The environmental profile of 3 kitchen cleaning products compared
Introduction
The fundamental consumer need in the surface cleaning category is, and always has been, better end results with less effort. The recognition that this can be achieved beyond just the chemistry of the cleaner, as it is the case for the sprays introduced a few years ago, is now driving the penetration of non-woven substrates (household cleaning wipes). Companies that produce these goods are challenged whether this fast, easy and very convenient product category -that meets a variety of specific consumer needs- is sustainable or not. To address the environmental questions related to sustainability, the environmental burdens associated with this product category were captured in a life-cycle-assessment (LCA) study.
The objective of the study
Although an important driver for this study was the increased pan-European concern related to solid waste generated by disposable (household) products, the objective of the study is to provide broad perspective on environmental information to an audience including product designers, the detergent sector management, suppliers, interested consumers and non-governmental organizations.
In the study, three market relevant kitchen cleaning products (floor cleaning excluded) in France are compared: kitchen cleaning wipes, kitchen cleaning spray and liquid household cleaner (LHC) in a bottle. This LCA was commissioned by the French detergent association (AFISE) in which industry members, among others Colgate-Palmolive, Eau Ecarlate, Lever Fabergé, Procter & Gamble and Reckitt Benckiser, are organized.
The environmental evaluation was based on a broad set of 10 environmental indicators. This LCA study evaluated in-depth the different waste aspects of the three product systems in a cradle-to-grave perspective, with particular focus on household waste and total residual solid waste (after waste treatment). In parallel to the waste parameters, primary energy and water consumption were selected as life cycle inventory (LCI) based indicators. Climate change, acidification (air), photochemical smog creation, human toxicity, aquatic eco-toxicity and eutrophication were evaluated as life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) indicators. The full report, including all results and critical review considerations, is available through simple request at AFISE.
Concact AFISE (http://www.aise-net.org/):
Max COPPOLANI or Claude PERRIN
Tel. 01.47.47.60.00 Fax.01.47.47.05.51 email:
Adres: 118 Avenue Achille peretti - 92200 Neuilly Sur Seine (France)
In the study, three market relevant kitchen cleaning products (floor cleaning excluded) in France are compared: kitchen cleaning wipes, kitchen cleaning spray and liquid household cleaner (LHC) in a bottle. This LCA was commissioned by the French detergent association (AFISE) in which industry members, among others Colgate-Palmolive, Eau Ecarlate, Lever Fabergé, Procter & Gamble and Reckitt Benckiser, are organized.
The environmental evaluation was based on a broad set of 10 environmental indicators. This LCA study evaluated in-depth the different waste aspects of the three product systems in a cradle-to-grave perspective, with particular focus on household waste and total residual solid waste (after waste treatment). In parallel to the waste parameters, primary energy and water consumption were selected as life cycle inventory (LCI) based indicators. Climate change, acidification (air), photochemical smog creation, human toxicity, aquatic eco-toxicity and eutrophication were evaluated as life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) indicators. The full report, including all results and critical review considerations, is available through simple request at AFISE.
Concact AFISE (http://www.aise-net.org/):
Max COPPOLANI or Claude PERRIN
Tel. 01.47.47.60.00 Fax.01.47.47.05.51 email:
Adres: 118 Avenue Achille peretti - 92200 Neuilly Sur Seine (France)
Household waste and total residual solid waste
Despite lower quantities of wipe lotion needed for cleaning equal kitchen surface, when compared to the spray and the liquid household cleaner product, the study has confirmed the wipe product to generate 3 to 6 times more household waste. An important variable is the remaining moisture content of the wipe at the point of disposal. Herein the assumptions, related to consumer habits and evaporation in the dust bin, are of significant importance.
Although the weight of the household waste is directly visible and very relevant to the users of the compared products, the total residual solid waste better represents the total amount of solid waste released back into the environment over the entire life-cycle. It is further defined as the remaining solid waste after waste treatment (recycling and incineration) by the municipalities, and indicates the amount of solid waste in a true "cradle-to-grave" sense (e.g., including waste generated during energy generation, raw material manufacturing and waste water treatment sludge). Although the study indicates the wipe product to generate the highest mass of total residual solid waste, the differences are less outspoken when compared to household waste. Spray products on the other hand lead to the lowest mass (40% less then wipes, 25% less then LHC).
Water and energy consumption
The LHC product is the product alternative with highest demand for water volume over the entire life cycle. The high water consumption of this product, which is estimated to be three times that of the spray or wipe product, is a result of the higher need for water in the clean and rinse steps during the use phase in the consumer home. Uncertainties in the assumptions and the data of consumer habits have been addressed in various sensitivity analyses, but did not change this overall result.
The base scenario, which is considered as the most realistic one, also indicates the liquid household cleaner product to be the product variant that consumes the most energy over the entire life cycle.
More specifically, this product variant indicates 48% higher primary energy consumption when compared to spray. This base scenario also indicates 18% more energy is needed when compared to wipes. Due to uncertainty in the temperature of the water used during cleaning, the energy savings for wipes are not significant.
More specifically, this product variant indicates 48% higher primary energy consumption when compared to spray. This base scenario also indicates 18% more energy is needed when compared to wipes. Due to uncertainty in the temperature of the water used during cleaning, the energy savings for wipes are not significant.
Life cycle impact assessment
To further evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the environmental interventions of a product life cycle, the various emissions and resources are assigned to various impact categories. The word "potential" should indicate that LCA cannot determine whether using kitchen cleaning products causes any actual impacts in the environment. The graph shows the relative contribution of the wipes and liquid household cleaner product category of the selected impact categories when compared to the following potential impacts of the spray product:
Climate change: none of the products are seen to contribute differently to this indicator.
Air acidification: All products contribute equally to this environmental impact indicator.
Photochemical smog: Due to presence of VOC chemicals, wipes and spray products contribute much more to this indicator when compared to the liquid household cleaner.
Human toxicity: No product system is significantly different.
Aquatic eco-toxicity: The liquid household cleaner and spray products contribute more to this environmental impact indicator when compared to the wipe product.
Eutrophication: The wipe product appear to contribute the least to this environmental indicator, whilst the liquid household cleaner has the highest potential impact.
Please note that due to uncertainties in the underlying methodology for assessing human and aquatic eco-toxicity, these impact categories are assumed to be the least reliable of the indicators chosen.
Sensitivity Analysis
To evaluate both uncertainty in data and potential effects of alternative product design scenario's, 10 sensitivity analyses have been performed on the most critical parameters in the study.
Although the sensitivity analyses significantly affect many of the environmental categories, the overall conclusion that none of the products can claim overall environmentally superiority (being better in all environmental categories) was always confirmed.
Further building on information retrieved from both the base scenario and the sensitivity analyses, improvement opportunities were identified, which could be realized through changing consumer habits (e.g. using less and colder water), and/or through improved eco-design of the products themselves (e.g. refill bottles without trigger for the spray).
Although the sensitivity analyses significantly affect many of the environmental categories, the overall conclusion that none of the products can claim overall environmentally superiority (being better in all environmental categories) was always confirmed.
Further building on information retrieved from both the base scenario and the sensitivity analyses, improvement opportunities were identified, which could be realized through changing consumer habits (e.g. using less and colder water), and/or through improved eco-design of the products themselves (e.g. refill bottles without trigger for the spray).
Conclusions
The end result shows a mixed pattern for the base scenario, where none of the product systems considered can be seen as environmentally superior regarding all indicators.
Table 1: In order to evaluate the overall product comparison, the three products are scored for all environmental indicators versus an "average of class"-benchmark, where a 20% cut-off criterion was used as to represent significant differences.
Table 1: In order to evaluate the overall product comparison, the three products are scored for all environmental indicators versus an "average of class"-benchmark, where a 20% cut-off criterion was used as to represent significant differences.
L, H, M: lower, higher and equal environmental impact compared to the "average of class".
full report (PDF format).