanical properties made it possible to distinguish between groups of woods. Low
impact (LI) woods were defined as Ash, Aspen, Beech, Birch, Cedar, Hickory, Larch,
Oak, Pine, Silver fir, Spruce and Teak. Medium impact (MI) woods were Afzelia, Blue
gum, Bubinga, Mahogani, Silver fir and Willow. Rare species of tropical woods were
assigned to the group high impact (HI) woods, which included Avodire, Baboen,
Guaiacum, Olon and Wenge.
Figure 5.1 shows that different groups can be distinguished depending on their Eco-
Indicator 99 single score value and elasticity modulus. The error bars indicate the
standard deviation. With the data used in the study, multivariate analysis showed weak
correlation between physical material properties and environmental parameters. The
results indicated that data for density, elasticity modulus and tensile strength explain up
to 20% of the variability in weighted environmental impact. For metals, it was
concluded that there was little or no correlation between concentration of metals in the
earth’s crust and Eco-Indicator 99 weighted environmental impact (i.e. single score
value). The analyses identified oil, natural gas, NOx, SOx and CO2 as substances highly
descriptive for the total environmental impact of different material groups.
5-7
100
Environmental impact ECO'99 (Pts/kg)

Woods HI
10
Woods MI Non-ferrous 8
Thermosets Composites
1
Thermosets PU Non-ferous 5
Woods LI
Ferrous Ni>5%
Thermoplasts Ferrous Ni<5%
Cardboard
0.1
Paper Glasses
Ferrous Ni=0%
Porous ceramics
0.01
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
2
Young's modulus (GN/m )
Figure 5.1 ECO’99 weighted environmental impact and elasticity modulus for
material groups (Rydh and Sun, 2003)
5.1.3 Grouping According to Generic Material Categories
In view of the results from initial attempts, further grouping analysis was conducted based
on the 6 generic material categories and material types to enable easy allocation of a
material to one of the groups. The 6 generic material categories, which are used in the
SimaPro (2001) and IDEMAT (2002) databases, include Glass & Ceramics, Ferrous
Metals, Non-ferrous Metals, Paper & Board, Polymer, and Wood. The materials in these
categories are of primary importance to product designers.
For each category, environmental properties were used as the first criteria for grouping
and specific material properties as the second. Material cases and their types are listed
in Appendix B. Cluster analysis and scatter plots of weighted environmental impacts in
Eco-Indicator 99 single score were used to identify material groups of material cases.
For each identified group, the average value of the Eco-Indicator 99 single score and its
standard deviation were calculated as shown in Appendix B. In cases where the standard
deviation (STDEV) was more than 30% of the group average, analysis on other material
properties was conducted for further sub-division. For instance, material compositions
5-8
were used as additional criteria for clustering Ferro Metals. Different grouping solutions
were examined in terms of their simplicity of application and similarity among group
members.
5.1.3.1 Grouping of Non-Metals
The grouping of non-metal materials is relatively easy because of the distinct

differences of the environmental parameters of the material types. Therefore, a simple
scatter diagram approach was sufficient for identifying the groups.
The category of Glass & Ceramics includes 11 material cases of traditional ceramics
and glass. The scatter diagram in Figure 5.2 shows that the 6 glass materials have higher
environmental impacts than the 5 traditional ceramics materials. This leads itself to
forming two major clusters. The group of glass materials has an average value of 0.0568
Pts/kg and a standard deviation of 10.49%. The values for traditional ceramics and
cement materials are 0.0273 Pts/kg for the group average with 25.81% standard
deviation. The figures indicate that the average value of the Eco-Indicator score for the
group is representative for the group members.
The LCI analysis of Glass and Ceramics materials (see Appendix C1 & C2) indicates
that the substances with major contribution to the environmental impacts are NOX, SOX,
CO2, Dust and Pb (for Glass materials only) in the compartment of air emission, Crude
oil and Natural gas in the compartment of raw material. On average, these substances
contribute 98% to the total impact of Glass materials and 85% to Ceramics materials.
Appendix B2 shows the major environmental damages of Glass materials are in the
categories of Resources (45.72%) and Human Health (41.10%). As shown in Table 5.6
the impacts are through categories of Fossil Fuels Depletion (45.08%) and Respiratory
Effects (34.48%). Appendix B1 indicates that, for Ceramics materials, the
environmental damages are mainly on Resource (58.80%) and Human Health (24.14%).
The major impacts (see Table 5.6) are in the categories of Fossil Fuels Depletion
(58.28%), Respiratory Effects (17.05%) and Land Use (14.3%).
5-9
0.07
Eco-Indicator 99 (Pts/kg)
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03 Ceramics
0.02 Glass
0.01
-
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Case Number
Figure 5.2 Eco-Indicator 99 analyses for Glass & Ceramics.
The same scatter diagram was plotted for the category of Paper & Board. Obvious
clusters can be observed, producing two groups within the category, namely paper and
cardboard. As shown in Figure 5.3, the members in the paper group have higher
environmental impacts than those of the cardboard group. The paper group includes
kraftpaper, packaging carton, paper woody/wood-free, and paper bleached/ unbleached,
having the average value of the Eco-Indicator single score of 0.0713 Pts/kg with
18.50% standard deviation. The cases in the cardboard group have an average value of
0.0348 Pts/kg and the standard deviation is 25.60% of the group average. This group
includes cardboard cellulose/chromo/duplex/gray, kraftliner, fluting, testliner, sack
paper, and paper from mechanical pulp e.g. newsprint.
Appendix C9 and C10 presents the substances with major contribution to the
environmental impacts of Paper and Cardboard materials. They are NOX, SOX, CO2,
and Dust in the compartment of air emission, Crude Oil and Natural Gas in the
compartment of raw material. On average, these substances contribute 93% to the
environmental impact of Paper materials and 95% to the Cardboards. Appendix B9
shows the major environmental damages of Paper materials are in the categories of
Resources (48.04%) and Human Health (46.71%). The impacts (Table 5.6) are through
categories of Fossil Fuels Depletion (44.76%) and Respiratory Effects (37.86%) As
shown in Appendix B10 for Cardboards the environmental damages are mainly on
5-10
Resource (46.27%) and Human Health (48.65%). The major impacts (Table 5.6) are in
the categories of Fossil Fuels Depletion (47.80%), Respiratory Effects (36.01%).
0.10
Eco-Indicator 99 (Pts/kg)
Paper Cardboard
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
Material Case Number
Figure 5.3 Eco-Indicator 99 analyses for Paper & Board
In the category of Polymers, 85 cases have been analyzed, which belong to three generic
groups of rubber, thermoplastics and thermosetting plastics. In the analysis, three cases
of epoxy were separated from their original sets of thermosetting plastics and
thermoplastic, because of their distinctive environmental properties (Figure 5.4). The 17
cases of PUR thermosetting plastics show homogenous environmental behavior with the
average value of 0.4273 Pts/kg. Four cases of rubber material have the average value of
0.309 Pts/kg. The thermoplastics group has 61 cases, covering a range of materials from
ABS, PE, PET, PP, PS, to PVC and SAN with the average of 0.3652 Pts/kg.
These three generic material groups were merged to one group considering their similar
environmental performance. The merged group has an average of 0.3753 Pts/kg in Eco-
Indicator 99 single score with a standard deviation of 25.94%. The Epoxy group has an
average of 0.718 Pts/kg, and the standard deviation is 18.70% of the group average.
For Polymer materials the substances with major contribution to the environmental
impacts are NOX, SOX, CO2, and Dust in the compartment of air emission, Crude oil&
Energy from oil and Natural Gas & Energy from gas in the compartment of raw
material. They contribute 94% to the environmental impact of Rubber, Thermoplastics
and Thermosetting plastics and 99% to the Epoxy materials (see Appendix C11 and
5-11
C12). The environmental damages associated with Polymer materials are mainly in
Resources taking 67.71% for Rubbers, Thermoplastics and Thermosetting plastics and
75.92% for Epoxy (as shown in Appendix B11 and B12). The impacts are through the
category of Fossil Fuel Depletion, which on average contributes 66.51% to the
environmental impacts of Rubbers, Thermoplastics and Thermosetting plastics and
77.76% to Epoxy materials (Table 5.6).
1.00
0.90 Thermoplastic Rubber
Eco-Indicator 99 (Pts/Kg)
0.80 Thermoset Epoxy

0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Material Cases
Figure 5.4 Eco-Indicator 99 analysis for Polymer
The SimaPro database provides 86 cases in the category of wood. Among them, four
cases have very high environmental impacts, namely Balsa 54 Pts/kg, Cordia 21.5
Pts/kg, Guaiacum 16 Pts/kg and Avodire 14.9 Pts/kg. They should be avoided in
product design, hence they were not included in the analysis. Wood materials are very
difficult to differentiate based on the type of wood, and no reasonable grouping of plant
types could be identified. Therefore groups were formed on the basis of the magnitude
of their environmental impacts. The analysis on LCI data indicates two clusters of
Woods. The low impact cluster consists of more commonly used woods with the
environmental impact dominated by the substance of “Occupation as rail/road area”,
and the high impact cluster include woods dominated by “Conv. to continuous urban
land” (see Appendix C13-C16). These two clusters were further divided into four
groups namely Wood Low impact, Wood Low-Med impact, Wood Med-High impact,
and Wood High impact (Figure 5.5).
5-12
The group of low impact wood includes 29 types of Silver Fir, Larch, Teak, Chestnut,
Polar, and Cedar etc. The average Eco-Indicator is 0.5660 Pts/kg, with 28.39% standard
deviation. Wood Low-Med impact contains 4 cases with medium environmental impact,
including Platan, Horse Chestnut, Willow, and Walnut. The average Eco-Indicator is
1.1985 Pts/kg and the standard deviation is 17.79%.
Wood Med-High impact includes 25 materials such as Iroko, Meranti, and Yang. This
group has an average value of 5.5368 Pts/kg in Eco-Indicator with 18.05% standard
deviation. There are 24 wood materials in the high impact group including Paranapine,
Emeri, Mahogany, and Wenge, with the average of 9.3263 Pt/kg and standard deviation
of 16.76%. Most of which are not widely used materials. Tropical and rainforest woods
are associated with higher environmental impacts, which can be explained by the severe
environmental problems caused by the forest depletion.
As shown in Appendix B13-B16 and Table 5.6, the environmental damages of Wood
materials are mainly in the Ecosystem quality through the impacts on Land use. The
wood materials with higher environmental impacts associated with increasing
contribution from the impact category of Land use, which on average contribute 89.83%
to the total environmental impact of materials in the Wood Low impact group, 95.06%
to the Low-Med. impact group, 98.48% to the Med-High impact group, and 99.03% to
the High impact group.
5-13
13
12 Wood Low Impact Wood Low -Med Impact
Eco Indicator 99 (Pts/kg) 11
Wood Med-High Impact Wood High Impact
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
Material Case Number
Figure 5.5 Eco-Indicator 99 analysis for Wood.
5.1.3.2 Grouping of Ferrous Metals
There are 81 cases in the generic category of Ferrous Metal, including iron, steel sheet,
tin plate, cast iron, steel cast, steel spring, stainless steel, steel automatic, steel
construction, steel draw, steel high & low temperature, and steel high & low grade.
Cases of iron ore, tin plate recycled or scraps are not included in the analysis, because
they are not design materials. The members of the Ferrous Metal category show a large
variety of environmental performance. The Eco-Indicators range from 0.07 to 0.66
Pts/kg.
In order to explain the varied environmental behavior among the ferrous materials, their
physical and mechanical properties have been examined with regard to their potential
for the use as grouping criteria. The initial study found that mechanical and physical
properties, such as Young’s modulus, density, and strength only have weak
relationships to the materials’ environmental properties. However the investigation on
material composition indicates that the content of Ni, Cr, C, Si, Mn, and Mo in ferrous
metals has significant effect on the material’s environmental properties.
5-14
Further analysis found that the Nickel content is the most effective criteria for the
grouping of ferrous metals. Cluster analysis was carried out, using the Eco-Indicator and
the Nickel content as criteria. The list of material cases with their Ni and Cr contents are
presented in Appendix B3-B5 together with their environmental parameters. As shown
in the summarized dendrogram (Figure 5.6), two major groups were observed. The first
group contains 57 materials with no Nickel content with the average Eco-Indicator
value of 0.0772 Pts/kg and 20.85% standard deviation. The second group has 24
material cases with Nickel content. The average Eco-Indicator is 0.313 Pts/kg with
54.6% standard deviation, which suggests that further division is necessary for the
second group.
Distance Measure
0 5 10 15 20 25
Case
Label Num
69-76, 79-81
77-78 Group 2
58-68
Group 1
1-57
Figure 5.6 Summarized dendrogram using average linkage for cluster analysis of
ferrous metals (n=81).
The dendrogram shows two clusters in the second group (dotted line in Figure 5.6),
where cases number 58-68 form one cluster and cases number 69-81 form the other
cluster. Analysis on the detailed Nickel content of these cases explains the common
characteristics of members within each cluster. Figure 5.7 depicts the relationship
between the Nickel content and the Eco-Indicator for these 24 cases. The cluster with a
low Nickel content <5% includes cases number 58-68 and the other cluster with a
5-15
higher Nickel content >5% includes cases number 69-81. The group average of low
Nickel ferrous metals is 0.1481 Pts/kg with 28.32% standard deviation. Ferrous metals
with more than 5% Nickel content have higher environmental impacts, with a group
average of 0.4531 Pts/kg and 20.37% standard deviation. Therefore three groups were
identified in the category of Ferrous Metal, namely No Ni ferro, Low Ni ferro, and High
Ni ferro.
0.70
Eco-indicator 99 (Pts/kg)
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20 Ferrous metal Ni<5%
0.10 Ferrous metal Ni>5%
0.00
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00
Nickel content (wt%)
Figure 5.7 Relationship between Nickel content in ferrous metals and Eco-
Indicator 99 single score (n=24)
Further clustering of ferrous materials was explored, producing more detailed groups.
As shown in Appendix B3-B5 (Solution B), there are 5 groups identified namely No Ni
ferro, Low Ni ferro (Ni <5%), High Ni ferro (Ni>5%), Low NiCr stainless steel
(Ni+Cr<20%), High NiCr stainless steel (Ni+Cr>20%). Another attempt produced 4
groups. One group is the merging of the two groups of High Ni ferro and High NiCr
stainless steel in Solution B and the other 3 groups remain the same as the three groups
of No Ni ferro, Low Ni ferro, Low NiCr stainless steel in Solution B. However, there
was no significant improvement on the similarity of group members. On the other hand,
the larger number of material groups would have increased the complexity for
application. Therefore more detailed grouping solutions were not adopted.
The substances with major contribution to Ferrous metals’ environmental performance

are NOX, NO2, SOX, SO2, and CO2 in the compartment of air emission, Crude Oil, Coal
and Natural Gas in the compartment of raw material. In addition, other key substances
5-16
include Occupation as industrial area for No Ni ferrous metals, Nickel in ore for ferrous
metals with Ni content (see Appendix C3-C5). As shown in Appendix B3-B5, two
environmental damage categories show high contribution to the total impact of Ferrous
metals. They are Human Health and Resources through the impact category of Fossil
Fuels Depletion and Respiratory Effects (Table 5.6).
5.1.3.3 Grouping of Non-ferrous Metals
The generic category of Non-ferrous Metals has 103 cases. Two major groups were
identified through the cluster analysis. The first group contains 56 material cases
including Al, Mg, Zn, Mn, Pb and their alloys. The average Eco-Indicator value is
0.5640 Pts/kg. Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo and their alloys belong to the second group. They have
much higher environmental impacts than those in the first group, 2.5436 Pts/kg as group
average. Since the standard deviations for the first and second group are 22.37% and
29.14% of the group average respectively, further sub-divisions are not necessary.
Figure 5.8 shows the distribution of non-ferrous metals in terms of their Eco-Indicator
single score.
Appendix B6-B8 presents the environmental impact of Non-ferrous materials in damage

and impact categories, indicating the major damages are in the categories of Human
Health and Resources through the impact on Fossil Fuels Depletion and Respiratory
Effects (Table 5.6). For the group of Al, Mg, Zn, Mn, Pb and their alloys, the major
substances include NOX, NO2, SOX, SO2, CO2 and Dust in the compartment of air
emission, Crude Oil and Natural Gas in the compartment of raw material. In addition to
these, Nickel, Copper, Tin and land use are identified as key substance for Cu, Ni, V,
Ti, Mo and their alloys (see Appendix C6-C8).
An outlier group, which is not shown in the diagram, was identified containing 5
material cases with extreme values, i.e. 6.34 Pts/kg for Cobalt, 16.5 Pts/kg for Tin,
4610.00 Pts/kg for Palladium, 6960.00 Pts/kg for Platinum, and 123000.00 Pts/kg for
Rhodium. Designers should be aware of the high environmental impact associated with
these materials. An average value should not be applied for the members of this group.
5-17
4.50
4.00 Al,Mg, Zn, Mn and their alloys

Eco-indicator 99 (Pts/kg)
3.50 Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo and their alloys
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Material Cases
Figure 5.8 Eco-Indicator 99 analysis for Non-ferrous Metals
5.1.4 Material Groups and their Environmental Impact Drivers
Figure 5.9 presents the accuracy of different grouping solutions, ranging from a solution
based on the 6 generic material categories to the 41 material groups classified by Ashby
(1999). The average standard deviation was calculated for each number of groups,
representing the accuracy of each grouping solution. The figure indicates that the
solution with 16 material groups provides a low standard deviation and further division
into more specific material groups offers only a marginal improvement in accuracy.
Therefore 16 groups are proposed for the simplified environmental assessment of
materials.
5-18
65
60
55
50
Average deviation (%)
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Number of material groups
Figure 5.9 Grouping solutions and accuracies
The description of the 16 material groups is presented in Table 5.3. The group names
reflect the common understanding of the nature of the materials in each group, so that it
can easily be understood by designers. At the same time, the members of the group have
a similar environmental performance.
5-19
Table 5.3 Descriptions of the 16 material groups(1-8)
Material Group
Group Name Group Description
Category No.
Traditional Porcelain, ceramics, stoneware and
1
Glass Ceramics cements
+Ceramics Glass (virgin/ green/ brown/oil-fired/
2 Glass
white/ gas-fired)
Ferrous metals without Nickel content
(Including: steel sheet, Tin plate, and
some of stainless steel, cast iron, steel
3 No Ni Ferro
autom, steel high/low temp, steel spring,
steel construction, steel draw, steel high
grade.)
Ferrous metals with less than 5% Nickel

Ferrous
content
Metal Low Ni Ferro
4 (Including some of stainless steel, steel
(Ni<5%)
high grade, steel high/ low temp, steel
cast)
Ferrous metals with more than 5%

High Ni Ferro Nickel content
5
(Ni>5%) (Including some of stainless steel, steel
low temp, steel cast, cast iron)
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn Tu, Mn, Si, Pb, Cr, Cd, and Al, Mg, Zn
6
& their alloys including their alloys
Non-Ferrous Cu, Ni, V, Ti, V, Mo, and Cu, Ni, Ti including their
7
Metal Mo& their alloys alloys
Outlier Co&Sn&
8 Co, Sn, Pt, Pd, and Rd
Pt&Pd&Rd)
5-20
Table 5.3 Descriptions of the 16 material groups (Group 9-12)
Material Group
Category No.
Kraftpaper bleached/unbleached,
9 Paper packaging carton, paper woody/wood-
free, paper bleached/ unbleached
Paper Cardboard cellulose, cardboard chromo,
cardboard duplex, cardboard gray,
10 Cardboard
kraftliner brown/ white, fluting, sack
paper, testliner, newsprint
11 Epoxy Epoxy resin
Rubber, Rubbers, PUR, ABS, HDPE, HIPS,

Polymers
12 Thermoplastics, LDPE, PA, PB, PC, PE, PET, PMMA,
Thermoset PP, PS, PVC, PVDC, SAN
5-21
Table5.3 Descriptions of the 16 material groups (Group 13-16)
Material Group
Category No.
Silver Fir, Larch, Hemlock, Teak, Ash,
Beech, Oak, European Spruce, Ahorn,
Wood Low Sycamore, Birch, Merbau, Chestnut,
13
Impact Aspen, Cedar, Pine, Robinia, Linden,
Alder, Elm, Poplar, Western, Hornbean,
Black Poplar
Wood Low-Med
14 Walnut, Platan, Horse chestnut, Willow
Impact
Azobe, Moabi, Blue Gum, Angelique,
Makore, Kauri, Mersawa, Yang, Agba,
Woods Wood Med-High Limba, Bubinga, Mahogani, Iroko,
15
Impact Meranti, Utile, Dibetou, Afzelia, Sapelli,
Movigui, Afrormosia, Idigbo, Kotibe,
Mengkulang, Peroba, Bosse Clair
Carapa, Paranapine, Purpleheart,
Mansonia, Mahogany, Padouk, Tiama,
Niangon, Aningre, Mutenye, Wawa,
Wood High
16 Tchitola, Koto, Canaria, Palissander,
Impact
Indisch, Abura, Ilomba, Antiaris,
Okoume, Baboen, Olon, Cottonwood,
Wenge, Emeri
5-22
For the 16 proposed material groups, the average Eco-Indicator single score of each
group was calculated and adopted as the material-based Environmental Impact Driver
(DM) for the group members, as shown in Table 5.4. Since the standard deviation of
each group is less than 30% of the group average, DM is acceptable for the estimation of
the environmental impact for all group members, considering the fact that the accuracy
of life-cycle energy results produced by a real LCA is typically ± 30%(UK Ecolabelling
Board, 1992). The variation of 30% has also been widely adopted by researchers as a
realistic level of the accuracy of inventory data for LCA (Rousseaux et al, 2001). The
‘Outlier’ group of Non-ferrous Metals (Group 8) contains very rare cases with
extremely high environmental impact. Their environmental performances shall be
calculated individually instead of using the group average.
5-23
Table 5.4 Material groups and Material-based Environmental Impact Drivers
Material Group Num of Average/

Material Groups STDEV CV
Category No. Cases DM (Pts/kg)
1 Traditional Ceramics 5 0.0273 0.0070 25.81%

Glass
+Ceramics
2 Glass 6 0.0568 0.0060 10.49%
3 No Ni Ferro 57 0.0772 0.0161 20.85%
Ferrous Low Ni Ferro

Metal 4 11 0.1481 0.0419 28.32%
(Ni<5%)
High Ni Ferro
5 13 0.4531 0.0923 20.37%
(Ni>5%)
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn &
6 49 0.5640 0.1262 22.37%
their alloys
Non-
Ferrous Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo&
7 42 2.5436 0.7413 29.14%
Metal their alloys
Co & Sn & Pt & Pd &
8 5
Rd
9 Paper 10 0.0713 0.0132 18.50%

Paper
10 Cardboard 23 0.0348 0.0089 25.60%
11 Epoxy 3 0.7180 0.1342 18.70%

Polymers Rubber,
12 Thermoplastics, 82 0.3753 0.0974 25.94%
Thermoset
13 Wood Low Impact 29 0.5660 0.1607 28.39%
Wood Low-Med
14 4 1.1985 0.2132 17.79%
Impact
Woods
Wood Med-High
15 25 5.5368 0.9995 18.05%
Impact
16 Wood High Impact 24 9.3263 1.5627 16.76%
5-24
5.1.5 Life Cycle Inventory Analysis for Material Groups
It is recognized that the LCA result in a single score has the advantage of providing
designers with comprehensible information as well as with an overall view on the
environmental impacts associated with the product’s material selection. However,
environmental impacts occur through various pathways. For better interpretation of the
single score assessment, it is useful to have additional information on the life cycle
inventory analysis. LCI data includes a full list of emissions, consumed resources and
non-material impacts, such as land use associated with a material. Usually inventory
tables are very long, and many substances have only a marginal effect on the total
environmental impact. Therefore a compact LCI list was developed including only the
main contributors.
The compact LCI list for each material group is shown in Table 5.5. They were
developed through the LCI analysis of the substances with significant contributions to
the total environmental impact (see Appendix C). The purpose is to provide designers
with additional in depth information on the materials’ environmental properties in a
summarized form. It enables the designers to conduct life cycle assessment for a
material without assessing all the substances on the LCI list, and to apply their own
evaluation method instead of using Eco-Indicator 99. The list includes those substances
that contribute to more than 80% of the total environmental impact. Table 5.6 shows the
most important impact categories identified for each material group, indicating the
major environmental concerns associated with a specific group of materials.
5-25
Table 5.5 Short LCI list for material groups
No. Material Groups Abbreviated LCI list
1 Traditional Ceramics NOX, NO2, Oil, CO2, SOx, SO2, Natural gas, Dust
2 Glass NOX, NO2, Oil, CO2, SOx, SO2, Natural gas, Pb, Dust
NOX, NO2, Oil, CO2, SOx, SO2, Natural gas, Coal,

3 Non Ni Ferro
Land use
NOX, NO2, Oil, CO2, SOx, SO2, Natural gas,

4 Low Ni Ferro (Ni<5%)
Ni (in ore)
NOX, NO2, Oil, CO2, SOx, SO2, Natural gas,

5 High Ni Ferro (Ni>5%)
Ni (in ore), Coal
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn and Oil, Natural gas, NOX, NO2, CO2, SOx, SO2,
6
their alloys Dust
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo and Oil, Natural gas, NOX, NO2, CO2, SOx, SO2,
7
their alloys Cu, Ni, Tin, Land use
Outliers
8 (Co&Sn&Pt&Pd&Rd) Cu, Ni, Oil, Natural gas, NOX, NO2, CO2, SOx, SO2
9 Paper Natural gas, Dust, Oil, NOx, NO2, CO2, SOx, SO2
10 Cardboard Natural gas, Dust, Oil, NOx, NO2, CO2, SOx, SO2
11 Epoxy Oil, Natural gas, NOx, NO2, CO2, SOx, SO2, Dust
Rubber, Thermoplastic,
12 Oil, Natural gas, NOx, NO2, CO2, SOx, SO2, Dust
Thermoset
13 Wood Low Impact Occupation as rail/road area
14 Wood Med Impact Occupation as rail/road area
15 Wood Med Impact Conv. to continuous urban land
16 Wood High Impact Conv. to continuous urban land
5-26
Table 5.6 Major environmental impact categories for material groups
Group Resp. Climate Ecotoxi- Land Minerals Fossil

Material
Average inorganics change city use fuels
Groups
(Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts)
0.0273 0.0047 0.0020 2.3E-05 0.0039 3.2E-06 0.0159

Ceramics
(%) 17.05%* 7.44% 0.08% 14.30% 0.01% 58.28%
0.0568 0.0196 0.0036 0.0051 0 2.3E-09 0.0256

Glass
(%) 34.48% 6.36% 9.05% 0.00% 0.00% 45.08%
0.0772 0.0239 0.0069 0.0035 0.0058 0.0059 0.0248

No Ni Ferro
(%) 31.01% 8.95% 4.56% 7.53% 7.59% 32.14%
Low Ni Ferro 0.1481 0.0695 0.0093 0.0029 0.0072 0.0166 0.0351

(Ni<5%)
(%) 46.91% 6.31% 1.92% 4.88% 11.21% 23.71%
High Ni Ferro 0.4531 0.2419 0.0223 0.0018 0.0113 0.0691 0.0889

(Ni>5%)
(%) 53.40% 4.91% 0.39% 2.49% 15.25% 19.62%
Al,Mg,Zn,Mn 0.5640 0.1657 0.0612 0.0056 0.0263 0.0495 0.2174

alloys
(%) 29.37% 10.85% 0.99% 4.66% 8.77% 38.54%
Cu,Ni, V, Ti, 2.5436 1.0989 0.0876 0.0025 0.1079 0.7600 0.4109

Mo
(%) 43.20% 3.44% 0.10% 4.24% 29.88% 16.16%
0.0713 0.0270 0.0061 0.0007 0.0003 1.42E-05 0.0319

Paper
(%) 37.86% 8.56% 0.94% 10.66% 0.02% 44.76%
0.0348 0.0125 0.0031 0.0003 0 1.9E-05 0.0166

Cardboard
(%) 36.01% 8.95% 0.95% 0.00% 0.06% 47.80%
0.7180 0.1174 0.0262 0.0001 0.0008 2.8E-05 0.5583

Epoxy
(%) 16.36% 3.64% 0.02% 0.11% 0.00% 77.76%
Rubber,Thermo 0.3753 0.0810 0.0212 0.0012 0.0015 4.8E-05 0.2496

plast, Thermoset
(%) 21.58% 5.64% 0.33% 0.39% 0.01% 66.51%
*0.0047Pts (The average Impact of Resp. inorganics) /0.0273Pts (The average total impact)=
17.05%
5-27
Table 5.6 Major environmental impact categories for material groups (Cont.)
Group Resp. Climate Ecotoxi- Land Fossil

Material Minerals
Average inorganics change city use fuels
Groups (Pt)
(Pt) (Pt) (Pt) (Pt) (Pt) (Pt)
Wood Low 0.5660 0.0197 0.0039 0.0029 0.5084 3.2E-06 0.0279

impact
(%) 3.48% 0.68% 0.51% 89.83% 0.00% 4.93%
Wood Low- 1.1985 0.0186 0.0047 0.0032 1.1393 4.5E-06 0.0312

Med impact
(%) 1.55% 0.39% 0.27% 95.06% 0.00% 2.60%
Wood Med- 5.5368 0.0331 0.0052 0.0025 5.4524 3E-06 0.0398

High impact
(%) 0.60% 0.09% 0.04% 98.48% 0.00% 0.72%
Wood High 9.3263 0.0337 0.0055 0.0027 9.2354 3.3E-06 0.0417

impact
0.36% 0.06% 0.03% 99.03% 0.00% 0.45%
5.1.6 Case Studies
Case studies of an active product—coffee machine and a passive product – disposable

shaver are conducted to test the application of material-based environmental impact
drivers. The results computed by applying the simplified approach are compared to the
results of LCA.
5.1.6.1 Coffee Machine
SimaPro software package describes a demo case of two models of a coffee machine,
models Sima and Pro, to explain the results of a detailed LCA study. The same case is
adopted in this study. The functional unit is defined as using the coffee machine for 5
years twice a day 5 cups.
The results in tables 5.7 and 5.8 show that the simplified approach causes a deviation of
25.95% for the model Sima, and 11.55% for the model Pro. For the purpose of
comparing the environmental performance of the two models, the detailed LCA
5-28
indicates that in the material stage, the environmental impact of model Pro is 1.83 times
greater than that of model Sima. The simplified method shows this figure as 1.62,
causing a difference of 11%. These figures represent the material-based impacts only. If
we check the effects of the simplified method on the total product environmental impact
(including all lifecycle phases), the results are 9.29 Pts for model Sima and 7.22 Pts for
model Pro. The detailed LCA leads to results of 9.12 Pts for Sima and 7.09 Pts for Pro.
This represents a deviation is only 1.82% for Sima and 1.92% for Pro. However, the
small deviation for the total impact is expected, since a coffee machine is an active
product with its main impact in the usage phase. Therefore, in this case study only the
material based impact should be considered for verification and not the total impact.
In summary, independent on which approach a designer would choose, the results

indicate that a simplified calculation leads to the same decision in a comparison of
alternative designs and thus is acceptable for the studied cases.
5-29
Table 5.7 Comparison of computed impacts and LCA results for model Sima
Title: Coffee Machine Model Sima
Method: Eco-Indicator 99 (H) / Europe EI 99 H/A
Value: Single score
Amount DMi Wi*DMi LCA

Materials Unit
Wi (Pts/Kg) (Pts) (Pts)
Corr. cardboard mix 1 0.35 Kg 0.0348 0.0122 0.0131
Glass (white) B250 0.4 Kg 0.0568 0.0227 0.0229
Paper ETH T 0.002 Kg 0.000185

0.0677 0.0069
Paper wood-free U B250 0.1 Kg 0.0074
Steel low alloy ETH T 0.15 Kg 0.0772 0.0116 0.0162
PP granulate average B250 1 Kg 0.3060
PP granulate average B250 0.14 Kg 0.0428
PVC B250 0.02 Kg 0.00517

0.3753 0.4949
PET bottle grade B250 0.04 Kg 0.0149
PVC B250 0.105 Kg 0.0272
PS (EPS) B250 (1998) 0.05 Kg 0.0166
Aluminium ingots B250 0.1 Kg 0.5640 0.0564 0.0565
Copper ETH T 0.02 Kg 0.0281

2.5372 0.2029
Material-based Environmental Impact: 0.8077 0.6413

n
I M = ∑Wi ∗ DMi
i =1 Deviation 25.95%
5-30
Table 5.8 Comparison of computed impacts and LCA results for model Pro
Title: Coffee Machine Model Pro
Value: Single score
Amount DMi Wi*DMi LCA

Materials Unit
Wi (Pts/Kg) (Pts) (Pts)
Corr. cardboard mix 1 0.35 Kg 0.0348 0.0122 0.0131
Glass (white) B250 0.2 Kg 0.0568 0.0114 0.0114
Paper ETH T 0.002 Kg 0.000185

0.0677 0.0069
Paper wood-free U B250 0.1 Kg 0.0074
Steel low alloy ETH T 0.15 Kg 0.0772 0.0116 0.0162
PVC B250 0.105 Kg 0.0272
PVC B250 0.02 Kg 0.00517

0.3753 0.2027
PET bottle grade B250 0.04 Kg 0.0149
PS (EPS) B250 (1998) 0.05 Kg 0.0166
Aluminium ingots B250 1.5 Kg 0.5764 0.8646 0.848

2.5372 0.2030
Material-based Environmental Impact: 1.3123 1.1765

n
I M = ∑Wi ∗ DMi Deviation 11.55%
i =1
5-31
5.1.6.2 Disposable Shavers
A case study on disposable shavers was carried out to test the application of the
simplified method on passive products. The functional unit is defined as shaving for one
year with 260 shaves. The service life of the disposable shaver is 7-8 shaves, which
requires 34 disposable shavers per year.
With no energy consumption at usage stage, the energy-based environmental impact IE

is zero. Therefore according to the simplified approach (Equation 4-1), its total
Environmental Performance Indicator I= IM, IM is the material based environmental
impact. Table 5.9 shows the calculation of IM using the material-based environmental
impact drivers.
Table 5.9 The computed environmental impacts for disposable shavers
Title: Disposable Shaver
Value: Single score
Amount DMi Wi*DMi

Materials Unit
Wi (Pts/Kg) (Pts)
Steel 0.017 Kg 0.0772 0.0013
PET 0.012 Kg
Polyethylene 0.021 Kg 0.3753 0.0739
Polystyrene 0.164 Kg
Material-based Environmental Impact:

n 0.0752
I M = ∑Wi ∗ DMi
i =1
5-32
A full LCA study on the disposable shavers was conducted for comparison. The results
are presented in Figure 5.10 and Figure 5.11. As shown in Figure 5.10, the total impact
of the disposable shavers is 0.0751 Pts, with 0.070 Pts from the material stage, 0.004 Pts
from processes of injection moulding and 0.00077 Pts from the disposal of the shavers.
Compared to the LCA results, the deviation caused by the simplified calculation is
0.27%.
According to the simplified analysis, the major environmental impacts of the disposable
shaver are caused by the thermoplastics from the material stage. The major
environmental damages associated with the thermoplastics (Table 5.6) are in the
category of Human Health and Resources, through the impacts on Depletion of Fossil
Fuels and Respiratory Effects, which is in line with the environmental profile of the
disposable shaver identified by the full LCA study (Figure 5.10). The simplified
analysis also identified that the major substances for thermoplastics are Oil, Natural gas,
NOx, NO2, CO2, SOx, SO2, and dust, which represent 93.5% of the total impact
associated with the disposable shavers’ life cycle as shown in Figure 5.11.
mPt
80
70
70
60
50
40
30
20
10 4.16
0.103 0.77
0
disposable Injection moulding Injection moulding Landfill B250 (98)
shavers-material PET
Carcinogens Resp. organics Resp. inorganics Climate change
Radiation Ozone layer Ecotoxicity Acidification/ Eutrophic
Land use Minerals Fossil fuels
Analyzing 1 p life cycle 'disposable shavers'; Method: Eco-indicator 99 (H) / Europe EI 99 H/A / single score
Figure 5.10 Environmental profile of the disposable shavers life cycle
5-33
crude oil IDEMAT 0.0337 Pt
Remaining processes 0.0049

natural gas 0.0165 Pt dust 0.000814 Pt
SO2 0.000866 Pt
SOx 0.003 Pt
CO2 0.00346 Pt
NOx 0.00693 Pt crude oil ETH 0.00491 Pt
Analyzing 1 p life cycle 'disposable shavers'; Method: Eco-indicator 99 (H) / Europe EI 99 H/A / single score
Figure 5.11 Major substances for the environmental impact of disposable shavers
The case studies indicate that the simplified approach may provide designers with a
quick analysis of a product’s environmental performance and environmental profile
with acceptable accuracy. More case studies were conducted to verify the application of
the simplified approach, including 23 active products and 20 passive products. The
results are discussed in chapter 6.
5.2 Energy-Based Environmental Impact Drivers
In the pilot study conducted by Soriano (2002), electricity in Europe was used for all
active products. Large variations were caused by cases with a different fuel source
(diesel), which lead to a subgroup in the cluster of energy based products, suggesting
that products using different energy sources might create other subgroups. It was also
recognized that the environmental impact due to the generation of electricity varies
widely between countries (Rombouts et al., 1999).
Instead of further grouping active products according to their energy source, in this
study 7 commonly used energy sources were derived from the SimaPro database (as
5-34
shown in Table 5.10), representing the environmental impacts associated with various
sources in different regions. The Energy-based environmental impact drivers (DE) were
calculated by the SimaPro software package using the method of Eco-indicator 99 H/A
presented in single score value. As the major environmental impacts of active products
are associated with energy consumption in the usage stage, the list of DE will be
extended with more data becoming available in electricity generation of different
regions.
The environmental damages associated with the energy sources are mainly Human
Health and Resources through the impact categories of Fossil Fuel Depletion,
Respiratory Effects and Climate Change (see Table 5.11). The substances with major
contribution to the environmental impact of energy sources are identified as shown in
Table 5.10 and Appendix C17 in more details.
Table 5.10 Energy based Environmental Impact Drivers and the Major
Substances.
No. Energy sources DE Major Substances
1 Petrol B300 0.27 Pts/kg Oil, Natural gas, NO2, CO2, SO2, Dust
2 Diesel B300 0.185 Pts/kg Oil, Natural gas, NO2, CO2, SO2,
3 Natural gas B300 0.184Pts /kg Natural gas, Oil, NO2, CO2, SO2
4 Electricity NORDEL 0.0026Pts/MJ Oil, Natural gas, NO2, CO2, SO2,Dust
5 Electricity UCPTE 0.00571Pts/MJ Oil, Natural gas, NO2, CO2, SO2, Dust
6 Energy Australia I 0.00248Pts/MJ Oil, Natural gas, Coal, SOX, NO2, CO2,
7 Energy US I 0.00293Pts/MJ Oil, Natural gas, Coal, SOX, NO2, CO2,
5-35
Table 5.11 Major environmental impact categories for Energy-based

Environmental Impact Drivers
Acidifica-
Resp.
DE Carcino- Climate Ecotoxi- tion/ Fossil
Inorga-
(Pts) gens Change city Eutroph- Fuels
nics
ication
0.2700 0.0050 0.0223 0.0062 0.0035 0.0025 0.2300
Petrol
(%) 1.84%* 8.26% 2.28% 1.29% 0.94% 85.19%
0.1850 0.0022 0.0109 0.0027 0.0015 0.0014 0.1660

Diesel
(%) 1.21% 5.89% 1.44% 0.79% 0.76% 89.73%
0.1840 0.0005 0.0045 0.0026 0.0002 0.0005 0.1760

Natural gas
(%) 0.28% 2.43% 1.43% 0.11% 0.26% 95.65%
0.0026 0.0004 0.0008 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0009

Electricity
NORDEL
(%) 14.08% 32.54% 11.00% 4.65% 2.90% 34.85%
0.0057 0.0006 0.0019 0.0007 0.0002 0.0002 0.0021

Electricity
UCPTE
(%) 10.60% 33.10% 12.00% 4.17% 2.89% 37.13%
0.0025 0 0.0009 0.0005 0 0.0001 0.0011

Energy
Australia
(%) 0 34.76% 18.51% 0 3.82% 42.74%
0.0029 0 0.0007 0.0004 0 0.0001 0.0018

Energy US
(%) 0 23.41% 12.97% 0 2.77% 60.75%
0.0026 0.0004 0.0009 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0009

Electricity
NORDEL
(%) 14.08% 32.54% 11.00% 4.65% 2.90% 34.85%
Electricity 0.0057 0.0006 0.0019 0.0007 0.0002 0.0002 0.0021

UCPTE (%) 10.60% 33.10% 12.00% 4.17% 2.89% 37.13%
*0.0050Pts(The impact of Carcinogens) /0.2700Pts (The total impact)=1.84%
5-36
5.3 Conclusion
The grouping of materials produced a material environmental index to evaluate the

material-based environmental impacts at the early phase of product development. By
mapping materials into the index of DM, the material-based environmental impacts of a
design alternative can be evaluated on the basis of a few material groups. It enables
designers to have a timely environmental evaluation without having access to a LCA
software package or an extensive material database. Together with the energy-based
Environmental Impact Drivers (DE), the product’s environmental performance can be
assessed with very basic data input requirements and acceptable accuracy.
In order to assess how the results would change if a weighting method other than Eco-
indicator 99 were used, a comparison was made with LCI data weighted with the
evaluation method of EPS2000. The comparison showed that the trends for the material
groups were very similar, except for the groups of woods, as EPS2000 does not include
land use as an impact category. It should be pointed out that any further findings on the
impact of materials, improvement of material acquisition technology, and modification
of the environmental impact evaluation model would have an influence on the results of
this study. However, the impact drivers can easily be updated on the basis of new data
becoming available. Changes are expected to be very minor, and in particular, the basic
grouping of materials will not be affected.
5-37
Chapter 6 Verification and Case Studies
CHAPTER 6
VERIFICATION AND CASE STUDIES
Chapter 6 presents the verification of the simplified approach and two case studies for
the integrated decision model. The first section consists of the comparison of full LCA
results of collected product cases and the results computed by the simplified approach.
Then the correlation between a product’s environmental performance and its life time
energy consumption is investigated, which resulted in further simplification of the
environmental assessment for active products. Section three discusses the application of
the integrated decision model and the simplified environmental assessment approach in
two case studies.
6.1 The Verification of the Simplified Approach
A wide range of case studies is used to verify the proposed approach described in the
previous chapters. The product cases were collected from publications, references,
corporate documents, marketing and publicity documentation, organization
documentation and others. The gathered LCA documentations were either detailed
reports or summarized reports. For the latter cases where appropriate information was
available, an initial LCA was performed. In the cases of missing data, these were
obtained from reference books and databases as well as information from suppliers,
retailers, and manufacturers. Table 6.1 presents the LCA results of 43 product cases
with their total impact indicator and a breakdown into the life cycle phases of material,
manufacturing, usage, and disposal (the negative figures in this stage are the results of
recycling practices). Sources and descriptions of these cases are included in Appendix
D.
In order to be able to make a valid comparison between different cases from different
sources, all the product and material cases used in this study were assessed by the
6-1
SimaPro 5.0 LCA software package using the evaluation method of Eco-indicator 99
H/A. The energy consumption of Europe (UCPTE) was adopted for the analysis.
Table 6.1 Product environmental impact indicator and life cycle phases
Material Manf. Usage Disposal Total

Product Case
(Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts)
Hydraulic unit 0.759 0.1226 1.12 -0.000612 2.01
Coffee machine Pro 1.1765 0.0831 5.815 0.00677 7.09
Coffee machine Sima 0.6413 0.0943 8.385 -0.00552 9.12
Cleaner 1.8524 0.6431 7.7 -0.00718 10.20
Cooking pan-Gunda 0.357 0.0296 10.5 -0.00367 10.88
Cooking pan-All Steel 0.47 0.0842 10.5 0.000808 11.06
Cooking pan -356+ 0.427 0.0883 11.9 0.000736 12.42
Cooking pan-Hotpan 0.348 0.0678 12.7 -0.0029 13.11
Electrical Heater 0.357 N/A 24.6 0.00622 25.00
Power tool 2.62 N/A 27.1 0.00577 29.73
TV 7.5637 0.2354 40.5 0.000342 48.30
Washing machine F-Imp. 13.5 N/A 40.3 0.31 54.00
Hand drier 2.47 N/A 53.4 -1.22 54.70
Electric Pump 2.31 0.0605 55.7 0.00954 58.00
Washing machine F-Au 14 N/A 54.6 0.113 68.70
Refrigerator 14.63 1.068 57.1 0.878 72.90
Washing machine T-Imp 9.63 N/A 102 0.134 112.00
Washing machine T-Au 10.2 N/A 109 0.0647 119.00
PC 10.8 N/A 133 0.0221 144.00
Dish washer 12.34 10.772 157 0.0519 180.00
Garbage colletor-RL200 308.4 1.9 29900 -108 30100.00
6-2
Table 6.1 Product environmental impact indicator and life cycle phases (Con.)
Material Manf. Usage Disposal Total

Product Case
(Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts)
Garbage colletor-RL300 399.31 3.54 32300 -139 32500.00
Rock crusher 27900 N/A 834000 -9940 852000.00
CD package-P 0.000299 N/A N/A -8.72E-06 0.00029
Beverage package-steel 0.00226 0.000774 N/A -7.46E-04 0.00229
Paper bag 0.00111 0.0012964 N/A 0.000143 0.00255
Shopping bag-plastic 0.00675 0.0000675 N/A 0.0000746 0.00692
PET bottle 0.0075 0.000468 N/A 6.47E-05 0.00804
Beverage package-Al 0.00869 0.000807 N/A 2.12E-05 0.00952
CD package-M 0.0124 N/A N/A -0.000265 0.01220
Paper sack 0.0118 0.000521 N/A 0.0000431 0.01236
CD package-C 0.0156 N/A N/A -0.000385 0.01520
CD package-B 0.0285 N/A N/A -0.000562 0.02800
CD package-D 0.0332 N/A N/A -0.000671 0.03250
Plastic sack 0.0364 0.000196 N/A -0.000135 0.03650
Shaver-reuse 0.05328 0.015247 N/A -0.000337 0.06800
Shaver disposal 0.07004 0.004219 N/A 0.00077 0.07500
Ceramic tile 0.505 N/A N/A 0.00175 0.50600
Steel drawer 2.33 N/A N/A 0.0012 2.33
Steel panel 4.44 N/A N/A 0.166 4.61
Wooden panel 11.5 N/A N/A -0.0483 11.45
Wooden drawer 19.1 N/A N/A 0.0153 19.12
Paper towel 74.3 N/A N/A 0.198 74.50
6-3
The results of these product cases map the product classifications from the literature.
The material and usage phases are the two major contributors to the total environmental
impact of a product. As expected, the usage phase appears to be the most significant
phase for active products, whereas for passive products the material phase contributes
most of the environmental impact.
In order to verify the simplified approach, the results of the product LCA cases were
compared to the computed results from the simplified approach (shown in Table 6.2).
The calculations were carried out by using the identified Environmental Impact Drivers
(Tables 5.4 and 5.9) and the equations for the Material-based Environmental Impact
(Equation 4-3), the Energy-based Environmental Impact (Equation 4-2) and the product
Environmental Impact Indicator (Equation 4-1). The deviations caused by the
application of the simplified approach are less than 10% for 90% of the products
included in the study, with an average deviation of 4.6% and a maximum of 18% (as
shown in Figure 6.1). As discussed before, this is acceptable for the applications in the
early stages of product development considering the uncertainties of LCA.
6-4
simplified approach
LCA Results Computed Results (Pts)

Product Case
(Pts) IM IE IM + IE
Hydraulic unit 2.01 0.70 1.12 1.82
Coffee machine Pro 7.09 1.31 5.13 6.44
Coffee machine Sima 9.12 0.81 7.70 8.51
Cleaner 10.20 2.30 7.70 10.00
Cooking pan-Gunda 10.88 0.31 10.50 10.81
Cooking pan-All Steel 11.06 0.49 10.50 10.99
Cooking pan -356+ 12.42 0.45 11.90 12.35
Cooking pan-Hotpan 13.11 0.33 12.70 13.03
Electrical Heater 25.00 0.41 24.60 25.01
Power tool 29.73 2.70 27.10 29.80
TV 48.30 8.22 40.50 48.72
Washing machine F-Imp. 54.00 15.79 40.30 56.09
Hand drier 54.70 3.15 53.40 56.55
Electric Pump 58.00 2.58 55.70 58.28
Washing machine F-Au 68.70 14.69 54.60 69.29
Refrigerator 72.90 15.21 57.10 72.31
Washing machine T- Imp. 112.00 9.75 102.00 111.75
Washing machine T-Au 119.00 11.54 109.00 120.54
PC 144.00 10.69 133.00 143.69
Dish washer 180.00 12.71 157.00 169.71
Garbage collector-RL200 30100.00 296.91 29322.00 29618.91
Garbage collector-RL300 32500.00 384.07 31671.00 32055.07
Rock crusher 852000.00 33334.73 834000.00 867334.73
6-5
simplified approach (Con.)
LCA Results Computed Results (Pts)

Product Case
(Pts) IM IE IM + IE
CD package-P 0.0003 0.0003 0 0.00029
Beverage package-steel 0.0023 0.0025 0 0.00247
Paper bag 0.0025 0.0024 0 0.00237
Shopping bag-plastic 0.0069 0.0075 0 0.00750
PET bottle 0.0080 0.0083 0 0.00826
Beverage package-Al 0.0095 0.0102 0 0.01015
CD package-M 0.0122 0.0126 0 0.01261
Paper sack 0.0124 0.0140 0 0.01400
CD package-C 0.0152 0.0153 0 0.01532
CD package-B 0.0280 0.0304 0 0.03036
CD package-D 0.0325 0.0350 0 0.03504
Plastic sack 0.0365 0.0400 0 0.04
Shaver-reuse 0.0680 0.0560 0 0.056
Shaver-disposal 0.0750 0.0752 0 0.0752
Ceramic tile 0.5060 0.5020 0 0.502
Steel drawer 2.33 2.19 0 2.19
Steel panel 4.61 4.29 0 4.29
Wooden panel 11.45 10.90 0 10.9
Wooden drawer 19.12 16.72 0 16.72
Paper towel 74.50 87.19 0 87.19
6-6
Deviation of simplified approach (%)
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
Hydraulic unit
Coffee machine Pro
Coffee machine SIMA
Cleaner
Cooking pan-Gunda
Cooking pan-All Steel
Cooking pan -356+
Cooking pan-Hotpan
E. Heater
Power tool
TV
Imp. Frontload
Hand drier
Pump
Au frontload
Refrigerator
Imp.topload
Au topload
PC
Dish washer
RL200
RL300
Name of product
Rock crusher
CD package-Pre
Bev. package-steel
Paper bag
Shopping bag-plastic
PET bottle
Bev package-Al
CD package-Mat
Paper sack
CD package-cloud
CD package-Billy
CD package-Dylan
Plastic sack
Shaver-reuse
Figure 6.1 Deviations of computed value compared to LCA results for 43 product cases
Shaver-dis
Ceramic tile
Steel drawer
Steel panel
Wooden panel
Wooden drawer
Paper towel sys.
6.2 Correlation Between Product Environmental Impact and Lifetime

Energy Use for Active Products
Further simplification of the environmental assessment can be achieved by the grouping

of products. In consistency with earlier results (Kaebernick and Soriano, 2000), it is
confirmed that most products fall within two major product groups, namely active
products and passive products.
Therefore, it is suggested that the designers may skip the full calculation of IE and IM
and use only one indicator for each product group, namely IE for active products and IM
for passive products. For passive products, the total Environmental Performance
Indicators were estimated by applying the equation for IM only. The average deviation
was 7.2% in comparison to the results of detailed LCA studies.
For active products, a further simplification is possible by using regression equations.

Table 6.3 shows the relationship between environmental impact indicators and their
lifecycle energy consumption for 19 electrical appliances. Considering the significance
of the energy source to the environmental assessment, analyses were conducted for 3
regions, namely Europe (UCPTE), Australia (AU), and United States (US).
For these active products, the equations below can be applied (R2 is the regression
coefficient). They were derived through linear regression on detailed product LCA case
studies. Environmental Performance Indicators are expressed in Eco-indicator 99 single
score and the lifetime energy consumption E in kWh, as shown in Figure 6.2.
IUCPTE = 0.0229 * EUCPTE + 0.8024 R2 = 0.993 (6-1)
IAU = 0.0113 * EAU + 0.7947 R2 = 0.971 (6-2)
IUS = 0.0128 * EUS + 0.8324 R2 = 0.977 (6-3)
6-8
Table 6.3 Environmental impacts with energy consumption from different regions
Environmental Impact Indicators Lifecycle

Product case (Pts) energy use
IUCPTE IAU IUS (kWh)
Coffee machine Pro 7.090 4.180 4.590 250
Coffee machine Sima 9.120 4.760 5.370 375
Cleaner 10.200 5.830 6.440 375
Cooking pan-Gunda 10.883 4.933 5.763 510
Cooking pan-All Steel 11.055 5.057 5.894 510
Cooking pan -356+ 12.416 5.636 6.583 580
Cooking pan-Hotpan 13.113 5.943 6.943 620
E. Heater 25.000 11.100 13.000 1200
Power tool 29.726 14.400 16.500 1320
TV 48.300 25.400 28.600 1971
Washing machine F-Imp 54.000 31.300 34.400 1960
Hand drier 54.700 24.400 28.700 2600
Electric Pump 58.000 26.500 30.900 2710
Washing machine F-Au 68.700 37.800 42.100 2660
Refrigerator 72.900 40.600 45.100 2778
Washing machine T-Imp. 112.000 54.100 62.100 4970
Washing machine T-Au 119.000 57.700 66.300 5320
PC 144.000 68.800 79.300 6500
Dish washer 180.000 91.100 103.000 7621
6-9
200.00
UCPTE
180.00
AU
160.00 US
Linear (UCPTE)
140.00
Eco-indicator 99 (Pts)
Linear (US)
120.00 Linear (AU)
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Life time energy consumption (kWh)
Figure 6.2 Correlations between product environmental impacts and lifetime

energy consumption for 3 regions.
6.3 Case Studies
Two case studies were conducted to verify the application of the simplified
environmental assessment approach as part of the integrated decision model. The
product information was provided by the EcoDesign Project Team at the Hong Kong
Polytechnic University under the EcoDesign Program for Hong Kong Electrical
Appliance Manufacturers. The initial LCAs were carried out using the software package
SimaPro 4.0. To keep consistency in the study, additional LCAs were conducted for the
two cases with the software package SimaPro 5.0 using Eco-indicator 99.
6.3.1 Kettle
The water kettle is one of the OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) products
manufactured in China and exported to the Netherlands. The cordless kettle is an
6-10
electrical appliance with a maximum capacity 1 litre. The functional unit is defined as
each boil carries 1 litre of cold water, and the kettle is used twice a day. The time for
fully boiling water requires five minutes and the life span of the kettle is two years,
which is due to the behaviour of the customer, for example, buying a new model. The
life cycle assessment of water is not included. The operating voltage of kettle is
220V-240V, 1250W-1500W at 50-60Hz. The major function of the kettle includes:
• Boil water within 5 minutes;

• Cut off the power automatically when water is boiled;
• Apply overheat protector in dry-boil condition;
• Since the heater is installed of the bottom of the outside face of the jug pot,
the kettle can be used for other cooking purposes.
6.3.1.1 The LCA Impact Profile of the Kettle
As shown in Table 6.4, the Eco-indicator 99 single score of the kettle life cycle is 4.2
Pts, with 0.452 Pts incurred by the kettle assemblies (including the processing of
components), 3.75 Pts generated by the energy consumption during the usage stage and
0.0033 Pts from the disposal of the kettle. Figure 6.3 depicts the environmental profile
of the kettle life cycle. It is found that the major environmental damages are in the
category of Human Health and Resource, through the impacts on Respiratory effects
and Depletion of Fossil Fuels.
6-11
Table 6.4 Environmental impact of the kettle life cycle
Environmental Impact
Life cycle of kettle
Indicator (Pts)
Kettle Assemblies 0.452
Complete jug handle 0.0345
Jug base unit 0.0561
Jug heater unit 0.119
Jug lid unit 0.0517
Jug pot unit 0.0985
Lead wire sub-assembly 0.0104
Noen lamp w/resistor 5.43E-05
Other plastic parts 0.0548
Power cable 0.0144
Packaging 0.0126
Usage--Electricity UCPTE B250 3.75
Disposal --Household waste NL B250 0.0033
Total 4.2
Pt
4 3.75
3
2
1 0.452
0.00513
0
-0.00183
-1
Kettle assemblies Electricity UCPTE B250 Household w aste NL B250

Radiation Ozone layer Ecotoxicity A cidification/ Eutrophic a
Analyzing 1 p life cycle 'Life cycle of kettle'; Method: Eco-indicator 99 (H) / Europe EI 99 H/A / single score
Figure 6.3 Environmental profile of the kettle life cycle
6-12
6.3.1.2 The Simplified Assessment of the Kettle
The simplified assessment was performed for the life cycle of the kettle using the
calculation for IE only, IUCPTE=EUCPTE * DE-UCPET. The computed result is 3.75 Pts with
the deviation of 10.68% compared to the LCA result of 4.2 Pts. According to the
analysis in Chapter 5, the environmental damages associated with the Energy-based
Environmental Impact (IUCPTE) are mainly in categories of Human Health and Resources
through the impact categories of Fossil Fuel Depletion, Respiratory Effects and Climate
Change. This is in line with the environmental impact profile identified by the LCA of
the kettle life cycle. Chapter 5 also identified that the major substances for IUCPTE are Oil,
Natural Gas, NO2, CO2, SO2, and Dust (Table 5.9), which in this case, represent 75.2%
of the total impact associated with the kettle life cycle (shown in Figure 6.4).
%
24.8
25
20
20
14.8
15
11.7 11.1 11.1
10
6.58
5
0
Total
crude oil ETH SOx (as SO2) natural gas ETH NOx (as NO2)
CO2 dust Remaining substances
Analyzing 1 p life cycle 'Life cycle of kettle'; Method: Eco-indicator 99 (H) / Europe EI 99 H/A / single score
Figure 6.4 Major substances for the environmental impact of the kettle life cycle
6.3.1.3 The Eco-design Alternative of the Kettle
Under the EcoDesign Program, a redesign of the kettle was conducted with the
collaboration of an overseas institute, based on the results of the LCA. The eco-design
improved the energy efficiency by 12%. The integrated decision model proposed in
Chapter 3 was applied to compare the Eco-design of the kettle and the original design,
6-13
considering the environmental performance together with the design objectives of

product performance, product cost, product development speed, and development
expenses.
Table 6.4 shows the product development features of the kettle. A typical feature is the
short product life cycle of 2 years due to consumer behaviour with a medium speed of
technical development. The environmental awareness in the market is at medium level
with a high level of price competitiveness. As the result, the relative importance of the
design objectives was calculated as given in Table 6.5.
Table 6.5 Features of a kettle
Table 6.6 Relative importance of design objectives for a kettle
PP PP PP PP DS/PP PP/EP 4 26.67%
DS DS/PP DS DS DS DS 4.5 30.00%
EP PP/EP PC EP DS EP 2.5 16.67%
6-14
The result of the paired comparison shows that Product Performance (PP) and
Development Speed (DS) have the highest weight, whereas Product Cost (PC) and
Environmental Performance (EP) are of medium importance, and Development
Expenses (DE) has the lowest ranking. These weighting factors were applied to the
evaluation of the Total Performance for the original design of the kettle and the
eco-design. The results are given in Table 6.6 indicating that the original design has a
better total performance, which is mainly caused by the high cost (DE) and the time
consumption (DS) associated with conducting LCA for the Eco-design.
Table 6.7 Total performance of design alternatives for the kettle
Target
Performance Levels of
Performance
Design Alternatives
Design Weighting Factor Levels
Objectives (∑Wi=100) Original
Ecodesign
(Pi) design
(Xi)
(Xi)
Product Cost WC 20.00% Pc (USD) 13.46 13.46 12.11
Product
WP 26.67% PP (points) 100 100 110
Performance
Environmental 4.2 4.2 3.76
WEN 16.67% PEN (Pts)
Performance (3.75) (3.75) (3.30)
Development PEX
WEX 6.67% 3 150 150 220
Expense (10 USD)
Development
WS 30.00% PS(months) 12 12 16
Speed (months)
n
Pi − X i
Total Performance TP = ∑Wi 0 -0.07
i =1 Pi (0)* (0.07)*
* Denotes the calculations of the simplified approach.
In order to investigate the effect of applying the simplified assessment approach, EP

was computed with the equation of IUCPTE=EUCPTE * DE-UCPET. The result of EPORIGINAL
is 3.75 Pts and EPECO is 3.30 Pts. The calculations are very simple, and therefore they
cause no extra expenses and time for conducting the environmental assessment. This
6-15
resulted in a total performance for the Eco-design of 0.07, which is slightly better than
the original design. This result is very plausible since the eco-design is expected to
perform slightly better than the original design. However, this is only possible when
applying a simplified environmental assessment. It also shows that the efforts associated
with a full LCA can be prohibitive for the introduction of eco-design solutions.
6.3.2 Toaster
Another case study was conducted on a multi-function 2-slice toaster, which is one of
the OEM products manufactured by a Hong Kong company for export to the European
market. The functional unit is defined as the toaster being used twice a day with two
slices of bread each time. Each toasting process requires four minutes. The life span of
the toaster is 3 years. The Life Cycle Assessment of bread is not included in the study.
The operating voltage of toaster is 220-240V, 780W, at 50-60Hz. The major functions of
the toaster include:
• Bread toasting;
• Bun-warming;
• Reheating: for quick heating up;
• Defrosting: for defrosting and toasting in one go;
• Canceling: to stop toast process whenever wanted;
• No overheating of outer shell (plastic);
• Removable crump tray;
• Extra lift: for removing even the smallest pieces of toast;
6.3.2.1 The LCA Impact Profile of the Toaster
Table 6.7 shows the Eco-indicator 99 single score of the Toaster Life Cycle. The total
impact is 2.62 Pts, with 0.274 Pts from the Toaster Assemblies (including the processing
of components), 2.34 Pts from the energy consumption during usage phase and 0.00335
Pts from the disposal of Toaster. Figure 6.5 presents the environmental profile of the
toaster life cycle showing that the major environmental damages are in the category of
6-16
Human Health and Resources, through the impacts on Respiratory Effects and
Depletion of Fossil Fuels.
Table 6.8 Environmental impact of toaster life cycle
Environmental Impact
Life cycle of Toaster
Indicator (Pts)
Toaster Assemblies 0.274
Bottom cover unit 0.0207
Heater frame unit 0.0662
Heater unit 0.0003
Metal unit 0.0061
Moving mechanism 0.0152
Outer shell unit 0.0836
Packaging 0.0250
Plastic Accessory unit 0.0280
Power cable 0.0144
Sea ship B250 0.0148
Usage--Electricity UCPTE B250 2.34
Disposal --Household waste NL B250 0.00335
Total 2.62
6-17
Pt
2.5 2.34
2
1.5
1
0.274
0.00635
0
-0.5 -0.00299
Toaster assemblies Electricity UCPTE B250 Household w aste NL B250

Radiation Ozone layer Ecotoxicity A cidification/ Eutrophic a
Analyzing 1 p life cycle 'Toaster life cycle'; Method: Eco-indicator 99 (H) / Europe EI 99 H/A / single score
Figure 6.5 Environmental profile of the toaster life cycle
6.3.2.2 The Simplified Assessment of the Toaster
Applying the simplified approach to the life cycle of the toaster resulted in 2.34 Pts for
the total impact with the deviation of 10.65% compared to the LCA result of 2.62 Pts.
The simplified assessment identified that the major environmental damages associated
with the Energy-based Environmental Impact (IUCPTE) are in the categories of Human
Health and Resources through the impacts on Fossil Fuel Depletion, Respiratory Effects
and Climate Change. This is confirmed by the environmental impact profile identified
by the LCA of the toaster life cycle (Figure 6.5). It also identified that the major
substances for IUCPTE are Oil, Natural gas, NO2, CO2, SO2, and Dust, which represent
76% of the total impact associated with the toaster life cycle (Figure 6.6).
6-18
25 24
20.5
20
15.1
15 11.7 11.3 10.9
10
6.53
5
0
Total
crude oil ETH SOx (as SO2) natural gas ETH NOx (as NO2)
CO2 dust Remaining substances
Analyzing 1 p life cycle 'Toaster life cycle'; Method: Eco-indicator 99 (H) / Europe EI 99 H/A / single score
Figure 6.6 Major substances for the environmental impact of the toaster life cycle
6.3.2.3 The Eco-design Alternative of the Toaster
The Eco-design alternative for the toaster, developed under the EcoDesign Program,
targeted the problem of material waste in the original design, and the solutions were
developed as follows:
• Minimize the outer shell size from 280 x 180 x 180mm to 240 x 170 x 167 mm;
• Reduce the wall thickness from 2.5mm to 2.2mm;
• Reduce the weight of outer shell from 296.4g to 195.4g;
• Minimize the bottom cover unit from 278 x 178 x 28mm to 238 x 168 x 28mm,
resulting in decrease of weight from 73.3g to 59.2g.
The integrated decision model was applied to compare the eco-design of the toaster and
the original design. As shown in Table 6.8 the development features of the toaster
include a short product life cycle of 3 years due to consumer behaviour with a medium
speed of technical development. The price competitiveness in the market is at high level
and environmental awareness is at medium level.
6-19
Table 6.9 Features of the toaster
Table 6.10 Relative importance of design objectives for the toaster
PP PP PP PP DS/PP PP/EP 4 26.67%
DS DS/PP DS DS DS DS 4.5 30.00%
EP PP/EP PC EP DS EP 2.5 16.67%
The relative importance of the design objectives was calculated as given in Table 6.9.
The result of the paired comparison shows the highest weights for PP and DS, medium
importance for PC and EP, and low ranking for DE. These weighting factors were
applied, as shown in Table 6.10 to evaluate the Total Performance for the original
design of the toaster and the eco-design alternative. Although the design team had
reduced the cost (DE) and the time consumption (DS) associated with conducting the
LCA for the eco-design, the cost of the LCA still remains the major reason for a slightly
better total performance of the original design in comparison to the eco-desgin.
The application of the simplified approach results in 2.341 Pts for EPORIGINAL
(calculated by the equation of IUCPTE=EUCPTE * DE-UCPET). As the eco-design was
6-20
targeted at reducing the material waste, which had no effect on the energy consumption
during the usage phase, the Material-based Environmental Impact Driver (DM) of the
simplified approach was used to compute the improvement on EP for the eco-design by
using the equations (Equation 4-1,4-2,4-3). The result for EPECO is 2.337 Pts. The
reduction of 0.004 Pts was calculated by applying DM (0.03753 Pts/kg) of
Thermoplastics to the material saving of 115.1g of PP in the eco-design. It was assumed
that there is no extra expense and time for conducting the environmental assessment by
the simplified method. This resulted in a total performance for the eco-design of 0.01,
which again proves the significant effect of applying the simplified approach.
Table 6.11 Total performance of design alternatives for the toaster
Target
Performance Levels of
Performance
Design Alternatives
Design Weighting Factor Levels
Objectives (∑Wi=100) Original
Ecodesign
(Pi) design
(Xi)
(Xi)
Product Cost WC 20.00% Pc (USD) 9.45 9.45 8.97
Product
WP 26.67% PP (points) 100 100 100
Performance
Environmental 2.62 2.62 2.58

WEN 16.67% PEN (Pts)
Performance (2.341) (2.341) (2.337)
Development PEX
WEX 6.67% 150 150 200
Expense (103 USD)
Development
WS 30.00% PS(months) 12 12 16
Speed (months)
n
Pi − X i
Total Performance TP = ∑Wi 0 -0.11
i =1 Pi (0)* (0.01)*
* Denotes the calculations of the simplified approach.
6-21
6.4 Conclusions
The proposed methodology was verified by the comparison of the results from different
product LCA cases. In addition, it was suggested that the assessment can be further
simplified if a product can be assigned to one of the major product impact groups. For
active products, the lifecycle energy consumption proofs to be a good indicator for the
total environmental impact. For passive product, only material-based environmental
impacts need to be calculated, using the material-based environmental impact drivers.
The case studies showed that the simplified approach could be used to estimate the total
environmental impact of a product and to provide the environmental profile with
acceptable accuracy.
The case studies of the kettle and the toaster also demonstrated that the application of
the simplified approach leads to a significant reduction in cost and time consumption for
the environmental assessment. At this point, it must be highlighted that the results for
the total performance of the kettle and the toaster show very small differences between
the original design and the eco-design. Since such small differences lie within the range
of accuracy of the whole assessment process, they could hardly be used for selecting the
better alternative of the designs. However, the main purpose of the case studies was to
prove that a full LCA at the early stage of design decisions is clearly prohibitive for
considering environmental aspects in the design process. Therefore, at least for this
early design stage, a simplified approach with reasonable accuracy and very short
calculations is the only way to integrate environmental performance in the design
process.
The simplified approach, however, does not replace a full LCA, which still needs to be
carried out at a later stage. Such more comprehensive assessment remains a valuable
tool for designers to consider environmental impacts from all life cycle phases for the
fine tuning of designs and for the final life cycle costing of a product.
6-22
Chapter 7 Conclusion
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSION
Chapter 7 describes the main research points of this thesis and summarizes the critical
findings and observations resulting from the research. This chapter also identifies
opportunities for future research.
7.1 Research Contributions
LCA has been successfully used as an environmental assessment tool for the
development of ecologically sustainable products. The LCA application at the early
design stage depends largely on how a LCA result can be achieved in a timely manner
and how effectively it can be integrated into to the process of product development.
The research work presented in this thesis provides an integrated decision model for
sustainable product development and the associated simplified environmental
assessment approach for the application in the early stage of product design. The main
advantage of the proposed model is that it incorporates the environmental aspects into
the existing product development framework. The simplified approach is based on the
concept and application of Environmental Impact Drivers. It enables designers to
perform a quick assessment of the environmental impacts associated with a product
design, without requiring large amounts of detailed data, which in most cases, are not
available in the early stage of product development.
The study was focused on the development of Environmental Impact Drivers. This was
achieved by analyzing the properties of materials and their LCA results as well as their
environmental inventory data. The material cases were classified into 16 groups
according to the nature of the materials and their environmental performance, and the
Material-based Environmental Impact Drivers (DM) were identified for each group.
7-1
Energy-based Environmental Impact Drivers (DE) were developed for the various
energy sources in major industrial regions. The impact drivers were then adopted in the
simplified environmental assessment approach to calculate the Environmental
Performance Indicator (I) of a product design. The integrated decision model was
proposed to balance the product’s environmental performance with other design
objectives. Product LCA case studies were used to compare the results from the
proposed simplified approach with those of the LCA studies. The results indicate that it
is possible and reasonable to apply the identified environmental impact drivers for a
quick estimation of a product’s environmental impacts at the early design stage.
For active products with the environmental impacts dominated by the energy
consumption during the usage phase, environmental impacts can be estimated based on
the life cycle energy consumption and the appropriate Energy-based Environmental
Impact Driver (DE). Or even simpler, the proposed regression equations can be used for
a quick answer. For passive products with no energy consumption during the usage
phase, an index of 16 Material-based Environmental Impact Drivers was identified,
which can be used to estimate the environmental impacts associated with the material
selection of a product design. For products with environmental impacts from both,
material phase and usage phase, the aggregation of IE and IM should be calculated.
This approach simplifies the tedious task of collecting detailed information required for
LCA, and designers can use this simple guideline to optimize their effort and direct their
decisions at the early stage of product development.
The major contributions of this research work can be outlined as follows:
• The identification of Environmental Impact Drivers is the major contribution of

this research. It forms the basis of the proposed simplified environmental
assessment approach, representing the key factors that determine the
environmental impacts associated with a product system. Two sets of impact
drivers were identified, namely Material-based Environmental Impact Drivers
(DM) and Energy-based Environmental Impact Drivers (DE). Further analysis on
the environmental life cycle inventory of the impact drivers provide designers
7-2
with an insight of the environmental profiles associated with the material groups
and the energy usage.
• A simplified environmental assessment approach is proposed by applying the

impact drivers. This approach provides a timely assessment tool for the
designers to estimate the environmental impacts of a product design with limited
data requirements. It avoids the need for extensive detailed data and the complex
and time-consuming LCA tasks.
• The introduction of an environmental perspective into the concurrent product

development process provides an integrated decision model for sustainable
product development. It aims to balance the environmental performance of a
product against traditional design objectives at the early stage of product
development. Existing weighting systems are adopted to assess the total
performance of competing design alternatives. The methodology provides a
coherent evaluation of design alternatives under the consideration of their
environmental performance.
The following section presents suggestions for future research areas and possible
extensions of the current research work.
7.2 Future Research
This research was based on the current knowledge of environmental impacts and
existing case studies, focusing on the most commonly used technical products with their
main impacts deriving from the material and the usage phases. However, there might be
other products of interest with their main impacts deriving from the production or
disposal phases, for instances highly toxic substances or radiation. Therefore, additional
investigations could be carried out in order to extend the application of the simplified
approach to product types with those specific, rare features.
• Group technology may be applied to production processes and product disposals.

This may lead to some simplified environmental impact drivers for products
7-3
with major environmental concerns from the stages of manufacturing and end-
of-life. New product cases with specific features in these stages need to be
defined.
Possible extensions of the current research work were also identified through the
discussion with designers. In a collaborative project with the design department of a
leading Australian household appliances manufacturer, a LCA case study of an electric
blanket was conducted using three different tools: SimaPro 5.1, Eco-it 1.3 and the
simplified environmental assessment approach proposed in this thesis. The method of
Eco-indicator 99 was used in all three tools for the comparison of the results.
The detailed LCA results from SimaPro 5.1 indicate that the major environmental
impacts of the electric blanket life cycle are from the blanket material of polyester fabric
(39.21%) and the energy consumption at usage stage (36.51%). The result of Eco-it has
a deviation of 24.48% compared to the results generated by SimaPro, and it indicates
that the energy consumption at usage stage is the dominant contributor to the total
environmental impact of the electric blanket life cycle (85%). The reasons for the
misleading results are that the material database in Eco-it does not include the polyester
fabric, which is the major contributor according to the assessment by SimaPro. At the
same time only the European energy consumption data are available in Eco-it, no
Australian data is included. Therefore designers have to be aware of those limitations
associated with the simplified software package. The missing information may have a
significant impact on the accuracy of the assessment result.
The simplified approach was also applied using the energy based and material based
impact drivers. The list of material based environmental impact drivers was updated to
include the textile material for this case. The computed result has a deviation of 13.28%
compared to the results from SimaPro 5.1, and it indicates that the material of the
blanket assembly and the energy consumption at usage stage are the major contributors
to its total environmental impact. The simplified approach also identified that the major
environmental damages associated with the electric blanket are in the category of
Depletion of Fossil Fuel and Respiratory Effects through the substances of Oil, Natural
7-4
gas, CO2, NOx, NO2, SOx, and SO2. This is in line with the Life Cycle Inventory results
from the assessment using SimaPro 5.1.
In discussions with designers on the studied case, it was agreed that comprehensive
LCA software provides more detailed and accurate results but it is associated with
higher costs and is more time consuming. The abridged LCA software is easier to use
with less costs, however it was noticed that, without providing the Life Cycle Inventory
results, the single score is a simplification of the complex interaction between a product
and the environment and the simplified databases may not cover significant contributors
to the total environmental performance of some products. The simplified LCA approach
using material based and energy based environmental impact drivers is easy to be
updated, applied and understood. The deviation caused by the simplified approach is
acceptable for the application in the early stage of product development. The extension
of the current research should include regular updates on the impact drivers according to
the improvement on environmental information about materials and energy
consumptions along with the development of the LCA methodology.
The designers also pointed out that marketing requirements and the profitability of the
new product are still the primary considerations in the design process. Environmental
assessment would not be of the same importance unless it demonstrates its benefits on
marketing or profitability. It would facilitate the application of LCA in the design
process, if the assessment results can be expressed in monetary value. A possible
extension of the current research may be on the economic assessment of the
environmental impact associated with products.
The economic assessment of the environmental impact associated with the product
system may be investigated based on the environmental profile identified from the LCI
analysis for material and energy-based environmental impact drivers. Approximate
measurements may be developed for the major contributors (e.g. CO2, NOX, and SOX
etc.) to estimate the economic cost of the environmental impacts associated with a
product system.
7-5
References
REFERENCES
Akermark, A.M, (1999), Design for Environment from the Designers' Perspective.
Proceedings of ECODEsign 99: First International Symposium on Environmentally
Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing, Tokyo, Japan, pp 47-50.
Aldenderfer, M. and Blashfield, R., (1984), Cluster Analysis, Sage Publications Ltd.
London.
Allen, K. and Carlson-Skalak (1998), Defining Product Architecture in Conceptual

Design, ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, ASME, Atlanta, USA.
Allenby, Braden R. and Laudine, Robert A., (1995), The Importance of Industrial
Ecology and Design for Environment to AT&T, AT&T Technical Journal
Novemebr/December 1995.
Allenby, Braden R., (1999), Industrial Ecology: Policy Framework and Implementation,
Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Alting, L., (1993), Life-Cycle Design of Products: A New Opportunity for

Manufacturing Enterprises in Concurrent Engineering Automation, Tools, and
Techniques, A. Kusiak (ed.), John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Alting, L. and Legarth, J.B., (1995), Life Cycle Engineering and Design, Annals of the
CIRP Vol. 44/2/1995, pp1-11.
Alting, L., Hauschild, M., and Wenzel, H., (1998), Elements in a new sustainable
industrial culture- Environmental assessment in product development, Journal of
Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol.14, Issue 5-6, pp.429-439.
R-1
References
Arabie, P., Hubert, L.J., and De Soete, G., (1996), Clustering and Classification. World
Scientific Publishing Co., Pte. Ltd., Singapore.
Atik, A., and Shulz, H., (1999), Simplified Evaluation Methods for the Development of
Environmentally Sound Products in Earlier Design Process, in Proceedings of 6th
CIRP International Seminar on Life Cycle Engineering, Tokyo, pp.380 – 410.
Ashby, MF. (1999), Materials selection in mechanical design (2nd Ed.) Oxford,
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Asiedu, Y. and Gu, P., (1998), Product life cycle cost analysis: state of the art review,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 883-908.
Azzone, G. and Bertelè, U., (1994), Exploiting green strategies for competitive
advantage, Long Range Planning, Vol.27, Issue 6, pp. 69-81.
Barry L. Bayus, (1997), Speed-to-Market and New Product Performance Trade-offs,

Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 14, Issue 6, pp 485-497.
BATE, (1998a), 3M Uses Eco-Efficiency to Move in Sustainable Direction, Business

and the Environment, pp. 9-10.
BATE, (1998b), Forecast: Key Trends for 1998, Business and the Environment, pp.2-6.
BATE, (1998c), How Two Pharmaceutical firms Are Using LCA for Competitive
Advantage, Business and the Environment, pp. 5-6.
BATE, (1998d), Long-term, Holistic Approach pays Off for Electrolux, Business and
the Environment, pp. 5-6.
Berkhout F, Hertin J, Azzone G, Carlens J, and Drunen M., (2001), Measuring the
environmental performance of industry (MEPI), Final report, EC Environment and
R-2
References
Climate Change Program: Research Theme 4. Human dimensions of climate change,

www.environmental-performance.org
Bey, N. and Lenau, T., (1999), Creating the Data Basis for Environmental Evaluations
with the Oil Point Method, 6th International Seminar on Life Cycle Engineering of
the Life Cycle Working Group of CIRP: The Next Millennium, 21-23 June 1999,
Ontario, Canada.
Bhamra, T. A., Evans, S., McAloone, T. C., Simon, M., Poole, S., and Sweatman, A.,
(1999), Integrating Environmental Decisions into the Product Development Process:
Part 1 The Early Stages, Proceedings of the First International Symposium on
Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing, IEEE, Tokyo, pp
329-333.
Biswas, G., Kamamura, K., Saad, A., and Curtin, M., (1995), Intelligent and
Environmentally Conscious Manufacturing Systems State of the Art, International
Journal of Environmentally Conscious Design & Manufacturing, Vol. 4, No.2.
Boks, C. (2000), Assessment of Future End-of-Life Scenarios for Consumer Electronic

Products, Design for Sustainability. Delft, NL, Delft University of Technology.
Boothroyd, G., P. Dewhurst and W. Knight, (1994), Product design for manufacture and
Assembly, New York, NY, M. Dekker.
Borland, N., and Wallace, D. (2000), Environmentally Conscious Product Design: A

Collaborative Internet-based Modelling Approach, Journal of Industrial Ecology,
Vol. 3(3), pp33-46.
Borland, N., Wallace, D. R. and Kaufmann, H. P. (1998), Integrating Environmental

Impact Assessment Into Product Design, Proceedings of the 1998 ASME Design
Engineering Technical Conference, DETC98/DFM-5730, Georgia Institute of
Technology, Atlanta.
R-3
References
Boustead, Ian (1996), Life Cycle Assessment: An Overview, Proceedings of the First
National Conference on Life Cycle Assessment, Clean Air Society, Melbourne.
Bralla, J. (1986), Handbook of Product Design for Manufacturing, New York, NY,
McGraw Hill.
Bretz, R. and Frankhauser, P. (1996) Screening LCA for Large Numbers of Products:
Estimation Tools to Fill Data Gaps, International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,
Vol. 1, No. 3, pp.139-146.
Centre for Environmental Studies (CML), (2001), CML 2 baseline method, University
of Leiden. http://www.leidenuniv.nl/interfac/cml/ssp/lca/index
Chang, T.C., Wysk, R.A. and Wang, H.P. (1998), Computer-Aided Manufacturing (2nd
Ed.), Prentice-Hall Inc., New Jersey.
Christansen, K., (Eds), (1997), Simplifying LCA: Just a cut?, SETAC-Europe, Brussels,
Belgium.
Curran, M. A., (1996), Environmental Life Cycle Assessment, McGraw-Hill Companies

Inc, New York.
Davis T., (1992), Business associations for environmental management: the case of
BAUM and INEM Ecodecision, Vol. 7, pp. 50-54.
Dewulf, W., Sas, P. and Van Brussel, H., (1999), Life cycle assessment of a windshield
wiper-a case study, EcoDesign '99: First International Symposium On
Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing, pp. 120 – 123.
Eagan, P. and Koning, John Jr.(1995), Application Principles for the Use of DFE Tools,
IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, 3 May 1995.
R-4
References
Emblemsvag, J. and Bras, B. (1999), Integrating Economic and Environmental

Performance Measurements Using Activity-Based LCA, 6th International Seminar on
Life Cycle Engineering, 21-23 June 1999, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Erik, J. H., Griffin, A., Hart, S. and Robben, H. S. J. (1997), Industrial New Product
Launch Strategies and Product Development Performance, Journal of Product
Innovation Management, Vol. 14, Issue, pp243-257.
Eriksson, M., and Izar, M., (2000), Life-cycle Assessment on Saucepans, KTH Project,
Stockholm, Sweden.
Esterman, M., and K., Ishii (1999), Challenges in Robust Concurrent Product
Development Across the Supply Chain, ASME Design For Manufacture, Las Vegas,
NV.
Evans, S., Bhamra, T., and McAloone, T. (1999), An Ecodesign model based on
industry experience, CIRP Life Cycle Engineering: The Next Millennium,
International Institution for Production Engineering Research, Kingston, Canada, pp.
122-130.
Fiksel, J.(1996), Design for Environment: Creating Eco-efficient Products and

Processes, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Fischer, K. and Schot, J.(Eds.).(1993), Environmental Strategies for Industry:

International Perspectives on Research needs and Policy Implications, Island Press,
Washington.
Fleischer, G and Schmidt, W.P., (1997), Iterative Screening LCA in an Eco-Design

Tool, International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2 LCA (1) pp.20-24.
Frankl, P. and Rubik, F., (Eds), (2000), Life Cycle Assessment in Industry and
Business. Adoption Patterns, Applications and Implications, Springer, Berlin,
R-5
References
Heidelberg, New York, Barcelona, Hong Kong, London, Milan, Paris, Singapore,
Tokyo.
Frei, M. and Zuest, R., (1997), The eco-effective product design - the systematic
including of environmental aspects in defining requirements, Proceedings of the 4th
International Seminar on Life Cycle Engineering, Berlin, Germany, pp. 395-406.
Gabi. http://www.pe-product.de/GABI/htdoc/home_english.htm; 2002.
Gardiner, Keith M., (1996), An Integrated Design Strategy for Future Manufacturing
Systems, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 52-61.
Goedkopp, M. and Spriensma, R., (1999), The Eco-indicator 99. A damage oriented
method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment, Methodology report’, PR’e consultants,
The Netherlands.
Gershenson, J. and Ishii, K., (1991), Life-cycle serviceability design, ASME Design
Theory and Methodology Conference, Miami, pp. 127 - 134.
Gertzakis, J. and Mussett, G., (2000), LCA in the Product Design Process, 2nd National
Conference on LCA: Pathways to Eco-Efficiency, 23-24 February 2000, Melbourne,
Australia.
Goedkoop, M., (1999), The Eco-indicator 99: A Damage Oriented Method for Life
Cycle Impact Assessment, Pre Consultants B.V., Netherlands.
Graedel, T. E. and Allenby, B. R., (1995), Industrial Ecology, Prentice Hall, New
Jersey.
Graedel, T., Allenby, B., and Combrie, P., (1995), Matrix Approaches to Abridged Life-
Cycle Assessment, Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 29(3), pp. 134-139.
R-6
References
Graedel, T.E., (1998), Streamlined life-cycle assessment, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
Guinee, J. B., Gorree, M., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Kleijn, R., de Koning, A.,van Oers,
L., Wegener Sleewijk, A., Suh, S., Udo de Haes, H. A., de Bruijn, H.,van Duin, R.,
Huijbregts, M. A. J., Lindeijer, E., Roorda, A. A. H., van der Ven, B. and Weidema,
B. P. (2001), Life Cycle Assessment. An operational guide to the ISO Standards,
Final Report, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM)
and Centre for Environmental Science, Leiden University (CML), Leiden.
Hanssen, O. J. (1996), Sustainable Industrial Product Systems: Integration of Life Cycle

Assessment in Product Development and Optimisation of Product Systems, Doctor
Techn. Thesis Dissertation, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
Hanssen, O.J. (1998), Environmental impacts of products in a life cycle perspective: a

survey of five product types based on life cycle assessments studies, Journal of
Cleaner Production, vol. 6 (3-4), pp. 299-311.
Hanssen, O. J, (1999), Sustainable Product Systems – Experiences Based on Case

Projects in Sustainable Product Development, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 7,
pp.27-41.
Hawken, P., (1999), Natural capitalism: the next industrial revolution, Earthscan
London.
Hockerts, K., Adda, S. and Jean, P., (1998), Implementation of Design for Environment
Software in the Electronics Industry, Proceedings of the 2nd Symposium on Eco-
Efficient Concepts for the Electronics Industry, 16-19 Nov '98, Vienna.
Hoffman III, W., (1997), Recent advances in design for environment at Motorola,
Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 1 (1), pp. 131-140.
R-7
References
Heijungs, R., Guinee, J., Huppes, G., Landreijer, R.M., Udo de Haes, H.A., Wegener
Sleeswijk, A., Ansemsm, A.M.M., Eggels, P.G., van Duin, R. and de Geode, H.P.
(1992), Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Products: Guide and Backgrounds,
Centre of Environmental Science Leiden University, Leiden.
Hinnells, M. (1993), Environmental Factors in Products: How to Gather the Evidence,

Design Studies, Vol. 14, No. 4, October 1993, pp. 457-475.
Holloway, L. (1998), Materials selection for optimal environmental impact in

mechanical design, Materials & Design, Vol. 19 (4) pp.133-143.
IDEMAT, (2002), Industrial Design Engineering software program, Delft University of

Technology, Delft, NL, www.io.tudelft.nl/research/dfs/idemat
Ishii, K., Eubanks, C. F., and Di Marco, P. (1994), Design for product retirement and
material lifecycle, Materials & Design, Vol. 15(4), pp. 225-233.
Ishii, K. and Lee., B., (1996), Reverse Fishbone Diagram: A tool in Aid of Design for
Product Retirement, ASME, Design Technical Conference, Irvine, CA.
Jansen, A. J. and Stevels, A. L. N., (1998), The EPAs Method, A Systematic Approach
in Environmental Product Assessment, Care Vision 2000, Care Vision, Vienna,
Austria.
Jeswiet, J. (2003), A definition for life cycle engineering, Proceedings of the 36th
International Seminar on Manufacturing Systems, Saarbrucken, Germany, pp 17-30.
Kaebernick, H., and Soriano, V., (2000), An Approach to Simplified Environmental

Assessment by Classification of Products, Proceedings of the 7th International
Seminar on Life Cycle Engineering, Tokyo, pp163-169.
Keoleian, G., Spatari, S. and Beal, R. (1997), Project Summary: Life Cycle Design of a
Fuel Tank System, NRMR1, US EPA Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA/600/SR-97/l18.
R-8
References
Keoleian, G. A., (1995), Product Life-Cycle Assessment To Reduce Health Risks and
Environmental Impacts, Noyes Data Corporation, New Jersey.
Keoleian, G., Koch, J., and Menerey, D., (1995), Life Cycle Design Framework and
Demonstration Projects: Profiles of AT & T and Allied Signal, Prepared for US
EPA, NPPC, Univ. of Michigan.
Kmenta, S., Fitch, P., and Ishii, K., (1999), Advanced Failure Modes and Effects
Analysis of Complex Processes, ASME Design For Manufacture, Las Vegas, NV.
Krishnan, V., and Ulrich, K., (2001), Product Development Decisions: A Review of the
Literature, Management of Science, Special Issue on Design and Development, Vol.
47(1), pp1-21.
Lanjouw, Jean O., and Mody, A., (1996), Innovation and the International Diffusion of
Environmentally Responsive Technology, Research Policy, Vol. 25, pp.549-571.
Largerstedt, J. (2003), Functional and environmental factors in early phases of product

development- Eco Functional Matrix, PhD thesis, KTH.
Lagerstedt, J. and Luttropp, C. (2001), Functional Priority in Eco Design- Quality

Function Deployment, Value Analysis and Functional Profile, 13th International
Conference on Engineering Design, ICED, Glasgow, Scotland
Lucacher, R. (1996), Competitive advantage and the environment: Building a

framework for achieving environmental advantage, IEEE International Symposium
on Electronics and the Environment, IEEE, Dallas, TX, USA.
Mackenzie, D. (1996), Green Design: Design for Environment, Laurence King

Publishing, London, UK
R-9
References
Martin, M. V. (2000), Design for Variety: A Methodology for Developing New Product
Platform Architectures, Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University.
McMichael, F.C., (1999), Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Analysis (EIOLCA),

Carnegie Mellon & Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Mueller, K.G. and Besant, C.B., (1999), Streamlining Life Cycle Analysis: a Method,
Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Environmentally Conscious
Design and Inverse Manufacturing, IEEE, Tokyo, pp.114-119.
Murphy, J. and Gouldson, A., (2000), Environmental policy and industrial innovation:
integrating environment and economy through ecological modernisation, Geoforum
31 (1), pp. 33-44.
Osnowski, R. and Rubik, F., (1987), Product Line Analysis, Bedurfnisse, Product und
ihre Folgen, Koln: Kolner Volksblatt Verlag.
Ottman, J. (1998), Green Marketing: Opportunity for Innovation, Chicago, NTC

Business Books.
Persson, Jan-Gunnar.(1996), Product Design for Environmentally Optimal Service Life

Time in ECO-Pefformance '96, Presentations at the Third International Seminar on
Life Cycle Engineering, R. Zust, G. Caduff & M. Frei (eds.). Verlag Industrielle
Organisation, Zurich, Switzerland
Pezzoli, K., (1997), Sustainable development: A transdisciplinary overview of the

literature, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 40 (5), pp. 549-
602.
Porter, M., van der Linde, C., (1995), Green and competitive: ending the stalement,
Harvard Business Review (September-October), pp.120-134.
R-10
References
Porter, M. and Esty, D. (1998), Industrial Ecology and Competitiveness: Strategic

Implications for the Firm, Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 2(1), pp. 35-43.
Raar, J., and Hone, P., (1994), The Environment and Corporate Strategy and Their
Implications for Managerial Accounting: A Review, Working Paper Series No. 9430,
Graduate School of Management, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria.
Robert A., B., Modesto, A. M., and Steven, C. (1996), Wheelwright 1996, Strategic
Management of Technology and Innovation, Times Mirror Higher Education Group
Inc.
Rombouts, J.P. and Hennessey, J.M. (1999), Applying Classifications of Materials and
Energy Transformations to Environmental Assessment of Products, ECODEsign 99:
First International Symposium on Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse
Manufacturing, Tokyo, pp.98-101.
Rombouts, J.P. (1998), LEADS-II A Knowledge-based System for Ranking DfE-

Options, IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, IEEE
(Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers), pp.287-291.
Rose, C., Stevels, A., and Ishii, A., (2000), A New Approach to End-of-Life design
Advisor (ELDA), IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the
Environment, pp. 99-104.
Rose C.M., (2000), Design for environment: A method for formulation of end-of-life
strategies, PhD thesis, Dept. Mechanical engineering, Stanford University.
Rousseaux, P., Labouze, E., Suh, Y.J., Blanc, I., Gaveglia, V., and Navarro, A., (2001),
An overall Assessment of Life Cycle Inventory Quality: Application to the
Production of Polyethylene Bottles, The International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment, Vol. 6 (5), pp 299-306.
R-11
References
Rydh C.J., Sun M., (2003), Life Cycle Inventory Data for Materials Grouped According
to Environmental and Material Properties, Journal of Cleaner Production (Accepted).
Sarbacker, S. (1998), The Value Feasibility Evaluation Method: Improving Innovative

Product Development through the management of risk arising from ambiguity and
uncertainty, Mechanical Engineering. Stanford, Stanford University.
Scheller, H. and Hoffman, W.F. III, (1998), Life Cycle Assessment of a

telecommunication product, IEEE International Symposium on Electronics & the
Environment, pp. 304-309.
SETAC (Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry), (1993), Guidelines for

life-cycle assessment, a ‘Code of Practice’. Brussels, Belgium.
Sharma, A., Weitz, K., Peters, A., and Baskir, J.(1996), Streamlining LCA Case Study
Report: Disposable Versus Reusable Shop Towels, draft report, Research Triangle
Park, NC: RTI.
Sheng, Paul S., Domfeld, D.A. and Worhach, P. (1995), Integration Issues in "Green"
Design and Manufacturing. Manufacturing Review, Vol. 8, No.2, pp. 95-105.
SimaPro (2002), SimaPro 5 User’s Manual, PRé Consultants BV, The Netherlands,
URL: http://www.pre.nl.
Socolow, R., Andrews, C., Berkhout, F., Thomas, V. (Eds), (1997), Industrial Ecology
and Global Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Soriano, V. (2001), A Simplified Assessment Approach for Environmentally Sound

Product Systems Design, PhD Thesis, V. J. University of NSW, Sydney.
Sousa, I., Wallace, D. R., Borland, N., and Deniz, J., (1999), A Learning Surrogate LCA
Model for Integrated Product Design, Proceedings of the 6th International Seminar on
Life Cycle Engineering, Kingston, Canada, Queen's University, pp.209-219.
R-12
References
Sousa I, Eisenhard JL, Wallace DR., (2000), Approximate Life-Cycle Assessment of

Product Concepts using Learning Systems, J Industrial Ecology, Vol.4 (4), pp. 61-
82.
Steen, B., (1999), EPS-A Systematic Approach to Environmental priority Strategies in

Product development, Version 2000-Models and Data of the Default Method, CPM
report, 1999:5, CPM, Gothenburg.
Stevels, A. L. N., (1999), Ecodesign for Competitive Advantage, Stanford University

Instructional Television Network, Stanford, CA, pp. 183.
Stevels, A. L. N., (2000a), Green Marketing of Consumer Electronics, 2000 Electronics

Goes Green, Berlin, Germany.
Stevels, A. L. N. (2000b), Integration of Ecodesign into Business, Mechanical Life

Cycle Handbook: Good Environmental Design and Manufacturing. M. S. Hundal.
New York, Marcel Dekker: pp. 200.
Swedish EPA, (1996), Air Pollution Costs Billions, (Enviro N 21), Stockholm.
UK Ecolabeling Board, (1992), Ecolabeling Criteria for Washing Machines, PA

Consulting Group.
Ulrich, K., and Eppinger, S. (2000), Product Design and Development, Second Edition,
McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.
US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1992), Green Products by Design:

Choices for a Cleaner Environment, OTA-E-541, Washington, DC: US Government
Printing Office.
R-13
References
van Mier, Guido P.M. Sterke, Cees, J.L.M., Stevels, A. L.N., (1996), Life-cycle costs
calculations and green design options. Computer monitors as example, IEEE
International Symposium on Electronics & the Environment, pp. 191-196.
Walley, N., and Whitehead, B., (1994), It's not easy being green, Harvard Business
Review (May-June), pp. 46-52.
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development), (1987), Our Common

Future. Oxford University Press.
Weidema, B. (2000), LCA Developments for Promoting Sustainability, 2nd National

Conference on LCA: Pathways to Eco-Efficiency, 23-24 February 2000, Melbourne,
Australia.
Wenzel, H., Hauschild, M. and Alting, L., (1997), Environmental Assessment of

Products, Vol. 1 Methodology, Tools and Case Studies in Product Development,
Chapman & Hall, London, UK.
R-14
APPENDIX A
BRIEF INTRODUCTION OF ECO-INDICATOR 99

DAMAGE AND IMPACT CATEGORIES
SimaPro 5.0 includes the environmental effects, weighting factors and criteria based on
the Eco-indicator 99 method, normalized to the effects of an average European
inhabitant over one year. For detailed information, the reader is referred to the
Eco-indicator 99 Manual available at the Pre website.
The default Eco-indicator 99 method is the Hierarchist version with average weighting
set (average of the full panel). In the Eco-indicator 99 method normalization and
weighting are performed at damage category level (endpoint level in ISO terminology).
The impact category indicator results, which are calculated in the Characterization step,
are added to form damage categories. Addition without weighting is justified here
because all impact categories that refer to the same damage type (like human health)
have the same unit (for instance DALY). This procedure can also be interpreted as
grouping.
The three damage categories (and not the impact categories) are normalized on an
European level (damage caused by 1 European per year), mostly based on 1993 as base
year, with some updates for the most important emissions. The Normalization Factors
and weights are specified as follows:
Normalization Weights
Human Health 1.54E-02 400
Ecosystem Quality 5.13E+03 400
Resources 8.41E+03 200
A-1
The impact categories are listed below per damage category:
Damage Category --Human Health
The damage category of Human Health includes six impact categories:
• Carcinogenic Effects on Humans;

• Respiratory Effects on Humans caused by Organic Substances;
• Respiratory Effects on Humans caused by Inorganic Substances;
• Damages to Human Health caused by Climate Change;
• Human Health Effects caused by Ionizing Radiation;
• Human Health Effects caused by Ozone Layer Depletion;
Unit: DALY= Disability adjusted life years; this means different disability caused by
diseases are weighted. A damage of 1 means one life year of one individual is lost, or
one person suffers four years from a disability with a weight of 0.25.
Damage Category --Ecosystem Quality
The damage category of Ecosystem Quality includes three impact categories:
• Damages to Ecosystem Quality caused by Ecotoxic Substances;

• Damage to Ecosystem Quality caused by Acidification and Eutrophication by
airborne emissions;
• Damage to Ecosystem caused by Land-use;
Unit: PDF*m2yr; PDF= Potentially Disappeared Fraction of plant species. A damage of

one means all species disappear from one m2 during one year, or 10% of all species
disappear from 1m2 during 10 years.
A-2
Damage Category --Resources
The damage category of Resource includes impact categories:
• Damages to Resources caused by Depletion of Fossil Fuel;

• Damages to Resources caused by Depletion of Minerals;
Unit: MJ surplus energy = Additional energy requirement to compensate lower future

ore grade. A damage of 1 means that due to a certain extraction further extraction of
these resources in the future will require one additional MJ of energy, due to the lower
resource concentration, or other unfavorable characteristics of the remaining reserves.
A-3
Appendix B1 & B2: Environmental impact of Glass & Ceramics Materials in Damage Categories
Material Cases Total Human Health Ecosystem Quality Resources
Group Name Type (Pts) Pts % Pts % Pts %
ceramics Ceramics I Ceramics 0.0194 0.0034 17.47% 0.0062 31.70% 0.0099 50.77%
ceramics Ceramic (fine) Ceramics 0.0238 0.0071 29.79% 0.0006 2.55% 0.0161 67.65%
ceramics Stoneware I Ceramics 0.0269 0.0056 20.82% 0.0067 24.98% 0.0146 54.28%
ceramics Ceramics ETH T Ceramics 0.0280 0.0066 23.71% 0.0010 3.56% 0.0204 72.86%
ceramics Porcelain I Ceramics 0.0384 0.0111 28.91% 0.0087 22.63% 0.0186 48.44%
ceramics Average 0.0273 0.0068 24.14% 0.0046 17.08% 0.0159 58.80%
ceramics STDEV 0.0070
ceramics CV 25.81%
Glass Glass (brown) B250 Glass 0.0495 0.0161 32.53% 0.00395 7.98% 0.0294 59.39%
Glass Glass (green) B250 Glass 0.0505 0.014 27.72% 0.00877 17.37% 0.0278 55.05%
Glass Glass (white) B250 Glass 0.0571 0.0178 31.17% 0.0105 18.39% 0.0288 50.44%
Glass Glass oil-fired bj Glass 0.0579 0.0356 61.49% 0.00394 6.80% 0.0184 31.78%
Glass Glass gas-fired bj Glass 0.0603 0.0356 59.04% 0.00559 9.27% 0.0191 31.67%
Glass Glass (virgin) Glass 0.0652 0.0226 34.66% 0.0126 19.33% 0.03 46.01%
Glass Average 0.0568 0.0236 41.10% 0.0076 13.19% 0.0256 45.72%
Glass STDEV 0.0060
Glass CV 10.49%
Appendix B3-B5:Environmental impact of Ferrous Metals in Damage Categories with Ni & Cr Cont.(Solution A)
Material Cases Total Human Health Ecosystem Quality Resources Cr cont Ni cont
Group Name Type (Pts) Pts % Pts % Pts % % %
No Ni ferro GS-22Mo4 I steel cast 0.0744 0.0338 45.43% 0.0147 19.76% 0.0259 34.81% 0.30
No Ni ferro 21MoV53 I steel high temp 0.0872 0.0356 40.83% 0.0192 22.02% 0.0324 37.16% 0.30
No Ni ferro C35 I steel high grade 0.0859 0.0436 50.76% 0.0141 16.41% 0.0282 32.83% 0.40
No Ni ferro GGG70 I Cast iron 0.0686 0.0137 19.97% 0.0053 7.76% 0.0495 72.16% 0.50
No Ni ferro 67SiCr5 I steel spring 0.0694 0.0338 48.70% 0.0124 17.87% 0.0232 33.43% 0.50
No Ni ferro 15Cr3 I steel high grade 0.0694 0.0336 48.41% 0.0124 17.87% 0.0234 33.72% 0.65
No Ni ferro A514(A) I steel low temp. 0.0765 0.0340 44.44% 0.0152 19.87% 0.0272 35.56% 0.65
No Ni ferro 13CrMo4 5 (1.7335) I steel high temp 0.0836 0.0346 41.39% 0.0183 21.89% 0.0307 36.72% 0.95
No Ni ferro 50 CrV4 I steel high grade 0.0730 0.0347 47.53% 0.0127 17.40% 0.0256 35.07% 1.00
No Ni ferro 42CrMo4 I steel high grade 0.0717 0.0343 47.84% 0.0125 17.43% 0.0249 34.73% 1.05
No Ni ferro 50CrV4 I steel spring 0.0752 0.0353 46.94% 0.0128 17.02% 0.0271 36.04% 1.05
No Ni ferro X10Cr13 (mart 410) I Stainless steels 0.1270 0.0451 35.51% 0.0119 9.37% 0.0703 55.35% 12.50
No Ni ferro X30Cr13 (~420) I Stainless steels 0.0871 0.0322 36.97% 0.0101 11.60% 0.0448 51.44% 13.00
No Ni ferro X12Cr13 (416) I Stainless steels 0.0876 0.0323 36.87% 0.0101 11.53% 0.0452 51.60% 13.00
No Ni ferro X7CrAl13 (405) I Stainless steels 0.0880 0.0326 37.05% 0.0101 11.48% 0.0452 51.36% 13.00
No Ni ferro X90CrCoMoV17 I Stainless steels 0.1070 0.0352 32.90% 0.0153 14.30% 0.0562 52.52% 17.00
No Ni ferro X90CrMoV18 (440B) I Stainless steels 0.1350 0.0478 35.41% 0.0120 8.89% 0.0750 55.56% 17.00
No Ni ferro Steel bj Ferro 0.0528 0.0200 37.88% 0.0015 2.92% 0.0312 59.09%
No Ni ferro Iron Ferro 0.0574 0.0200 34.84% 0.0015 2.58% 0.0359 62.54%
No Ni ferro Steel I Ferro 0.0644 0.0322 50.00% 0.0123 19.10% 0.0199 30.90%
No Ni ferro Crude iron I Ferro 0.0695 0.0336 48.35% 0.0128 18.42% 0.0231 33.24%
No Ni ferro Tin plate bj Ferro 0.0858 0.0369 43.01% 0.0056 6.50% 0.0433 50.47%
No Ni ferro Steel ETH T Ferro 0.0866 0.0476 54.97% 0.0173 19.98% 0.0217 25.06%
No Ni ferro Crude iron ETH T Ferro 0.0927 0.0549 59.22% 0.0140 15.10% 0.0238 25.67%
No Ni ferro Converter steel ETH T Ferro 0.0947 0.0527 55.65% 0.0187 19.75% 0.0233 24.60%
No Ni ferro ECCS steel sheet Ferro 0.0988 0.0575 58.20% 0.0055 5.59% 0.0357 36.13%
No Ni ferro Steel low alloy ETH T Ferro 0.1080 0.0590 54.63% 0.0195 18.06% 0.0295 27.31%
No Ni ferro GGG40 I Cast iron 0.0671 0.0133 19.82% 0.0053 7.84% 0.0486 72.43%
No Ni ferro 35S20 (1.0726) I Steel autom 0.0669 0.0329 49.18% 0.0124 18.54% 0.0217 32.44%
No Ni ferro 10SPb20 (1.0721) I Steel autom 0.0675 0.0328 48.59% 0.0123 18.22% 0.0223 33.04%
No Ni ferro 9SMnPb (1.0718) I Steel autom 0.0682 0.0329 48.24% 0.0123 18.04% 0.0229 33.58%
No Ni ferro 9S20 I Steel autom 0.0767 0.0341 44.46% 0.0124 16.17% 0.0302 39.37%
No Ni ferro GS-70 I steel cast 0.0621 0.0305 49.11% 0.0115 18.52% 0.0201 32.37%
No Ni ferro GS-45.3 I steel cast 0.0697 0.0334 47.92% 0.0123 17.65% 0.0240 34.43%
No Ni ferro Fe360 I steel construction 0.0629 0.0310 49.28% 0.0117 18.60% 0.0202 32.11%
No Ni ferro St13 I steel construction 0.0629 0.0310 49.28% 0.0117 18.60% 0.0202 32.11%
No Ni ferro S355J2G1W I steel draw 0.0629 0.0310 49.28% 0.0117 18.60% 0.0202 32.11%
No Ni ferro St14 I steel draw 0.0629 0.0310 49.28% 0.0117 18.60% 0.0202 32.11%
No Ni ferro A517b I steel draw 0.0759 0.0341 44.93% 0.0148 19.50% 0.0269 35.44%
No Ni ferro A517a I steel draw 0.0784 0.0344 43.88% 0.0157 20.03% 0.0283 36.10%
No Ni ferro C15 I steel high grade 0.0661 0.0326 49.32% 0.0123 18.61% 0.0212 32.07%
No Ni ferro 37MnSi5 I steel high grade 0.0701 0.0337 48.07% 0.0123 17.55% 0.0241 34.38%
No Ni ferro 42MnV7 I steel high grade 0.0706 0.0337 47.73% 0.0126 17.85% 0.0244 34.56%
No Ni ferro 34CrAl6 I steel high grade 0.0788 0.0372 47.21% 0.0128 16.24% 0.0288 36.55%
No Ni ferro 22Mo4 I steel high temp 0.0759 0.0332 43.74% 0.0165 21.74% 0.0263 34.65%
No Ni ferro ASt35 (1.0346) I steel low temp. 0.0660 0.0326 49.39% 0.0123 18.64% 0.0211 31.97%
No Ni ferro 38Si6 I steel spring 0.0689 0.0335 48.62% 0.0123 17.85% 0.0230 33.38%
No Ni ferro Average 0.0772 0.0343 44.69% 0.0122 16.00% 0.0307 39.31%
No Ni ferro STDEV 0.0161
No Ni ferro CV 20.85%
Low Ni Ferro GX12Cr14 (CA15) I Stainless steels 0.1160 0.0525 0.4526 0.0113 9.74% 0.0526 45.34% 13.00 1.00
Low Ni Ferro X35CrMo17 I Stainless steels 0.1140 0.0348 0.3053 0.0196 17.19% 0.0594 52.11% 16.50 1.00
Low Ni Ferro 28NiCrMo4 I steel high temp 0.1160 0.0622 0.5362 0.017 14.66% 0.0367 31.64% 1.15 1.15
Low Ni Ferro 36NiCr6 I steel high grade 0.1250 0.0717 0.5736 0.0146 11.68% 0.039 31.20% 0.50 1.25
Low Ni Ferro 15NiMn6 (1.6228) I steel low temp. 0.1210 0.0699 0.5777 0.0146 12.07% 0.0369 30.50% 1.50
Low Ni Ferro GS-10Ni6 I steel cast 0.1250 0.0730 0.5840 0.0147 11.76% 0.0371 29.68% 1.55
Low Ni Ferro X22CrNi17 (431) I Stainless steels 0.1490 0.0721 0.4839 0.0124 8.32% 0.0649 43.56% 16.00 1.88
Low Ni Ferro 30CrNiMo8 I steel high grade 0.1620 0.0873 0.5389 0.0203 12.53% 0.0548 33.83% 2.00 2.00
Low Ni Ferro Average 0.1481 0.0803 53.08% 0.0161 11.33% 0.0517 35.63%
Low Ni Ferro STDEV 0.0419
Low Ni Ferro CV 28.32%
High Ni Ferro X10CrNiS (303) I Stainless steels 0.3690 0.2180 0.5908 0.0207 5.61% 0.13 35.23% 18.00 9.00
High Ni Ferro X12CrNi 18 9 I steel low temp. 0.5020 0.2910 0.5797 0.0279 5.56% 0.183 36.45% 18.00 9.00
High Ni Ferro X8Ni9 I steel low temp. 0.4070 0.2630 0.6462 0.0256 6.29% 0.119 29.24% 9.00
High Ni Ferro X5CrNi18 (304) I Stainless steels 0.4010 0.2390 0.5960 0.0219 5.46% 0.14 34.91% 19.00 9.25
High Ni Ferro X6CrNi18 (~304) I Stainless steels 0.4010 0.2390 0.5960 0.0219 5.46% 0.14 34.91% 18.00 10.00
High Ni Ferro GX5CrNi19 10 (CF8) I Stainless steels 0.3990 0.2390 0.5990 0.0219 5.49% 0.139 34.84% 19.00 10.00
High Ni Ferro X2CrNiMo1712 (316L) I Stainless steels 0.4670 0.2430 0.5203 0.0514 11.01% 0.173 37.04% 17.00 12.00
High Ni Ferro X5CrNiMo18 (316) I Stainless steels 0.4780 0.2580 0.5397 0.0467 9.77% 0.173 36.19% 17.00 12.00
High Ni Ferro GS-X40CrNiSi 25 12 I steel cast 0.6620 0.3790 0.5725 0.0391 5.91% 0.244 36.86% 26.00 12.50
High Ni Ferro X10CrNiMoNb I Stainless steels 0.6020 0.3210 0.5332 0.0529 8.79% 0.228 37.87% 17.50 13.25
High Ni Ferro GGL-NiCuCr I Cast iron 0.3340 0.2150 0.6437 0.0173 5.18% 0.101 30.24% 1.75 15.50
High Ni Ferro GGG-NiCr I Cast iron 0.4150 0.2710 0.6530 0.0206 4.96% 0.123 29.64% 1.75 20.00
High Ni Ferro GGG-NiSiCr I Cast iron 0.4530 0.2710 0.5982 0.0203 4.48% 0.161 35.54% 1.75 20.00
High Ni Ferro Average 0.4531 0.2652 58.99% 0.0299 6.46% 0.1580 34.54%
High Ni Ferro STDEV 0.0923
High Ni Ferro CV 20.37%

Appendix B3-B5:Environmental impact of Ferro Metals in Damage Categories with Ni & Cr Cont.(Solution B)
No Ni ferro Steel bj Ferro 0.0528 0.0200 37.88% 0.0015 2.92% 0.0312 59.09%
No Ni ferro Iron Ferro 0.0574 0.0200 34.84% 0.0015 2.58% 0.0359 62.54%
No Ni ferro GS-70 I steel cast 0.0621 0.0305 49.11% 0.0115 18.52% 0.0201 32.37%
No Ni ferro St13 I steel construction 0.0629 0.0310 49.28% 0.0117 18.60% 0.0202 32.11%
No Ni ferro S355J2G1W I steel draw 0.0629 0.0310 49.28% 0.0117 18.60% 0.0202 32.11%
No Ni ferro St14 I steel draw 0.0629 0.0310 49.28% 0.0117 18.60% 0.0202 32.11%
No Ni ferro Steel I Ferro 0.0644 0.0322 50.00% 0.0123 19.10% 0.0199 30.90%
No Ni ferro ASt35 (1.0346) I steel low temp. 0.0660 0.0326 49.39% 0.0123 18.64% 0.0211 31.97%
No Ni ferro 35S20 (1.0726) I Steel autom 0.0669 0.0329 49.18% 0.0124 18.54% 0.0217 32.44%
No Ni ferro 10SPb20 (1.0721) I Steel autom 0.0675 0.0328 48.59% 0.0123 18.22% 0.0223 33.04%
No Ni ferro 9SMnPb (1.0718) I Steel autom 0.0682 0.0329 48.24% 0.0123 18.04% 0.0229 33.58%
No Ni ferro GGG70 I Cast iron 0.0686 0.0137 19.97% 0.0053 7.76% 0.0495 72.16% 0.50
No Ni ferro 67SiCr5 I steel spring 0.0694 0.0338 48.70% 0.0124 17.87% 0.0232 33.43% 0.50
No Ni ferro Crude iron I Ferro 0.0695 0.0336 48.35% 0.0128 18.42% 0.0231 33.24%
No Ni ferro GS-45.3 I steel cast 0.0697 0.0334 47.92% 0.0123 17.65% 0.0240 34.43%
No Ni ferro 37MnSi5 I steel high grade 0.0701 0.0337 48.07% 0.0123 17.55% 0.0241 34.38%
No Ni ferro 42MnV7 I steel high grade 0.0706 0.0337 47.73% 0.0126 17.85% 0.0244 34.56%
No Ni ferro 50 CrV4 I steel high grade 0.0730 0.0347 47.53% 0.0127 17.40% 0.0256 35.07% 1.00
No Ni ferro GS-22Mo4 I steel cast 0.0744 0.0338 45.43% 0.0147 19.76% 0.0259 34.81% 0.30
No Ni ferro 50CrV4 I steel spring 0.0752 0.0353 46.94% 0.0128 17.02% 0.0271 36.04% 1.05
No Ni ferro 22Mo4 I steel high temp 0.0759 0.0332 43.74% 0.0165 21.74% 0.0263 34.65%
No Ni ferro A517b I steel draw 0.0759 0.0341 44.93% 0.0148 19.50% 0.0269 35.44%
No Ni ferro A514(A) I steel low temp. 0.0765 0.0340 44.44% 0.0152 19.87% 0.0272 35.56% 0.65
No Ni ferro 9S20 I Steel autom 0.0767 0.0341 44.46% 0.0124 16.17% 0.0302 39.37%
No Ni ferro A517a I steel draw 0.0784 0.0344 43.88% 0.0157 20.03% 0.0283 36.10%
No Ni ferro 34CrAl6 I steel high grade 0.0788 0.0372 47.21% 0.0128 16.24% 0.0288 36.55%
No Ni ferro 13CrMo4 5 (1.7335) I steel high temp 0.0836 0.0346 41.39% 0.0183 21.89% 0.0307 36.72% 0.95
No Ni ferro Tin plate bj Ferro 0.0858 0.0369 43.01% 0.0056 6.50% 0.0433 50.47%
No Ni ferro C35 I steel high grade 0.0859 0.0436 50.76% 0.0141 16.41% 0.0282 32.83% 0.40
No Ni ferro Steel ETH T Ferro 0.0866 0.0476 54.97% 0.0173 19.98% 0.0217 25.06%
No Ni ferro 21MoV53 I steel high temp 0.0872 0.0356 40.83% 0.0192 22.02% 0.0324 37.16% 0.30
No Ni ferro Crude iron ETH T Ferro 0.0927 0.0549 59.22% 0.0140 15.10% 0.0238 25.67%
No Ni ferro Converter steel ETH T Ferro 0.0947 0.0527 55.65% 0.0187 19.75% 0.0233 24.60%
No Ni ferro ECCS steel sheet Ferro 0.0988 0.0575 58.20% 0.0055 5.59% 0.0357 36.13%
No Ni ferro Steel low alloy ETH T Ferro 0.1080 0.0590 54.63% 0.0195 18.06% 0.0295 27.31%
No Ni ferro Average 0.0729 0.0340 46.20% 0.0122 16.68% 0.0267 37.11%
No Ni ferro STDEV 0.0108
No Ni ferro CV 14.85%
Low Ni ferro 28NiCrMo4 I steel high temp 0.1160 0.0622 53.62% 0.0170 14.66% 0.0367 31.64% 1.15 1.15
Low Ni ferro 15NiMn6 (1.6228) I steel low temp. 0.1210 0.0699 57.77% 0.0146 12.07% 0.0369 30.50% 1.50
Low Ni ferro 36NiCr6 I steel high grade 0.1250 0.0717 57.36% 0.0146 11.68% 0.0390 31.20% 0.50 1.25
Low Ni ferro GS-10Ni6 I steel cast 0.1250 0.0730 58.40% 0.0147 11.76% 0.0371 29.68% 1.55
Low Ni ferro 30CrNiMo8 I steel high grade 0.1620 0.0873 53.89% 0.0203 12.53% 0.0548 33.83% 2.00 2.00
Low Ni ferro Average 0.1563 0.0905 57.46% 0.0167 11.17% 0.0490 31.37%
Low Ni ferro STDEV 0.0461
Low Ni ferro CV 29.50%
High Ni ferro GGL-NiCuCr I Cast iron 0.3340 0.2150 64.37% 0.0173 5.18% 0.1010 30.24% 1.75 15.50
High Ni ferro X8Ni9 I steel low temp. 0.4070 0.2630 64.62% 0.0256 6.29% 0.1190 29.24% 9.00
High Ni ferro GGG-NiCr I Cast iron 0.4150 0.2710 65.30% 0.0206 4.96% 0.1230 29.64% 1.75 20.00
High Ni ferro GGG-NiSiCr I Cast iron 0.4530 0.2710 59.82% 0.0203 4.48% 0.1610 35.54% 1.75 20.00
High Ni ferro X12CrNi 18 9 I steel low temp. 0.5020 0.2910 57.97% 0.0279 5.56% 0.1830 36.45% 18.00 9.00
High Ni ferro GS-X40CrNiSi 25 12 I steel cast 0.6620 0.3790 57.25% 0.0391 5.91% 0.2440 36.86% 26.00 12.50
High Ni ferro Average 0.4622 0.2817 61.56% 0.0251 5.40% 0.1552 32.99%
High Ni ferro STDEV 0.1125
High Ni ferro CV 24.35%
Low NiCr stainless steel X30Cr13 (~420) I Stainless steels 0.0871 0.0322 36.97% 0.0101 11.60% 0.0448 51.44% 13.00
Low NiCr stainless steel X12Cr13 (416) I Stainless steels 0.0876 0.0323 36.87% 0.0101 11.53% 0.0452 51.60% 13.00
Low NiCr stainless steel X7CrAl13 (405) I Stainless steels 0.0880 0.0326 37.05% 0.0101 11.48% 0.0452 51.36% 13.00
Low NiCr stainless steel X35CrMo17 I Stainless steels 0.1140 0.0348 30.53% 0.0196 17.19% 0.0594 52.11% 16.50 1.00
Low NiCr stainless steel X90CrCoMoV17 I Stainless steels 0.1070 0.0352 32.90% 0.0153 14.30% 0.0562 52.52% 17.00
Low NiCr stainless steel X10Cr13 (mart 410) I Stainless steels 0.1270 0.0451 35.51% 0.0119 9.37% 0.0703 55.35% 12.50
Low NiCr stainless steel X90CrMoV18 (440B) I Stainless steels 0.1350 0.0478 35.41% 0.0120 8.89% 0.0750 55.56% 17.00
Low NiCr stainless steel GX12Cr14 (CA15) I Stainless steels 0.1160 0.0525 45.26% 0.0113 9.74% 0.0526 45.34% 13.00 1.00
Low NiCr stainless steel X22CrNi17 (431) I Stainless steels 0.1490 0.0721 48.39% 0.0124 8.32% 0.0649 43.56% 16.00 1.88
Low NiCr stainless steel Average 0.1097 0.0411 37.06% 0.0127 11.80% 0.0560 51.19%
Low NiCr stainless steel STDEV 0.0209
Low NiCr stainless steel CV 19.04%
High NiCr stainless steel X10CrNiS (303) I Stainless steels 0.3690 0.2180 59.08% 0.0207 5.61% 0.1300 35.23% 18.00 9.00
High NiCr stainless steel GX5CrNi19 10 (CF8) I Stainless steels 0.3990 0.2390 59.90% 0.0219 5.49% 0.1390 34.84% 19.00 10.00
High NiCr stainless steel X5CrNi18 (304) I Stainless steels 0.4010 0.2390 59.60% 0.0219 5.46% 0.1400 34.91% 19.00 9.25
High NiCr stainless steel X6CrNi18 (~304) I Stainless steels 0.4010 0.2390 59.60% 0.0219 5.46% 0.1400 34.91% 18.00 10.00
High NiCr stainless steel X2CrNiMo1712 (316L) I Stainless steels 0.4670 0.2430 52.03% 0.0514 11.01% 0.1730 37.04% 17.00 12.00
High NiCr stainless steel X5CrNiMo18 (316) I Stainless steels 0.4780 0.2580 53.97% 0.0467 9.77% 0.1730 36.19% 17.00 12.00
High NiCr stainless steel X10CrNiMoNb I Stainless steels 0.6020 0.3210 53.32% 0.0529 8.79% 0.2280 37.87% 17.50 13.25
High NiCr stainless steel Average 0.4453 0.2510 56.79% 0.0339 7.37% 0.1604 35.86%
High NiCr stainless steel STDEV 0.0796
High NiCr stainless steel CV 17.87%

Appendix B6-B8: Environmental Impact of Non-ferrous Metals in Damage Categories
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys Manganese ETH T Non-ferro 0.2500 0.1290 51.60% 0.0333 13.32% 0.0871 34.84%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys Silicon I Si 0.2580 0.0981 38.02% 0.0140 5.43% 0.1460 56.59%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys Ferrochromium I Non-ferro 0.2740 0.0855 31.20% 0.0122 4.45% 0.1760 64.23%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys Zamak3 I Zinc Alloy 0.3760 0.1200 31.91% 0.0413 10.98% 0.2150 57.18%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys Zamak5 I Zinc Alloy 0.3910 0.1270 32.48% 0.0420 10.74% 0.2220 56.78%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys ZnCuTi I Zinc Alloy 0.3960 0.1270 32.07% 0.0424 10.71% 0.2270 57.32%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys Zinc (super plastic) I Zinc Alloy 0.4020 0.1370 34.08% 0.0396 9.85% 0.2260 56.22%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys G-ZnAlCu I Zinc Alloy 0.4190 0.1400 33.41% 0.0432 10.31% 0.2360 56.32%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys Lead I lead 0.4230 0.0840 19.86% 0.0142 3.36% 0.3250 76.83%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys Zinc I Zinc 0.4350 0.1550 35.63% 0.0552 12.69% 0.2250 51.72%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys G-AlSi12 (230) I AL alloy 0.5240 0.2260 43.13% 0.0397 7.58% 0.2580 49.24%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys Aluminium raw bj Al 0.5300 0.3860 72.83% 0.0238 4.49% 0.1200 22.64%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys G-AlSi12Cu (231) I AL alloy 0.5310 0.2290 43.13% 0.0401 7.55% 0.2620 49.34%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys G-AlSi7Mg (Thixo) I AL alloy 0.5370 0.2330 43.39% 0.0408 7.60% 0.2630 48.98%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys AlMg3 (5754a) I AL alloy 0.5450 0.2390 43.85% 0.0412 7.56% 0.2650 48.62%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys AlSiMgMn (6009) I AL alloy 0.5590 0.2440 43.65% 0.0424 7.58% 0.2730 48.84%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys AlMn1.2Mg1 (3004) I AL alloy 0.5600 0.2440 43.57% 0.0424 7.57% 0.2740 48.93%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys AlMgSi0.7 (6005) I AL alloy 0.5610 0.2450 43.67% 0.0426 7.59% 0.2740 48.84%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys AlMn1 (3003) I AL alloy 0.5610 0.2440 43.49% 0.0426 7.59% 0.2740 48.84%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys G-AlMg3 (242) I AL alloy 0.5610 0.2460 43.85% 0.0423 7.54% 0.2730 48.66%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys Al99 I AL alloy 0.5640 0.2460 43.62% 0.0429 7.61% 0.2750 48.76%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys AlMg1 (5005) I AL alloy 0.5640 0.2470 43.79% 0.0428 7.59% 0.2750 48.76%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys AlMg4.5Mn (5182) I AL alloy 0.5640 0.2480 43.97% 0.0423 7.50% 0.2740 48.58%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys Aluminium ingots B250 AL 0.5650 0.2650 46.90% 0.0220 3.89% 0.2780 49.20%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys Chromium I Cr 0.5680 0.1860 32.75% 0.0248 4.37% 0.3570 62.85%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys AlZnCuMg (7075) I AL alloy 0.5770 0.2500 43.33% 0.0444 7.69% 0.2830 49.05%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys G-AlSi8Cu3 (380) I AL alloy 0.5780 0.2500 43.25% 0.0433 7.49% 0.2840 49.13%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys Cadmium I Cd 0.5930 0.1810 30.52% 0.2710 45.70% 0.1420 23.95%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys Aluminium foil B250 AL 0.5980 0.2760 46.15% 0.0232 3.88% 0.2990 50.00%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys AlMgSi0.5 (6060) I AL alloy 0.6040 0.2650 43.87% 0.0447 7.40% 0.2940 48.68%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys AlCuSiMg (2036) I AL alloy 0.6060 0.2650 43.73% 0.0452 7.46% 0.2960 48.84%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys G-AlMg5 (314) I AL alloy 0.6120 0.2690 43.95% 0.0449 7.34% 0.2980 48.69%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys AlCuMg1 (2017) I AL alloy 0.6290 0.2750 43.72% 0.0464 7.38% 0.3080 48.97%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys AlCuMg2 (2024) I AL alloy 0.6390 0.2800 43.82% 0.0468 7.32% 0.3120 48.83%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys G-AlCu4TiMg (204) I AL alloy 0.6400 0.2800 43.75% 0.0471 7.36% 0.3130 48.91%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys AlCuMgPb (2011) I AL alloy 0.6490 0.2800 43.14% 0.0470 7.24% 0.3220 49.61%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys MgZn6Zr I Mg Alloy 0.6560 0.3230 49.24% 0.0326 4.97% 0.3010 45.88%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys G-MgAl6Zn3 I Mg Alloy 0.6590 0.3240 49.17% 0.0326 4.95% 0.3020 45.83%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys GD-MgAl9Zn1 I Mg Alloy 0.6630 0.3270 49.32% 0.0324 4.89% 0.3040 45.85%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys MgAl6Zn I Mg Alloy 0.6640 0.3270 49.25% 0.0322 4.85% 0.3040 45.78%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys MgMn1.5 I Mg Alloy 0.6640 0.3290 49.55% 0.0310 4.67% 0.3040 45.78%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys AM100A I Mg Alloy 0.6650 0.3270 49.17% 0.0324 4.87% 0.3050 45.86%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys AM503 I Mg Alloy 0.6650 0.3300 49.62% 0.0310 4.66% 0.3040 45.71%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys MgAl3Zn I Mg Alloy 0.6650 0.3290 49.47% 0.0318 4.78% 0.3040 45.71%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys Magnesium I Non-ferro 0.6690 0.3330 49.78% 0.0313 4.68% 0.3050 45.59%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys Ni-pigmented aluminiumoxide

AL ETH T 0.8100 0.5760 71.11% 0.0286 3.53% 0.2060 25.43%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys Tungsten I Non-ferro 0.8900 0.3500 39.33% 0.2440 27.42% 0.2960 33.26%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys Average 0.5640 0.2516 43.64% 0.0457 8.08% 0.2668 48.29%
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys STDEV 0.1262
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys CV 22.37%
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloys CuZn40Pb I Copper alloy 1.5500 0.6720 43.35% 0.1030 6.65% 0.7720 49.81%
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloys CuZn40 I Copper alloy 1.5900 0.6950 43.71% 0.1060 6.67% 0.7910 49.75%
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloys G-CuZn40 I Copper alloy 1.5900 0.6950 43.71% 0.1060 6.67% 0.7910 49.75%
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloys G-CuZn37Pb I Copper alloy 1.6100 0.7040 43.73% 0.1060 6.58% 0.8020 49.81%
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloys Vanadium I Vanadium 1.6200 0.5060 31.23% 0.2550 15.74% 0.8580 52.96%
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloys Ni span C902 I Ni Alloy 1.7300 1.1300 65.32% 0.0765 4.42% 0.5200 30.06%
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloys Invar I Ni Alloy 1.7900 1.1100 62.01% 0.0849 4.74% 0.5900 32.96%
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloys TiAl6V4 I Ti Alloy 1.8400 0.6750 36.68% 0.0685 3.72% 1.1000 59.78%
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloys Titanium I Ti 1.9300 0.7080 36.68% 0.0619 3.21% 1.1600 60.10%
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloys NiFe 50 50 I Ni Alloy 1.9500 1.3100 67.18% 0.0863 4.43% 0.5590 28.67%
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloys G-CuZn15 I Copper alloy 2.0700 0.9200 44.44% 0.1270 6.14% 1.0300 49.76%
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloys G-CuAl10Fe I Copper alloy 2.1200 0.9470 44.67% 0.1260 5.94% 1.0500 49.53%
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloys G-CuAl10Ni I Copper alloy 2.1700 1.0200 47.00% 0.1250 5.76% 1.0300 47.47%
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloys TiAl5Sn2 I Ti Alloy 2.2300 0.6750 30.27% 0.0602 2.70% 1.5000 67.26%
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloys CuNi18Zn I Copper alloy 2.2400 1.1500 51.34% 0.1270 5.67% 0.9670 43.17%
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloys TiV15SnCrAl3 I Ti Alloy 2.2400 0.6360 28.39% 0.0883 3.94% 1.5200 67.86%
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloys CuAl5 I Copper alloy 2.2700 1.0200 44.93% 0.1340 5.90% 1.1200 49.34%
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloys Cu-E I Copper alloy 2.3600 1.0600 44.92% 0.1400 5.93% 1.1700 49.58%
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloys CuAg-E I Copper alloy 2.3600 1.0600 44.92% 0.1400 5.93% 1.1700 49.58%
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloys Copper I copper 2.3600 1.0600 44.92% 0.1400 5.93% 1.1700 49.58%
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloys G-CuNi10 I Copper alloy 2.4500 1.1800 48.16% 0.1380 5.63% 1.1300 46.12%
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloys CuNi10Fe I Copper alloy 2.4600 1.1900 48.37% 0.1390 5.65% 1.1400 46.34%
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloys Molybdenum I Mo 2.7100 0.1620 5.98% 1.1900 43.91% 1.3500 49.82%
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloys G-CuSn5Zn5Pb5 I Copper alloy 2.8800 0.9210 31.98% 0.1240 4.31% 1.8300 63.54%
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloys CuNi44Mn I Copper alloy 2.9800 1.7100 57.38% 0.1470 4.93% 1.1200 37.58%
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloys Supermalloy I Ni Alloy 3.0300 1.9500 64.36% 0.1820 6.01% 0.8950 29.54%
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloys NiCr20TiAl I Ni Alloy 3.0900 2.0200 65.37% 0.1290 4.17% 0.9390 30.39%
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloys Mumetal I Ni Alloy 3.1100 2.0600 66.24% 0.1330 4.28% 0.9190 29.55%
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloys NiCr 80 20 I Ni Alloy 3.1900 2.1100 66.14% 0.1330 4.17% 0.9500 29.78%
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloys NiCu30Fe I Ni Alloy 3.3000 2.0500 62.12% 0.1510 4.58% 1.1000 33.33%
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloys CuSn6.7P I Copper alloy 3.3100 1.0000 30.21% 0.1320 3.99% 2.1800 65.86%
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloys NiCu30Al I Ni Alloy 3.3900 2.0800 61.36% 0.1530 4.51% 1.1500 33.92%
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloys NiCr20Co18Ti I Ni Alloy 3.4800 1.6000 45.98% 1.0800 31.03% 0.7880 22.64%
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloys NiMo30 I Ni Alloy 3.4900 1.7700 50.72% 0.5910 16.93% 1.1200 32.09%
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloys CuSn8 I Copper alloy 3.5000 0.9910 28.31% 0.1310 3.74% 2.3700 67.71%
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloys Duranik I Ni Alloy 3.6600 2.4500 66.94% 0.1530 4.18% 1.0600 28.96%
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloys G-CuSn10 I Copper alloy 3.7800 0.9740 25.77% 0.1290 3.41% 2.6800 70.90%
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloys Ni 99.6 I Ni Alloy 3.8400 2.5900 67.45% 0.1600 4.17% 1.1000 28.65%
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloys G-CuSn12 I Copper alloy 4.0600 0.9580 23.60% 0.1270 3.13% 2.9800 73.40%
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloys Average 2.5436 1.1892 46.38% 0.1841 7.11% 1.1715 46.57%
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloys STDEV 0.7413
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloys CV 29.14%
Co & Sn & Pts & Pd & Rd Cobalt I Non-ferro 6.34 0.14 2.22% 5.95 93.85% 0.24 3.85%
Co & Sn & Pts & Pd & Rd Tin I Non-ferro 16.50 0.25 1.50% 0.03 0.19% 16.20 98.18%
Co & Sn & Pts & Pd & Rd Palladium enriched ETH T Non-ferro 4610.00 3990.00 86.55% 515.00 11.17% 103.00 2.23%
Co & Sn & Pts & Pd & Rd Platinum ETH T Non-ferro 6960.00 6030.00 86.64% 749.00 10.76% 180.00 2.59%
Co & Sn & Pts & Pd & Rd Rhodium enriched ETH T Non-ferro 12300.00 10700.00 86.99% 1310.00 10.65% 332.00 2.70%
Appendix B9 & B10: Environmental impact of Paper & Cardboard Materials in Damage Categories
paper Paper ETH T Paper 0.0926 0.0471 50.86% 0.0081 8.70% 0.0375 40.50%
paper Kraftpaper unbleached Paper 0.0900 0.0282 31.33% 0.0032 3.50% 0.0587 65.22%
paper Kraftpaper bleached B250 Paper 0.0796 0.0316 39.70% 0.0031 3.92% 0.0449 56.41%
paper Kraftpaper bleached C B250 Paper 0.0767 0.0277 36.11% 0.0028 3.60% 0.0463 60.37%
paper Paper wood-free U B250 Paper 0.0740 0.0253 34.19% 0.0025 3.36% 0.0462 62.43%
paper Paper bleached B Paper 0.0626 0.0529 84.50% 0.0034 5.50% 0.0062 9.95%
paper Paper woody C B250 Paper 0.0623 0.0183 29.37% 0.00189 3.03% 0.0422 67.74%
paper Packaging carton ETH T Paper 0.0611 0.0266 43.54% 0.0075 12.27% 0.0270 44.19%
paper Paper wood-free C B250 Paper 0.0574 0.0186 32.40% 0.0019 3.31% 0.0369 64.29%
paper Paper unbleached B Paper 0.0570 0.0485 85.09% 0.0032 5.56% 0.0053 9.28%
paper Average 0.0713 0.0325 46.71% 0.0037 5.28% 0.0351 48.04%
paper STDEV 0.0132
paper CV 18.50%
Cardboard Kraftliner brown S B250 Kraftliner 0.0190 0.0092 48.63% 0.0012 6.21% 0.0086 45.42%
Cardboard Paper newsprint B250 Newsprint 0.0206 0.0101 49.03% 0.0012 5.73% 0.0093 45.15%
Cardboard Fluting Cardboard 0.0225 0.0103 45.78% 0.0014 6.22% 0.0107 47.56%
Cardboard Cardboard gray Cardboard 0.0254 0.0215 84.65% 0.0015 5.94% 0.0024 9.29%
Cardboard Cardboard liquid Cardboard 0.0289 0.0214 74.05% 0.0019 6.71% 0.0055 19.03%
Cardboard Corrugated board heavy Cardboard 0.0296 0.0258 87.16% 0.0017 5.71% 0.0021 7.13%
Cardboard Wellenstoff Cardboard 0.0300 0.0080 26.60% 0.0012 3.93% 0.0208 69.33%
Appendix B9 & B10: Environmental impact of Paper & Cardboard Materials in Damage Categories
Cardboard Testliner Cardboard 0.0301 0.0073 24.35% 0.0011 3.49% 0.0217 72.09%
Cardboard Liquid Packaging Board Cardboard 0.0312 0.0149 47.76% 0.0019 5.99% 0.0144 46.15%
Cardboard Cardboard duplex Cardboard 0.0318 0.0270 84.91% 0.0018 5.63% 0.0030 9.31%
Cardboard Kraftliner white top S B250 Kraftliner 0.0322 0.0175 54.35% 0.0020 6.12% 0.0128 39.75%
Cardboard Cardboard cellulose Cardboard 0.0323 0.0267 82.66% 0.0021 6.38% 0.0036 11.02%
Cardboard Schrenz Cardboard 0.0333 0.0070 20.93% 0.0009 2.56% 0.0255 76.58%
Cardboard Sack paper S B250 Cardboard 0.0364 0.0175 48.08% 0.0027 7.45% 0.0161 44.23%
Cardboard Corr. cardboard mix 1 Cardboard 0.0375 0.0111 29.60% 0.0016 4.35% 0.0248 66.13%
Cardboard Corr. cardboard mix 3D Cardboard 0.0395 0.0107 27.09% 0.0016 3.95% 0.0272 68.86%
Cardboard Corr. cardboard mix 2 Cardboard 0.0421 0.0140 33.25% 0.0019 4.51% 0.0263 62.47%
Cardboard Cardboard chromo Cardboard 0.0422 0.0348 82.46% 0.0024 5.69% 0.0051 11.97%
Cardboard Kraftliner brown A B250 Kraftliner 0.0434 0.0162 37.33% 0.0019 4.31% 0.0253 58.29%
Cardboard Cardboard cellulose S B250 Cardboard 0.0451 0.0230 51.00% 0.0026 5.76% 0.0195 43.24%
Cardboard Cardboard duplex/tripl Cardboard 0.0480 0.0113 23.54% 0.0015 3.06% 0.0353 73.54%
Cardboard Corr. cardboard new Cardboard 0.0488 0.0178 36.48% 0.0023 4.67% 0.0287 58.81%
Cardboard Swisskraft Cardboard 0.0495 0.0096 19.35% 0.0009 1.73% 0.0390 78.79%
Cardboard Average 0.0348 0.0162 48.65% 0.0017 5.05% 0.0169 46.27%
Cardboard STDEV 0.0089
Cardboard CV 25.60%
Appendix B11 & B12: Environmental Impact of Polymers in Damage Categories
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PP GF30 I Thermosplas 0.2120 0.0404 19.06% 0.0074 3.50% 0.1640 77.36%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PVC suspension A Thermosplas 0.2180 0.0545 25.00% 0.0050 2.30% 0.1590 72.94%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PVC bulk A Thermosplas 0.2190 0.0463 21.14% 0.0044 2.02% 0.1680 76.71%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PVC (e) I Thermosplas 0.2240 0.0770 34.38% 0.0102 4.55% 0.1370 61.16%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PE (LLDPE) I Thermosplas 0.2260 0.0298 13.19% 0.0065 2.85% 0.1900 84.07%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PVC film (calendered) A Thermosplas 0.2440 0.0702 28.77% 0.0060 2.44% 0.1670 68.44%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PE (HDPE) I Thermosplas 0.2500 0.0435 17.40% 0.0069 2.74% 0.2000 80.00%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PVC film (unplasticised) A Thermosplas 0.2510 0.0711 28.33% 0.0063 2.51% 0.1740 69.32%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PET 30% glass fibre I Thermosplas 0.2530 0.0797 31.50% 0.0115 4.55% 0.1620 64.03%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PVC B250 Thermosplas 0.2590 0.0841 32.47% 0.0089 3.45% 0.1660 64.09%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PVC revised P Thermosplas 0.2590 0.0748 28.88% 0.0078 3.02% 0.1770 68.34%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PC 30% glass fibre I Thermosplas 0.2610 0.0868 33.26% 0.0105 4.02% 0.1640 62.84%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PVC emulsion A Thermosplas 0.2750 0.0777 28.25% 0.0075 2.73% 0.1900 69.09%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PE (LDPE) I Thermosplas 0.2800 0.0563 20.11% 0.0089 3.16% 0.2150 76.79%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PVC high impact ETH T Thermosplas 0.2840 0.1000 35.21% 0.0162 5.70% 0.1680 59.15%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PVC injection moulded A Thermosplas 0.2970 0.0784 26.40% 0.0074 2.49% 0.2110 71.04%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PE expanded I Thermosplas 0.2990 0.0611 20.43% 0.0090 3.00% 0.2290 76.59%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PVC film (unplastized) P Thermosplas 0.3010 0.0991 32.92% 0.0097 3.21% 0.1920 63.79%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset ABS I Thermosplas 0.3030 0.0672 22.18% 0.0082 2.70% 0.2280 75.25%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset HDPE B250 Thermosplas 0.3030 0.0513 16.93% 0.0055 1.81% 0.2460 81.19%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset LLDPE B250 Thermosplas 0.3030 0.0380 12.54% 0.0041 1.35% 0.2610 86.14%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PP granulate average B250 Thermosplas 0.3060 0.0572 18.69% 0.0061 2.01% 0.2420 79.08%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset LDPE A Thermosplas 0.3160 0.0514 16.27% 0.0050 1.59% 0.2600 82.28%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PP A Thermosplas 0.3190 0.0559 17.52% 0.0055 1.72% 0.2570 80.56%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset HDPE A Thermosplas 0.3230 0.0613 18.98% 0.0057 1.77% 0.2560 79.26%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PE granulate average B250 Thermosplas 0.3240 0.0566 17.47% 0.0062 1.91% 0.2610 80.56%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PE P Thermosplas 0.3350 0.0458 13.67% 0.0051 1.51% 0.2840 84.78%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset LDPE B250 Thermosplas 0.3370 0.0653 19.38% 0.0069 2.05% 0.2650 78.64%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PET bottle grade I Thermosplas 0.3410 0.1070 31.38% 0.0144 4.22% 0.2190 64.22%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset LDPE film A Thermosplas 0.3480 0.0673 19.34% 0.0065 1.85% 0.2750 79.02%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PS (GPPS) I Thermosplas 0.3490 0.0645 18.48% 0.0091 2.59% 0.2760 79.08%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PC I Thermosplas 0.3530 0.1180 33.43% 0.0131 3.71% 0.2220 62.89%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PET granulate amorph B250 Thermosplas 0.3570 0.1010 28.29% 0.0110 3.08% 0.2450 68.63%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PS (EPS) A Thermosplas 0.3590 0.0625 17.41% 0.0062 1.72% 0.2900 80.78%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset LDPE revised P Thermosplas 0.3610 0.0633 17.53% 0.0062 1.71% 0.2910 80.61%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PET amorph I Thermosplas 0.3620 0.1580 43.65% 0.0195 5.39% 0.1850 51.10%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PS (HIPS) I Thermosplas 0.3620 0.0679 18.76% 0.0092 2.53% 0.2850 78.73%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset HIPS ETH T Thermosplas 0.3650 0.0833 22.82% 0.0148 4.05% 0.2660 72.88%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset HDPE pipe P Thermosplas 0.3670 0.0708 19.29% 0.0071 1.93% 0.2890 78.75%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PB B250 (1998) Thermosplas 0.3750 0.0927 24.72% 0.0092 2.46% 0.2730 72.80%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PVDC I Thermosplas 0.3780 0.1950 51.59% 0.0215 5.69% 0.1610 42.59%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset SAN A Thermosplas 0.3800 0.0535 14.08% 0.0048 1.26% 0.3210 84.47%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset HDPE blow moulded bottles A Thermosplas 0.3900 0.1080 27.69% 0.0090 2.31% 0.2730 70.00%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PET resin P (1997) Thermosplas 0.3940 0.1580 40.10% 0.0163 4.14% 0.2200 55.84%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PP oriented film A Thermosplas 0.4130 0.1070 25.91% 0.0100 2.42% 0.2960 71.67%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PMMA I Thermosplas 0.4340 0.1420 32.72% 0.0151 3.48% 0.2770 63.82%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PS thermoformed A Thermosplas 0.4480 0.0992 22.14% 0.0097 2.17% 0.3390 75.67%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PET ETH T Thermosplas 0.4490 0.1030 22.94% 0.0156 3.47% 0.3300 73.50%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PA 6 GF30 I Thermosplas 0.4700 0.2130 45.32% 0.0157 3.34% 0.2420 51.49%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PA 66 GF30 I Thermosplas 0.4700 0.2130 45.32% 0.0157 3.34% 0.2420 51.49%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PET stretch moulded bottles P Thermosplas 0.4750 0.1720 36.21% 0.0152 3.20% 0.2880 60.63%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PA 6.6 30% glass fibre A Thermosplas 0.4870 0.1660 34.09% 0.0153 3.14% 0.3050 62.63%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PP injection moulded A Thermosplas 0.5000 0.1490 29.80% 0.0153 3.06% 0.3360 67.20%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PA 66 I Thermosplas 0.5010 0.2090 41.72% 0.0179 3.57% 0.2750 54.89%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PET film A Thermosplas 0.5160 0.2070 40.12% 0.0211 4.09% 0.2870 55.62%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PET film packed A Thermosplas 0.5200 0.2090 40.19% 0.0213 4.10% 0.2900 55.77%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PA 6.6 30% glass P Thermosplas 0.5390 0.2130 39.52% 0.0158 2.93% 0.3110 57.70%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PMMA beads A Thermosplas 0.5490 0.1400 25.50% 0.0124 2.26% 0.3970 72.31%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PA 6.6 A Thermosplas 0.5930 0.1720 29.01% 0.0150 2.53% 0.4060 68.47%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PMMA sheet A Thermosplas 0.6330 0.1730 27.33% 0.0154 2.43% 0.4440 70.14%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PA 6 I Thermosplas 0.6570 0.0981 14.93% 0.0145 2.21% 0.5440 82.80%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset BR I Rubber 0.2780 0.0547 19.68% 0.0084 3.02% 0.2150 77.34%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset SBR I Rubber 0.2960 0.0664 22.43% 0.0091 3.08% 0.2200 74.32%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset NBR I Rubber 0.2980 0.0525 17.62% 0.0083 2.77% 0.2370 79.53%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset EPDM rubber ETH T Rubber 0.3640 0.1020 28.02% 0.0193 5.30% 0.2430 66.76%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PUR flex. integral skin foam A PUR 0.3950 0.1150 29.11% 0.0089 2.25% 0.2700 68.35%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PUR RIM amine extended A PUR 0.3960 0.1150 29.04% 0.0089 2.25% 0.2720 68.69%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PUR flex. moulded ccm A PUR 0.3970 0.1150 28.97% 0.0089 2.24% 0.2730 68.77%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PUR RIM glycol extended A PUR 0.4010 0.1140 28.43% 0.0090 2.24% 0.2780 69.33%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PUR energy absorbing A PUR 0.4060 0.1130 27.83% 0.0091 2.23% 0.2830 69.70%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PUR flex. moulded ccm/t A PUR 0.4070 0.1210 29.73% 0.0095 2.34% 0.2760 67.81%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PUR flex. moulded cct A PUR 0.4110 0.1240 30.17% 0.0097 2.37% 0.2770 67.40%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PUR flex. moulded hot cure A PUR 0.4110 0.1240 30.17% 0.0097 2.37% 0.2770 67.40%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PUR flexible block foam A PUR 0.4150 0.1250 30.12% 0.0099 2.39% 0.2800 67.47%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PUR hardfoam ETH T PUR 0.4260 0.2300 53.99% 0.0333 7.82% 0.1620 38.03%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PUR flex. block foam I PUR 0.4490 0.2310 51.45% 0.0207 4.61% 0.1980 44.10%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PUR flex. moulded TDI I PUR 0.4520 0.2360 52.21% 0.0208 4.60% 0.1950 43.14%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PUR rigid integr. skin foam I PUR 0.4530 0.2190 48.34% 0.0234 5.17% 0.2110 46.58%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PUR semi rigid foam I PUR 0.4550 0.2440 53.63% 0.0222 4.88% 0.1880 41.32%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PUR flex. moulded MDI/TDI I PUR 0.4570 0.2390 52.30% 0.0212 4.64% 0.1970 43.11%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PUR rigid foam I PUR 0.4640 0.2190 47.20% 0.0235 5.06% 0.2220 47.84%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset PUR flex. moulded. MDI I PUR 0.4690 0.2410 51.39% 0.0225 4.80% 0.2050 43.71%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset Average 0.3753 0.1139 29.19% 0.0117 3.09% 0.2497 67.71%
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset STDEV 0.0974
Rubber, Thermoplastics, Thermoset CV 25.94%
Epoxy Epoxy resin (liquid) P Epoxy 0.6420 0.1920 29.91% 0.0174 2.71% 0.4320 67.29%
Epoxy Epoxy resin I Epoxy 0.8730 0.0507 5.81% 0.0100 1.15% 0.8120 93.01%
Epoxy Epoxy resin A Epoxy 0.6390 0.1900 29.73% 0.0175 2.74% 0.4310 67.45%
Epoxy Average 0.7180 0.1442 21.82% 0.0150 2.20% 0.5583 75.92%
Epoxy STDEV 0.1342
Epoxy CV 18.70%
Appendix B13-B16: Environmental Impact of Woods in Damage Categories

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

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

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

Wood Med.-High Impact Kotibe I 10y-15y 6.4400 0.0366 0.57% 6.3700 98.91% 0.0365 0.57%
Wood Med.-High Impact Mengkulang I 5y-10y 6.4600 0.0296 0.46% 6.3900 98.92% 0.0348 0.54%
Wood Med.-High Impact Peroba I 10y-15y 6.5400 0.0308 0.47% 6.4800 99.08% 0.0353 0.54%
Wood Med.-High Impact Bosse clair I 15y-25y 6.7500 0.0417 0.62% 6.6700 98.81% 0.0417 0.62%
Wood Med.-High Impact Average 5.5368 0.0388 0.72% 5.4588 98.54% 0.0398 0.74%
Wood Med.-High Impact STDEV 0.9995
Wood Med.-High Impact CV 18.05%
Wood High Impact Carapa I 10y-15y 7.2400 0.0292 0.40% 7.1800 99.17% 0.0309 0.43%
Wood High Impact Paranapine I 5y-10y 7.2500 0.0257 0.35% 7.2000 99.31% 0.0281 0.39%
Wood High Impact Purpleheart I 15y-25y 7.5000 0.0263 0.35% 7.4400 99.20% 0.0328 0.44%
Wood High Impact Mansonia I >25y 7.5400 0.0462 0.61% 7.4500 98.81% 0.0455 0.60%
Wood High Impact Mahogany, American I 15y-25y 7.6300 0.0274 0.36% 7.5800 99.34% 0.0291 0.38%
Wood High Impact Padouk, African I >25y 8.0400 0.0424 0.53% 7.9600 99.00% 0.0423 0.53%
Wood High Impact Tiama I 10y-15y 8.1900 0.0455 0.56% 8.1000 98.90% 0.0456 0.56%
Wood High Impact Niangon I 10y-15y 8.3300 0.0389 0.47% 8.2500 99.04% 0.0389 0.47%
Wood High Impact Aningre I 5y-10y 8.4200 0.0430 0.51% 8.3400 99.05% 0.0431 0.51%
Wood High Impact Mutenye I 10y-15y 8.5400 0.0462 0.54% 8.4500 98.95% 0.0449 0.53%
Wood High Impact Wawa I <5y 8.7900 0.0481 0.55% 8.6900 98.86% 0.0489 0.56%
Wood High Impact Tchitola I 10y-15y 8.8500 0.0415 0.47% 8.7700 99.10% 0.0416 0.47%
Wood High Impact Koto I <5y 9.2200 0.0513 0.56% 9.1200 98.92% 0.0512 0.56%

Wood High Impact Canaria I <5y 9.4100 0.0497 0.53% 9.3100 98.94% 0.0499 0.53%
Wood High Impact Palissander, Indisch I >25y 9.4900 0.0268 0.28% 9.4400 99.47% 0.0295 0.31%
Wood High Impact Abura I <5y 9.5900 0.0493 0.51% 9.5000 99.06% 0.0487 0.51%
Wood High Impact Ilomba I 15y-25y 10.4000 0.0530 0.51% 10.3000 99.04% 0.0532 0.51%
Wood High Impact Antiaris I <5y 10.6000 0.0489 0.46% 10.5000 99.06% 0.0492 0.46%
Wood High Impact Okoume I 5y-10y 10.7000 0.0423 0.40% 10.6000 99.07% 0.0424 0.40%
Wood High Impact Baboen I <5y 11.0000 0.0294 0.27% 10.9000 99.09% 0.0339 0.31%
Wood High Impact Olon I 10y-15y 11.3000 0.0453 0.40% 11.2000 99.12% 0.0455 0.40%
Wood High Impact Cottonwood I <5y 11.6000 0.0322 0.28% 11.5000 99.14% 0.0451 0.39%
Wood High Impact Wenge I 15y-25y 11.8000 0.0283 0.24% 11.7000 99.15% 0.0315 0.27%
Wood High Impact Emeri I 5y-10y 12.4000 0.0353 0.28% 12.3000 99.19% 0.0491 0.40%
Wood High Impact Average 9.3263 0.0397 0.43% 9.2408 99.08% 0.0417 0.45%
Wood High Impact STDEV 1.5627
Wood High Impact CV 16.76%
Appendix C1 & C2: Environmental Impact of Glass and Ceramic Materials in Impact Categories
Material Cases Carcino Resp. Resp. Climate Radia- Ozone Ecotoxi- Acidification/ Land Fossil
Total Minerals
gens organics inorganics change tion layer city Eutrophication use fuels
(Pts) (Pts)
Name Group (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts)
Ceramics I Ceramic 0.0194 8.9E-07 1.4E-06 2.3E-03 1.1E-03 0 2.3E-10 4.4E-07 3.2E-04 5.8E-03 2.7E-08 9.9E-03
Ceramic (fine) Ceramic 0.0238 0 9.5E-05 3.6E-03 3.4E-03 0 0 2.1E-06 6.1E-04 0 0 1.6E-02
Stoneware I Ceramic 0.0269 3.3E-06 2.5E-06 4.0E-03 1.6E-03 0 9.2E-10 3.6E-06 6.6E-04 6.1E-03 6.1E-08 1.5E-02
Ceramics ETH T Ceramic 0.0280 2.6E-04 5.3E-06 4.4E-03 2.0E-03 8.5E-06 1.3E-06 9.9E-05 5.4E-04 3.6E-04 1.6E-05 2.0E-02
Porcelain I Ceramic 0.0384 1.6E-05 8.3E-06 9.1E-03 2.0E-03 0 4.5E-09 9.3E-06 1.4E-03 7.3E-03 2.4E-07 1.9E-02
Average 0.0273 5.6E-05 2.2E-05 4.7E-03 2.0E-03 1.7E-06 2.7E-07 2.3E-05 7.0E-04 3.9E-03 3.2E-06 1.6E-02
Contibution to total (%) 0.20% 0.08% 17.05% 7.44% 0.01% 0.00% 0.08% 2.58% 14.30% 0.01% 58.28%
Glass (brown) B250 Glass 0.0495 6.6E-04 5.6E-05 1.1E-02 4.3E-03 0 1.5E-05 2.7E-03 1.2E-03 0 2.9E-09 2.9E-02
Glass (green) B250 Glass 0.0505 5.6E-04 4.6E-05 1.0E-02 3.3E-03 0 1.3E-05 7.4E-03 1.4E-03 0 0 2.8E-02
Glass (white) B250 Glass 0.0571 6.4E-04 5.5E-05 1.3E-02 4.2E-03 0 1.4E-05 9.2E-03 1.3E-03 0 3.4E-09 2.9E-02
Glass oil-fired bj Glass 0.0579 0 0 3.2E-02 3.3E-03 0 0 0 3.9E-03 0 0 1.8E-02
Glass gas-fired bj Glass 0.0603 0 0 3.4E-02 1.4E-03 0 0 0 5.6E-03 0 0 1.9E-02
Glass (virgin) Glass 0.0652 7.3E-04 6.6E-05 1.7E-02 5.3E-03 0 1.6E-05 1.2E-02 1.2E-03 0 7.6E-09 3.0E-02
Average 0.0568 4.3E-04 3.7E-05 2.0E-02 3.6E-03 0 9.6E-06 5.1E-03 2.4E-03 0 2.3E-09 2.6E-02
Appendix C3-C5: Environmental Impact of Ferrous Materials in Impact Categories
Material Cases Carcino Resp. Resp. Climate Radia- Ozone Ecotoxi- Acidification Land Fossil
Total Minerals
gens organics inorganics change tion layer city / Eutrophi- use fuels
Group Name (Pts) (Pts)
(Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) cation (Pts) (Pts) (Pts)
No Ni ferro Steel bj 0.0528 0.0002 1.00E-03 0.0129 0.0059 x 2.58E-07 4.92E-05 1.33E-03 0.0002 0.0009 0.0304
No Ni ferro Iron 0.0574 0.0001 1.15E-03 0.0125 0.0062 x 1.42E-07 2.77E-05 1.36E-03 0.0001 0.0010 0.0349
No Ni ferro GS-70 I 0.0621 0.0015 3.75E-05 0.0235 0.0054 x 9.39E-08 0.0030 3.00E-03 0.0055 0.0011 0.0191
No Ni ferro St13 I 0.0629 0.0016 3.82E-05 0.0239 0.0055 x 9.61E-08 0.0030 3.06E-03 0.0056 0.0011 0.0191
No Ni ferro Fe520 I 0.0629 0.0016 3.82E-05 0.0239 0.0055 x 9.61E-08 0.0030 3.06E-03 0.0056 0.0011 0.0191
No Ni ferro St14 I 0.0629 0.0016 3.82E-05 0.0239 0.0055 x 9.61E-08 0.0030 3.06E-03 0.0056 0.0011 0.0191
No Ni ferro S355J2G1W I 0.0629 0.0016 3.82E-05 0.0239 0.0055 x 9.61E-08 0.0030 3.06E-03 0.0056 0.0011 0.0191
No Ni ferro Steel I 0.0644 0.0017 4.02E-05 0.0249 0.0056 x 1.02E-07 0.0032 3.19E-03 0.0059 0.0011 0.0187
No Ni ferro ASt35 (1.0346) I 0.0660 0.0017 4.02E-05 0.0252 0.0057 x 1.01E-07 0.0032 3.22E-03 0.0059 0.0012 0.0199
No Ni ferro C15 I 0.0661 0.0017 4.02E-05 0.0252 0.0057 x 1.01E-07 0.0032 3.22E-03 0.0059 0.0012 0.0200
No Ni ferro 35S20 (1.0726) I 0.0669 0.0017 4.04E-05 0.0253 0.0058 x 1.01E-07 0.0032 3.24E-03 0.0059 0.0012 0.0205
No Ni ferro GGG40 I 0.0671 0.0002 1.79E-05 0.0107 0.0024 x 3.37E-08 0.0013 1.48E-03 0.0025 0.0384 0.0102
No Ni ferro 10SPb20 (1.0721) I 0.0675 0.0017 4.02E-05 0.0253 0.0058 x 1.01E-07 0.0032 3.23E-03 0.0059 0.0018 0.0205
Total Minerals
No Ni ferro 9SMnPb (1.0718) I 0.0682 0.0017 4.02E-05 0.0254 0.0058 x 1.01E-07 0.0032 3.23E-03 0.0059 0.0020 0.0210
No Ni ferro 38Si6 I 0.0689 0.0016 4.03E-05 0.0258 0.0061 x 9.99E-08 0.0032 3.29E-03 0.0059 0.0012 0.0219
No Ni ferro 15Cr3 I 0.0694 0.0017 4.04E-05 0.0258 0.0062 x 1.03E-07 0.0032 3.29E-03 0.0059 0.0013 0.0221
No Ni ferro 67SiCr5 I 0.0694 0.0017 4.04E-05 0.0259 0.0062 x 1.02E-07 0.0032 3.31E-03 0.0059 0.0012 0.0220
No Ni ferro Crude iron I 0.0695 0.0006 4.39E-05 0.0271 0.0058 x 1.05E-07 0.0025 3.64E-03 0.0067 0.0013 0.0218
No Ni ferro GS-45.3 I 0.0697 0.0016 4.03E-05 0.0257 0.0061 x 9.96E-08 0.0032 3.27E-03 0.0059 0.0013 0.0227
No Ni ferro 55Si7 I 0.0698 0.0016 4.03E-05 0.0259 0.0062 x 9.95E-08 0.0032 3.30E-03 0.0059 0.0012 0.0225
No Ni ferro 37MnSi5 I 0.0701 0.0016 4.03E-05 0.0259 0.0062 x 9.94E-08 0.0032 3.30E-03 0.0059 0.0012 0.0228
No Ni ferro 42MnV7 I 0.0706 0.0016 4.04E-05 0.0258 0.0062 x 9.99E-08 0.0032 3.29E-03 0.0061 0.0013 0.0231
No Ni ferro 42CrMo4 I 0.0717 0.0017 4.06E-05 0.0262 0.0064 x 1.03E-07 0.0032 3.33E-03 0.0060 0.0014 0.0235
No Ni ferro 34Cr4 I 0.0724 0.0016 4.06E-05 0.0264 0.0065 x 1.03E-07 0.0032 3.36E-03 0.0060 0.0014 0.0239
No Ni ferro 50 CrV4 I 0.0730 0.0017 4.06E-05 0.0264 0.0066 x 1.03E-07 0.0032 3.36E-03 0.0062 0.0014 0.0242
No Ni ferro GS-22Mo4 I 0.0744 0.0017 4.04E-05 0.0259 0.0062 x 1.02E-07 0.0032 3.30E-03 0.0083 0.0034 0.0225
No Ni ferro 50CrV4 I 0.0752 0.0016 4.07E-05 0.0268 0.0068 x 1.03E-07 0.0032 3.40E-03 0.0063 0.0014 0.0257
No Ni ferro A517b I 0.0759 0.0016 4.05E-05 0.0261 0.0064 x 1.02E-07 0.0032 3.32E-03 0.0083 0.0035 0.0235
No Ni ferro 22Mo4 I 0.0759 0.0017 4.03E-05 0.0255 0.0060 x 1.01E-07 0.0032 3.26E-03 0.0100 0.0049 0.0214
No Ni ferro A514(A) I 0.0765 0.0017 4.05E-05 0.0260 0.0063 x 1.02E-07 0.0032 3.31E-03 0.0088 0.0039 0.0233
Total Minerals
No Ni ferro 9S20 I 0.0767 0.0016 3.98E-05 0.0266 0.0059 x 9.81E-08 0.0031 3.28E-03 0.0060 0.0086 0.0216
No Ni ferro 25CrMo4 I 0.0780 0.0017 4.06E-05 0.0263 0.0065 x 1.04E-07 0.0032 3.35E-03 0.0089 0.0041 0.0240
No Ni ferro A517a I 0.0784 0.0016 4.05E-05 0.0262 0.0065 x 1.02E-07 0.0032 3.34E-03 0.0092 0.0043 0.0240
No Ni ferro 34CrAl6 I 0.0788 0.0020 4.10E-05 0.0279 0.0073 x 2.17E-07 0.0032 3.47E-03 0.0062 0.0019 0.0269
No Ni ferro 13CrMo4 5 (1.7335) I 0.0836 0.0017 4.06E-05 0.0263 0.0065 x 1.03E-07 0.0032 3.35E-03 0.0118 0.0067 0.0240
No Ni ferro Tin plate bj 0.0858 0.0031 1.02E-03 0.0225 0.0103 x 3.86E-06 0.0007 2.44E-03 0.0024 0.0009 0.0424
No Ni ferro Steel ETH T 0.0866 0.0220 4.33E-05 0.0156 0.0098 4.63E-05 1.24E-05 0.0140 1.54E-03 0.0018 0.0015 0.0202
No Ni ferro X30Cr13 (~420) I 0.0871 0.0012 3.16E-05 0.0235 0.0075 x 1.04E-07 0.0022 2.95E-03 0.0049 0.0133 0.0314
No Ni ferro 21MoV53 I 0.0872 0.0016 4.09E-05 0.0271 0.0069 x 1.02E-07 0.0032 3.43E-03 0.0125 0.0066 0.0258
No Ni ferro X12Cr13 (416) I 0.0876 0.0012 3.16E-05 0.0236 0.0075 x 1.04E-07 0.0022 2.96E-03 0.0049 0.0134 0.0318
No Ni ferro X7CrAl13 (405) I 0.0880 0.0013 3.16E-05 0.0238 0.0076 x 1.24E-07 0.0022 2.97E-03 0.0050 0.0134 0.0318
No Ni ferro Crude iron ETH T 0.0927 0.0267 5.08E-05 0.0169 0.0112 2.12E-05 1.20E-05 0.0109 1.72E-03 0.0015 0.0020 0.0217
No Ni ferro Converter steel ETH T 0.0947 0.0264 4.89E-05 0.0155 0.0108 2.10E-05 1.24E-05 0.0158 1.57E-03 0.0014 0.0018 0.0214
No Ni ferro ECCS steel sheet 0.0988 0.0168 3.72E-05 0.0233 0.0174 x 6.79E-06 0.0030 2.53E-03 x 0.0017 0.0340
No Ni ferro X90CrCoMoV17 I 0.1070 0.0012 3.16E-05 0.0253 0.0087 x 1.10E-07 0.0021 3.15E-03 0.0100 0.0183 0.0379
Total Minerals
No Ni ferro Steel low alloy ETH T 0.1080 0.0259 5.40E-05 0.0209 0.0121 5.55E-05 1.63E-05 0.0154 1.91E-03 0.0022 0.0024 0.0271
No Ni ferro X10Cr13 (mart 410) I 0.1270 0.0012 3.80E-05 0.0324 0.0115 x 1.04E-07 0.0024 4.00E-03 0.0056 0.0139 0.0564
No Ni ferro X90CrMoV18 (440B) I 0.1350 0.0012 3.67E-05 0.0332 0.0134 x 1.13E-07 0.0021 4.08E-03 0.0058 0.0142 0.0608
Average 0.0772 0.0034 0.0001 0.0239 0.0069 3.60E-05 1.21E-06 0.0035 0.0030 0.0058 0.0059 0.0248
Low Ni Ferro X35CrMo17 I 0.1140 0.0012 3.18E-05 0.0251 0.0086 x 1.10E-07 0.0021 0.0031 0.0144 0.0225 0.0369
Low Ni Ferro 28NiCrMo4 I 0.1160 0.0017 4.13E-05 0.0531 0.0075 x 1.05E-07 0.0032 0.0050 0.0088 0.0105 0.0262
Low Ni Ferro GX12Cr14 (CA15) I 0.1160 0.0012 3.23E-05 0.0427 0.0085 x 1.07E-07 0.0022 0.0042 0.0049 0.0179 0.0347
Low Ni Ferro 15NiMn6 (1.6228) I 0.1210 0.0017 4.20E-05 0.0604 0.0078 x 1.08E-07 0.0032 0.0054 0.0060 0.0095 0.0274
Low Ni Ferro GS-10Ni6 I 0.1250 0.0017 4.17E-05 0.0635 0.0078 x 1.08E-07 0.0032 0.0056 0.0059 0.0103 0.0268
Low Ni Ferro 36NiCr6 I 0.1250 0.0017 4.18E-05 0.0618 0.0082 x 1.08E-07 0.0031 0.0055 0.0059 0.0099 0.0291
Low Ni Ferro X22CrNi17 (431) I 0.1490 0.0012 3.31E-05 0.0606 0.0102 x 1.16E-07 0.0021 0.0053 0.0050 0.0225 0.0423
Low Ni Ferro 30CrNiMo8 I 0.1620 0.0016 4.28E-05 0.0756 0.0100 x 1.13E-07 0.0031 0.0065 0.0107 0.0174 0.0374
Average 0.1481 0.0015 3.99E-05 0.0695 0.0093 0 1.11E-07 0.0029 0.0060 0.0072 0.0166 0.0351
Total Minerals
High Ni Ferro GGL-NiCuCr I 0.3340 0.0002 2.59E-05 0.2010 0.0139 x 6.30E-08 0.0011 0.0135 0.0027 0.0483 0.0527
High Ni Ferro X10CrNiS (303) I 0.3690 0.0011 3.81E-05 0.1990 0.0186 x 1.39E-07 0.0019 0.0140 0.0049 0.0558 0.0740
High Ni Ferro GX5CrNi19 10 (CF8) I 0.3990 0.0011 3.88E-05 0.2180 0.0199 x 1.44E-07 0.0018 0.0152 0.0049 0.0605 0.0780
High Ni Ferro X6CrNi18 (~304) I 0.4010 0.0011 3.88E-05 0.2180 0.0200 x 1.44E-07 0.0018 0.0152 0.0049 0.0605 0.0790
High Ni Ferro X5CrNi18 (304) I 0.4010 0.0011 3.88E-05 0.2180 0.0200 x 1.44E-07 0.0018 0.0152 0.0049 0.0605 0.0790
High Ni Ferro X8Ni9 I 0.4070 0.0016 4.86E-05 0.2420 0.0184 x 1.33E-07 0.0029 0.0168 0.0059 0.0529 0.0657
High Ni Ferro GGG-NiCr I 0.4150 0.0003 2.88E-05 0.2540 0.0171 x 7.31E-08 0.0011 0.0168 0.0027 0.0590 0.0643
High Ni Ferro GGG-NiSiCr I 0.4530 0.0002 2.78E-05 0.2540 0.0174 x 7.21E-08 0.0011 0.0168 0.0024 0.0962 0.0653
High Ni Ferro X2CrNiMo1712 (316L) I 0.4670 0.0011 3.92E-05 0.2200 0.0213 x 1.41E-07 0.0017 0.0155 0.0343 0.0872 0.0861
High Ni Ferro X5CrNiMo18 (316) I 0.4780 0.0011 4.04E-05 0.2350 0.0220 x 1.48E-07 0.0018 0.0164 0.0285 0.0855 0.0877
High Ni Ferro X12CrNi 18 9 I 0.5020 0.0014 5.47E-05 0.2600 0.0300 x 1.73E-07 0.0023 0.0188 0.0067 0.0572 0.1260
High Ni Ferro X10CrNiMoNb I 0.6020 0.0010 4.94E-05 0.2870 0.0321 x 1.49E-07 0.0017 0.0205 0.0308 0.0935 0.1350
High Ni Ferro GS-X40CrNiSi 25 12 I 0.6620 0.0013 5.97E-05 0.3390 0.0386 x 2.01E-07 0.0020 0.0241 0.0129 0.0814 0.1630
Average 0.4531 0.0010 4.07E-05 0.2419 0.0223 0 1.33E-07 0.0018 0.0168 0.0113 0.0691 0.0889
Appendix C6-C8:Environmental Impact of Non-ferrous Materials in Impact Categories
Material Cases Carcinog Resp. Resp. Climate Radia- Ozone Ecotoxi- Acidification/ Land Fossil
Total Minerals
ens organics inorganics change tion layer city Eutrophication use fuels
(Pts) (Pts)
Group Name (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts)
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys Manganese ETH T 0.2500 0.0193 0.0001 0.0797 0.0294 0.0007 6.35E-05 0.0044 0.0068 0.0221 0.0086 0.0786
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys Silicon I 0.2580 0.0000 0.0000 0.0683 0.0297 x 1.12E-08 0.0010 0.0087 0.0043 0.0000 0.1460
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys Ferrochromium I 0.2740 0.0008 0.0000 0.0537 0.0310 x 3.33E-07 0.0001 0.0064 0.0057 0.0240 0.1520
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys Zamak3 I 0.3760 0.0121 0.0001 0.0874 0.0205 x 4.74E-06 0.0223 0.0088 0.0103 0.1190 0.0962
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys Zamak5 I 0.3910 0.0119 0.0001 0.0941 0.0206 x 4.69E-06 0.0220 0.0092 0.0108 0.1250 0.0973
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys ZnCuTi I 0.3960 0.0112 0.0001 0.0949 0.0209 x 4.45E-06 0.0226 0.0094 0.0104 0.1260 0.1010
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys Zinc (super plastic) I 0.4020 0.0147 0.0001 0.0957 0.0266 x 5.62E-06 0.0186 0.0090 0.0120 0.1110 0.1150
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys G-ZnAlCu I 0.4190 0.0117 0.0001 0.1070 0.0208 x 4.61E-06 0.0216 0.0100 0.0117 0.1360 0.0996
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys Lead I 0.4230 0.0000 0.0000 0.0731 0.0108 x x 0.0010 0.0055 0.0078 0.2660 0.0591
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys Zinc I 0.4350 0.0153 0.0001 0.1140 0.0255 x 6.06E-06 0.0307 0.0116 0.0129 0.1020 0.1230
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys G-AlSi12 (230) I 0.5240 0.0252 0.0001 0.1450 0.0556 x 9.01E-06 0.0031 0.0113 0.0253 0.0446 0.2140
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys Aluminium raw bj 0.5300 0.0001 0.0007 0.3330 0.0521 x 2.79E-08 0.0000 0.0237 0.0000 0.0573 0.0626
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys G-AlSi12Cu (231) I 0.5310 0.0248 0.0001 0.1490 0.0553 x 8.87E-06 0.0031 0.0115 0.0255 0.0485 0.2130
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys G-AlSi7Mg (Thixo) I 0.5370 0.0271 0.0001 0.1480 0.0581 x 9.71E-06 0.0033 0.0113 0.0262 0.0430 0.2200
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys AlMg3 (5754a) I 0.5450 0.0275 0.0001 0.1510 0.0598 x 9.86E-06 0.0033 0.0116 0.0263 0.0431 0.2220
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys AlSiMgMn (6009) I 0.5590 0.0291 0.0001 0.1540 0.0606 x 1.04E-05 0.0034 0.0116 0.0273 0.0450 0.2280
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys AlMn1.2Mg1 (3004) I 0.5600 0.0290 0.0001 0.1540 0.0609 x 1.04E-05 0.0034 0.0117 0.0273 0.0450 0.2290
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys AlMgSi0.7 (6005) I 0.5610 0.0294 0.0001 0.1550 0.0610 x 1.05E-05 0.0035 0.0117 0.0275 0.0453 0.2280
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys AlMn1 (3003) I 0.5610 0.0295 0.0001 0.1540 0.0606 x 1.06E-05 0.0035 0.0115 0.0276 0.0455 0.2280
Total Minerals
(Pts) (Pts)
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys G-AlMg3 (242) I 0.5610 0.0283 0.0001 0.1560 0.0614 x 1.02E-05 0.0034 0.0119 0.0270 0.0446 0.2280
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys Al99 I 0.5640 0.0298 0.0001 0.1550 0.0611 x 1.07E-05 0.0035 0.0116 0.0278 0.0459 0.2290
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys AlMg1 (5005) I 0.5640 0.0295 0.0001 0.1560 0.0614 x 1.06E-05 0.0035 0.0117 0.0276 0.0454 0.2290
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys AlMg4.5Mn (5182) I 0.5640 0.0281 0.0001 0.1570 0.0623 x 1.01E-05 0.0034 0.0121 0.0268 0.0437 0.2310
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys Aluminium ingots B250 0.5650 0.0310 0.0004 0.1760 0.0583 x 9.81E-05 0.0104 0.0116 x 0.0441 0.2340
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys Chromium I 0.5680 0.0008 0.0001 0.1170 0.0676 x 3.33E-07 0.0001 0.0139 0.0107 0.0240 0.3330
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys AlZnCuMg (7075) I 0.5770 0.0267 0.0001 0.1650 0.0582 x 9.59E-06 0.0048 0.0126 0.0270 0.0609 0.2220
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys G-AlSi8Cu3 (380) I 0.5780 0.0252 0.0001 0.1690 0.0557 x 9.05E-06 0.0034 0.0127 0.0271 0.0679 0.2160
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys Cadmium I 0.5930 0.0153 0.0001 0.1380 0.0276 x 6.08E-06 0.0040 0.0151 0.2520 0.0001 0.1420
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys Aluminium foil B250 0.5980 0.0326 0.0004 0.1810 0.0616 x 1.01E-04 0.0111 0.0122 x 0.0441 0.2550
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys AlMgSi0.5 (6060) I 0.6040 0.0295 0.0001 0.1680 0.0669 x 1.06E-05 0.0036 0.0132 0.0280 0.0454 0.2490
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys AlCuSiMg (2036) I 0.6060 0.0286 0.0001 0.1760 0.0600 x 1.03E-05 0.0034 0.0129 0.0289 0.0676 0.2290
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys G-AlMg5 (314) I 0.6120 0.0266 0.0001 0.1810 0.0611 x 9.52E-06 0.0032 0.0137 0.0279 0.0686 0.2300
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys AlCuMg1 (2017) I 0.6290 0.0278 0.0001 0.1880 0.0596 x 9.95E-06 0.0033 0.0137 0.0293 0.0790 0.2290
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys AlCuMg2 (2024) I 0.6390 0.0275 0.0001 0.1920 0.0600 x 9.86E-06 0.0033 0.0141 0.0295 0.0823 0.2300
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys G-AlCu4TiMg (204) I 0.6400 0.0280 0.0001 0.1920 0.0595 x 1.00E-05 0.0033 0.0140 0.0298 0.0837 0.2290
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys AlCuMgPb (2011) I 0.6490 0.0275 0.0001 0.1920 0.0599 x 9.86E-06 0.0033 0.0141 0.0296 0.0911 0.2310
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys MgZn6Zr I 0.6560 0.0009 0.0000 0.2240 0.0977 x 3.33E-07 0.0028 0.0247 0.0051 0.0056 0.2950
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys G-MgAl6Zn3 I 0.6590 0.0026 0.0000 0.2240 0.0977 x 9.36E-07 0.0022 0.0243 0.0061 0.0057 0.2970
Total Minerals
(Pts) (Pts)
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys GD-MgAl9Zn1 I 0.6630 0.0033 0.0000 0.2250 0.0985 x 1.17E-06 0.0016 0.0242 0.0065 0.0047 0.3000
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys MgAl6Zn I 0.6640 0.0025 0.0000 0.2260 0.0990 x 8.77E-07 0.0017 0.0245 0.0060 0.0039 0.3000
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys MgMn1.5 I 0.6640 0.0000 0.0000 0.2280 0.1010 x x 0.0012 0.0252 0.0046 0.0001 0.3040
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys AM100A I 0.6650 0.0035 0.0000 0.2250 0.0987 x 1.26E-06 0.0015 0.0242 0.0067 0.0044 0.3000
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys AM503 I 0.6650 0.0000 0.0000 0.2290 0.1010 x x 0.0012 0.0252 0.0046 0.0001 0.3040
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys MgAl3Zn I 0.6650 0.0012 0.0000 0.2280 0.1000 x 4.38E-07 0.0016 0.0249 0.0053 0.0024 0.3020
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys Magnesium I 0.6690 0.0000 0.0000 0.2310 0.1020 x x 0.0012 0.0255 0.0046 0.0000 0.3050
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys Ni-pigmented aluminiumoxide

0.8100
ETH T 0.4200 0.0003 0.1250 0.0296 0.0002 1.64E-04 0.0136 0.0090 0.0060 0.0130 0.1930
Al, Mg, Zn, Mn & their alloys Tungsten I 0.8900 0.0000 0.0001 0.2340 0.1160 x x 0.0010 0.0251 0.2180 0.0000 0.2960
Average 0.5640 0.0245 0.0001 0.1657 0.0612 0.0005 1.55E-05 0.0056 0.0148 0.0263 0.0495 0.2174
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloysCuZn40Pb I 1.5500 0.0060 0.0000 0.6320 0.0340 x 2.39E-06 0.0122 0.0426 0.0480 0.5620 0.2100
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloysCuZn40 I 1.5900 0.0061 0.0000 0.6540 0.0348 x 2.43E-06 0.0124 0.0440 0.0496 0.5750 0.2150
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloysG-CuZn40 I 1.5900 0.0061 0.0000 0.6540 0.0348 x 2.43E-06 0.0124 0.0440 0.0496 0.5750 0.2150
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloysG-CuZn37Pb I 1.6100 0.0059 0.0000 0.6630 0.0350 x 2.31E-06 0.0115 0.0445 0.0502 0.5860 0.2170
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloysVanadium I 1.6200 0.0002 0.0001 0.3250 0.1810 x 8.19E-08 0.0000 0.0385 0.2160 0.0000 0.8580
Total Minerals
(Pts) (Pts)
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloysNi span C902 I 1.7300 0.0015 0.0001 1.0500 0.0739 x 3.28E-07 0.0017 0.0686 0.0061 0.2440 0.2750
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloysInvar I 1.7900 0.0228 0.0001 0.9900 0.0976 x 8.21E-06 0.0026 0.0641 0.0182 0.2360 0.3550
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloysTiAl6V4 I 1.8400 0.0022 0.0002 0.4390 0.2330 x 7.69E-07 0.0011 0.0521 0.0152 0.0026 1.1000
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloysTitanium I 1.9300 0.0000 0.0002 0.4610 0.2470 x 1.29E-08 0.0010 0.0553 0.0056 0.0000 1.1600
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloysNiFe 50 50 I 1.9500 0.0014 0.0001 1.2300 0.0756 x 2.85E-07 0.0017 0.0788 0.0058 0.2890 0.2700
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloysG-CuZn15 I 2.0700 0.0023 0.0000 0.8790 0.0387 x 9.17E-07 0.0047 0.0575 0.0648 0.7730 0.2540
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloysG-CuAl10Fe I 2.1200 0.0036 0.0000 0.9010 0.0430 x 1.27E-06 0.0006 0.0585 0.0671 0.7800 0.2680
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloysG-CuAl10Ni I 2.1700 0.0037 0.0000 0.9640 0.0482 x 1.29E-06 0.0006 0.0624 0.0623 0.7490 0.2780
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloysTiAl5Sn2 I 2.2300 0.0018 0.0002 0.4400 0.2340 x 6.41E-07 0.0012 0.0524 0.0066 0.3980 1.1000
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloysCuNi18Zn I 2.2400 0.0033 0.0001 1.0900 0.0568 x 1.30E-06 0.0063 0.0708 0.0495 0.6770 0.2900
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloysTiV15SnCrAl3 I 2.2400 0.0011 0.0002 0.4130 0.2210 x 4.09E-07 0.0010 0.0493 0.0380 0.4780 1.0400
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloysCuAl5 I 2.2700 0.0020 0.0000 0.9750 0.0435 x 7.04E-07 0.0003 0.0631 0.0704 0.8370 0.2780
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloysCopper I 2.3600 0.0000 0.0000 1.0100 0.0411 x 9.57E-09 0.0001 0.0656 0.0740 0.8910 0.2770
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloysCu-E I 2.3600 0.0000 0.0000 1.0100 0.0411 x 9.57E-09 0.0001 0.0656 0.0740 0.8910 0.2770
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloysCuAg-E I 2.3600 0.0000 0.0000 1.0100 0.0411 x 9.57E-09 0.0001 0.0656 0.0740 0.8910 0.2770
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloysG-CuNi10 I 2.4500 0.0002 0.0000 1.1300 0.0508 x 5.66E-08 0.0002 0.0728 0.0652 0.8340 0.2970
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloysCuNi10Fe I 2.4600 0.0002 0.0000 1.1400 0.0509 x 5.68E-08 0.0002 0.0732 0.0657 0.8410 0.2970
Total Minerals
(Pts) (Pts)
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloysMolybdenum I 2.7100 0.0002 0.0001 0.1040 0.0585 x 8.19E-08 0.0000 0.0123 1.1800 1.0700 0.2820
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloysG-CuSn5Zn5Pb5 I 2.8800 0.0008 0.0000 0.8800 0.0407 x 3.12E-07 0.0018 0.0577 0.0643 1.5700 0.2640
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloysCuNi44Mn I 2.9800 0.0005 0.0001 1.6300 0.0868 x 2.12E-07 0.0002 0.1040 0.0429 0.7390 0.3830
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloysSupermalloy I 3.0300 0.0011 0.0001 1.8400 0.1130 x 3.76E-07 0.0007 0.1170 0.0645 0.4860 0.4090
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloysNiCr20TiAl I 3.0900 0.0015 0.0001 1.8900 0.1310 x 6.05E-07 0.0002 0.1220 0.0069 0.4440 0.4950
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloysMumetal I 3.1100 0.0011 0.0001 1.9400 0.1180 x 3.83E-07 0.0007 0.1230 0.0092 0.4890 0.4300
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloysNiCr 80 20 I 3.1900 0.0010 0.0001 1.9700 0.1300 x 4.41E-07 0.0001 0.1260 0.0066 0.4660 0.4840
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloysNiCu30Fe I 3.3000 0.0008 0.0001 1.9400 0.1100 x 3.17E-07 0.0002 0.1230 0.0272 0.6640 0.4340
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloysCuSn6.7P I 3.3100 0.0000 0.0000 0.9560 0.0436 x 9.99E-09 0.0003 0.0626 0.0695 1.8900 0.2840
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloysNiCu30Al I 3.3900 0.0017 0.0001 1.9500 0.1260 x 6.55E-07 0.0003 0.1260 0.0267 0.6470 0.5050
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloysNiCr20Co18Ti I 3.4800 0.0008 0.0001 1.4900 0.1140 x 3.45E-07 0.0002 0.0971 0.9860 0.3450 0.4430
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloysNiMo30 I 3.4900 0.0008 0.0001 1.6600 0.1160 x 3.41E-07 0.0002 0.1070 0.4840 0.6840 0.4380
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloysCuSn8 I 3.5000 0.0000 0.0000 0.9460 0.0442 x 1.01E-08 0.0004 0.0620 0.0687 2.0900 0.2860
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloysDuranik I 3.6600 0.0026 0.0001 2.3100 0.1420 x 9.95E-07 0.0003 0.1470 0.0065 0.5450 0.5100
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloysG-CuSn10 I 3.7800 0.0000 0.0000 0.9290 0.0450 x 1.02E-08 0.0004 0.0611 0.0674 2.3900 0.2880
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloysNi 99.6 I 3.8400 0.0011 0.0001 2.4400 0.1460 x 4.69E-07 0.0001 0.1540 0.0056 0.5770 0.5210
Cu, Ni, V, Ti, Mo& their alloysG-CuSn12 I 4.0600 0.0000 0.0000 0.9130 0.0458 x 1.03E-08 0.0005 0.0603 0.0660 2.6900 0.2900
Average 2.5436 0.0023 0.0001 1.0989 0.0876 8.69E-07 0.0025 0.0739 0.1079 0.7600 0.4109
Contibution to total (%) 0.09% 0.00% 43.20% 3.44% 0.00% 0.10% 2.91% 4.24% 29.88% 16.16%
Total Minerals
(Pts) (Pts)
Co & Sn & Pts & Pd & Rd Cobalt I 6.34 2.33E-05 4.58E-05 0.09 0.05 x x 0.00 0.01 5.94 0.00 0.24
Co & Sn & Pts & Pd & Rd Tin I 16.50 5.70E-05 9.83E-05 0.17 0.08 x 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 15.90 0.39
Co & Sn & Pts & Pd & Rd Palladium enriched ETH T 4610 251 0.05 3720 21.20 0.18 0.02 296.00 214 4.73 0.40 102.00
Co & Sn & Pts & Pd & Rd Platinum ETH T 6960 448 0.11 5510 75.70 0.28 0.04 419.00 319 9.65 0.93 179.00
Co & Sn & Pts & Pd & Rd Rhodium enriched ETH T 12300 803 0.21 9750 144.00 0.51 0.07 730.00 566 18.00 1.75 331.00
Appendix C9:Environmental Impact of Paper Materials in Impact Categories
Carcino Resp. Resp. Climate Radia- Ozone Ecotoxi- Acidification/ Land Fossil
Total Minerals
Material Cases gens organics inorganics change tion layer city Eutrophica- use fuels
(Pts) (Pts)
(Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) tion (Pts) (Pts) (Pts)
Paper kraft-bleached B 0.0520 0 0.0002 0.0344 0.0090 0 0 9.85E-07 0.0031 0 0 0.0054

Paper unbleached B 0.0570 0 0.0002 0.0397 0.0086 0 0 2.74E-07 0.0032 0 0 0.0053
Paper wood-free C B250 0.0574 0.0015 0.0000 0.0133 0.0038 0 2.82E-06 3.91E-04 0.0015 0 2.05E-07 0.0369
Paper bleached B 0.0626 0 0.0002 0.0432 0.0095 0 0 1.24E-06 0.0034 0 0 0.0062
Paper wood-free U B250 0.0740 0.0024 0.0000 0.0179 0.0050 0 4.33E-06 4.70E-04 0.0020 0 2.45E-07 0.0462
Kraftpaper bleached C B250 0.0767 0.0029 0.0001 0.0195 0.0053 0 4.86E-06 6.10E-04 0.0022 0 1.70E-07 0.0463
Kraftpaper bleached B250 0.0796 0.0035 0.0001 0.0228 0.0053 0 5.87E-06 6.63E-04 0.0025 0 2.37E-07 0.0449
Kraftpaper unbleached 0.0900 0.0012 0.0000 0.0208 0.0062 0 7.25E-06 6.19E-04 0.0025 0 1.45E-09 0.0587
Paper ETH T 0.0926 0.0131 0.0001 0.0314 0.0024 4.93E-05 2.52E-05 3.25E-03 0.0022 0.0026 1.27E-04 0.0374
Average 0.0713 0.0027 0.0001 0.0270 0.0061 0.0000 0.0000 0.0007 0.0025 0.0003 0.0000 0.0319
Appendix C10: Environmental Impact of Cardboard Materials in Impact Categories
Total Minerals
(Pts) (Pts)
Kraftliner brown S B250 0.0190 0.0004 1.91E-05 0.0077 0.0011 0 4.27E-06 0.0002 0.0009 0 3.42E-05 0.0086
Paper newsprint B250 0.0206 0.0010 1.68E-05 0.0074 0.0017 0 3.77E-06 0.0004 0.0008 0 2.62E-05 0.0093
Fluting 0.0225 0.0004 2.42E-05 0.0085 0.0014 0 5.18E-06 0.0003 0.0011 0 6.90E-09 0.0107
Cardboard gray 0.0254 0 1.37E-04 0.0156 0.0058 0 0 0 0.0015 0 0 0.0024
Cardboard liquid 0.0289 0 1.21E-04 0.0211 0.0002 0 0 0.0000 0.0019 0 0 0.0055
Corrugated board heavy 0.0296 0 1.18E-04 0.0208 0.0049 0 0 0.0000 0.0017 0 0 0.0021
Wellenstoff 0.0300 0.0007 1.73E-05 0.0051 0.0022 0 2.20E-06 0.0004 0.0008 0 0 0.0208
Testliner 0.0301 0.0006 1.31E-05 0.0044 0.0023 0 2.10E-06 0.0004 0.0007 0 0 0.0217
Cellulose sulphate BCS 0.0312 0.0020 2.92E-05 0.0162 0.0015 0 4.27E-06 0.0002 0.0017 0 1.95E-07 0.0096
Cardboard duplex 0.0318 0 1.53E-04 0.0206 0.0063 0 0 0.0000 0.0018 0 0 0.0030
Kraftliner white top S B250 0.0322 0.0015 3.04E-05 0.0141 0.0018 0 5.84E-06 0.0004 0.0016 0 3.75E-05 0.0127
Cardboard cellulose 0.0323 0 9.08E-05 0.0220 0.0045 0 0 0.0000 0.0021 0 0 0.0036
Schrenz 0.0333 0.0006 1.20E-05 0.0039 0.0025 0 1.87E-06 0.0004 0.0005 0 0 0.0255
Sack paper S B250 0.0364 0.0013 3.46E-05 0.0141 0.0020 0 7.81E-06 0.0010 0.0017 0 4.58E-05 0.0161
Corr. cardboard mix 1 0.0375 0.0008 2.27E-05 0.0076 0.0027 0 4.00E-06 0.0005 0.0011 0 1.21E-05 0.0247
Corr. cardboard mix 3D 0.0395 0.0008 2.16E-05 0.0070 0.0029 0 3.64E-06 0.0005 0.0011 0 7.13E-06 0.0272
Corr. cardboard mix 2 0.0421 0.0012 2.66E-05 0.0098 0.0030 0 4.59E-06 0.0006 0.0014 0 1.33E-05 0.0262
Appendix C10: Environmental Impact of Cardboard Materials in Impact Categories
Total Minerals
(Pts) (Pts)
Cardboard chromo 0.0422 0 2.05E-04 0.0267 0.0079 0 0 0.0000 0.0024 0 0 0.0051
Kraftliner brown A B250 0.0434 0.0008 3.42E-05 0.0120 0.0034 0 8.07E-06 0.0004 0.0015 0 7.50E-05 0.0252
Cardboard cellulose S B250 0.0451 0.0024 4.34E-05 0.0179 0.0027 0 8.20E-06 0.0005 0.0021 0 9.43E-08 0.0195
Cardboard duplex/tripl 0.0480 0.0011 1.93E-05 0.0066 0.0035 0 3.38E-06 0.0008 0.0007 0 4.17E-05 0.0352
Corr. cardboard new 0.0488 0.0009 3.79E-05 0.0131 0.0037 0 8.53E-06 0.0005 0.0018 0 5.25E-05 0.0287
Swisskraft 0.0495 0.0003 1.17E-05 0.0056 0.0037 0 1.31E-06 0.0002 0.0007 0 1.01E-04 0.0389
Average 0.0348 0.0007 0.0001 0.0125 0.0031 0.0000 0.0000 0.0003 0.0014 0.0000 0.0000 0.0166
Appendix C11 & C12: Environmental Impact of Polymers in Impact Categories
Material Cases Carcino Resp. Resp. Climate Ozone Ecotoxi- Acidification/ Land Fossil
Total Radia- Minerals
gens organics inorganics change layer city Eutrophication use fuels
(Pts) tion (Pts) (Pts)
Group Name (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts)
Thermoplas PP GF30 I 0.2120 0.0004 0.0003 0.0347 0.0051 0 0 0.0007 0.0042 0.0025 4.19E-06 0.1640
Thermoplas PVC suspension A 0.2180 0.0011 0.0001 0.0418 0.0115 0 0 0.0001 0.0049 0 5.69E-06 0.1590
Thermoplas PVC bulk A 0.2190 0.0010 0.0001 0.0349 0.0103 0 0 0.0001 0.0043 0 3.88E-06 0.1680
Thermoplas PVC (e) I 0.2240 0.0007 0.0001 0.0613 0.0149 0 0 0.0001 0.0074 0.0026 4.13E-06 0.1370
Thermoplas PE (LLDPE) I 0.2260 0.0008 0.0005 0.0252 0.0033 0 0 0.0000 0.0037 0.0027 8.97E-08 0.1900
Thermoplas PVC film (calendered) A 0.2440 0.0011 0.0001 0.0551 0.0139 0 0 0.0001 0.0058 0 7.05E-06 0.1670
Thermoplas PE (HDPE) I 0.2500 0.0004 0.0007 0.0374 0.0051 0 0 0.0000 0.0049 0.0019 2.59E-06 0.2000
Thermoplas PVC film (unplasticised) A 0.2510 0.0012 0.0001 0.0559 0.0141 0 0 0.0001 0.0062 0 7.01E-06 0.1740
Thermoplas PET 30% glass fibre I 0.2530 0.0003 0.0009 0.0687 0.0098 0 4.58E-08 0.0008 0.0082 0.0025 3.68E-06 0.1620
Thermoplas PVC B250 0.2590 0.0058 0.0005 0.0666 0.0113 0 1.21E-05 0.0008 0.0082 0 2.89E-06 0.1660
Thermoplas PVC revised P 0.2590 0.0003 0.0006 0.0643 0.0096 0 0 0.0001 0.0077 0 2.87E-06 0.1770
Thermoplas PC 30% glass fibre I 0.2610 0.0005 0.0001 0.0645 0.0217 0 4.58E-08 0.0007 0.0078 0.0021 3.68E-06 0.1640
Thermoplas PVC emulsion A 0.2750 0.0011 0.0001 0.0615 0.0150 0 0 0.0002 0.0073 0 4.39E-06 0.1900
Thermoplas PE (LDPE) I 0.2800 0.0004 0.0007 0.0491 0.0062 0 0 0.0001 0.0061 0.0027 3.71E-06 0.2150
Thermoplas PVC high impact ETH T 0.2840 0.0196 0.0003 0.0528 0.0164 0.0002 0.0112 0.0059 0.0046 0.0058 4.06E-04 0.1670
Thermoplas PVC injection moulded A 0.2970 0.0012 0.0001 0.0656 0.0115 0 0 0.0002 0.0072 0 9.51E-06 0.2110
Thermoplas PE expanded I 0.2990 0.0004 0.0047 0.0497 0.0063 0 0 0.0001 0.0062 0.0027 3.71E-06 0.2290
Thermoplas PVC film (unplastized) P 0.3010 0.0003 0.0007 0.0855 0.0126 0 0 0.0001 0.0096 0 3.21E-06 0.1920
Thermoplas ABS I 0.3030 0.0005 0.0002 0.0482 0.0183 0 0 0.0001 0.0057 0.0024 7.76E-06 0.2280
Thermoplas HDPE B250 0.3030 0.0017 0.0006 0.0374 0.0117 0 0.0000 0.0005 0.0049 0 2.59E-06 0.2460
Thermoplas LLDPE B250 0.3030 0.0015 0.0003 0.0252 0.0109 0 0.0000 0.0004 0.0037 0 1.87E-06 0.2610
Thermoplas PP granulate average B250 0.3060 0.0021 0.0003 0.0445 0.0102 0 0.0000 0.0008 0.0054 0 4.97E-06 0.2420
Thermoplas LDPE A 0.3160 0.0002 0.0002 0.0397 0.0113 0 0 0.0001 0.0050 0 1.10E-05 0.2600
Thermoplas PP A 0.3190 0.0002 0.0001 0.0447 0.0108 0 0 0.0002 0.0053 0 2.81E-05 0.2570
Thermoplas HDPE A 0.3230 0.0003 0.0002 0.0506 0.0102 0 0 0.0002 0.0055 0 4.29E-04 0.2560
Thermoplas PE granulate average B250 0.3240 0.0024 0.0006 0.0411 0.0125 0 2.46E-05 0.0007 0.0055 0 3.71E-06 0.2610
Thermoplas PE P 0.3350 0.0004 0.0007 0.0388 0.0060 0 0 0.0000 0.0050 0 3.71E-06 0.2840
Thermoplas LDPE B250 0.3370 0.0024 0.0006 0.0491 0.0132 0 2.69E-05 0.0008 0.0061 0 3.71E-06 0.2650
Thermoplas PET bottle grade I 0.3410 0.0003 0.0013 0.0931 0.0127 0 0 0.0002 0.0110 0.0032 4.24E-06 0.2190
Thermoplas LDPE film A 0.3480 0.0003 0.0002 0.0553 0.0115 0 0 0.0001 0.0063 0 1.49E-05 0.2750
Thermoplas PS (GPPS) I 0.3490 0.0006 0.0001 0.0482 0.0155 0 0 0.0002 0.0062 0.0026 1.20E-05 0.2760
Thermoplas PC I 0.3530 0.0006 0.0002 0.0870 0.0299 0 0 0.0001 0.0104 0.0026 4.24E-06 0.2220
Thermoplas PET granulate amorph B250 0.3570 0.0022 0.0015 0.0852 0.0125 0 2.30E-05 0.0008 0.0103 0 3.92E-06 0.2450
Thermoplas PS (EPS) A 0.3590 0.0012 0.0002 0.0463 0.0148 0 0 0.0001 0.0061 0 1.49E-05 0.2900
Thermoplas LDPE revised P 0.3610 0.0004 0.0007 0.0491 0.0131 0 0 0.0001 0.0061 0 3.71E-06 0.2910
Thermoplas PET amorph I 0.3620 0.0040 0.0005 0.1280 0.0248 0 0 0.0043 0.0120 0.0032 3.83E-06 0.1850
Thermoplas PS (HIPS) I 0.3620 0.0007 0.0001 0.0505 0.0166 0 0 0.0002 0.0063 0.0026 1.25E-05 0.2850
Thermoplas HIPS ETH T 0.3650 0.0108 0.0006 0.0549 0.0168 0.0001 2.32E-04 0.0074 0.0050 0.0023 1.97E-04 0.2660
Thermoplas HDPE pipe P 0.3670 0.0004 0.0008 0.0560 0.0137 0 0 0.0000 0.0071 0 4.04E-06 0.2890
Thermoplas PB B250 (1998) 0.3750 0.0014 0.0005 0.0712 0.0196 0 2.66E-05 0.0007 0.0085 0 5.94E-06 0.2730
Thermoplas PVDC I 0.3780 0.0003 0.0011 0.1750 0.0194 0 0 0.0002 0.0187 0.0026 9.36E-05 0.1610
Thermoplas SAN A 0.3800 0.0007 0.0001 0.0366 0.0161 0 0 0.0001 0.0047 0 9.11E-06 0.3210
Thermoplas HDPE blow moulded bottles A 0.3900 0.0003 0.0002 0.0901 0.0171 0 0 0.0002 0.0088 0 4.29E-04 0.2730
Thermoplas PET resin P (1997) 0.3940 0.0040 0.0005 0.1280 0.0248 0 0 0.0043 0.0120 0 4.51E-06 0.2200
Thermoplas PP oriented film A 0.4130 0.0003 0.0001 0.0900 0.0164 0 0 0.0002 0.0098 0 3.21E-05 0.2960
Thermoplas PMMA I 0.4340 0.0005 0.0003 0.1080 0.0334 0 0 0.0003 0.0122 0.0026 9.08E-06 0.2770
Thermoplas PS thermoformed A 0.4480 0.0014 0.0003 0.0781 0.0194 0 0 0.0002 0.0095 0 1.61E-05 0.3390
Thermoplas PET ETH T 0.4490 0.0217 0.0022 0.0586 0.0201 0.0001 0.0003 0.0071 0.0056 0.0029 2.42E-04 0.3300
Thermoplas PA 6 GF30 I 0.4700 0.0109 0.0001 0.1400 0.0619 0 0 0.0004 0.0153 0 2.81E-05 0.2420
Thermoplas PA 66 GF30 I 0.4700 0.0109 0.0001 0.1400 0.0619 0 0 0.0004 0.0153 0 2.81E-05 0.2420
Thermoplas PET stretch moulded bottles P 0.4750 0.0003 0.0014 0.1490 0.0213 0 0 0.0002 0.0150 0 4.19E-06 0.2880
Thermoplas PA 6.6 30% glass fibre A 0.4870 0.0053 0.0002 0.1240 0.0363 0 0 0.0003 0.0150 0 8.46E-06 0.3050
Thermoplas PP injection moulded A 0.5000 0.0003 0.0001 0.1240 0.0242 0 0 0.0010 0.0144 0 3.21E-05 0.3360
Thermoplas PA 66 I 0.5010 0.0086 0.0001 0.1310 0.0684 0 0 0.0005 0.0148 0.0026 4.60E-05 0.2750
Thermoplas PET film A 0.5160 0.0036 0.0005 0.1700 0.0336 0 0 0.0036 0.0175 0 5.11E-06 0.2870
Thermoplas PET film packed A 0.5200 0.0036 0.0005 0.1720 0.0325 0 0 0.0036 0.0178 0 7.19E-06 0.2900
Thermoplas PA 6.6 30% glass P 0.5390 0.0109 0.0001 0.1400 0.0619 0 0 0.0005 0.0153 0 3.08E-05 0.3110
Thermoplas PMMA beads A 0.5490 0.0010 0.0003 0.1060 0.0327 0 0 0.0003 0.0121 0 9.99E-06 0.3970
Thermoplas PA 6.6 A 0.5930 0.0090 0.0001 0.1210 0.0416 0 0 0.0006 0.0145 0 4.98E-05 0.4060
Thermoplas PMMA sheet A 0.6330 0.0011 0.0003 0.1310 0.0403 0 0 0.0003 0.0151 0 1.16E-05 0.4440
Thermoplas PA 6 I 0.6570 0.0014 0.0005 0.0528 0.0434 0 0 0.0031 0.0088 0.0026 1.62E-05 0.5440
Rubber BR I 0.2780 0.0033 0.0005 0.0442 0.0067 0 0 0.0008 0.0055 0.0021 2.70E-05 0.2150
Rubber NBR I 0.2980 0.0031 0.0005 0.0431 0.0056 0 1.81E-04 0.0008 0.0057 0.0019 2.78E-05 0.2370
Rubber SBR I 0.2960 0.0027 0.0005 0.0563 0.0069 0 0 0.0007 0.0068 0.0017 2.49E-05 0.2200
Rubber EPDM rubber ETH T 0.3640 0.0247 0.0010 0.0580 0.0174 0.0002 2.17E-04 0.0090 0.0050 0.0053 4.28E-04 0.2430
PUR PUR flex. integral skin foam A 0.3950 0.0023 0.0001 0.0917 0.0211 0 0 0.0002 0.0087 0 1.99E-05 0.2700
PUR PUR RIM amine extended A 0.3960 0.0025 0.0001 0.0911 0.0212 0 0 0.0002 0.0087 0 1.88E-05 0.2720
PUR PUR flex. moulded ccm A 0.3970 0.0027 0.0001 0.0908 0.0212 0 0 0.0002 0.0087 0 1.84E-05 0.2730
PUR PUR RIM glycol extended A 0.4010 0.0035 0.0001 0.0889 0.0216 0 0 0.0002 0.0087 0 1.51E-05 0.2780
PUR PUR energy absorbing A 0.4060 0.0046 0.0001 0.0867 0.0219 0 0 0.0003 0.0088 0 1.14E-05 0.2830
PUR PUR flex. moulded ccm/t A 0.4070 0.0010 0.0001 0.0972 0.0231 0 0 0.0002 0.0094 0 2.09E-05 0.2760
PUR PUR flex. moulded cct A 0.4110 0.0006 0.0001 0.0990 0.0237 0 0 0.0002 0.0096 0 2.12E-05 0.2770
PUR PUR flex. moulded hot cure A 0.4110 0.0006 0.0001 0.0990 0.0237 0 0 0.0002 0.0096 0 2.12E-05 0.2770
PUR PUR flexible block foam A 0.4150 0.0007 0.0001 0.0996 0.0243 0 0 0.0002 0.0097 0 2.04E-05 0.2800
PUR PUR hardfoam ETH T 0.4260 0.0367 0.0002 0.1180 0.0745 0.0004 1.22E-04 0.0139 0.0092 0.0102 7.75E-04 0.1610
PUR PUR flex. block foam I 0.4490 0.1010 0.0021 0.1040 0.0241 0 6.22E-07 0.0028 0.0126 0.0053 1.51E-05 0.1980
PUR PUR flex. moulded TDI I 0.4520 0.1080 0.0021 0.1020 0.0237 0 6.22E-07 0.0030 0.0124 0.0054 1.53E-05 0.1950
PUR PUR rigid integr. skin foam I 0.4530 0.0615 0.0007 0.1280 0.0285 0 6.27E-07 0.0021 0.0144 0.0069 1.61E-05 0.2110
PUR PUR semi rigid foam I 0.4550 0.1080 0.0005 0.1110 0.0249 0 6.25E-07 0.0031 0.0128 0.0063 1.65E-05 0.1880
PUR PUR flex. moulded MDI/TDI I 0.4570 0.1080 0.0021 0.1050 0.0241 0 6.23E-07 0.0031 0.0125 0.0056 1.56E-05 0.1970
PUR PUR rigid foam I 0.4640 0.0591 0.0020 0.1290 0.0287 0 6.27E-07 0.0021 0.0145 0.0069 1.61E-05 0.2220
PUR PUR flex. moulded. MDI I 0.4690 0.0977 0.0022 0.1150 0.0258 0 6.26E-07 0.0029 0.0132 0.0064 1.64E-05 0.2050
Average 0.3753 0.0110 0.0006 0.0810 0.0212 1.24E-05 0.0002 0.0012 0.0090 0.0015 4.79E-05 0.2496
Epoxy Epoxy resin (liquid) P 0.6420 0.0007 0.0002 0.1550 0.0365 0 0 0.0002 0.0172 0 0.0000 0.4320
Epoxy Epoxy resin I 0.8730 0.0000 0.0003 0.0443 0.0061 0 0 0.0000 0.0077 0.0023 0.0000 0.8120
Epoxy Epoxy resin A 0.6390 0.0007 0.0002 0.1530 0.0359 0 0 0.0002 0.0173 0 0.0000 0.4310
Average 0.7180 0.0005 0.0002 0.1174 0.0262 0 0 0.0001 0.0141 0.0008 0.0000 0.5583
Appendix C13-C16: Environmental Impact of Woods in Impact Categories
Material Cases Resp. Resp. Climate Radia- Ozone Ecotoxi- Acidification Land Fossil
Total Carcinog Minerals
organics inorganics change tion layer city / Eutrophica- use fuels
(Pts) ens (Pts) (Pts)
Group Name (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) (Pts) tion (Pts) (Pts) (Pts)
Wood LI Silver fir I 0.2340 0.0001 6.97E-06 0.0022 0.0004 x 5.13E-08 0.0010 0.0004 0.2250 0.0000 0.0045
Wood LI Larch, European I 0.2800 0.0005 1.08E-04 0.0163 0.0041 x 2.47E-07 0.0027 0.0021 0.2260 0.0000 0.0276
Wood LI Hemlock I 0.3520 0.0000 1.33E-04 0.0252 0.0044 x 7.11E-09 0.0026 0.0034 0.2830 0.0000 0.0331
Wood LI Pitch pine I 0.3710 0.0002 3.09E-05 0.0196 0.0019 x 6.22E-08 0.0021 0.0030 0.3260 0.0000 0.0186
Wood LI Oregon pine I 0.3880 0.0002 1.09E-04 0.0240 0.0040 x 8.24E-08 0.0019 0.0033 0.3250 0.0000 0.0300
Wood LI Teak I 0.4070 0.0001 1.24E-04 0.0467 0.0060 x 5.30E-08 0.0024 0.0066 0.2970 0.0000 0.0485
Wood LI Ash I 0.4080 0.0005 1.02E-04 0.0169 0.0037 x 2.12E-07 0.0043 0.0024 0.3550 0.0000 0.0253
Wood LI Beech, European I 0.4270 0.0005 9.62E-05 0.0159 0.0039 x 2.04E-07 0.0028 0.0021 0.3760 0.0000 0.0263
Wood LI Oak, European I 0.4460 0.0006 9.88E-05 0.0160 0.0042 x 2.69E-07 0.0027 0.0021 0.3930 0.0000 0.0279
Wood LI Spruce, European I 0.4640 0.0007 8.90E-05 0.0046 0.0019 x 3.10E-07 0.0001 0.0007 0.4450 0.0000 0.0114
Wood LI Ahorn I 0.5100 0.0005 1.17E-04 0.0202 0.0045 x 2.32E-07 0.0047 0.0028 0.4460 0.0000 0.0311
Wood LI Scots pine (grenen) I 0.5240 0.0006 1.17E-04 0.0167 0.0043 x 2.74E-07 0.0028 0.0022 0.4690 0.0000 0.0283
Wood LI Sycamore I 0.5640 0.0001 1.84E-05 0.0121 0.0012 x 5.84E-08 0.0010 0.0019 0.5360 0.0000 0.0124
Wood LI Birch I 0.5910 0.0005 9.75E-05 0.0142 0.0039 x 2.24E-07 0.0023 0.0018 0.5420 0.0000 0.0261
Wood LI Merbau I 0.6080 0.0002 3.42E-05 0.0253 0.0024 x 6.85E-08 0.0004 0.0038 0.5450 0.0000 0.0312
Wood LI Chestnut I 0.6280 0.0005 1.46E-04 0.0299 0.0057 x 2.31E-07 0.0092 0.0046 0.5370 0.0000 0.0408
Wood LI Aspen I 0.6360 0.0007 1.37E-04 0.0212 0.0050 x 2.97E-07 0.0046 0.0029 0.5680 0.0000 0.0337
Wood LI Red oak I 0.6400 0.0005 9.74E-05 0.0169 0.0039 x 2.11E-07 0.0025 0.0022 0.5880 0.0000 0.0267
Wood LI Cedar I 0.6430 0.0000 1.08E-04 0.0247 0.0044 x 1.02E-08 0.0028 0.0037 0.5740 0.0000 0.0331
Wood LI Hickory I 0.6510 0.0000 8.94E-05 0.0219 0.0036 x 7.22E-09 0.0020 0.0030 0.5930 0.0000 0.0273
Wood LI Yellow pine I 0.6720 0.0008 1.50E-04 0.0216 0.0053 x 3.58E-07 0.0033 0.0028 0.6020 5.79E-06 0.0354
Wood LI Robinia I 0.6870 0.0004 8.98E-05 0.0151 0.0034 x 1.89E-07 0.0035 0.0021 0.6390 3.12E-06 0.0233
Wood LI Linden I 0.6970 0.0006 1.17E-04 0.0165 0.0040 x 2.74E-07 0.0035 0.0023 0.6430 4.45E-06 0.0266
Wood LI Alder I 0.7040 0.0006 1.24E-04 0.0200 0.0046 x 2.65E-07 0.0044 0.0028 0.6400 4.34E-06 0.0314
Wood LI Elm I 0.7420 0.0005 8.62E-05 0.0117 0.0032 x 2.15E-07 0.0014 0.0014 0.7030 3.43E-06 0.0211
Wood LI Poplar I 0.7620 0.0001 1.50E-05 0.0048 0.0007 x 5.13E-08 0.0023 0.0009 0.7460 9.63E-07 0.0069
Wood LI Red Cedar, Western I 0.7710 0.0009 2.03E-04 0.0567 0.0088 x 3.78E-07 0.0038 0.0079 0.6270 6.89E-06 0.0660
Wood LI Hornbean I 0.7900 0.0004 8.11E-05 0.0130 0.0032 x 1.78E-07 0.0024 0.0017 0.7480 2.90E-06 0.0213
Wood LI Black poplar I 0.8160 0.0007 1.44E-04 0.0212 0.0051 x 3.24E-07 0.0046 0.0029 0.7470 5.27E-06 0.0339
Average 0.5660 0.0004 0.0001 0.0197 0.0039 0 1.84E-07 0.0029 0.0027 0.5084 3.18E-06 0.0279
Wood LM Walnut I 0.9540 0.0005 1.07E-04 0.0183 0.0041 x 0.0000 0.0043 0.0026 0.8970 3.56E-06 0.0281
Wood LM Platan I 1.1500 0.0005 1.00E-04 0.0143 0.0037 x 0.0000 0.0023 0.0019 1.1100 3.79E-06 0.0245
Wood LM Horse chestnut I 1.2200 0.0006 1.17E-04 0.0177 0.0045 x 0.0000 0.0030 0.0023 1.1600 4.28E-06 0.0298
Wood LM Willow I 1.4700 0.0009 1.72E-04 0.0239 0.0064 x 0.0000 0.0032 0.0030 1.3900 6.35E-06 0.0424
Average 1.1985 0.0006 0.0001 0.0186 0.0047 0 0.0000 0.0032 0.0024 1.1393 4.50E-06 0.0312
Wood MH Azobe I 2.7900 0.0002 7.46E-05 0.0236 0.0038 x 1.01E-07 0.0019 0.0033 2.7200 1.99E-06 0.0294
Wood MH Moabi I 3.5600 0.0004 1.07E-04 0.0326 0.0050 x 1.81E-07 0.0023 0.0046 3.4800 3.38E-06 0.0380
Wood MH Blue gum I 3.7200 0.0001 1.23E-04 0.0423 0.0058 x 1.96E-08 0.0026 0.0059 3.6200 1.09E-06 0.0455
Wood MH Angelique I 4.7300 0.0000 7.63E-05 0.0219 0.0039 x 8.67E-09 0.0023 0.0032 4.6600 5.44E-07 0.0323
Wood MH Makore I 4.8300 0.0005 1.23E-04 0.0339 0.0055 x 2.23E-07 0.0026 0.0047 4.7500 4.05E-06 0.0406
Wood MH Kauri I 5.1800 0.0000 1.42E-04 0.0335 0.0054 x 1.20E-08 0.0028 0.0046 5.1000 7.39E-07 0.0417
Wood MH Mersawa I 5.1900 0.0000 8.52E-05 0.0242 0.0041 x 1.06E-08 0.0023 0.0035 5.1200 6.36E-07 0.0328
Wood MH Yang I 5.2100 0.0000 7.65E-05 0.0234 0.0038 x 1.06E-08 0.0021 0.0034 5.1500 6.24E-07 0.0310
Wood MH Agba I 5.2300 0.0007 1.55E-04 0.0422 0.0067 x 2.92E-07 0.0030 0.0059 5.1200 5.29E-06 0.0499
Wood MH Limba I 5.2500 0.0005 1.15E-04 0.0293 0.0047 x 2.29E-07 0.0021 0.0041 5.1800 4.08E-06 0.0350
Wood MH Bubinga I 5.6100 0.0004 1.09E-04 0.0338 0.0052 x 1.79E-07 0.0024 0.0047 5.5300 3.38E-06 0.0393
Wood MH Mahogani, African I 5.8600 0.0006 1.36E-04 0.0352 0.0056 x 2.66E-07 0.0025 0.0049 5.7700 4.76E-06 0.0419
Wood MH Iroko I 5.9100 0.0005 1.39E-04 0.0454 0.0067 x 2.27E-07 0.0029 0.0064 5.8000 4.35E-06 0.0513
Wood MH Meranti I 5.9400 0.0006 1.52E-04 0.0468 0.0070 x 2.68E-07 0.0030 0.0066 5.8300 5.03E-06 0.0530
Wood MH Utile I 5.9600 0.0005 1.20E-04 0.0331 0.0052 x 2.23E-07 0.0023 0.0046 5.8800 4.06E-06 0.0391
Wood MH Dibetou I 6.0200 0.0005 1.26E-04 0.0350 0.0055 x 2.35E-07 0.0025 0.0049 5.9300 4.28E-06 0.0413
Wood MH Afzelia I 6.1000 0.0004 1.13E-04 0.0333 0.0053 x 1.91E-07 0.0025 0.0046 6.0100 3.54E-06 0.0395
Wood MH Sapelli I 6.2300 0.0004 1.16E-04 0.0337 0.0052 x 1.86E-07 0.0024 0.0047 6.1500 3.48E-06 0.0393
Wood MH Movigui I 6.2500 0.0004 1.05E-04 0.0295 0.0047 x 1.86E-07 0.0022 0.0041 6.1700 3.39E-06 0.0353
Wood MH Afrormosia I 6.2800 0.0005 1.27E-04 0.0403 0.0061 x 2.07E-07 0.0027 0.0056 6.1800 3.95E-06 0.0461
Wood MH Idigbo I 6.3800 0.0006 1.39E-04 0.0369 0.0060 x 2.62E-07 0.0028 0.0051 6.2800 4.71E-06 0.0443
Wood MH Kotibe I 6.4400 0.0004 1.06E-04 0.0312 0.0048 x 1.85E-07 0.0022 0.0044 6.3600 3.42E-06 0.0365
Wood MH Mengkulang I 6.4600 0.0000 9.00E-05 0.0251 0.0043 x 1.06E-08 0.0025 0.0036 6.3900 6.47E-07 0.0348
Wood MH Peroba I 6.5400 0.0000 8.30E-05 0.0264 0.0042 x 1.22E-08 0.0023 0.0038 6.4700 7.12E-07 0.0353
Wood MH Bosse clair I 6.7500 0.0005 1.23E-04 0.0355 0.0056 x 2.21E-07 0.0025 0.0050 6.6600 4.06E-06 0.0417
Average 5.5368 0.0004 1.14E-04 0.0331 0.0052 0 1.58E-07 0.0025 0.0046 5.4524 3.05E-06 0.0398
Wood HI Carapa I 7.2400 4.22E-05 9.28E-05 0.0250 0.0040 x 1.18E-08 0.0023 0.0037 7.1700 6.99E-07 0.0309
Wood HI Paranapine I 7.2500 3.53E-05 9.76E-05 0.0219 0.0037 x 9.84E-09 0.0021 0.0032 7.2000 6.01E-07 0.0281
Wood HI Purpleheart I 7.5000 3.15E-05 7.38E-05 0.0222 0.0040 x 8.67E-09 0.0025 0.0032 7.4400 5.48E-07 0.0328
Wood HI Mansonia I 7.5400 5.17E-04 1.30E-04 0.0396 0.0060 x 2.23E-07 0.0027 0.0055 7.4400 4.18E-06 0.0455
Wood HI Mahogany, American I 7.6300 2.91E-05 1.10E-04 0.0234 0.0038 x 8.03E-09 0.0021 0.0032 7.5700 5.08E-07 0.0291
Wood HI Padouk, African I 8.0400 4.74E-04 1.21E-04 0.0362 0.0056 x 2.05E-07 0.0026 0.0051 7.9500 3.83E-06 0.0423
Wood HI Tiama I 8.1900 5.83E-04 1.38E-04 0.0387 0.0061 x 2.54E-07 0.0027 0.0054 8.0900 4.63E-06 0.0456
Wood HI Niangon I 8.3300 4.70E-04 1.15E-04 0.0332 0.0052 x 2.04E-07 0.0024 0.0046 8.2500 3.76E-06 0.0389
Wood HI Aningre I 8.4200 5.79E-04 1.34E-04 0.0365 0.0058 x 2.53E-07 0.0026 0.0051 8.3300 4.57E-06 0.0431
Wood HI Mutenye I 8.5400 4.42E-04 1.20E-04 0.0398 0.0059 x 1.89E-07 0.0026 0.0056 8.4400 3.67E-06 0.0449
Wood HI Wawa I 8.7900 8.40E-04 1.73E-04 0.0405 0.0067 x 3.70E-07 0.0029 0.0057 8.6800 6.47E-06 0.0489
Wood HI Tchitola I 8.8500 5.32E-04 1.26E-04 0.0353 0.0056 x 2.32E-07 0.0025 0.0049 8.7600 4.22E-06 0.0416
Wood HI Koto I 9.2200 6.11E-04 1.50E-04 0.0437 0.0068 x 2.65E-07 0.0031 0.0061 9.1100 4.90E-06 0.0512
Wood HI Canaria I 9.4100 6.73E-04 1.55E-04 0.0422 0.0067 x 2.94E-07 0.0030 0.0059 9.3000 5.32E-06 0.0499
Wood HI Palissander, Indisch I 9.4900 3.55E-05 7.48E-05 0.0229 0.0039 x 9.84E-09 0.0025 0.0034 9.4300 6.05E-07 0.0295
Wood HI Abura I 9.5900 5.90E-04 1.43E-04 0.0422 0.0064 x 2.56E-07 0.0028 0.0059 9.4900 4.74E-06 0.0487
Wood HI Ilomba I 10.4000 7.33E-04 1.67E-04 0.0449 0.0071 x 3.20E-07 0.0032 0.0063 10.3000 5.77E-06 0.0532
Wood HI Antiaris I 10.6000 6.97E-04 1.57E-04 0.0415 0.0066 x 3.05E-07 0.0029 0.0058 10.5000 5.47E-06 0.0492
Wood HI Okoume I 10.7000 7.20E-04 1.47E-04 0.0357 0.0057 x 3.16E-07 0.0024 0.0050 10.6000 5.56E-06 0.0424
Wood HI Baboen I 11.0000 3.58E-05 1.17E-04 0.0248 0.0045 x 9.84E-09 0.0029 0.0037 10.9000 6.41E-07 0.0339
Wood HI Olon I 11.3000 6.26E-04 1.42E-04 0.0384 0.0061 x 2.73E-07 0.0027 0.0054 11.2000 4.93E-06 0.0455
Wood HI Cottonwood I 11.6000 3.01E-05 1.44E-04 0.0265 0.0055 x 8.03E-09 0.0036 0.0038 11.5000 5.93E-07 0.0451
Wood HI Wenge I 11.8000 3.89E-04 9.73E-05 0.0235 0.0044 x 1.72E-07 0.0023 0.0032 11.7000 3.01E-06 0.0315
Wood HI Emeri I 12.4000 3.26E-05 1.23E-04 0.0291 0.0060 x 8.65E-09 0.0041 0.0042 12.3000 6.35E-07 0.0491
Average 9.3263 0.0004 0.0001 0.0337 0.0055 0 1.75E-07 0.0027 0.0047 9.2354 3.33E-06 0.0417
Appendix D Product Cases and the Source
APPENDIX D
PRODUCT CASES AND THE SOURCE
List of the Sources for Product Cases:
[1] A Simplified Assessment Approach for Environmentally Sound Product Systems

Design, PhD Thesis, V. J. Soriano, 2001, University of NSW, Sydney .
[2] A Simple LCA Case Study of Reusable and Disposable Shavers by Marjolein
Demmers (Preliminary study carried out by Karli James ) Proceedings of the first
National LCA Conference, Melbourne, 1996.
[3] Assessment of Environmental Life Cycle Approach for Industrial Materials and
Products by Steven B Young, Canada, 1996.
[4] Product CD cases, LCA Short Course, Centre for Design, RMIT Melbourne, 2000.
[5] Sample cases from SimaPro LCA package.
[6] LCA in Practice in the commercial Furniture Industry by Michael pitcher, Second
National Conference on LCA, Melbourne 2000, and interview with Michael Pitcher
by V.J.Soriano.
[7] Environmental Assessment of Products: Volume 1 Methodology, Tools and Case

Studies in Product Development by Henrik Wenzel et. al., 1997.
[8] Life Cycle Assessment of Dishwasher by Deni Greene Consultanting for Centre for
Design at RMIT, Melbourne, 1994.
D-1
[9] Tools for Designers-Redesign of an Electric Heater by Marjolein Demmers, Centre

for Design at RMIT, Melbourne, 1995.
[10] Life Cycle Assessment of Washing Machine by Deni Greene Consultanting
Services for the Australian Consumers' Association, 1992.
[11] Waste Minimisation Case Studies for Three Products, Von Walter Stahel, Product-
Life Institute, Geneva, 1991.
[12] Life-cycle Assessment on Saucepans, KTH Project by Eriksson, M., and Izar, M.,
Stockholm, Sweden, 2000.
[13] Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment Study-Study Prepared for Airdri Ltd. And
Bobrick Washroom Equipment Inc., Environmental Resources Management Ltd,
2001.
[14] Vinexus, Life cycle analysis of RL-200 and RL-300, University of Kalmar,
Sweden, 1997.
[15] Anne H. Landfield, Vijia Karra, Life cycle assessment of a rock crusher,
Resources, Conservation and Recycling Vol. 28, 2000.
[16] Life cycle assessment of a paper and plastic checkout carrier bags, Report of Socio-
economic impact assessment of the proposed plastic bag regulations, Bentley West
Management Consultants, South Africa, 2002.
[17] Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of flooring materials: ceramic versus marble
tiles, Giuseppe M. Nicoletti, Bruno Notarnicola b, Giuseppe Tassielli, Journal of
Cleaner Production Vol.10 2002.
D-2
Table of Cases and Sources
Product Case Source 1 Source 2

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

Hand drier [13]
Garbage collector-RL300 [14]
Garbage colletor-RL200 [14]
Rock crusher [15]
Paper sack [16]
Plastic sack [16]
Ceramic tile [17]
Paper towel [13]
D-4
APPENDIX E
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
• Kaebernick H., Kara S., Sun M., (2002), A Sustainable Manufacturing Paradigm
Introducing Environmental Requirements into Product Development,
Proceedings of the International Manufacturing Leaders Forum Leadership of
Future in Manufacturing, February 8-10, Adelaide, Australia, p.18-25.
• Kara S., Sun M., Kaebernick H., (2002), A Tradeoff Model for Sustainable
Product Development, 9th CIRP Seminar on Life Cycle Engineering, Erlangen,
Germany, April 9-10, pp.103-111.
• Kaebernick H., Kara S., Sun M., (2003), Sustainable Product Development and
Manufacturing by Considering Environmental Requirements, Robotics ad
Computer Integrated manufacturing, Vol. 19, pp. 461-468.
• Kaebernick H., Sun M., Kara S., (2003), Simplified Lifecycle Assessment for
the Early Design Stage of Industrial Products, Annals of CIRP, Montreal,
Canada, August 24-31, pp. 25-28.
• Sun M., Rydh C. J., Kaebernick H., (2004), Material Grouping for Simplified
Product Life Cycle Assessment, Journal of Sustainable Product Design
(Accepted).
• Rydh C.J., Sun M., (2004), Life Cycle Inventory Data for Materials Grouped
According to Environmental and Material Properties, Journal of Cleaner
Production (Accepted).
E-1

Sun - 2005 - Integrated Environmental Assessment of Industrial

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Sun - 2005 - Integrated Environmental Assessment of Industrial

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES

SCHOOL OF MECHANICAL AND MANUFACTURING ENGINEERING

INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF

A thesis submitted in fulfillment

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) has been successfully used as an environmental

In order to integrate the environmental assessment into the process of product

Firstly, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Professor

Finally, I want to acknowledge my family. They have all been sources of

Thank you all very much.

1.1 Environmental Issues and Challenges to the Industry 1-1

2.1 Ecologically Sustainable Development and the Industry 2-1

3.1 Product Design Objectives 3-1

4 The Simplified Environmental Assessment Approach

4.1 Background 4-1

5 The Environmental Impact Drivers

5.1 Material-Based Environmental Impacts Drivers 5-1

6.1 The Verification of the Simplified Approach 6-1

7.1 Research Contributions 7-1

Table 2.1 Impact categories adopted by different LCA methods

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

DE The Energy-based Environmental Impact Drivers

This chapter gives a short description of the impetus of integrating environmental

1.1 Environmental Issues and Challenges to the Industry

1.1.1 Motivators for Industry to ‘Go Green’

Consumers’ and other stakeholders’ push for continuous environmental improvements

1.1.2 Sustainable Product Development

In light of sustainable product development, the design decision-makers have to contend

The challenge and responsibility posed to designers is therefore to strike a balance

1.1.3 Product Environmental Assessment

1.2 Research Initiation

The trend towards sustainable development is driving many companies to consider

Therefore, the product’s environmental performance needs to be considered in the

1.3 Scope and Approach of the Research

• Development of Environmental Impact Drivers (D), including Material-based

• Development of a simplified LCA approach for the application at the early

• Development of an integrated decision model for sustainable product

1.4 Outline of the Thesis

A literature review is presented in Chapter 2. Information on the research areas of

Chapter 3 is devoted to the integration of the product’s environmental performance into

Chapter 2 presents a literature review on the research background of Ecologically

2.1 Ecologically Sustainable Development and the Industry

Recognizing the shadow side of the industrial production, principles of Ecologically

2.1.1 Industry’s Movement towards ESD

Historically, industry responded with solutions of ‘End-of-pipe’ remediation, which are

2.1.2 Tools for Improving Environmental Performance

2.2 The Design Issues and DfE

Cleaner production requires the continuous application of an integrated preventive

2.2.1 Product Design

As an innovation to the traditional design procedure, concurrent engineering practice

Product Manufac Distri- Market- Servic- End-of-

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

Design Degree Cost of Changes

Product Conceptual Detail Production,

As the marketplace has become increasingly competitive, product designers cannot

• Design for Assembly (Boothroyd et al., 1994);

2.2.2 Design for Environment (DfE)

2.3 Environmental Life Cycle Assessment

2.3.1 Life Cycle Engineering/Life Cycle Design

Life Cycle Engineering is engineering activities which include: the application of

end-of-life. According to the study purpose other phases such as transportation,

Material Product Product Product

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