Avoiding Greenhouse Gas
Emissions

The Essential
Role ofChemicals

17 Case Studies
Technical reports
Applying the ICCA & WBCSD Avoided Emissions Guidelines
December 2017

Foreword
The chemical industry has a key role to play on a game-changing path towards a low-carbon future.
Reducing further its Greenhouse gas emissions during the manufacturing phase of chemical products is
one part of this contribution. But the chemical sector can and will contribute via further supporting highefficiency processes and products in the many value chains where chemicals play a role.
Looking ahead in 6 key solution areas, ICCA estimates that by 2030, light materials for transportation,
efficient buildings and lighting, electric cars, wind & solar power and improved tires together have thepotential, at global scale, to avoid 2.5 Gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions globally every year. That’s
twice the amount currently emitted by all the cars in the world!
However a accounting for the reductions of these efficient processes and products can be complex
and not always straightforward. Typically, the majority of chemical products are part of an assembly
or more complex end products. This leads to challenges when quantifying the emission reductions
enabled by chemical components/ingredients in individual final solutions. The amount of the calculated
emissions (“avoided emissions”) depends greatly on the system boundaries used and the choice of thereference products.
The International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) and the World Business Council for Sustainable
Development (WBCSD) Chemical Sector have together recognized the importance of establishing specificguidelines to help quantify and report the contribution of chemical products in reducing greenhouse gas
emissions over the product life cycle. Guidelines were published in 2013 and revised in 2017.
.
The goal of the present report is to illustrate and quantify, through examples offered by ICCA members
and associations, to what extend efficient processes and solutions can contribute to greenhouse gas
savings. It demonstrates how to quantify such “avoided emissions” in an unbiased way, applying the ICCA/WBCSD guidelines to individual cases. We hope this will encourage all chemical companies to apply theguidelines when calculating the avoided emissions enabled by their products. We expect this report will
demonstrate that the evaluation of the avoided emissions must be carefully conducted, ensuringconsistency and transparency.
We encourage all concerned parties, and especially chemical companies to develop robust studies. This
will, I am sure, further enhance the credibility of industry as solution provider for a low carbon economy.

Bunro Shiozawa
Chair of ICCA Energy andClimate Change Leadership Group1

Table ofcontents
Foreword
Executive summary
Case studies summaries & review comments
Case study reports
•

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

2

Case 1 - BASF
External thermal insulation composite system for the refurbishmentof a house in Germany
Case 2 - Braskem
Rigid containers for chocolate drink powder in Brazil
Case 3 - Evonik
Feed additives – 4 amino acids for pig and broiler production:
DL-Methionine, L-Lysine, L-Threonine and L-Tryptophan
Case 4 - India Glycols Ltd (IGL)
Bio-Mono Ethylene Glycol (MEG) from renewable source
Case 5 - Japan Carbon Fiber Manufacturers Association (JCMA)
Aircraft materials (CFRP, Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastic) for weight reduction
Case 6 - Japan Chemical Industry Association (JCIA)
Materials for fuel efficient tires
Case 7 - SABIC
Multilayer Polyethylene packaging films
Case 8 - Solvay
Engineering plastics for vehicle light-weighting
Case 9 - Sumitomo Chemical
Broiler production with feed additive DL-Methionine
Case 10 - Akzo Nobel
A comparative life cycle study of three fouling control systems for marine vessels
Case 11 - BASF
The Green Sense® Concrete solution – optimizing concrete mixturesby reducing cement content
Case 12 - Braskem
Polypropylene (PP) containers for water-based paints
Case 13 - Eastman Chemical Company
Alternative product distribution logistics and greenhouse gas emissions reduction
Case 14 - Evonik
Feed additives – 5 limiting amino acids for pig and broiler production:
DL-Methionine, L-Lysine, L-Threonine, L-Tryptophan and L-Valine

1
4
6
13

14
27

34
45
53
57
63
71
80
89

101
108
114

122

•• Case 15 - SABIC
Renewable Polyethylene based on HVO (Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil) diesel• Case 16 - Solvay and AGC Glass Europe
Double-glazed windows in buildings and contribution of sodium carbonate
in avoiding greenhouse gas emissions• Case 17 - Toray
100% Bio-based Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET)WBCSD & ICCA guidance version 1 and 2
Acknowledgements
Disclaimer

137

144
154
160
161
163

Related ICCA documents
Available on www.icca-chem.org/energy-climate•	Avoiding Greenhouse Gas Emissions the Essential Role of Chemicals:
17 Case Studies - Summaries•

 ccounting for and Reporting GreenhouseA
Gas Emissions Avoided along the Value Chain
based on Comparative Studies: Guidelines:•	Greenhouse gas emission reductions
enabled by products from the chemicalindustry: Quantifying the global potential

3

Executive
summary
PurposeThe main purpose of this publication is to demonstrate, via robust and quantified examples that solutions enabled
by chemical products can contribute to greenhouse gas savings. The case studies in this report were offered byten companies and two associations. They exemplify the application of the ICCA & WBCSD Chemical Sector
guidelines“Addressing the Avoided Emissions Challenge: Guidelines from the chemical industry for accounting
for and reporting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions avoided along the value chain based on comparative studies”.
Assembling these case studies is expected to motivate all stakeholders to feed climate change discussions withrobust lifecycle assessment studies, and to motivate other chemical companies to generate high quality casestudies. The present report on 17 case studies can also be used as an educational material to develop robust
and more transparent LCA case studies.

Aim of the projectThrough the publication of the technical reports of the avoided emissions life cycle assessment studies, and theaccompanying summary fact sheets, the ICCA aims to achieve the following objectives:
1. Raise awareness about emission reduction potential of chemical products: Raise the awareness of stakeholders, including customers, investors, policy-makers and citizens, about the emission reduction potential
enabled by chemical products when taking a life cycle perspective.
2. Illustrate the application of the guidelines: The case studies provide practical examples on how to apply the
ICCA & WBCSD guidelines, and illustrate how to interpret some of the requirements. This may help othercompanies start using the guidelines and can help them structure their studies.
3. Motivate other chemical companies to use the guidelines: The case studies will inspire and motivate otherchemical companies and chemical industry associations to create and publish similar information. It is theintention of ICCA to complement the current case studies with additional ones over time. In this way, thecollection of case studies will grow, and cover a broader range of chemical products from various geographical regions. Ultimately, value chain partners and companies from other sectors may apply the guidelines
to their own business sector as well, which could lead to an increased number of publications on the ICCA
website and elsewhere. The findings from those studies could feed a global picture of the overall potential of
GHG emissions reductions by the chemical industry (and other sectors).
4. Promote full life cycle approach: With the case studies, the ICCA aims to promote the use of Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Thinking (LCT) as a comprehensive decision-support tool and concept forthe chemical industry and its stakeholders.

4Review of case studies presented
The studies were adapted from original work by companies by applying the ICCA/WBCSD Chemical Sector guidelines.
To ensure that the case studies comply with these guidelines, ICCA commissioned Ecofys to review the first set ofcase studies (14 to 88) and Quantis to review the second, most recent series of case studies (89 to 159).
Ecofys and Quantis assessed the overall compliance with the guidelines. The summaries of the review findings for thecase studies are presented on pages 7 to 12.

Case studies
The case studies in this report were offered by ten companies and two associations. The following companies andassociations contributed: Akzo Nobel (contact: Klas Hallberg), BASF (Nicola Paczkowski), Braskem (Yuki Hamilton,
Onda Kabe), Evonik (Christina Merz), Eastmann (Randy Waymire, Jason Pierce), India Glycols (Rakesh Bhartia),
Japan Carbon Fiber Manufacturers Association (Hiroyuki Kamata), Japan Chemical Industry Association (Makoto
Terauch), SABIC (Rajesh Mehta, Ananda Sekar), Solvay (Jean-François Viot, Pierre Coërs) and AGC Glass Europe(Guy Van Marcke), Sumitomo Chemical (Jiro Mori), Toray (Hiroyuki Kamata).
Other life cycle environmental impacts such as water and land use change were outside the scope of the studies andusually not considered in the assessments.
Case studies are presented in the form of technical reports giving details on the assumptions and calculations, andin the form of summary fact sheets available on www.icca-chem.org/energy-climate

5Case studies
summaries& review
comments6

1. BASF

External thermal insulation composite System
for the refurbishment of a house in Germany

Brief description of case study
In this case study an existing house insulated using an
external thermal insulation composite system (ETICS)
based on expanded polystyrene (EPS) is compared tothe (market-)average existing German house (e.g. basedon 80% of non-refurbished houses and 20% alreadyrefurbished houses). The functional unit used in the casestudy is the heating of an existing single family detachedhouse in Germany at average room temperature of
19°C for 40 years (from 2011 to 2051). The comparison
takes place at the end use level. The avoided emissions
resulting from the use of an ETICS system based on EPS
amount to 141 ton CO2e per house in a 40-year period
and are completely dominated by the reduced energy
demand for heating the house during the use phase.
Review comments by Ecofys
The case study is in general of good quality and fullycompliant with the guidelines. The market-average of
refurbished and non-refurbished houses is adequately
used as the solution to compare to. This case study
reports very transparently about the data sources used
and the assumptions made in the study. Given thatheating represents the largest share of energy use in
the residential buildings sector, there is a large potential
for avoiding emissions. The case study indeed showsthat the chemical solution has a high potential to reduce
GHG emissions during the use phase of a house.

2. Braskem

Rigid containers for chocolate
drink powder in Brazil

Brief description of case study
In this case study PP containers and tinplate containers
for packaging of chocolate drink powder in Brazil in2010 are compared at the chemical product level. The
functional unit of the study is to pack and preserve,with a rigid material, 400g of chocolate drink powder.
The study indicates the avoided emissions related toreplacing tinplate by PP containers. The study finds that
GHG emissions can be reduced by 56.36% when PP
containers are used instead of tinplate containers. Total
avoided emissions are found to be 10 ktCO2e in theBrazilian market in 2010.

to compare. Moreover, some parts of the life-cycle, withminor contribution to the overall GHG emissions, havenot been included in the analysis. The case study could
be improved by adding these parts of the life-cycle.

3. Evonik

Feed additives - 4 amino acids for pig andbroiler production: DL-Methionine, L-Lysine,
L-Threonine and L-Tryptophan

Brief description of case study
In this case study supplementation of broiler and pig
feed with the amino acids DL-methionine, L-Lysine,
L-Threonine and L-Tryptophan is compared withsoybean meal and rapeseed meal with the same
nutritional value. The functional unit is 1 kg of amino acidmix or the equivalent amount of amino acids provided byfeed raw materials. Avoided greenhouse gas emissions
are realised by less use and cultivation of arable landfor crop production (less CO2 equivalent emissions fromland transformation) and by less production of manureby animals (less N2O emissions from manure storage
and from application to the field). The emissions savings
enabled by the use of supplemented feed for broiler
production are 44 kg CO2e per functional unit (1 kg ofamino acid mix) compared to soybean meal, and 30 kg
CO2e compared to rapeseed meal. The emissions
savings of supplemented feed for swine production are
20 kg CO2e per functional unit compared to soybean
meal, and 3 kg CO2e per functional unit compared torapeseed meal.
Review comments by Ecofys
The case study is a nice example of how feed additives
can reduce GHG emissions compared to feed without
additives. The study is largely in line with the ICCA &WBCSD guidelines except for a few aspects. The casestudy reports that the study is conducted at the chemical
product level, while it is in fact an end-use level study(from cradle-to-farm gate). The use phase (consumptionof feed) of the product (amino acid mix) is included in the
study as well as the related avoided emissions. Additionally, the study describes some complex issues in avery concise manner, which makes the study sometimes
hard to understand for the reader. One example is theused reference flow which is defined as the net difference
between the different feeding options. Furthermore, thedata quality and limitations of the study have not beenaddressed sufficiently.

Review comments by Ecofys
The case study is compliant with the guidelines. The
solutions to compare and functional unit are adequately
chosen as well as the level in the value chain. The data
sources used in this study are transparently described.
However, the study could be improved by using more
recent data sources. This is the case for both solutions74. India Glycols Ltd (IGL)

Bio-Mono Ethylene Glycol (MEG) fromrenewable source

Brief description of case study
The case study compares bio-based Mono-Ethylene
Glycol (bio-MEG) produced by IGL in India with petrochemical-based MEG (petro-MEG) from cradle-to-gate
at the chemical product level. The functional unit isdefined as 1 ton of MEG produced, and the study takes
place at the chemical product level. The bio-MEG is
produced from agricultural renewable feedstock, namely
sugarcane molasses. The production of bio-MEG resultsin lower GHG emissions compared to petro-MEG.
Avoided emissions from using bio-MEG are 407 kg
CO2e per MT MEG production, which is predominantly
the result of the use of bio-based feedstock. The study
also reports that bio-MEG has a higher impact on acidification/eutrophication, compared to petro-MEG, due tothe use of fertilizers for sugarcane cultivation.
Review comments by Ecofys
The function of bio-MEG and petro-MEG are the sameand the case study has defined the functional unit
correctly. The system boundaries are well-explained,
and the study also selected the correct level in the value
chain. The major gap in the study is the traceability of thedata used to model the GHG emissions from bio-MEG of
IGL. A lot of primary data was collected, but these data
have not been included in the study. The adjustmentof Ecoinvent data for the Indian situation are also notdescribed in detail. Data quality assessment is only
described at a high level. It is therefore questionable if thetwo solutions are compared on an equal basis (same data
quality, same assumptions). The shift from petro-MEG tobio-MEG leads to a reduction in GHG emissions, but at
the same time increases other impacts like acidification/
eutrophication, ozone depletion and land use. Trade-offs
to other impacts are correctly reported and are therefore
in line with the ICCA & WBCSD guidelines, but it should
be considered if communication is still desirable in caseof trade-offs.

Review comments by Ecofys
The case study is a nice example of how chemicalsolutions can reduce greenhouse gas emissions insociety. The CFRP aircraft provides the same service as
the conventional aircraft while reducing emissions. The
study clearly describes the objective of the study andselects the correct solution to compare and the correct
level in the value chain. However, the case study does
not describe the system boundaries in much detail. It
is also not clear from the study how the reduction infuel use is calculated. The quality of the study could
be improved by reporting more transparently about the
choices made and the used calculation methodology.
Moreover, the study could be improved by addressing
the effect of future changes on the total amount of
avoided emissions.

6. J apan Chemical Industry
Association (JCIA)
Materials for fuel efficient tires

5. The Japan Carbon Fiber
Manufacturers Association(JCMA)

Brief description of case study
The case study of JCIA compares the GHG emissionsof fuel-efficient tires with the emissions of conventionaltires in Japan in 2010. The fuel-efficient tire has a lower
rolling resistance, while keeping the same road-gripping performance, due to the specific formulation of thetire material, the structure of styrene-butadiene rubber(SBR) and the dispersion technology of higher amountsof silica in the rubber. The study calculates the GHG
emissions savings for passenger cars and trucks/buses.
The functional unit used in this study is the service
life of one tire for driving a passenger car (30,000 km)
and also the service life of one tire for driving a truck/bus (120,000 km). The comparison takes place at theend-use level. The total avoided emissions per tire are
57 kg CO2e for passenger cars (228 kg CO2e per car),and 442.3 kg CO2e for a truck/bus (4,423 for a truck/bus). The largest part of the avoided emissions are
realised during the use phase (driving the car).

Brief description of case study
This case study compares two aircraft, one that consistsof 50 wt.-% of carbon fibre reinforced plastic (CFRP)
and one, conventional, that consists of 3 wt.-% of CRFP.
CRFP can be used in various aircraft components andreduces the weight of the aircraft while maintaining thesame strength and safety. The functional unit is one
aircraft and the study is performed at the end-use level.

Review comments by Ecofys
The case study is a good example of how chemical
products can reduce GHG emissions in society while
keeping the same lifestyle. The objective of the study,
the solutions to compare, the functional unit and systemboundaries are well-defined. The results are presented
per life cycle stage, per tire and per vehicle. Limitationsof the study are addressed concisely. However, theforecast of avoided emissions in 2020 are not describedin the objectives of the study and are also not addressed

Aircraft materials (CFRP, Carbon Fibre
Reinforced Plastic) for weight reduction

8

The study shows that avoided emissions resulting fromthe increased use of CFRP are dominated by fuel savingsin the use phase as a result of the weight reduction. The
avoided emissions per aircraft unit are 27 kton CO2e in
a 10-year period.

in the functional unit. Future changes in energy-efficiency
of cars is not quantified nor described, while changes
could be expected. The used data are not included in
the study; instead a reference is made to a Japanesesource. It was not possible for the reviewer to checksome data. The high fuel use of the vehicles could
therefore not be checked, although this has a significant
influence on the total avoided emissions.

and through reduced fuel consumption during the usephase (i.e. driving the car) as a result of the reduced
weight. The avoided emissions ensured by this small
car part represent as much as 2.0 kg CO2e per car ascompared to the aluminium-alloy-based solution of theEngine Mount Housing during its entire life cycle, andreach 5,600 t CO2e over the total production (estimatedto be of 280,000 cars/year during 10 years) of thespecific passenger car under study.

7. SABIC

Review comments by Ecofys
In general, the study is of good quality. The study
selected the correct level in the value chain (end-use
level) and a valid functional unit. The solution to compare
is not fully in line with the ICCA & WBCSD guidelines. For
studies conducted at the end-use level, the guidelines
recommend that the basis for comparison should be
the weighted average of all solutions bringing the sameuser benefit on the market, based on their shares in themarket (including the studied end-use solution, in thiscase the Technyl solution). Since substitution of thealuminium engine mount housing by the solution of thereporting company (Technyl) has already taken place inthe specific car brand and type under study, this is not
the case. However the case study is still a good exampleof how light-weight car parts can and do reduce GHG
emissions when driving a car.

Multilayer Polyethylene packaging films

Brief description of case study
In this case study five layer polyethylene (PE) packaging
film is compared¬ – at the chemical product level –to conventional three layer PE packaging film. The
functional unit is a thousand square meters of multilayer
packaging film used for packaging a set of six beveragebottles. Both solutions to compare are produced,
marketed and consumed in Europe and the reference
year for comparison is 2012. Five layer film allows a 22%
reduction in film thickness compared to three layer film.
The resulting reduction in material demand and waste are
driving the emission savings. Avoided emissions enabledby the five layer PE packaging film are 40 kg CO2e per
1,000 square meter of packaging film compared to theconventional three layer PE packaging film.
Review comments by Ecofys
This case study is largely compliant with the guidelines.
The solutions to compare and the functional unit are
adequately chosen. The boundaries of the study could
have been more explicitly set. The main limitation of thisstudy is the use of secondary data, which are in somecases dated. The case study could be improved bymodelling the production process in more detail andusing more recent datasets.

8. Solvay

Engineering plastics for vehicle
light-weighting

Brief description of case study
This case study shows the potential of light-weight car
parts in designing more fuel-efficient cars. The study
focuses on a specific, small, car part, an engine mounthousing, made of Technyl®, an engineering plastic,compared to an aluminium alloy engine mount housing.
The study takes place at the end-use level and focuseson the specific car part (e.g. the remainder of the caris outside the system boundaries). The functional unit
consists in ensuring one attachment point between theengine/gearbox and the vehicle structure in a small-medium size car, throughout the vehicle’s lifetime. The study
shows that the Technyl part enables avoided emission
both through lower emissions in the production phase,

9. S
 UMITOMO CHEMICAL

Broiler production with feed additive
DL-Methionine

Brief description of case study
Two options for broiler feed with different protein
contents are compared: a study feed supplemented
with DL-Methionine and a control feed without DL-Methionine. Since methionine is the first limiting amino acidin broiler feed, the supplementation with DL-Methionine
plays a key role to reduce nitrogen content in broiler feed.
Reducing the nitrogen content in the feed is an effective
way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions during themanure management process by decreasing nitrogenexcretion of the animal. The functional unit in this study
is one kilogram of broiler meat and the geographical andtemporal reference is Japan in 2011. The study showsthat, while having a slightly higher impact in the raw
material production, supplementing feed with DL-Methionine results in avoided emissions over the life cycle
as a result of reduced nitrogen excretion. The estimatedcontribution of the study feed to GHG emission reduction
was 0.114 kg CO2e per kg of broiler meat, based on the
difference in life-cycle GHG emissions between the two
feed options.
Review comments by Ecofys
The chemical product under study, DL-Methionine, has anearly 100% market share in Japan. The ICCA & WBCSD

9

guidelines define the solution to compare at end-use
level as follows (page 19 of the guidelines): the weighted
average based on shares of all currently implemented
technologies for the same user benefit (including thestudied end-use solution to which the chemical productcontributes). This implies that DL-Methionine is also thesolution to compare, and one cannot speak of avoided
emissions. However, the chemical product provides theopportunity to avoid emissions in other markets (outside
Japan) where DL-Methionine has a lower percentageof the feed additive market share. Furthermore, thefunction of feed supplemented with DL-Methionine andunsupplemented feed as defined in the case study is asfollows: produce the same amount of broiler meat in thesame rearing period of 48 days. This function is reflectedin the functional unit which is defined as one kg of broiler
meat. Instead of using references or measurements, thecase study assumes that this functional unit is fulfilledwith the same amount of the two selected feed options
which is not a strong basis for comparison.

10. AkzoNobel

A comparative life cycle study of threefouling control systems for marine vessels

Brief description of case study
Intersleek 1100SR is a biocide-free fluoropolymer foulingcontrol system which improves the coating’s performancecompared to the silicon based fouling control system,
Intersleek 700, and the biocide fouling control system,
Intersmooth 7460HS. Intersleek 1100SR ensures lower
surface hull roughness, better coefficient of friction andbetter foul release properties, which, relatively to theIntersmooth 7460HS system, leads to reduced fuelconsumption and avoided in-service emissions of up to
9%. The lifecycle study covers the vessel’s full life-cycle.
Fuel and lube oil consumption have been consideredseparately.
Review comments by Quantis
See below.

11. BASF

The Green Sense® Concrete solution –optimizing concrete mixtures by reducing
cement content

Brief description of case study
Concrete is generally produced from a mixture of paste
and aggregates. The paste is composed of cement andwater and coats the surfaces of the fine and course
aggregates. Cement, a fundamental component of
concrete, generates a large carbon footprint during its
production from the two processes of combustion andcalcination. Chemical admixtures are added to modify

10

or improve specific concrete properties. The cement
production process results in high levels of greenhousegas (GHG) emissions. The life cycle assessment study
compares the environmental impacts of a conventional
concrete mixture with an optimized Green Sense®
Concrete mixture.
Review comments by Quantis
See below.

12. Braskem

Polypropylene (PP) containers forwater-based paints

Brief description of case study
Brazil is one of the five largest markets for paints. In
2014, 1397 million liters of paint were produced, andthis market is essentially dominated by tinplate (TP) pails.
With the objective of proposing a solution to the paint
pail market to reduce environmental impacts, Braskem
developed an alternative packaging that is lighter andmore resistant to corrosion, based on polypropylene(PP). Replacing tinplate rigid containers by Polypropylene containers for waterbased paints in Brazil canlead to a 18% reduction in GHG emissions amounting
to 0.6 kgCO2e per container, over the whole lifecycle ofthe paint containers.
Review comments by Quantis
See below.

13. Eastman Chemical Company

Alternative product distribution logistics
and greenhouse gas emission reduction

Brief description of case study
The study characterizes the avoided emissions
associated with an innovative mode of chemical productdistribution logistics between Eastman and otherchemical company partners, called “Alternate Methodsof Supply” (AMS). AMS can be used when two chemicalcompanies produce a practically identical and mutuallyinterchangeable chemical product in two separate
geographic regions. This study was performed to better
understand the life cycle impacts of the Eastman supply
chain, and of distribution swaps between 2 chemicalcompanies.
Review comments by Quantis
See below.

14. Evonik

Feed additives – 5 limiting amino acids for
pig and broiler production: DL-Methionine,
L-Lysine, L-Threonine, L-Tryptophan and
L-Valine

Brief description of case study
In this case study, a supplemented feed mix incl.
cristalline amino acids is compared to two non-supplemented feed mixes based on soybean as protein rich feed
ingredient in one case and soybean and rapeseed in thesecond case. This is conducted for both animals, broiler
and pigs. Supplementing animal feed with essential
amino acids can save significant amounts of feed raw
materials, resulting in minimized use of arable land forcrop production and thus, fewer CO2eq emissions.
Furthermore, feed supplementation with these essential
amino acids reduces both nitrogen and greenhouse gas
emissions resulting from feeding and excretion.
Review comments by Quantis
See below.

15. Sabic

Renewable Polyethylene based on HVO(Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil) diesel

Brief description of case study
The Life Cycle Assessment study evaluated GHG
emissions linked to polyethylene produced via two
renewable routes: 1. Waste animal fats based renewablediesel and 2. Palm oil fatty acids based renewable diesel.
These are compared with fossil naphtha route to produce
polyethylene. Results indicate that the animal fats basedroute leads to a significantly lower carbon footprint than
the fossil route. For the palm oil route, complete captureof methane emissions during palm oil processing is
critical to ensure lower carbon footprint. Likewise, palm
oil plantation must not have been associated with recent
land transformation (forests to plantation) for it to havelower GHG emissions than the fossil route.
Review comments by Quantis
See below.

16. S
 olvay and AGC Glass Europe
Double-glazed windows in buildings
and contribution of sodium carbonate
in avoiding greenhouse gas emissions

Brief description of case study
GHG emissions can be avoided by replacing existing
single glazing with double glazing windows in houses in
Europe. Overall estimated avoided emissions resulting
from such replacement amount to 3,400 kg CO2 eq. per
m² of glazing over a 30 year service lifetime.

The contribution of sodium carbonate is “extensive”
according to the ICCA/WBCSD guidance, because itis an indispensable raw material to make glass. Extrapolation to the real European market gives a figure of
360 million tonnes of CO2 emissions that will be avoided
for every single year of replacement of windows in
Europe. The contribution of sodium carbonate, a key raw
material for glass, is essential to avoid these emissions.
Its quantification relies on specific assumptions.
Review comments by Quantis
See below.

17. Toray

100% Bio-based Polyethylene Terephthalate(PET)

Brief description of case study
In shifting towards a low carbon and oil independentsociety, plastic products from non-petroleum based
feedstocks are desired, while innovation in petroleum
usage as energy sources has been progressing. Toray’s
solution is the 100% bio based polyethylene terephthalate (PET) for materials of polyester fibers, which are oneof the most well-used textiles in the world. The study
compares the lifecyle GHG emissions of one kilogramof two alternative kinds of PET as the material to makepolyester textile products. Toray’s solution is a 100% bio
based PET, while the reference solution to compare tois the conventional petroleum based PET. The avoided
emissions in the base case amount to 1.08 kgCO2e/
kg of PET. The possible impact of the land use change
due to bio-based feedstocks has been estimated at
15.1 m2 of cropland during a year to produce the bio
based feedstocks for 1kg of PET.
Review comments by Quantis
See below.

Reviews comments by
Ecofys (case studies 1-9)
and Quantis (case studies
10-17)For case studies 1-9, summaries of the reviews by Ecofys
carried out in accompany every summary description(see above).
For case studies 10-17 reviewed in 2017, the review by
Quantis showed the following :•	In terms of structure, case studies fully comply with
the Guidance, and are generally clear about thebasis for comparison (“solution to compare to”).

11

•	
They are also generally clear about the selectedfunctional unit, the geographic scope and timeframe, the basic calculation assumptions, and thedata sources.
•	
Discussions in general are of course ongoing ondata accuracy and on allocation for multi-productprocesses.
•	
The reviews highlighted some differences in thequality of the case studies and the approach to LCA
by the different companies.

Statement by Quantis“Eight case studies applying the updated version of the
ICCA & WBCSD Avoided Emissions Guidance (versionof 2013 updated in 2017) have been produced. These
case studies have been prepared by AkzoNobel, BASF,
Braskem, Eastman, Evonik, SABIC, Solvay, and Toray on
the respective topics of fouling control systems, green
concrete solutions, polypropylene vs tinplate containers
for water-based paints, alternative product distribution
logistics, feed additives, biobased vs conventional polypropylene, double-glazed vs single-glazed windows, andbiobased vs conventional polypropylene terephthalate.
The case studies have been reviewed by Quantis. The
review meant to assure that case studies follow the
updated version of the ICCA/WBCSD Guidance in termsof structure as well as requirements. The review was also
an opportunity to check whether the case studies usedsound methods to calculate the avoided emissions,in terms of life cycle assessment calculation and ofrobustness of input data.
This review process allowed us to have all case studiesaligned with the updated Guidance. Overall, the casestudies provide examples showing where products
from the chemical industry can contribute to reducegreenhouse gas emissions in their application. They
were also a good opportunity to show the applicability of
the updated Guidance.
In terms of structure, the case studies fully comply with
the Guidance.
Case studies are generally clear about the basis forcomparison (“solution to compare to”), the selectedfunctional unit, the geographic scope and time frame,
and the basic calculation assumptions, and the data
sources.

12

Regarding detailed information on methodology anddata, some case studies are more clear and extensive
than others in terms of data transparency, for example
in presenting key inputs data or formula so that reported
avoided emissions results can be recalculated andchallenged. To ensure robustness, the Guidance requires
case studies to assess the possible influence of key
assumptions on final results. This aspect is not systematically addressed. In particular, it should be noted that the
influence of the occurrence or not of land use change inthe production of feedstock used to produce bio-based
chemicals is a topic that should be addressed more
extensively in the two concerned case studies. Also,
the potential trade-offs between the carbon footprint
and other environmental impact categories is not clearly
identified in all case studies.”

Case study
reports

13

Case 1

External thermal insulation composite system
for the refurbishment of a house in Germany

BASF

COMMISSIONER AND PERFORMER OF THE STUDY
The study was commissioned by BASF SE and performed by Nicola Paczkowski,
BASF SE.

1. Purpose of the study

EPS is a lightweight, rigid, plastic foam insulation material
produced from solid beads of polystyrene made fromstyrene.

The purpose of this study is to provide the life cycle
assessment (LCA) basis for calculating avoided
emissions from chemical insulation materials to show
FIGURE 1 - EXTERNAL THERMAL INSULATION COMPOSITE SYSTEM(ETICS) BASED ON EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE
and quantify their positive contribution to emissions
reductions in the building sector. The study focuses
on wall insulation of an existing house by using anExternal Thermal Insulation Composite System(ETICS) based on expanded polystyrene (EPS), a
product of the chemical industry (Figure 1). The study
does not intend to assess all technical possibilities tofulfill the defined user benefit such as different
insulation materials, but instead compares a newly-insulated detached house with an average existinghouse. A more general goal of this study is also to
Figureunderstand and quantify the environmental impactsof1 - External Thermal Insulation Composite System (ETICS) based on
expanded polystyrene.
the production, use and disposal of chemical insulation
The solutions that are compared were selected on thematerials in the context of existing buildings within thebasis of the following facts:
limited scope of the study.
A. 83% of all buildings in Germany are detached orsemi-detached houses (this corresponds to 59% of
System boundary and process map for house with newly-installed
ETIC System
The study is a life cycle assessment including all material
the total living area in Germany)[2]; thus the chosen
and energy inputs and outputs from raw materials
building type of the case study represents the largest
acquisition through production, use and disposal (cradleshare of buildings in Germany. For more information
to-grave analysis). The study focuses on life cycleon the selected house, please see section 12.1 in thegreenhouse gas emissions and follows the requirements
Appendix.
of the Guidelines from the chemical industry for
B. Only about 20% of the existing detached andaccounting and reporting GHG emissions avoided alongsemi-detached house stock in Germany has been
the value chain based on comparative studies, developed
refurbished with wall insulation[3]; hence theby ICCA and the Chemical Sector Group of theimplemented mix of technologies is currently 80%
WBCSD[1]. The study uses the simplified calculation
non-insulated houses and 20% insulated houses.
methodology that omits identical parts in the life cycle of
C. For the house that is left as is an average U-value* ofthe solutions, which do not affect the absolute amount of
0.96 W/(m2*K) for an exterior wall of a single family
avoided emissions. Hence the study does not include
detached house in Germany was assumed. This
the construction and disposal of the house since this isvalue was calculated taking into account the following
identical for both alternatives.
elements:
1. For 80% of the living area, the average U-value(wall) of all existing single family homes in Germany
2. Solutions to comparethat were built before 2011 was considered,
which was defined to be the reference period. The
2.1. Description of the solutions to compare
average U-value was calculated as the sum of
The study compares two alternatives for an existing
weighted U-values based on the relevant squaredetached house in Germany: one in which the house ismeters of living space for the different building
left as is representing the weighted average of non-refurcategories based on information of the German
bished and already refurbished houses, and one in which
Institut Wohnen und Umwelt GmbH (IWU)[4].
the façade is refurbished to current German standards
2. For 20% of the living area, which is the share of
1/10 refurbished before 2011, an
as described below using an External Thermal Insulation
total houses that was
Composite System based on expanded polystyrene.
average U-value (wall) of 0.3 W/(m2*K) was* A U-value is a measure of heat loss in a building element.

14

assumed. The U-value of 0.3 W/(m2*K) was
derived as the mean of U-values required by theGerman Energy Savings Regulation (EnEV) for thetime period before 2011[5].
The chosen approach refers to a comparison to theweighted average based on the shares of all currently
implemented technologies.
D. For the newly-refurbished house a U-value (wall) of
0.2 W/(m2*K) was selected since this value fulfills therequirements of the German Energy Savings
Regulation 2009 (EnEV 2009)[6], in effect since2009, for the renovation of existing buildings and at
the same time qualifies for participation in the KfW
Bankengruppe loan and subsidy program[7], awell-established and frequently used loan programin Germany.
E. The U-values of the other construction componentsof the house (roof, windows and floor) that also
affect the heating energy demand of the house butwith equal impact on the different alternatives wereselected according to the current requirements ofthe EnEV 2009[6] for the refurbishment of buildings,
again in conjunction with the criteria of the KfW
Bankengruppe loan and subsidy program[7] (seeTable A4 in the Appendix). Consequently, thesebuilding elements are state-of-the-art with a highthermal insulation.
2.2. Level in the Value Chain
The study focuses on a single family detached housewith different degrees of thermal wall insulation. Thus,
the level in the value chain is the end-use level according
to the Guidelines from the chemical industry. This
chosen calculation level is the lowest possible level
closest to the chemical solution which still allows thecomparison of the two alternatives.
The chemical product the study focuses on is
expanded polystyrene. EPS is made from styrene andpentane as blowing agent to form a foam with excellent
thermal insulation properties.[8] As part of an ETIC
System it is used to improve the thermal insulation ofouter walls, thereby reducing the amount of energy
needed for heating the house. Other components ofan ETICS are a base coat, adhesives, reinforcements
and a finishing coat, all delivered by a system holder
and applied on site.[9]2.3. Definition of the boundaries of the market
and the application
About 80% of the existing detached and semi-detached houses in Germany are still not insulated.[3]EPS, the main component of the exterior wall insulation
system, has been used for several years in ETICS in
the German market[10] and its market share is 87%
based on sales volume of square meters in 2010.[11]The only other material that is used in ETIC Systems isstone wool.[11]3. F unctional unit and referenceflow
3.1. Functional unit
Description of the function of the solutions tocompare: Existing single family detached house inGermany with an average room temperature of 19°C.
Functional unit: Heating an existing single family
detached house in Germany at average room
temperature of 19°C for 40 years (from 2011 to 2051).
Quality requirements:•	
Functionality: The main function of the studied
solutions is to maintain an internal temperature of
19°C. This is achieved by both alternative solutions
by means of solely burning fuel to generate heat or
by using exterior wall insulation in conjunction witha lower consumption of heating fuel.
•	Technical quality: Both solutions are stable anddurable. The heating systems need to be maintainedin both alternatives; the ETIC System does not need
any specific maintenance. ETIC Systems are used
for more than 40 years. They do not have any
underlying shortcomings.[9] With proper care forexample painting of the façade, their lifetime is aslong as the lifetime of the building.[10]•	Additional services rendered during use anddisposal: Besides repainting, the ETIC Systemneeds to be disposed of at the end of its life; thiswas considered in the life cycle assessment. A
ventilation system to remove moisture in well-insulated buildings is often recommended, in particularin passive houses. However, the implementation
rate of ventilation systems in existing buildings is still
very low[3] and thus was not considered in theanalysis. Nonetheless, ventilation heat losses due toconventional ventilation of rooms were taken into
account (see Table A4 in the Appendix).
Service life:
The service life was defined to be 40 years. The lifetimeof the insulation material is not limited to 40 years andmay be as long as the lifetime of the building.[10] A
service life of 40 years was chosen in accordance withthe assessment system for sustainable buildings,
developed by the German Federal Ministry for
Environment, Nature Conservation, Building andNuclear Safety in collaboration with the German
Sustainable Building Council (DGNB)[12].
Time and geographical reference:
The reference year of the study is 2011. Homes thatwere built until the end of 2010 are referred to as
existing buildings. The geographic region chosen isGermany.

15

3.2. Reference flow
The applied reference flows are:
• The newly-insulated house with 198 m2 of anExternal Thermal Insulation Composite System withan EPS Board (WLG 035 (lambda = 0.035 W/(m*K),
density 20 kg/m3) with a thickness of 14 cm
achieving a U-value (wall) of 0.2 W/(m2*K) and a net
heating energy demand of 10,018 kWh/a (for more
information, please see Tables A4, A6 and A8 in
the Appendix).
• The house left as is with a net heating energy demandof 20,875 kWh/a (for more information, please see
Tables A6 and A7 in the Appendix).

4. Boundary setting• Production of the ETIC System: The ETIC System
consists of an EPS foam board as the main
component which is made from EPS beads provided
by the chemical industry. EPS is manufactured fromstyrene, a liquid petrochemical, in the presence ofsmall amounts of pentane (blowing agent) and aflame retardant (HBCD). Converters expand andmold the EPS beads to form boards or blocks bymeans of steam.[8] Besides EPS, the ETIC System
contains adhesive, dowels, reinforcement plaster,
reinforcement mesh and exterior plaster.[9] Aluminum
profiles are used to ensure a secure mechanical fixingof the ETICS.[10]• Use of the house: The house is heated to obtain an
average internal temperature of 19°C. The housedoes not have air conditioning, i.e. no cooling of thehouse in hot weather occurs since less than 1% of
the houses in Germany are equipped with air-conditioning[3]. The energy carriers used represent thecurrent heating structure in detached and semi-detached houses of the existing building stock inGermany based on the numbers of buildings with therespective heating system[3] (see Table A5 in the
Appendix).
• Disposal: At the end of the defined service life,
disposal of the ETIC System is necessary. 90% of the
EPS is incinerated with energy recovery, while theremaining components are landfilled.[9]• Transports of materials to and from the construction
site were included in the study (see Table A9 in the
Appendix). The wall insulation of the house which
represents the weighted average of non-refurbishedand already refurbished houses was not taken into
account because of the small amounts of materials
needed and their negligible impact on the results ofthe study as can be concluded from the results in
section 6. In any case, its consideration would
increase the environmental impact of the respective
alternative, leading to higher avoided emissions.

• Installation of the ETIC System: The ETIC System isassembled at the construction site.[9] All material
and waste flows linked to the installation were
Figure1 - External
Composite
System (ETICS) based on
includedin the Thermal
analysis. Insulation
Only the energy
requireexpanded
polystyrene.
ments, such as the electricity for drilling the dowelholes were excluded since their contribution to thetotal energy demand of the product system wasassumed to be negligible.
System boundary and process map for house with newly-installed ETIC System
SYSTEM BOUNDARY AND PROCESS MAP FOR HOUSE WITH NEWLY-INSTALLED ETIC SYSTEM

16

SystemboundaryAND
andprocessfor house
left
SYSTEM BOUNDARYPROCESS
MAPmap
FOR HOUSELEFT ASIS as is5. Calculation methodology and data
5.1. Methods and formulas used
This study is a life cycle assessment including all material
and energy inputs and outputs from raw materials
acquisition through production, use and disposal (cradleto-grave analysis). Although the study focuses on life
cycle greenhouse gas emissions, other environmental
impact categories were assessed as well such as acidification potential, ozone creation potential, ozone
depletion potential, primary energy demand, resource
consumption, water emissions, solid wastes and landuse. The environmental impact categories were
evaluated according to BASF’s Eco-Efficiency
methodology[13], which follows the ISO norms
14040:2006 and 14044:2006 for life cycle assessment.
For GHG emissions the impact method used was IPCC
2007 GWP, with characterization factors for a time frameof 100 years [IPCC 2007][14].

1997 in Belgium) to the base case results of the study.
The data were derived from a comprehensive LCA
study on insulation in buildings conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) in 2013.[15]5.2. Allocation
No allocation was needed in the documented input data.
Nevertheless, some of the life cycle inventory (LCI) data
(secondary data from databases) used to model the
pre-chains include assumptions concerning allocation.
These assumptions are documented in the corresponding databases.

5.3. Data sources and data quality
In this study, primarily secondary data available fromliterature, previous LCA studies, and life cycle databases
were used for the analysis. The LCI data for the upstream
production processes of the materials, for energy
carriers, electricity as well as for the disposal of thematerials were taken either from the Boustead databaseIn this study the simplified calculation method was(The Boustead Model, Version 5.0, expanded with
Figurethat
2 - Graphshowing andthe resultscase study
used. This means
the production
disposalof thecompany-specificdata), from the European reference
phases of the study do not consider the entire house,
Life Cycle Database (ELCD 3.1) or from Ecoinvent v2.2.
but only the differences between the two alternatives.
For more information on data sources, please see the
These are the production and the installation of the
Appendix, section 12.3.
ETIC System and the disposal of the insulation systemat the end of its defined service life. Construction
andOverall, the quality of the data used in this study is
2/10
disposal of the house are identical for the two alternaconsidered by the author of this study to be sufficient
tives and their non-consideration does not change theand appropriate for the described solutions. The quality
overall conclusion of the study as shown in theof the secondary data taken from literature to model the
Appendix, section 12.2. In addition these data are very
house (heating system, energy mix, components of thecomplex and difficult to obtain. The omitted GHG
ETIC System etc.) is considered to be good and repreemissions of the construction and disposal of the housesentative of the described system to represent the
represent 13% of the total emissions of the house left
average technology used in Germany. The quality of theas is (see section 12.2). The omitted emissions weresecondary data from the three life cycle databases
estimated by adding available life cycle impact
Boustead, ELCD and Ecoinvent to model the upstream
assessment (LCIA) results for the construction andprocesses is reduced by possible inconsistent systemdemolition of a single family detached house (built inboundaries of the databases and by the age of some17

data sets. However, individual data quality measures areapplied in all three databases to ensure coherent andappropriate quality data. For more information on data
quality, please see the Appendix, section 12.3.

The avoided emissions are the difference between the
GHG emissions of the house left as is and the housenewly-insulated with the ETIC System. All involved
partners along the value chain have contributed to thisemission reduction.

6. Results

As mentioned in Section 5.1 other environmental impact
categories besides greenhouse gas emissions wereassessed in the study as well. In all of the categories
considered the newly-insulated house causes a lower
environmental impact than the house left as is; hence notrade-offs exist.

6.1. Avoided emissions
Figure 2 shows the cradle-to-grave GHG emissions of
the detached house in Germany over 40 years left as isin comparison to the house with modern façade
insulation. The newly-insulated house has a significant
lower carbon footprint than the house left as is.
System boundary and process map for house left as is

The results are clearly dominated by the use phase, thatis the combustion of heating fuel with associated GHG
emissions. The impact of the manufacture and disposalof the ETIC System is very small and hence not visible in
Figure 2. Key parameters of the study that have the mostsignificant impact on the use phase and hence on thelevel of avoided emissions include the service life of theinsulation material and the lifetime of the building, thetype and mix of energy carriers for heating the house,
the efficiency of the heating system and the heat loss of
the walls defined by their U-value.
FIGURE 2 - GRAPH SHOWING THE RESULTS OF THE CASE STUDY

6.2. Scenario analysis
Since the use phase of this study covers a time period of
40 years (from 2011 to 2051), a number of changes are
expected to occur over this timespan. Uncertainties
mainly exist with regard to the fuel mix for meeting theheating energy demand of the house, the heating systemitself, the service life of the product or the lifetime of thebuilding. Looking at the policy goal of meeting the
2 degree C target, it is anticipated that in the long-term asignificant change of the energy and building sector willtake place. This will have a remarkable impact on the
results of this study meaning that the value for the GHG
emissions avoided will most likely be significantly reduced.
A continuous change is already taking place in the area ofmodernization of heating systems (modernization rate atabout 2-4% per year in Germany), which is often linked toa change in the energy carrier away from coal and oil togas or biomass.
Scenario 1 evaluates the effect of a changing energy mix
away from fossil-based fuels to biomass and non-biomass
renewable energy on the results of the study. It considers
a low-carbon energy carrier mix as defined by WWF forthe year 2050 (“Scenario 2050”)[16] and at the same time
an assumed efficiency of the heating systems of 98 to
100%. Table 2 shows significantly reduced avoided
emissions compared to the base case.

Table 1 - representing the results of the case study in kg CO2e per user
Figure 2 - Graph showing the results of the case study
benefit/solution
TABLE 1 - REPRESENTING THE RESULTS OF THE
CASE STUDY IN KG CO2e PER USER BENEFIT/SOLUTION

Emissions per life cycle phase
2/10

Solution to compare

solution [kg CO2e]to [kg CO2e]

Production - EPS insulation board

2,565.8

Production - Aluminium profile

551.7

0

Production - Dowel

253.4

0

Production - Adhesive

287.6

0

Production - Reinforcing mesh

91.9

0

Production - Base coat

258.5

0

Production - Finish coat

177.8

0

Distribution

80.6

0

Use phase - Heating

135,513.7

282,376.6

End of Life

1,370.80141,152 (P1)

282,377 (P2)

Total emissions
Avoided emissions

18

Reporting company’s

0= P2 – P1 = 141,225

Table 2 - representing the results of scenario 1 in kg CO2e per user
benefit/solution with modified energy mix

End
End ofof Life
Life
Total
Total emissions
emissions
Avoided emissions
emissions
Avoided

1,370.8
1,370.800141,152
141,152 (P1)
(P1)
=
P2 –
– P1
P1 =
= 141,225
141,225= P2

282,377
282,377 (P2)
(P2)

Table
Table 22 -- representing
representing thethe results
results ofof scenario
scenario 1
1 in
in kg
kg CO
CO22e
e per
per useruser
benefit/solution
withmodifiedenergymix
benefit/solution
withmodifiedenergymix
TABLE 2 - REPRESENTING THE RESULTS OF SCENARIO 1 IN KG CO2e PER USER BENEFIT/SOLUTION WITH MODIFIED ENERGY MIX
Emissions
Emissions along
along thethe entire
entire life
life
cycle
cycle
Total
Total emissions
emissions
Avoided
Avoided emissions
emissions

Reporting
Reporting company’s
company’s
solution [kg[kg CO
CO22e]e]solution
41,781 (P1)(P1)
41,781

Solution toto compare
compareSolutionto [kg[kg CO
CO22e]
toe]
75,313 (P2)(P2)
75,313== P2-P1
P2-P1 =
= 33,532
33,532

Scenario 2 evaluates a reduced building lifetime of 30
years. The results in Table 3 demonstrate that the

avoided emissions are proportionally reduced and hence
about a quarter less than in the base case.

Table
Table 33 -- representing
representing thethe results
results ofof scenario
scenario 2
2 in
in kg
kg CO
CO22e
e per
per useruser

withbuilding
lifetime
TABLE 3 - REPRESENTINGbenefit/solution
THE RESULTS OF SCENARIO
2 IN KG COBENEFIT/SOLUTION WITH REDUCED BUILDING LIFETIME
benefit/solution
with reduced
reducedbuilding
lifetime
2e PER USER
Emissions
Emissions along
along thethe entire
entire life
life
cycle
cycle
Total
Total emissions
emissions
Avoided
Avoided emissions
emissions

Reporting
Reporting company’s
company’s
solution [kg[kg CO
CO22e]e]solution
107,273
107,273 (P1)
(P1)

Solution toto compare
compareSolution
e]
to
[kg
CO
2
to [kg CO2e]211,782 (P2)(P2)
211,782= P2-P1
P2-P1 =
= 104,509
104,509=

7. Significance of contribution
3/10
3/10

The focus product of this study, namely the expanded
polystyrene, fundamentally contributes to the GHG
emissions avoidance effect of the solution since it is the
key component in the ETIC System, providing the thermal
insulation function and thus significantly reducing theenergy demand for heating the house. However, is must
be noted that without the other components of the ETIC
System and the many services along the supply chain(such as blowing the EPS beads to form the EPS boards,
the adhesive that keeps the insulation material on the wallor the construction worker who actually applies theinsulation to the wall) as well as the home owner who pays
for everything, the wall insulation would not be possible.
Therefore the efforts of various partners along the value
chain contribute to the avoided emissions.

8. Review of results
A critical review (but not a panel review)[17] of the underlying
Eco-Efficiency Analysis was carried out by DEKRA Consulting
GmbH in July 2013.

9. S
 tudy limitations and future
recommendations
The present study analyzes just one of the many aspects
in the low-energy modernization of a house and in thiscontext only the impact of a chemical solution. This
simplified approach does not (necessarily) reflect thecurrent practice and thus limits the applicability of thestudy. The study is based on specific conditions andassumptions that were selected to demonstrate an
average situation for Germany. Consequently the study
results may not be transferable to other locations and/or
conditions that might be present in an actual case.

The results of this analysis are dominated by the usephase, i.e. the heating energy demand of the house andthe service life. Therefore these results are very sensitive
to the applied heating mix and the underlying energy
carriers, the efficiencies of the heating systems, thelifetime of the house as well as to the climatic conditionsof the location of the studied house. Thus the conclusionsof this study cannot be applied unreservedly to otherconditions. The results of the study should be seen within
its limited boundaries and thus shall only be used in an
appropriate manner in accordance with the goal andscope of the study.

10. Conclusions
This study compares the environmental performance ofan existing detached house, once left as is representing
the weighted average of non-refurbished and alreadyrefurbished houses in Germany and once with a newwall insulation system (ETICS) based on expandable
polystyrene over a lifetime of 40 years. The main focusof the study was on the contribution of chemical
insulation products as part of a wall insulation system to
GHG emissions reductions. The results of the study
within its limited scope clearly demonstrate the environmental benefits of wall insulation in particular with regard
to the reduction of GHG emissions. The newly-insulatedhouse has a significant lower carbon footprint as thehouse left as is with about 141 tons of avoided
greenhouse gas emissions. The GHG emissions are
dominated by the use phase, i.e. the heating energy
demand of the house and the service life. Since conventional energy sources will continue to play a major roleover the coming years, energy efficient solutions suchas wall insulation are important measures to reduceenergy consumption. This saves resources, reducescarbon dioxide emissions and also offers a large
economic potential.

1911. References[1] ICCA, WBCSD Chemicals, 2013: “Addressing the
Avoided Emissions Challenge”; Guideline from thechemical industry for accounting and reporting
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions avoided along
the value chain based on comparative studies.
[2] Dena Gebäudereport, 2012, Deutsche Energie-Agentur (page 8).
[3] IWU, Institut Wohnen und Umwelt, Darmstadt,
Germany:“Datenbasis
Gebäudebestand“,December 9, 2010.
[4] a) IWU, Institut Wohnen und Umwelt, Darmstadt,
Germany, 22.06.2005: “Deutsche Gebäudetopologie“;b) IWU, Institut Wohnen und Umwelt, Darmstadt,
Germany, August 25, 2011: “Basis für Hochrechnungen mit der deutschen Gebäudetopologie
des IWU“.
[5] a) EnEV 2009. Electronic reference. Retrieved
from
http://www.enev-online.org/enev_2009_
volltext/enev_2009_anlage_03_anforderungen_aenderung_aussenbauteile.htm#Anlage 3_Nr_7._
Anforderungen;b) EnEv 2007. Electronic reference. Retrieved
from
http://www.enev-online.net/enev_2007/
anlage_03_anforderungen_aenderung_aussenbauteile.htm.
EnEV 2009 requires a U-value (wall, max) of 0.24
W/(m2*K). Before 2009, the EnEV 2007 (2002)
was in effect requiring an U-value (wall, max) of
0.35 W/(m2*K) in refurbished homes.
[6] EnEV 2009. Electronic reference. Retrieved fromhttp://www.enev-online.org/enev_2009_volltext/[7] KfW Bankengruppe loan and subsidy program.
Electronic reference. Retrieved from https://www.
k f w. d e / P D F / D o w n l o a d - C e n t e r / F ö rd e r p ro gramme-(Inlandsförderung)/PDF-Dokumente/6000003071_M_Anlage_151_152_430.pdf[8] EUMEPS. Electronic reference. Retrieved fromhttp://www.eumeps.org/manufacturing_4106.
html[9] Environmental Product Declaration (EPD), Institut
Bauen und Umwelt e.V., Germany, 2011. Electronic
reference. Retrieved from http://bau-umwelt.de/
download/C3ddbc477X13042d4a6ffX443e/
Muster_ESD_FVW_2011511_D.pdf[10] EAE, European Association for ETICS. Electronic
reference. Retrieved from http://www.ea-etics.
eu/views/etics/mode-of-operation/index.html[11] B+L Marktdaten GmbH: “Insulation Application
Germany 2011”; market study.
[12] Nutzungsdauern von Bauteilen zur Lebenszyklusanalyse nach BNB, 2011. Electronic reference.
Retrieved from http://www.nachhaltigesbauen.
de/fileadmin/pdf/baustoff_gebauededaten/
BNB_Nutzungsdauern_von_Bauteilen__201111-03.pdf

20[13] NSF May 2013. Electronic reference. Retrieved
from http://www.nsf.org/newsroom_pdf/BASF_
EEA_Methodology_Validation_Submission_
May2013.pdf[14] Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen,
R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C.
Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga,
M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland, 2007: Changes in
Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative
Forcing. In: Climate Change 2007: The PhysicalScience Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to
the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon,S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis,
K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
[15] PU Europe, April 2013: “Environmental andeconomic analysis of insulation products in low
energy buildings”, a study conducted by PwC.
[16] Blue print Germany – A strategy for a climate safein 2050, a study conducted on behalf of WWF,
Germany, prepared by PROGNOS/Öko-Institut
and WWF. Heating structure of detached andsemi-detached existing buildings in Germany inthe year 2050 (Scenario “Innovation”).
[17] The review statement is provided on request. A
panel review was not deemed to be necessary as
the reference case or product for comparison,
respectively, does not comprise a competingproduct such as another insulation material.
[18] BASF Wohnen+Bauen, 2013, personal communication.
[19] BASF SE, Performance Materials, 2013, personalcommunication.
[20] Industry survey by Bundesverband Erneuerbare
Energien e.V. and Agentur für Erneuerbare
Energien, 10/2009.
[21] Diploma thesis, Kremena Borisova, BASF SE,
2008.

12. Appendices12.1. House data
The dimensions and geometry of the house including thenumber and size of windows were chosen to represent
1
a typical
single family detached house in Germany built

in the 1960s. According to reference[4], single family
detached houses built in the 1960s represent the largest
share of detached houses in Germany based on living area.

1
1

TABLE A1 - SUMMARY OF BUILDING GEOMETRY[18]Table A1 - Summary of building geometry[18]Table A1 - Summary of building geometry[18]Table A1 - Summary of building geometry[18]Geometric parameter
Geometric
parameter
Building
envelope
Geometric
parameter
Building
envelope
Building volume
Building
envelope
Buildingair
volumeHeatedvolumeBuilding
volumeHeatedarea
airvolumeLivingHeatedair volume
Living area
Surface/volume
ratio
Livingarea
Surface/volume
ratio
Surface/volume ratio

Value and Unit
2
Value406
andmUnit
23
Value
and
Unit
406
m
510 m
2
3 3
406
m
510
mm
387.6
510 m33
387.6
163.2mm32
387.6 m
m2
163.2
0.8 2
163.2
0.8 m
0.8

Table A2 - Building geometry – Surfaces and their orientation[18][18]TABLE A2 - BUILDING– SURFACES
AND–THEIRORIENTATION
Table GEOMETRY
A2 - Building
geometry
Surfacesand their orientation[18]Table A2 - Building geometry – Surfaces and their orientation[18]

No
No
No

Decription
Decription
Decription

Orientation
Orientation

Calculation
Calculation

Orientation

Calculation

1
1
2
12
3
23
4
34
5
45
6
56
7
67
8
78
9
89
10
910

Attic
Attic
Basement floor
Attic
Basement floor
Exterior wall North
Basement
floor
Exterior wall
North
Window North
Exterior
North
Window wall
North
Exterior wall East
Exterior Northwall East
Window
Window East
Window wall
EastEast
Exterior
Exterior wall South
Exterior East
wall South
Window
Window South
Window wall
South
Exterior
South
Exterior wall North
Exterior Southwall North
Window
Window North
Window wall
North
Exterior
North

0.0°
0.0°
0.0°
0.0°
0.0°
N 90.0°N0.0°
90.0°
N 90.0°N
N 90.0°90.0°
E 90.0°E 90.0°N
E 90.0°90.0°
EE 90.0°
S 90.0°90.0°
ES 90.0°
S 90.0°S 90.0°90.0°
S
N 90.0°N 90.0°90.0°
S
N 90.0°N 90.0°
90.0°
N

10

Window North

N 90.0°6*1.21*1.01
6*1.21*1.01
6*1.21*1.01
1.21*1.01
1.21*1.01
1.21*1.01

Area
Area
(gross)Area(gross)m2(gross)
m2
91.0
m2
91.0
91.0
91.0
91.0
72.8
91.0
72.8
72.8
39.2
39.2
39.2
72.8
72.8
72.8
39.2
39.2
39.2

Area
Area
(net)
Area
(net)
m2
(net)
m2
91.0
m2
91.0
91.0
91.0
91.0
65.5
91.0
65.5
7.3
65.5
7.3
37.98
37.98
7.3
1.22
1.22
37.98
60.4
60.4
1.22
12.4
12.4
60.4
33.7
33.7
12.4
5.5
5.5
33.7

Area
Area
percentage
Area
percentage%
percentage
%
22.4
%
22.4
22.4
22.4
22.4
16.1
22.4
16.1
1.8
16.1
1.8
9.4
9.4
1.8
0.3
0.3
9.4
14.9
14.9
0.3
3.1
3.1
14.9
8.3
8.3
3.1
1.4
1.4
8.3

-

5.5

1.4

[18]
Table A3 - Enveloping surfaces[18]Table A3 - Enveloping surfaces
TABLE A3 - ENVELOPING SURFACES[18]Table A3 - Enveloping surfaces[18]

Wall
Wall

Exterior Wall
Wall Surface
Surface
Exterior

Wall
Exterior
Exterior wall
wall North
North
Exterior
wall
East
Exteriorwall
wall North
East
Exterior
Exterior
wall
South
Exteriorwall
wall EastSouth
Exterior
Exterior
wall
West
Exteriorwall
wall SouthWest
Exterior
Basement
floor
Basement
floor
Exterior wall West
Attic
Attic
Basement
floor

Exterior Wall Surface
72.8 m
m22
72.8
39.2
m222
39.2 mm
72.8
72.8 m
m22
72.8
39.2
m2
39.2 m
m22
39.2
72.8
m2
91 m
m222
91
39.2
m
91
m222
91 m
m
91

Share
Share
10%
10%
Share
14%
14%
10%
17%
17%
14%
14%
14%
17%
-14%
---

91 m2

-

Attic

Windows
Windows
Windows

Surface
Surface
2
2
7.3mm
7.3
Surface
2
2
5.5
m
5.5
7.3 m
m2
2 2
12.4 m
12.4
5.5 m
m2
2
5.5mm225.5
12.4m
5.5 m2

4/10
4/10

4/10

21

TABLE A4 - SUMMARY KEY PARAMETERS

Table A4 - Summary key parameters
Table A4 - Summary key parameters

Key parameter

Newly-

House

Unit

Source/Reference

Key parameter

insulate
Newlyd house
insulate

left
as is
House

Unit

Source/Reference

degree C[18]2m
degree C
2
W/(m
*K)
m2

[18]
[18]
[7]/own
calculations
[18]
based
oncalculations[4] and [5][7]/ownleft as isd house 19
198
19

Internal temperature of house
Façade,area
Internal insulation
temperatureof house
U-value(wall)
Façade, insulation area

0.20

U-value (wall)
U-value (window)

0.96

198
0.95

W/(m2*K)
W/(m2*K)

0.14
0.95
0.25
0.14

2
W/(m
W/(m2*K)*K)
2
W/(mW/(m2*K)*K)

0.20

U-valueU-value (roof)(window)
U-valueU-value (floor)(roof)
Thicknessof insulation material
U-value(floor)Density of of
insulationmaterial
Thicknessinsulationmaterial

14

0.96

0.25

Amountof insulation
EPS
Density ofmaterial
Adhesive
Amount of EPS

20
14
582.1
20
4.5
582.1

Dowel
Adhesive
Reinforcement
mesh
Dowel

8
4.5
1.1
8

Reinforcement meshplaster
Reinforcement
Exterior
plasterplaster
Reinforcement

4
1.1
3
4

Aluminum
profileExterior
plaster
Service lifeprofile
of house
Aluminum

0.14
3

-

[7]
[7]
[18]
[7]

cm 2*K)
W/(m
kg/m3
cm

---

[19]
[18]
Own
[19] calculations

kg
kg/m3
2
kg/m
kg

---

[9]
Own calculations
[9]
[9]

2
2
Pieces/m
kg/m
2
2
2
m /m
Pieces/m

---

[9]
[9]
[9]
[9]

2
2
kg/m
m
/m2
2
kg/m
kg/m2

-40

kg/m22kg/m
years2kg/m

Heat loss
from
air out
Servicelifeof house
Heatingdemandof house
Heat lossenergy
from air
out

92.25
40
See92.25
Table A6

W/K
years
W/K

Mix of energy
carriers
Heatingenergydemand of house
Efficiencyof heating
Mixof energy
carrierssystems

See
See Table
Table A5
A6
See
See Table
Table A5
A5---

Efficiency of heating systems

See Table A5

-

0.14

[7]
based
on [4] and [5]
[7]
[7]

[9]
[9]
[18]
[9]
[12]
[18]
[18]
[12]
[18]
[18]
[3]
[18]
[20]
[3]
[20]

Table A5 - Mix of energy carriers[3] and assumed efficiencies of heating[20][3]
systems
[3]
[20]
AND
ASSUMEDEFFICIENCIESHEATING SYSTEMSTABLE A5 - TableMIX OFA5
ENERGY- MixCARRIERSof energy
carriers
andassumed OF
efficienciesof heating
systems[20]Share in %Efficiency heating system

2.1in %
Share
50.3
2.1

Efficiency heating
system
85%
-

35.9
50.3
6.3
35.9

85%
85%
75%
85%

Electricity (thereof 2% heat pump)
Coal

0.7
6.3
4.8
0.7

85%
75%
85%

Electricity (thereof 2% heat pump)

4.8-

District heating
Naturalgas
District heating
Oil
Natural gas
Biomass (wood)
Oil
Coal
Biomass(wood)TABLE A6 - SUMMARY HEATING REQUIREMENTS[18]Table A6 - Summary heating requirements[18]U-value wall

Thickness of

Final heating demand*[W/(m2*K)]

insulation board[kWh/a][cm]
Wall left as is

0.96

Wall newly insulated

0.20*Excluding warm water

5/10
5/10

-

20,87514

10,018

Table A7 - Energy balance of building left as is representing the weighted average of non-The thicknessof the insulation board and the heating
18599 3D Plus 7.4.0 - Hottgenroth Software; calculation
refurbished and already refurbished houses (U-value (wall) = 0.96 W/(m2*K))[18]
demand of the house for the two alternatives (foregroundmethod: “Jahres-Heizwärmebedarf des Gebäudes
system) were calculated by in-house experts from BASF
mittels Monatsbilanzierung”) was used to determine the
Wohnen+heating demand of the two alternatives on the basis of
Energy Bauen,
losses: a subsidiary of BASF, for the purposeof this study. The Hottgenroth Software (Energieberater
the selected house and its monthly energy balance.

22

TABLE A7 - ENERGY BALANCE OF BUILDING LEFT AS IS REPRESENTING THE WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF NON-REFURBISHED AND ALREADY
REFURBISHED HOUSES (U-VALUE (WALL) = 0.96 W/(M2*K))[18]

ENERGY LOSSESHeat losses in kWh/month
Month

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec
3100

Transmission heat losses
Transmission losses

3555

2911

2610

1610

1068

559

175

123

780

1734

2424

Thermal bridge losses

613

502

450

278

184

96

30

21

134

299

418

535

Total

4169

3413

3060

1888

1253

656

205

144

914

2033

2842

3635

1141

1023

631

419

219

69

48

306

679

950

1215

Ventilation heat losses
Ventilation losses

1393

Reduced heat losses by turning off/down heat at night
Reduced heat losses

-367

-287

-240

-142

-94

-49

-15

-11

-69

-153

-221

-301

5195

4266

3842

2377

1577

826

259

181

1151

2559

3570

4548

Total heat losses
Total heat losses

ENERGY GAINS (WITHOUT HEATING)

Heat gains in kWh/month
Month

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

607

548

607

588

607

588

607

607

588

607

588

607
15

Internal heat gains
Internal heat gains
Solar heat gains
Window N 90°

22

32

52

95

125

148

154

108

72

51

27

Window E 90°

6

9

14

31

34

37

40

30

22

13

7

4

Window S 90°

146

144

209

347

311

329

353

293

291

212

137

86

Window W 90°

29

39

61

140

152

168

181

133

101

59

31

17

Solar heat gains

203

223

337

613

622

682

728

564

486

335

202

123

944

1201

1229

1270

1335

1171

1074

942

789

730

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Total heat gains in kWh/month
Total heat gains

811

772

SUMMARY ENERGY BALANCE

Summary energy balance:
kWh

Jan

Feb

Mar

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
-1000

Results of the monthly balance procedure
Annual heating needs = 20.875 kWh/(m2a)Heating needs
Ventilation heat losses
Transmission heat losses

Surface-related
annual heating needs = 127,91 kWh/(m2a)Reduction of heat losses (interruption of heating etc.)

Volume-related
annual heating needs = 40,93 kWh/(m2a)Usable internal heat gains

Number of heating days = 274,6 d/aUsable solar heat gains

Heating degree days = 3.501 Kd/a

Non usable heat gains

Table A8 - Energy balance of newly-insulated building (U-value (wall) = 0.20
W/(m2*K))[18]
Energy losses:

23

TABLE A8 - ENERGY BALANCE OF NEWLY-INSULATED BUILDING (U-VALUE (WALL) = 0.20 W/(M2*K))[18]

ENERGY LOSSESHeat losses in kWh/month
Month

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec
1146

Transmission heat losses
Transmission losses

1314

1076

965

595

395

207

65

45

288

641

896

Thermal bridge losses

613

502

450

278

184

96

30

21

134

299

418

535

Total

1928

1578

1415

873

579

303

95

66

423

940

1314

1681

1141

1023

631

419

219

69

48

306

679

950

1215

Ventilation heat losses
Ventilation losses

1393

Reduced heat losses by turning off/down heat at night
Reduced heat losses

-144

-111

-91

-52

-35

-18

-6

-4

-25

-56

-83

-115

3177

2608

2347

1452

963

504

158

111

703

1563

2181

2780

Total heat losses
Total heat losses

Energy gains (without heating):

ENERGY GAINS (WITHOUT HEATING)

Heat gains in kWh/month
Month

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

607

548

607

588

607

588

607

607

588

607

588

607
15

Internal heat gains
Internal heat gains
Solar heat gains
Window N 90°

22

32

52

95

125

148

154

108

72

51

27

Window E 90°

6

9

14

31

34

37

40

30

22

13

7

4

Window S 90°

146

144

209

347

311

329

353

293

291

212

137

86

Window W 90°

29

39

61

140

152

168

181

133

101

59

31

17

Solar heat gains

203

223

337

613

622

682

728

564

486

335

202

123

944

1201

1229

1270

1335

1171

1074

942

789

730

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sept

Total heat gains in kWh/month
Total heat gains

811

772

SUMMARY ENERGY BALANCE

Summary energy balance:
kWh

Jan

Feb

Mar

Oct

Nov

Dec

3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
-500
-1000

Results of the monthly balance procedure

Heating needs
Ventilation heat losses

Annual heating needs = 10.018 kWh/(m2a)Transmission heat losses
Surface-related
annual heating needs = 61,38 kWh/(m2a)Reduction of heat losses (interruption of heating etc.)

Volume-related
annual heating needs = 19,64 kWh/(m2a)Usable internal heat gains

Number of heating days = 229,6 d/aUsable solar heat gains

Heating degree days = 3.271 Kd/a

Non usable heat gains

24
8/10

TABLE A9 - CONSIDERED TRANPORT DISTANCES AND MODES[21]Table A9 - Considered tranport distances and modes[21]Transport

Type[21]of vehicle
Table A9 - Considered tranport Distancedistances and modes

EPS beads to converter

200 kmLorry, 40t

Insulation boards to construction site
Transport
Other materials to construction site
EPS beads to converter
Insulation boards to disposal
Insulation boards to construction site
Other materials to disposal
Other materials to construction site

200 kmDistance
200 km200 km26.5 km
200 km15.5 km
200 kmLorry, 40t
Type of vehicle
Lorry, 7.5t
Lorry, 40t
Lorry, 22t
Lorry, 40t
Lorry, 22t
Lorry, 7.5t

Insulation boards to disposal

26.5 km

Lorry, 22t

Other materials to disposal

15.5 km

Lorry, 22t

12.2. Evaluation of the impact of considering construction
Table A10 - Results of the study including construction and disposal of the houseand disposal of the houseon the results of the study
in kg CO e per user benefit/solution
2

Table A9 - Considered tranport distances and modes[21]Table- Results
the study
includingconstruction
anddisposalof the IN
house
TABLE
A10 -A10
RESULTSOF THEofSTUDY
INCLUDINGCONSTRUCTION
AND DISPOSALOF
HOUSE
KG CO2e PER USER BENEFIT/SOLUTION
Solution
toTHE
compareReportingcompany’s

Emissions per life cycle phase DistanceTransport
Type of vehicle
in kg COper user benefit/solution
2e
to [kg CO2e]e]
CO240t
EPS beads to converter
200
kmsolution [kgLorry,
Insulation boards to construction site

200 kmLorry, 40t

Other materials
to construction
Lorry, 7.5t
Construction
and site
disposal of house 200 kmReporting
43,085*company’s

Emissions per life cycle phase

Insulation boards to disposal

26.5 km

Lorry, 22t

15.5 km

Lorry, 22t

solution 4,186.6[kg CO2e]

Production
ETICS
Other materials
to disposal

Transport ETICS
80.6
Construction and disposal of house
43,085*
Disposal ETICS
1,370.8
Production
ETICS
4,186.6of the house
Table
A10 - Resultsof the study including construction and disposal
Use phase
135,513.7
Transport ETICSin kg CO2e per user benefit/solution 80.6
Total emissions
184,236 (P1)
Solution
to compare
Reporting company’s
Disposal
ETICS
1,370.8
Emissions
per life
cycle phase
Share of omitted emissions
in relation23%
to [kg CO
solution[kg CO2e]2e]
Use phase
135,513.7
to total emissions
Construction and disposal of house
43,085*43,085*Total
emissions
184,236
Avoidedemissions= P2– P1 = (P1)
141,225
Production ETICS

4,186.6

0[15] in relation
Shareof omitted
emissions*According
to reference

23% 0Transport ETICS

80.6

Disposal
ETICS emissions
to total

1,370.8

Use phase

135,513.7

Avoided emissions

43,085*
Solution tocompareto [kg CO2e]0043,085*00282,376.6
0325,461 (P2)0
13%282,376.6

325,461 (P2)13%0

= P2 – P1282,376.6= 141,225

Figure A1 - Graphshowing
the study
including construction andTotal emissions
184,236 the(P1) results of
325,461(P2)[15]*According to reference

Share of omitted emissions in relation

23% disposal of the13%
house

to total emissions
Avoided emissions= P2 – P1 = 141,225

FigureA1[15]- Graph showing the results of the study including construction and*According
to reference
FIGURE A1 - GRAPH SHOWING THE RESULTS
OF THE of
STUDY
disposal
the house
INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION AND DISPOSAL OF THE HOUSE

Figure A1 - Graph showing the results of the study including construction anddisposal of the house

9/10

9/10

The results of this evaluation show that the total life cycle
GHG emissions are still driven by the energy consumption
9/10
in the use phase, which remains the dominantfactor of
the study. Thus, not considering the GHG emissions
from construction and disposal of the house does notchange the overall conclusion of the study, moreover
due to the fact that these processes are identical for thetwo alternatives and the absolute emissions avoidance
remains the same. However, it is acknowledged that byomitting the construction and disposal of the house, theresults of the impact assessment do not represent total
but only major impacts.

12.3. Data sources and data quality• Time-related coverage: In this analysis, primarily
secondary data available from literature, previous
LCA studies, and life cycle databases were used (seeTables A11 and A12). Only the heating energy
demand of the house and the thickness of theinsulation material were calculated for the purpose of
the study. The upstream process data used mainly
represent a time period from 2006 to 2012 but someprocess data refer back to the year 2000 and before.
• Geographical coverage: The geographical coverageof this study is Germany. However, some of the used
upstream process data refer to the EU-27 (averaged
data for Europe) or to Switzerland.
• Technology coverage: The study considers state-ofthe-art processes for the production of the ETICS
components, their disposal and for the extraction of
the energy carriers. The heating technology
represents the average technology used in Germanyin the reference year.

25

TABLE A11 - OVERVIEW OF TIME REFERENCES AND DATA SOURCES

Table A11 - Overview of time references and data sources

Input Data

Time Reference

Reference

Area and thickness of insulation material
Input Data
Lifetime of insulation system
Heating energy demand of house
Density of insulation material
Area and thickness of insulation material
U-value (wall) per building class
Lifetime of insulation system
Living area per building class
Density of insulation material
Share of refurbished detached houses
U-value (wall) per building classU-value of insulated house
Living area per building classU-value of other buildings components
Share of refurbished detached houses
ETIC System components
U-value of insulated house
Efficiency of heating systems
U-value of other buildings components
Mix of energy carriers
ETIC System components
End-of-life scenario
Efficiency of heating systems

2013
Time Reference
2013
2013
2013
2013
2005
2013
2011
2013
2010
2005
2013
2011
2013
2010
2011/2013
2013
2009
2013
2010
2011/2013
2011
2009

[18]
Reference
[12]
[18]
[19]
[18]
[4]
[12]
[4]
[19]
[3]
[4]
[7]
[4]
[7]
[3]
[9], [18]
[7]
[20]
[7]
[3]
[9], [18]
[9]
[20]

A11
- Overview of time referencesand data sources
Heating energyTable
demandof house
2013[18]

Mix of energy carriers
End-of-life scenario

2010

[3]

2011

[9]

Table A12 - LCI Background data

(data sources, quality, geographical and time-related coverage)
Table A12 - LCI Background data
TABLE A12 - LCI BACKGROUND DATA(DATASOURCES, QUALITY, GEOGRAPHICALDatabase
AND TIME-RELATEDCOVERAGE) Region
Data
Year
(data sources, quality, geographical and time-related coverage)
EPS beads, white
PlasticsEurope 2006
EuropeHexabromocyclododecane (HBCD)
Data
EPS board production
EPS beads, white
Aluminum profile
Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD)HDPE
EPS board production

Boustead
Database
Boustead
PlasticsEurope
Boustead
Boustead
PlasticsEurope
Boustead

2008
Year
2009
2006
2000
2008
2007
2009

EuropeRegionEuropeEuropeEuropeEuropeEuropeEuropeReinforcing
mesh
Stainless steel
Base
coat
Adhesive

Boustead
ELCD
Boustead
Boustead

2008
2007
2009
2008

Germany
EuropeGermany
Germany

Fishing
coatmesh(organic)
Reinforcing
Lorrytransport
Base coat

Boustead
Boustead
ELCD
Boustead2009
2008
2005/20072009

Germany
Germany
EuropeGermany

Incineration
with energy recovery
Fishing coat (organic)
Landfill
Lorry transport

Ecoinvent v2.2 2009
2000
Boustead
Ecoinvent v2.2 2005/2007
2000
ELCD
Boustead v2.2 2000
2001
Ecoinvent

Stainless
Aluminum steel
profileAdhesive
HDPE

Naturalgas useIncineration
with energy recoveryLightfuel oil use
Landfill

ELCD
Boustead
Boustead
PlasticsEurope

2007
2000
2008
2007

EuropeEuropeGermany
EuropeSwitzerland
Germany
Switzerland
EuropeGermany
Switzerland
Germany
Switzerland

Quality*High
High
Quality*High
High
Medium
High
High
High
MediumMediumMediumHigh
MediumMediumHigh
MediumHigh
MediumHigh
High
MediumHigh
MediumHigh
MediumMediumCoalusegas use
NaturalDistrictheatingLight fueloil useBoustead v2.2
Ecoinvent
Boustead
Boustead

2001
2000
2001
2001

ETH-ESU
Boustead

1996
2001

Switzerland
Germany

Low
MediumHeatfrom wood
Coal use

Ecoinvent v2.2 2001
2003
Boustead

Switzerland
Germany

MediumMediumElectricity
District heating

Ecoinvent v2.2 1996
2007
ETH-ESU

Germany
Switzerland

High
Low

Germany
Germany

MediumMediumMediumMedium*Basedon thequalitative data quality assessment
schemeof the2003
GHG Protocol ProductStandard, September
2011
Heat fromwood
Ecoinvent
v2.2
Switzerland
MediumElectricity

Ecoinvent v2.2

2007

GermanyHigh*Based on the qualitative data quality assessment scheme of the GHG Protocol Product Standard, September 2011
10/10

Completeness check: All relevant processes regarding
10/10
the different life cycle phases were considered andmodeled in accordance with the goal and scope
definition of the study and the defined system boundaries.
Consistency check: The data, methods and assumptions
applied throughout the analysis were selected to ensure
consistency and allow consistent statements.

26

Case 2

Rigid containers for chocolate
drink powder in Brazil

Braskem

COMMISSIONER AND PERFORMER OF THE STUDY
The study was commissioned by Braskem and executed by ACV Brasil.

1. Purpose of the study
The objective of this study is to determine the reductionof GHG emissions by the use of Polypropylene (PP)resins for chocolate drink powder rigid container, whencompared to tinplate containers.
This study has been prepared using the “Guidelines fromthe Chemical Industry for accounting and reporting GHG
emissions avoided along the value chain based oncomparative studies (guidelines)” developed by ICCA
and the Chemical Sector Group of the WBCSD.

2. Solutions to compare
2.1. Description of the solutions to compare
Only rigid packaging alternatives are analysed. This isdue to the fact that flexible containers, such as standup-pouches, are used for refill purposes and do not
perform exactly the same function as rigid containers.
PP containers are blow moulded and the lids are injected,
both using virgin only resin since the use of recycledmaterial is not allowed in Brazil when the packaging
comes into contact with food products. Tinplatecontainers are welded and a layer of varnish is applied.
The filling process of the packages is assumed as being
equal for both alternatives. The use (and eventual re-use)of the packages is also considered as being equivalent
All alternatives considered in this study fulfil the samefunction and meet the minimum requirements concerning
the mechanical, safety and food preservation properties,
established and controlled by the National Health Surveillance Agency [ANVISA 1999].
2.2. Level in the Value Chain
The study focuses on the use of PP resin for a chocolate
drink powder rigid container. The study is based on thechemical product level to show the contribution of thischemical product for GHG emission reduction as a
packaging solution.
2.3. Definition of the boundaries of the market
and the application
The market for chocolate drink powder packaging (for400g of product) in Brazil is dominated by the tinplate
alternative, with 240.67 million units produced in 2010
(47.5%), followed by the analyzed fossil PP alternative,

with 86.95 million units produced in 2010 (17.2%)[DataMark 2012]. Others represent 35.3% [DataMark2012] and are not considered because, as flexible
packaging, they do not fit in the rigid category underinvestigation.

3. F unctional unit and referenceflow
3.1. Functional unit
The function of the solutions compares is to pack andpreserve chocolate drink powder with a rigid material.
The functional unit has been set as to pack and preserve,with a rigid material, 400 g of chocolate drink powder,which is the actual size of one such container.
Both alternatives considered in the study fulfil the samefunction. The market considers that both alternatives
provide the same shelf-life for the chocolate drink
powder (one year), therefore the technical performanceof the systems are equivalent.
All data are representative of the Brazilian market in year2010.
3.2. Reference flow
The reference flows of the alternatives are described in
the Table below and refer to the mass of each part of one
individual container. The container were divided into
body, lid (the tinplate alternative has a Low Density Polyethylene – LDPE lid), seal (to preserve the integrity of thepacked product) and label where other information isdisplayed. The label is glued to the body.

PP Containers

Tinplate Containers

Polypropylene body: 26,31 g

Tinplate body: 63,26 g

Polypropylene lid: 7,27 g

LDPE lid: 7,25 g

Laminated seal: 1,22 g

Aluminium seal: 0,85 g

Paper label: 2,41 g

Paper label: 2,78 g

27

4. Boundary setting

Brazilian electricity matrix (over 85% hydro-powered) the
related impacts in GHG emissions are low.

This study covers the following life cycle stages:• Extraction of Raw Materials and intermediate manufacturing, for both product systems;• Manufacturing of the containers;• Distribution;• Use;• Disposal of the containers.

Infrastructure has not been considered for either productsystem due to the high level of uncertainty in thesedatasets and because usually these processes have low
contribution to the final results.
All alternatives considered in this study fulfill the samefunction and meet the minimum requirements regarding
mechanical properties, safety and food preservation,
established and controlled by the National Agency for
Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA). It is also assumed thatthey have no differentiation during the use phase.

Both packages are filled in the same way. Therefore
package filling process has been disregarded in thiscomparative analysis. This was due mainly to lack ofdata, but this process has a relatively small contribution
to the overall environmental impact. The main environmental aspect in the filling process is the use of electricity
in the filling process, but given the characteristics of the

Figures 1 and 2 shows flow diagrams for both productsystems.

FIGURE 1 - PRODUCT SYSTEM FOR TINPLATE CONTAINERS

Braskem
Oil extraction

Crude oil

Processing

Basic input unit

NaphthaEthenePolimerization

Light density
polyethylene
Additives

Manufacturer

Lids

Injection

Filling

Chocolatedrink powder
production
Food producer

Laminating

Steelsheets

Moltensteel
Additives

Cutting

Surfacetreatment

Cut
sheetsFoundryFinalproduct

Can

Tin

Steel
billets
Iron ore
extraction

Furnaceand additives

Steel

Processingof billets

Recycling

Storage and use
Residue

Dump
Controlled landfill
Sanitary landfill

Product system

FIGURE 2 - PRODUCT SYSTEM FOR POLYPROPYLENE (PP) CONTAINERS

Conventional biopolymers
Oil extraction

Crude oilBraskem
Processing

NaphthaBasic input unit

Polimerization

PropenePolypropylene
Additives

Manufacturer

Blow molding (container)

Injection (lid)Container + Lid
Filling

Chocolatedrink powder
production
Food producer

Final product

Recycling
Dump
Controlled landfill

Product system

28

Sanitary landfill

Storage and use
Residue

5. Calculation methodology and data
5.1. Methods and formulas used
Avoided GHG emissions were calculated as the difference
between the life cycle emissions of PP containers and tinplatecontainers.
Modeling and calculations were made using SimaPro®
software version 7.3. The impact method used was IPCC
2007 GWP, with characterization factors for a timeframe of
100 years [IPCC 2007].
5.2. Allocation
Allocation points are mainly upstream in the crude oil
refining process and steam cracking units to manufacture
propene. In both cases economic allocation was used.
End of life allocation was done using a 50% allocation
approach in which environmental credits and burdens
related to the raw material production and the end of life
phase are equally divided between the main productsystem and the new product system created by therecycled product. A sensitivity analysis on this allocation
factor has been performed and is shown in Annex 1
together with the full LCA study that supports thisavoided emissions study.
Downgrade factors of 0.5 and 0.8 are used in the plastics
and the paper recycling, respectively, assuming that therecycled materials do not have exactly the same physicalproperties of virgin materials and most of the times
cannot be used for the same applications. These factors
vary depending on the application intended for therecycled material and they have been set at the lowest
part of the spectrum to account for severe loss in quality.
Data sources
This is a conservative approachTable
since1it-underestimates
the benefits of recycling plastics.

5.3. Data sources and data quality
Data for the PP container product system are mainly
primary data collected from Braskem operations in Brazil.
However, there are no primary data for oil extraction andrefining in Brazil so these data were adapted from
Ecoinvent database v2. The LCA study that originated thisreport was concluded in 2013 and at that time, Ecoinventv2 was the most up-to-date publicly available database.
The only process that utilized data from Ecoinvent v3 was
the label offset printing, as this dataset had a more updated
inventory for such process at the time the study was
concluded. However, this data was inserted, through
EcoSPold software, on the v2 inventory on Simapro 7.3,
used on the modelling.
The full LCA report is provided for further understanding of
the trade-offs involved and therefore, the original data arepresented here for consistency. However, sensitivity
analysis using the latest versions of EcoInvent (v3) and
SimpaPro (v8.04) were conducted and there was no
significant change on the results.
The Ecoinvent database is the largest LCI database in theworld and also the most up to date source of public data.
Table 1 shows the data sources used in this study.
Road transport in Brazil is based on the process ‘transport,
lorry> 32t, EURO3/RER U’, considering the most recent
statistical data on the types of engines in Brazilian truck
fleet, which refers to 2009 [ILOS 2011]. According to thisreference, in 2009 there were no EURO 4 trucks in theBrazilian fleet. Moreover, a higher load factor is assumed(70%) [Barreto 2007], which is 56.25% in Europe[Spielmann et al 2007]. The type of diesel is also adaptedby choosing the conventional diesel instead of the low
sulfur diesel, considering data from sulfur in diesel fuel soldin 2012 [CNT 2012].

Product

Material
or process
Data Source
Reference
Year
TheSystem
averageComponent
shares of waste
disposalfor the geographic
The Brazilianenergymatrix is updated based on data ofscope of this study come Polypropylene,
from [ABRELPE
2011] (disposal
domestic electricity supply by source in 2011 from theat PP5to sanitary landfill: 58.1%,
disposal
to controlled
landfill:
National
EnergyBalance [EPE 2012].
plantof Braskem/BR
U
Braskem/ACV
Brasil
2011-2012
24.2% disposal to dump: 17.7%).
mix
Body
Recycling
rates of 10.8% for polypropylene [Plastivida
Ecoinvent v2.2 basedon[Habersatter et al1998] 47% for
Blow moulding/RER U*
1997-1998
2010],
tinplate [ABEAÇO, 2010] and 13.2% for theand[Boustead1997]
low density polyethylene [Plastivida 2010] are assumed.
Table 1 - Data sources
TABLE 1 - DATA SOURCES

Product
SystemPolypropylene, at PP5plant of Braskem/BR U
mix
Component
Material or process
Lid
Injection
moulding/RER
Polypropylene,
at PP5U*plant of Braskem/BR
U
Body

PP
Container
Seal
Lid

PP

mix
Aluminium, production
mix, at plant/RER U*
Blow moulding/RER U*

Braskem/ACV Brasil

2011-2012

Data Source
Ecoinvent v2.2 based on[Habersatter et al 1998]
Braskem/ACV
Brasiland[Boustead 1997]

Reference Year

Ecoinvent v2.2 based on
Ecoinventbased on[EAA v2.2
2000][Habersatter et al 1998]
Ecoinventv2.2 basedonand [Boustead
1997]
Liquid packaging board, at [Habersatter et al 1998]
Polypropylene, at PP5and environmental reports
plant/RER U*
plant of Braskem/BR U
Braskem/ACV Brasilof Scandinavian producers
mix
Polyethylene, HDPE,
Ecoinventv2.2
v2.2basedbasedonon
Ecoinvent
Injection moulding/RER
granulate,
at plant/RER[Habersatter
et al 1998][Boustead 2005]
U*U*
and [Boustead 1997]
Production of liquid
Ecoinventv2.2
Aluminium,
production
Ecoinventv2.2basedbasedonon
packaging board[Habersatter
et al 1998]
mix,
atplant/RER
U*
[EAA
2000]
containers, at plant/RER
and [Tetrapack 2001]
U*
Ecoinvent v2.2 based on[Habersatteral 1998]
Liquid woodfree,packaging coated,board, at Ecoinvent
Paper,
v2.2etbasedon

1997-1998
2011-20122000
1997-1998
1998-2001
2011-20122005
1997-1998
2000
1998-2001

29

Body
Blow moulding/RER U*

Lid
Product
SystemPP
Container

Component

Body

Seal
Lid

PP
Container

Label
Seal

Tin Plate
Container

Body

Label

Polypropylene, at PP5plant of Braskem/BR
U
Braskem/ACV Brasil
Table 1 - Data sources
mix

Body

Seal

Label

End of Life30

2011-2012

Ecoinvent v2.2 based on[Habersatter et al 1998]
Data Sourceand [Boustead 1997]

1997-1998
Reference Year

Polypropylene,
at PP5
Aluminium,
production
plantmix, ofat Braskem/BR
plant/RER U*Umix

Ecoinvent v2.2 based on
Braskem/ACV[EAA 2000]Brasil

2000
2011-2012

Ecoinvent v2.2 based on
v2.2etbasedon[Habersatteral 1998]
Liquid packaging board, at Ecoinvent[Habersatter
et
al
1998]
Blowplant/RER
moulding/RERU*
and environmental reportsU*and [Bousteadproducers
1997]
of Scandinavian

1998-2001
1997-1998

Ecoinventv2.2 based
Braskem/ACV
Brasilon[Boustead 2005]2011-2012
2005

Polypropylene, at PP5Polyethylene, HDPE,
plant of Braskem/BR U
granulate, at plant/RER
mix
U*
Productionof liquid
Injection moulding/RER
packagingU* board
containers, at plant/RER
U*production
Aluminium,mix, woodfree,
at plant/RER
U*
Paper,
coated,at regional storage/RER
U* board, at
Liquid packaging

Ecoinvent v2.2 based on
Ecoinventv2.2etbasedon[Habersatteral 1998][Habersatter
et
al
1998]
and [Boustead 1997]
and [Tetrapack 2001]
Ecoinvent v2.2 based on[EAAv2.2
2000]
Ecoinventbased on
[KCL
2002]
and
severalEcoinvent v2.2 basedon
CER’sof fine paper
mills[Habersatter
et al 1998]

plant/RER U*
Offset printing, per kg
printed paper/CH U*
Polyethylene, HDPE,
granulate, at plant/RER
Steel, converter,
lowU*
alloyed,at plant/BR
Productionof liquidU*
packaging board
containers,
plant/RER
Hot rolling, at
steel/BRU*U*

andenvironmental
reports
Ecoinventv3 basedonof Scandinavian
three averageproducers
swiss

Paper, woodfree, coated,
at regional
storage/RER
Tin
plating, pieces/BR
U*
U*

Ecoinvent v2.2 based on
data
anand
established[KCLfrom
2002]
severalgalvanizinginCER’sof finecompany
paper mills
central Europe
Ecoinvent v3 based on
Ecoinventv2.2 based
three averageswisson[IPCC
2001]
companies
Ecoinventv2.2 based
based onon
Ecoinvent v2.2
eight
environmental
basic
oxygenfurnaces inreportsof companies
inEurope and[IPCC 2001]
the engineering business
Ecoinvent v2.2 based on
Ecoinventbased on
[IPCCv2.2
2001][Boustead 2005]

Steel
productlowSteel,converter,
manufacturing,
averagealloyed, at plant/BR
U*
metal working/RER U*
Hot
rolling, steel/BR
Polyethylene,
LDPE,U*granulate, at plant/RER U

Lid

1997-1998

Injection moulding/RER
MaterialU*or process

Offsetrolling,
printing,
per kg3/6
Sheetsteel/RER
printed paper/CHU*
U*

Tin Plate
Container

Ecoinvent v2.2 based on[Habersatter et al 1998]
and [Boustead 1997]

companies
Ecoinvent v2.2 based on
Ecoinventv2.22005]
based on[Bousteadbasic oxygen furnaces in
Europe and
[IPCC
2001]
Ecoinvent
v2.2
based
on
[Habersatter
et
al
1998]
Ecoinvent v2.2 based on
and [Tetrapack[IPCC 2001]2001]

1997-1998
1998-2001
2000
2002
1998-2001
2007-2011
2005
2001
1998-2001
2001
2002
2001-2005

2007-2011
2001

2001
2002-2005
2001
2005

Injection moulding/RER
U*

Ecoinvent v2.2 based on[Habersatter et al 1998]
and [Boustead 1997]

1997-1998

Aluminium, primary, at
3/6
plant/RER U*

Ecoinvent v2.2 based on[EAA 2000]

2000

Sheet rolling,aluminium/RER U*

Ecoinvent based on [IPCC
2001]

2001

Aluminium productmanufacturing, average
metal working/RER U*

Ecoinvent v2.2 based oneight environmental
reports of companies inthe engineering business2002-2005

Paper, woodfree, coated,
at regional storage/RER
U*

Ecoinvent v2.2 based on[KCL 2002] and several
CER’s of fine paper mills

2010

Offset printing, per kg
printed paper/CH U*

Ecoinvent v3 based on
three average swisscompanies

2007-2011

Adaptations made fromecoinvent v2.2 willing torepresent Brazilian
disposal scenarios

2008

-Dump
-Controled landfill-Sanitary landfill

6. Results
6.1. Avoided emissions
The detailed results are shown in Table 2 below:
TABLE 2 – THE RESULTS OF THE CASE STUDY

Table 2 – the results of the case study

Life Cycle Stage

1 Plastic Container
kCO2/400g of
chocolate powder

1 Metalic Container
kCO2/400g of
chocolate powder

Raw Material

0,06

0,12

Manufacturing/Processing

0,02

0,10

Transport

2,54E-03

5,11E-03

End of Life/Disposal

3,82E-03

-0,02

Total

0,09

0,21

Avoided Emissions

0,12

The transport stage has a minor influence on thetinplate container life cycle emissions, and the mostvisible results are largely due to the airborne emissionsof pollutants as nitrogen oxides in the operation oflorries and the emissions of halon and CFCs from thecrude oil production. Its end of life has a positive
influence due to the credits coming from the highrecycling rate of steel, avoiding the production of pig
iron. As for the PP container, the transport stage alsopresents a minor influence on this product’s life cycle,
and the most visible results are largely due to theairborne emissions of pollutants as nitrogen oxides in
the operation of lorries. However, this alternative
shows lower emissions regarding its reduced weightcomparing to the tinplate containers. As for the PP
containers end of life, it also shows little influence onmost of the impact categories, but its role is quite
significant in the Global warming category, mainly due
to the disposal processes and the transport needed
for this disposal, which result in emissions of e.g.
nitrogen oxides and methane to air.
The GHG emissions and the Avoided figure can beseen on Figure 3.

Kg CO2 eq/FU“Raw material” life cycle stage refers to manufacture of
the PP resin and to the manufacturing of steel plates
and zinc extraction. This stage, for the tinplate container,
FIGURE 3 – GRAPH OF EACH PACKAGE´S FOOTPRINT AND THE
AVOIDED EMISSIONS
is dominated by the extraction of iron ore, the productionof pig iron in blast furnace and the production of low
alloyed steel from pig iron and iron scrap, and presents
Scenario Analysis
the highest emission in this products Life Cycle. The
0,25high impact is mainly related to the energy and0,2chemicals consuming production of pig iron and steel,
0,12 kg CO2
and to the emissions from these processes, e.g. sulfur
0,15
and nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide and monoxide,
0,1
halons and CFCs to air. Ad for the PP resin, this stage
is dominated by the oil extraction and the production of
0,05
Figure 3 – Graph Of Each Package´s Footprint And The Avoided Emissions
PP, and also presents the Global Warming impact in0
this product’s Life Cycle. The high impact in this
1 Metallic Container
1 Plastic Container
Avoided Emissions
category is mainly related to the consumption of crude
oil to produce fossil PP and to the airborne emissions
from the propene production, e.g. sulfur and nitrogenoxides, carbon dioxide and5/6 ethylene.
Considering 2010 market data, 86.95 million units ofchocolate drink powder were produced. Since each PP
The “Manufacturing and Processing” life cycle stage,
container avoids 0.12 kgCO2e/400g of chocolate
for the tinplate container, is dominated by the rolling
powder packaged, the total avoided emission by the use
and tin plating of steel to produce de body and theof PP containers is 10,09 ktonCO2e.
injection molding to produce the lid. It also includes
the zinc coating and varnishing and also cutting,molding and welding, the main contributors to thelarge difference in GHG emissions in this stage
between both product alternatives. The conversion of
PP into the container body and the lid, respectively byblow molding and by injection molding, dominate thisstage on the PP container life cycle. The impact in thisstage is mainly related to emissions from theprocessing of the components (body, lid, seal andlabel), e.g. Halon and CFC emissions in the laminatedseal production, but are also closely related to theemissions coming from the production of electricity
from sugarcane bagasse in Brazil.

31

9. S
 tudy limitations and future
recommendations

FIGURE 4 – FULL IMPACT ASSESSMENT GRAPH
1 PP Container
1 Tinplate Container
Photochemical Oxidation(kg C2H4 eq); 71%

Abiotic depletion(kg Sb eq); 29%
100%

Acidification(kg SO2 eq); 73%

80%
60%

Terrestrial
Ecotoxicity(kg 1,4-DB eq); 88%

40%

Eutrophication(kg PO4—eq); 69%20%0%Aquatic Ecotoxicity,
Marine(kg 1,4-DB eq); 80%

Aquatic Ecotoxicity,
Fresh Water(kg 1,4-DB eq); 89%

Global Warming(kg CO2 eq); 56%

Human Toxicity(kg 1,4-DB eq); 98%

Ozone Layer
Depletion – ODP(kg CFC-11 eq); 1%

Concerning the full impact assessment on all indicators,
it can be seen on Figure 4 that the PP container has abetter environmental performance in all of the categories,
therefore not presenting trade-offs between the use of
the PP container and the tinplate container.

7. Significance of contribution
The resins produced by the commissioner play a vitalrole in the value chain and make possible the reductionof GHG emissions through it, however, all the avoided
emissions calculated are attributed to the complete
value chain, and not only to the chemical company.
Therefore, the chemical product has an Extensive contribution to the final Avoided Emissions reached, as the
product is part of the key component and its properties
and functions are essential for enabling the GHG
emission avoiding effect of the solution.

8. Review of results
The results have been reviewed by Brazilian LCA expert
and by the original ICCA task-force responsible for the
avoided emissions guidelines. The critical reviewer waspart of ACV Brasil’s team but did not take any part in the
study which was conducted by Felipe Motta and Tiago
Barreto. All comments have been incorporated to thetext of the full LCA study in annex.

32

Lack of consistent and up to date data for LCA studies
in Brazil is a major obstacle to the advancement of Life
Cycle Management in Brazil. This lack of data has been
partially dealt with the use and adaptation of international databases, namely Ecoinvent v2.
Data coming from the Ecoinvent database, despite withsome adjustments for Brazilian circumstances, have
limited quality and can be improved in future assessments.
Furthermore, for processes without a direct correspondence with the database, similar processes were used,such as for the processing of tinplate containers fromrolled steel. Here also more accurate data can be addedin future studies.
The differences in representativeness of the data used
for the PP alternative (based on primary data anddatabases) and the tinplate alternative (based on
databases adapted to Brazilian conditions) represent alimitation of the study. Nevertheless, the datasets used inthis study belong to the foremost database in the worldand utmost care to adjust the datasets to the Brazilian
conditions has been taken. Therefore both the commissioner and the executors of the study feel confident they
represent the average market conditions in Brazil.

10. Conclusions
The results of this LCA study provide reasons to prefer
the PP container over the established tinplate containers
when choosing a packaging solution for chocolate drink
powder on the Brazilian market. For the all of theregarded environmental indicators, the PP container
appears as more favorable than the establishedcontainers. The reduction in GHG emissions by the useof rigid PP containers instead of tinplate containers is
estimated at 56,36%.
Furthermore, an increase in the recycling rates isbeneficial to all the packaging systems, with exception
to the Terrestrial Eutrophication category. From thisfinding, the recommendation can be derived to aim at
reducing the final disposal rate – and thus to increase theamount of materials that are recycled. This would also
be in line with requirements of the National Policy on
Solid Waste [PNRS 2010], which establishes thefollowing order of priority: no generation, reduction,
reuse, recycling, solid waste treatment and environmentally suitable disposal of waste.

11. References[1] ABEAÇO. Associação Brasileira de Embalagens deAço, 2012. www.abeaco.org.br.
[2] ABRELPE 2011 Panorama dos resíduos sólidos no
Brasil 2011. http://www.abrelpe.org.br.
[3] ANVISA. Resolução nº 105, de 19 de maio de 1999.
[Resolution nº 105, from May 19th, 1999][4] DataMark. Informações mercadológicas para
achocolatados em pó [Market information for
chocolate powder]. Brasil : [s.n.], 2012.
[5] JCIA. Japan Chemical Industry Association
Guideline for Calculating the Avoided CO2
Emissions. Tokyo : [s.n.], 2012.
[6] ICCA & WBCSD. International Council of Chemical
Associations and World Business Council for
Sustainable Development. Guidance on Accounting
and Reporting Avoided Emissions in the Chemical
Industry. Utrecht : [s.n.], 2013[7] IPCC. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Contribution of Working group 1 to IPCC Fourth
Assessment Report, Technical Summary Report,
May 2007. http://www.ipcc.ch.
[8] Plastivida. Monitoramento dos Índices de
Reciclagem Mecânica de Plástico no Brasil (IRmP)[Monitoring Indexes of Mechanical Recycling of
Plastics in Brazil]. Instituto Sócio-Ambiental dos
Plásticos, 2010. www.plastivida.org.br.
[9] EPE. Empresa de Pesquisa Energética. Balanço
Energético Nacional 2012: Ano base 2011 [National
Energy Balance 2012: Base year 2011.]. Rio deJaneiro : EPE, 2012.
[10] ILOS. Cenário da infraestrutura rodoviária no Brasil[Brazil’s Road Infrastructure Scenario]. http://www.
ilos.com.br, 2011.
[11] Spielmann et al. Spielmann M., Dones R., Bauer C.
& Tuchschmid, M. Life Cycle Inventories of Transport
Services. Final report ecoinvent v2.0 No. 14. Swiss
Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. Dübendorf, 2007.
[12] CNT. CNT, SEST, SENAT. Os impactos da máqualidade do óleo diesel brasileiro [The impacts ofthe poor quality of Brazilian diesel]. Brasília, 2012.
[13] Barreto. Barreto, R. J. Incorporação da Avaliação
do Ciclo de Vida ao projeto do produto [Life Cycle
Assessment Incorporation to Product Design],
2007. www.ppgem.ct.utfpr.edu.br[14] PNRS. LEI Nº 12.305, DE 2 DE AGOSTO DE 2010.
Institui a Política Nacional de Resíduos Sólidos;
altera a Lei no 9.605, de 12 de fevereiro de 1998; edá outras providências. August, 2010. http://www.
planalto.gov.br.

33

Case 3

Feed additives – 4 amino acids for pig andbroiler production: DL-Methionine,
L-Lysine, L-Threonine and L-Tryptophan

EvonikCOMMISSIONER AND PERFORMER OF THE STUDY
The study has been commissioned by the Evonik Business Unit Health & Nutrition, was conducted by the
Evonik Life Cycle Management Group and reviewed by the TÜV Rheinland LGA Product GmbH as anindependent third party. The primary data for the study represents the situation in 2008. A new study
updating these findings has been finalised by a critical review according to ISO 14044:2006 in March 2015.

1. Purpose of the study
This study assesses the reduction potential on environmental impacts to global warming, eutrophication andacidification of the use of the 4 first limiting amino acids(DL-Methionine, L-Lysine, L-Threonine and L-Tryptophan) in typical conventional broiler and pig meatproduction, based on current data from practicalproduction. The study intends to be a comparative life
cycle assessment in line with the requirements defined
under ISO 14040/44. As the study will be published, it
will be accompanied by an independent critical review.
The target groups are predominantly representatives ofenvironmental movements and of agriculture.
This study has been conducted to provide a case study
on “Amino acids in animal feed” in alignment with therequirements of the document “Guidelines from the
Chemical Industry for accounting and reporting GHG
emissions avoided along the value chain based oncomparative studies,” developed by ICCA and theChemical Sector Group of the WBCSD(http://www.icca-chem.org/ICCADocs/E%20CC%
20LG%20guidance_FINAL_07-10-2013.pdf).
A former version of the study has been part of thefollowing document:“Innovations for Greenhouse Gas Reductions, A life
cycle quantification of carbon abatement solutions
enabled by the chemical industry”, ICCA (2009).

2. Solutions to compare
2.1. Description of the solutions to compare
Three options were compared:
Four amino acids: Supplementation of a defined premix
consisting of the amino acids DL-Methionine, L-Lysine,
L-Threonine and L-Tryptophan
Soy bean meal (SBM): Supply of the respective
amounts of amino acids by increasing the content ofbasic feed ingredients high in amino acids, e. g. oilseeds
Rapesweed: A second unsupplemented option covers
the European industrial practice on the use of locally
produced rapeseed meal instead of imported soybean

All three options ensure functional equivalence since
they are offering the same nutritional value to theanimals meal.
FIGURE 1 - ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS FOR BROILER FEEDING

Figure 11 -- Alternative
Alternative options
options forfor broiler
broiler feeding
feeding
FigureFIGURE 2 - ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS FOR SWINE FEEDING

Figure 22 -- Alternative
Alternative options
options forfor swine
swine feeding
feeding
Figure2.2. Level in the Value Chain
This study focuses on the performance of amino acids,
produced by chemical industry and applied in animal
nutrition. Thus, the focus of this study is at the chemical
product level.
2.3. Definition of the boundaries of the market
and the application
Animal feed is specifically formulated to meet the physiological nutrition needs of animals, particularly thenecessary shares of essential amino acids. Lack of
certain amino acids in animal feed can be compensatedeither by adding a higher percentage of protein-richfeed components such as oil seed, or by fortifying thefeed with essential amino acids produced by Evonik forthis purpose.
The study compares in general three options forlivestock production to cover the nutritional demand of
the target species. One is the addition of supplemental
1/15
1/15

34

amino acids to compound feed for pigs and poultry, theothers are comparable compound feed with increased
amounts of oilseeds such like soybean meal orrapeseed meal.
In 2013 the overall compound feed market for all
species was published at 962,780 Kmt. Provided aproper application of DL-Methionine, supplemented
option 1 reflects 327,345 Kmt (34 %) against 635,435
Kmt (66 %) non supplemented feed in option 2, for
Biolys (L-Lysine) option 1 reflects 394,739 Kmt (41 %)against 568,041 (59 %) non supplemented feed in
option 2 and finally for Threonine option 1 reflects
12,516 Kmt (1%) against 950,264 Kmt (99 %) non
supplemented feed in option 2. The worldwide market
volume of compound feed is dominated by broiler andpig production, other animal species play a lessimportant role. Also the use of supplemental aminoacids in compound feed production is the most usedtechnology in pig and broiler production. Therefore theabove set system boundaries for the feed market seemto be the most conclusive ones.
Supplementing animal feed with essential amino acids
can save significant amounts of feed raw materials,
resulting in minimized use and cultivation of arable landfor crop production and thus, fewer CO2eq emissions
due to avoided land use change emissions during soy
bean production in Brazil and Argentina. Furthermore,
feed supplementation with these essential amino acids
reduces both nitrogen and greenhouse gas emissions
resulting from feeding (less N2O emissions from manurestorage and from application to the field). Moreover,greenhouse gas emissions from transportation of soy
bean from South America to Germany by ship and roadtransport decrease.

3. F unctional unit and referenceflow
3.1. Functional unit
Methionine, lysine, threonine and tryptophan are thefour first limiting essential amino acids in animal
production. Methionine as the first limiting amino acid intypical compound feed for poultry has a particularimportance. Lysine is the first limiting amino acid inswine nutrition and plays a particularly important role
here. Threonine and also Tryptophan are further limiting
amino acids for both species. It is of utmost importancethat the respective daily amino acid requirement foreach species is fully covered in order to guarantee ahealthy and well balanced nutrition. Otherwise a distinct
drop in performance and a detrimental effect on the
animal’s health will occur. Alternatively, the supply of
the respective amounts of amino acids has to beensured by increasing the content of basic feed
ingredients high in amino acids, e. g. oilseeds (quality
requirement “functionality”). Eight to ten so-called

essential amino acids cannot be produced by humans
or animals itself. They must be consumed regularly withthe food since amino acids can be poorly stored in the
body if the diet is not well balanced. The body requires
a well-balanced amino acid supply daily in order toremain healthy and effective. A deficiency of essential
amino acids will cause impaired protein synthesis andlife-threatening deficiency symptoms in humans or
animals. In commercial agricultural animal productionamino acids are important supplements to proteinsfrom agriculturally produced feed ingredients. They
provide the option to reduce the protein content inanimal feed.
The functional unit was defined as 1 kg of an aminoacid mix consisting of DL-Methionine, L-Lysine,
L-Threonine and L-Tryptophan which is supplemented
to the feed or the equivalent amount of amino acids
provided by feed raw materials rich in these aminoacids such as oilseed meals.
The quality criteria “functionality” has been taken into
consideration. The supply of the respective amounts ofamino acids has to be ensured either by an amino acidmix consisting of DL-Methionine, L-Lysine, L-Threonine
and L-Tryptophan which is supplemented to the feed orby increasing the content of basic feed ingredients highin amino acids, e. g. oilseeds. This requirement results
in a functional unit of 1 kg amino acids either provided
by supplementation or by increasing the content ofbasic feed ingredients, e. g. oilseeds.
Animal feed is determined for immediate consumption
and thus does not have a “service life”.
The primary data for the production of the four aminoacids represent the situation in 2008. The modeling of
the life cycle assessment was done with the GaBi
software[7] of PE International. The data set for thefollowing sites were used: Belgium for DL-Methionine,
United States for L-Lysine, Hungary for L-Threonine,
Slovakia for L-Tryptophan, and Germany for the otherlife cycle phases (see chapter 6.1 for additional
information on time and geographic reference).
3.2. Reference flow
The functional unit was defined as 1 kg of an aminoacid mix consisting of DL-Methionine, L-Lysine,
L-Threonine and L-Tryptophan which is supplemented
to the feed or the equivalent amount of amino acids
provided by feed raw materials rich in these aminoacids such as oilseed meals. The reference flows were
calculated by generating net differences between thefeeding options. The reference flows for broiler andswine feeding are each indicated in the following Tables.

35

FIGURE 3 - LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY OF BROILER PRODUCTION

FIGURE 4 - LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY OF SWINE PRODUCTION

Figure 3 - Life cycle inventory of broiler production

Figure 4 - Life cycle inventory of swine production
Table 1 - Weighted means of nutritionally equivalent compound feeds for swine
TABLE 1 - WEIGHTED MEANS OF NUTRITIONALLY EQUIVALENT COMPOUND FEEDS FOR SWINE(10 % grower
feed1,phase
1, 30 %FEED
growerfeed
phase
2, 60 %
finisher(10 % GROWER
FEED PHASE
30 % GROWER
PHASE
2, 60
% FINISHERFEEDPHASE)feed phase)

2/15

36

3/15

Table 2 - Calculated feed mixes for broiler production

TABLE 2 - CALCULATED FEED MIXES FOR BROILER PRODUCTION

4.TableBoundarysetting
2 - Calculated feed mixes for broiler production

FIGURE 6 - RELEVANT MATERIAL FLOW AND RAW MATERIALS FOR
THE RESPECTIVE TYPE OF MANUFACTURING

The system boundaries for all scenarios equivalent to the
3 compound feed options follow the principle „fromcradle to farm-gate“, i. e. they start from providing the
raw materials used for production of the supplementalamino acids, the cultivation of the basic feed ingredients,
the manufacturing of the mineral fertilizer for agricultural
production, the harvest and processing of the agricultural raw materials as well as all transport of all feed
ingredients, raw materials and intermediates including all
emissions relating to animal production and distributionof manure. Figure 2-7 provides insight into all levels of
the life cycle analysis. The compound feed processing
was Figure
not considered
the systemboundaries,
5 - Systemwithinboundaries
for the options
analysed in broiler and swine
because the authors of the study consideredfeedingthe same
Figurematerial
flow
and raw materials for the respective type oecological burden of each type of compoundfeed6 - Relevant
CompoundFeed
Production
manufacturing
through the feed mill processing. In the final comparison,
Animal feed is usually processed in a feed mill before
this would be neutralized anyway.
being fed to the animal. This is predominantly done to
5/15
ideally mix the feed ingredients. Feed milling can take
FIGURE 5 - SYSTEM BOUNDARIES FOR THE OPTIONS ANALYSED IN
place on the farms or more often at special feed mills
BROILER AND SWINE FEEDING
which provide the farms with ready mixed feed. For thisstudy the compound feed processing was not consideredwithin the system boundaries, because the authors of
the study considered the same ecological burden ofeach type of compound feed through the feed millprocessing. In the final comparison, this would beneutralized anyway.
Manure Management
Manure management includes manure storage andmanure field application. The excretions of animals canbe stored under the animal either as liquid slurry or as
litter and is pumped to external tanks or removed
manually with wheel loaders or tractors. The excretions
Figure 7 - Global warming potential [CML 2001] from broiler production –sensitivity analysis for “land use change soya”
Figure 5 - System boundaries for the options analysed in broiler and swine
feeding37

from animals lead to nitrogen and carbon based
emissions to air (CH4, N2O, N2 and NH3) and –depending on the way of storage – potentially NO3- andPO4- emissions to water. The magnitude of theseemissions depends among other things on the husbandry
and storage technology, on the development stage,
manure composition and the climate conditions. The
manure composition is directly dependent on animal
performance (feed conversion ratio) and feed composition(concentration of crude protein and total phosphorus(Rigolot et al. 2010). Subsequent to the housing andtemporal storage the manure has to be stored until
application on agricultural land. Manure may be stored
for several days to several months, mainly depending on
the weather, legal regulations and crop nutrient demand.
There are several different storage technologies available.
Manure application to agricultural land is on most farms
an indispensable part of the manure management
system. It closes the internal nutrient cycling system of
the farm, when sufficient land is available on the animal
production farm. For this process step several technologies (broad cast, injection etc.) are available andassociated with various emission profiles depending also
on climatic conditions and regional quality of the soil.
Besides emissions manure generates a benefit to thesystem by providing essential nutrients for cash- andfeed crops. Both, emissions and credits can have asignificant impact on the LCA.

5. Calculation methodology and dataof resources was calculated using the methodology of
the UBA (UBA 1995, Ökobilanzen für Getränkeverpackungen, Teil A: Methode zur Berechnung und Bewertungvon Ökobilanzen für Verpackungen, Berlin). This isrestricted on the consumption of fossil energies such as
crude oil, hard coal, soft coal and natural gas.
Broiler production - Sensitivity analysis of “land usechange soya”
In contrast to the earlier IFEU studies the aspect of land
use change was evaluated additionally in the current
study. This topic has gained increasing importance in thediscussion on renewable raw materials for biofuels. This
was the reason why this aspect was newly integrated in
the life cycle assessment methodology. Additionally
there are reliable scientific data on LUC available.
The base scenario assumed was a reference situation
for soya production in South America including a certain
extent of land use change. In the sensitivity analysis avarying percentage of soya grown in the respective
regions is studied. Indirect land use change was notconsidered as the methodology and mode of calculationis still subject of scientific discussions. In the sensitivity
analysis “land use change soya” the portion of soya fromland which had undergone land use change (see Table 5– 1) was either doubled (maximum) or cut in half(minimum). In modeling this affects the two data sets
“soybean meal” and “soybean oil”. The import split i.e.
the portion of SBM from the US, Brazil, and Argentina
remained unchanged.

5.1. Methods and formulas used
The land use change primarily affects emissions relevant
The current study focuses on a few, but important envifor the climate factors which then has an impact onronmental categories for the specific application of
GWP (see Figure 5 – 1). The major effect is caused byamino acids in animal nutrition:
the degradation of biomass stored in the soil releasing• Global warming potential (GWP100) [kg CO2eq
the CO2 fixed in the soil. Additional information can beaccording to IPCC 2007]
found in the documentation of PE Int. and the sources• Acidification potential (AP) [kg SO2eq]
cited in there[12].
Figure6
Relevantmaterial flow and raw materials for the respective type of• Eutrophication potential (EP) [kg PO4eq]
manufacturing• Primary energy demand (PED) [MJ]
FIGURE 7 - GLOBAL WARMING
POTENTIAL [CML 2001] FROMBROILERPRODUCTION–SENSITIVITYANALYSIS FOR “LAND USE• Consumption of resources [kg Crude oil-eq]
CHANGE SOYA”

The environmental impact categories GWP, AP and EP
have been evaluated using the CML-methodology[1] with
updated characterization factors of August 2007 (IPCC
2007). In quantification of the global warming potential
the inclusion of land use change (LUC) for soya
production in South America has a very strong influenceon the results. That’s why a sensitivity analysis has been
conducted. It was assumed for the evaluation that about
3.2 % [5, p. 130] of soya in South America is grown on
land that originally was rain forest. No land use change
was considered for the 15 % of soy bean meal (SBM)
imported from the US. The primary energy demand is
calculated based on the lower heat value of all energy
sources used in the model including the energy used forintermediates. All kinds of energy are considered
including fossil and renewable energy. The consumption
Figure 7 - Global warming potential [CML 2001] from broiler production –sensitivity analysis for “land use change soya”

38The range assumed for soya does not have an impact
on the scenario “amino acids” as no SBM is included in
the functional unit for this option. The GWP for option 1
remains unchanged accordingly at a level of 4 kg CO2eq/
fU. Cutting in half the soya from land based on direct
land use change in South America in option 2 reduces
GWP by approx. 30 kg CO2eq to a level of 19 kg CO2eq/
fU while doubling brings GWP to a level as high as 78 kg
CO2eq/fU. The corresponding values for option 3 vary
between 29 kg and 38 kg CO2eq/fU.

FIGURE 8 - GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL [CML 2001] FOR SWINEPRODUCTION – SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS “LAND USE CHANGE SOYA”

Swine production - Sensitivity analysis “land usechange soya”
The approach for the sensitivity analysis was explainedin chapter 5.1.1 for broiler production. This same
approach and the variation of parameters provided inTable 5 – 1 were also applied for swine production.
The land use change primarily affects emissions relevant
for the climate factors which then has an impact on
GWP (see Figure 5 – 5). The major effect is caused by
the degradation of biomass stored in the soil releasing
the CO2 fixed in the soil. Additional information can befound in the documentation of PE Int. and the sources
cited in there.
The range assumed for soya does not have an impact
on the scenario of option 1 as no SBM is included in thefunctional unit for this option. The GWP for option 1
remains unchanged accordingly at a level of 5 kg CO2eq/
fU. Cutting in half the soya from land based on direct
land use change in South America in option 2 reduces
GWP by approx. 7 kg CO2eq to a level of 18 kg CO2eq/
fU while doubling brings GWP to a level as high as 33 kg
CO2eq/fU. The corresponding values for option 3 vary
between 2 kg and 14 kg CO2eq/FU.

5.2. Allocation
No allocation was performed for amino acid and feed
production. Specific individual agricultural raw material
data sets by PE International (e.g. DDGS, soybean mealand oil, rapeseed meal and oil) are based on allocation
methods which are described in the respective data set
documentation (see also following Tables).
5.3. Data sources and data quality
The primary data for the production of the four aminoacids represent the situation in 2008. They were provided
by the respective production unit. The secondary data
for the background systems such as energy supply, agricultural raw materials and minerals, transport anddisposal originate from the database of GaBi[7] from PE
International. Some of the processes- in contrast – were
estimated on the basis of literature data. Ecolnvent-Data[6] were used for those few cases for which no
set of GaBi data was available.

TABLE 3 - ORIGIN OF PROCESS DATA FOR BROILER PRODUCTION

39

TABLE 4 - ORIGIN OF PROCESS DATA FOR SWINE PRODUCTION

Table 4 - Origin of process data for swine production
Process

Origin

DE: Soybean meal import mix (partly with LUC)

Individual data sets: PE int., Import mix: Evonik (taken from statistics)

DE: Soybean oil import mix (partly with LUC)

Individual data sets: PE int., Import mix: Evonik (taken from statistics)

CA: Rapeseed meal PE

Individual data sets: PE int.

CA: Rapeseed oil PE

Individual data sets: PE int.

DE: Winter wheat shred (moisture 14%)Wheat data set: PE Int. incl. grinding: IFEU 2004 and drying: EcoInvent

DE: Summer barley shred (moisture 14%)Wheat data set: PE Int. incl. grinding: IFEU 2004 and drying: EcoInvent

US: DDGS (Allocation-Model, DDGS with burden) PE

Individual data sets: PE int.

DE: Limestone flour (0.1 mm) PE

Professional data base, PE Int.

DE: Sodium chloride (rock salt) PE

Professional data base, ELCD/PE Int.

DE: Dicalcium phosphate (estimation) PE

Individual data sets: PE int.

BE: Methlonine, for LCA FA

Evonik: based on process data 2008

US: Lysine (2008)

Evonik: based on process data 2008

HU: Threonine (AGROFERM 2008, sugar beet)

Evonik: based on process data 2008

SK: Tryptophan process (FERMA S 2008, sugar beet)

Evonik: based on process data 2009

EU-15: Diesel at refinery ELCD/PE-GaBi

Professional data base, ELCD/PE Int.

EU-15: Fuel oil heavy at refinery ELCD/PE-GaBi

Professional data base, ELCD/PE Int.

GLO: Container ship / approx. 27500 dwt / ocean ELCD /PE-GaBi (b)Professional data base, ELCD/PE Int.

GLO: Truck-trailer > 34 – 40 t total cap / 27 t payload / Euro 3 ELCD /PE-GaBi (b)Professional data base, ELCD/PE Int.

RER: ammonium nitrate, as N, at regional storehouse

EcoInvent data base

RER: N-emissions from slurry of poultry

Evonik (according to IFEU 2004)

The following figure indicates the system boundaries and6. Results
the availability of primary data for modeling the individual
scenarios for the functional unit (FU). The fields with grey
6.1. Avoided emissions
background are not within the share of influence of
The avoided emissions are indicated in the below Table.
Evonik. There is a need to use data from secondary
Broiler production
sources for this. The darker colored segments highlight
Broiler production
a close proximity of factors to the business of thesponsor. The darker the color the larger the influence.
FIGURE 10 - GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL GWP100 [CML 2001]
Avoided Emissions
Avoided Emissions
Avoided Emissions
OF BROILER PRODUCTION
More primary data are available here.
Broiler production

Global warming potential GWP100
FIGURE 9 - SYSTEM BOUNDARIES - AVAILABILITY OF PRIMARY DATA
Avoided Emissions[1]
in kg CO2eq/functional unit
FOR MODELING(Option 2 – Option 1)
44

Global warming potential GWP100[1]
in kg CO2eq/functional unit

Avoided Emissions(Option 2 – Option 1)
44(Option 3 – Option 1)
30

Avoided Emissions(Option 3 – Option 1)
30

Figure 9 - Global warming potential GWP100 [CML 2001] of broiler production

EmissionsGlobal warming potential GWP100

Option 1(Evonik’ssolution)
4

Option 2(Solution tocompare)48

Option 3(Solution tocompare)34

in kg CO eq/functional
unit
Figure 9 - Global warming
potential
GWP100 [CML 2001] of broiler productio[1]

2

EmissionsGlobal warming potential GWP100[1]
in kg CO2eq/functional unit

40

Option 1(Evonik’ssolution)
4

Option 2(Solution tocompare)48

Option 3(Solution tocompare)34

Global warming potential GWP100[1]
in kg CO2eq/functional unit

44

30

Figure 9 - Global warming potential GWP100 [CML 2001] of broiler production
FIGURE 11 - GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL GWP100 [CML 2001] OF
FIGURE 13 - GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL GWP100 [CML 2001] OF
BROILER PRODUCTION BROKEN DOWN BY CONTRIBUTIONS OF
SWINE PRODUCTION BROKEN DOWN BY INDIVIDUALINDIVIDUAL FACTORSCONTRIBUTIONS OF FACTORSEmissions
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Emissions
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Figure 9 - Global warming potential GWP100 [CML 2001] of broiler production(Evonik’s(Solution to(Solution to(Evonik’s(Solution to(Solution tosolution)compare)compare)solution)compare)compare)Emissions GWP100
OptionOption 2 25 Option 3
Emissions
Option 1
Option 2
Option3
Globalwarming potential
5 1
8Global warming potential GWP100
434(Evonik’s(Solution to(Solution to(Evonik’s(Solution 48
to(Solution
to
[1]
in
kg
CO
eq/functional
unit
[1]
2
solution)compare)compare)solution)compare)compare)in kg CO2eq/functional unit
Global warming potential GWP100[1]
in kg CO2eq/functional unit

4

48

34

9/15

Global warming potential GWP100[1]
in kg CO2eq/functional unit

5

25

8

Figure 12 - Global warming potential GWP100 [CML 2001] of swine production
broken down by individual contributions of factors

9/15

Calculating the reference flows by generating net
Calculating the reference flows by generating net differences
Figure 12 - Global warming potential GWP100 [CML 2001] of swine producti
differences between the feeding options generally leads
betweenthe feeding options generally leads to negative
broken down by individual contributions of factors
to negative credits for avoided ingredients and positive
credits for avoided ingredients and positive contributions
contributions by those ingredients included in theby those ingredients included in the individual diet.
individual diet.
The key parameters for the greenhouse gas reduction
The key parameters for the greenhouse gas reduction
compared to option 2 are summer barley and soybean
compared to option 2 are winter wheat and soybean
meal. The supplemented feed mix in option 1 uses more
meal. The supplemented feed mix in option 1 uses moresummer barley compared to option 2 and therefore results
winter wheat compared to option 2 and therefore results
in a lower GWP due to a higher uptake of CO2 during cropin a lower GWP due to a higher uptake of CO2 during
growth. In contrast, the supplemented feed mix in option 1
crop growth. In contrast, the supplemented feed mix inuses less soybean meal compared to option 2 andFigure 10 - option
Global 1
warming
potential
GWP100[CML 2001]
of broiler
uses lesssoybeanmeal comparedto option
2 production
therefore results in a higher GWP due to less uptake ofdown
by contributionsof individual
factors
andbroken
therefore
results
in a higher GWP
due to lessuptakeCO2 during soybean growth. Both effects lead to a lowerof CO2 during soybean growth. Both effects lead to a
GWP of the supplemented feed mix in option 1 in total.
lower GWP of the supplemented feed mix in option 1 intotal.
6.2. Scenario analysis
11/15
No scenario analysis on future
developments has been
Figure10
Globalwarming
potential
GWP100
[CML
2001]
of
broiler
production
Swine production
broken down by contributions of individual factors
Swine production
performed in this study.
11/15

FIGURE 12 - GLOBAL WARMING
POTENTIAL
GWP100 [CML
2001] Emissions
OF
Avoided Emissions
AvoidedEmissions
AvoidedSWINE
SwinePRODUCTION
production(Option 2 – Option 1) (Option 3 – Option 1)
Global warming potential GWP100
20
3[1]
Avoided Emissions
Avoided Emissions
Avoided Emissionsin kg CO2eq/functionalunit
The credit for the avoided emissions belongs to the whole

7. Significance of contribution

Global warming potential GWP100[1]
in kg CO2eq/functional unit

(Option 2 – Option 1)
20(Option 3 – Option 1)
3value chain. Amino acids produced by Evonik have afundamental contribution to the avoided greenhouse gas
emissions.

8. Review of results

Figure 11 - Global warming potential GWP100 [CML 2001] of swine production

The study has been reviewed by the German TÜV
Rheinland in 2010 and recertified in 2012. Further
information on the review can be found at http://www.tuv.
com under the certificate number “0000027153”.

Figure 11 - Global warming potential GWP100 [CML 2001] of swine production

41

9. S
 tudy limitations and future
recommendations
The current study focuses on a few, but important environmental categories for the specific application ofamino acids in animal nutrition:• Global warming potential (GWP100) [kg CO2- equiv.]• Acidification potential (AP) [kg SO2- equiv.]• Eutrophication potential (EP) [kg PO4-equiv.]• Primary energy demand (PED) [MJ]
• Consumption of resources [kg Crude oil-equiv.]
The functional unit has been chosen in the respective
way, because the influence of the amino acids and not
the influence of animal keeping and growth should be
evaluated.
The study shows the environmental impacts for certain
feed options, but neither evaluates the livestock keeping
nor the manure storage and spreading. It is therefore notpossible to derive recommendations for best practice
livestock keeping on the farm.

10. Conclusions
The current study was able to identify a further
improvement for the major environmental categories.
One of the reasons is the further development of the
production technology since 2004 in chemical synthesis
and in biotechnological fermentation. On the other hand
the modeling process was further developed and moretransparent data sets are available from environmental
data bases. Additionally the study outlines also that theadvanced inclusion level of crystalline amino acids toanimal diets further leads to environmental savings.

11. References[1] CML 2001. Institute of Environmental Sciences at the
University of Leiden
http://cml.leiden.edu/research/industrialecology/
researchprojects/finished/new-dutch-lca-guide[2] Coufal 2006. Coufal et al., Nitrogen Emissions from
Broilers Measured by Mass Balance Over Eighteen
Consecutive Flocks, Poultry Science, 2006
[3] De Boer 2000. De Boer et al., Nutrient Flows for Poultry
Production in The Netherlands, Poultry Science 79:172– 179, 2000
[4] EC 2003. European Commission, Integrated Pollution
Prevention and Control (IPPC), Reference Document
on Best Available Techniques for Intensive Rearing ofPoultry and Pigs, July 2003
[5] EcoInvent 2007. Report Nr. 17, Life Cycle Inventories
for Bioenergy, 2007
[6] Ecoinvent 2008. Ecoinvent Zentrum, www.ecoinvent.
ch[7] GaBi 2009. PE, LBP: GaBi 4 Software System and42

Databases for Life Cycle Engineering. Copyright, TM.
Stuttgart, Echterdingen 1992 – 2008.
[8] IFEU 2002. Ökobilanz für DL-Methionin in der Geflügelmast, Endbericht, Dezember 2002
[9] IFEU 2004. Ökobilanz für den Einsatz von DL-Methionin, L-Lysin und L-Threonin in der Geflügel- und
Schweinemast, Endbericht, Juli 2004[10] IMPRO 2007. Environmental improvement of Meat
and Dairy Products, European Commission, Joint
Research Centre/ IPTS, October 2007[11] International Standard (ISO), Europäisches Komitee fürNormung (CEN). Umweltmanagement-Ökobilanz –Grundsätze und Rahmenbedingungen (DIN EN ISO
14040/44:2006)[12] IPCC 2008. Good Practice Guidance for Land Use,
Land-Use Change and Forestry. In National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Volume 4Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use, chapter 10[13] ISO 2006. International Organization for Standardization: Normen ISO 14040 ff. “Environmental
management – Life cycle assessment – Principles andframework”
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/
catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=37456[14] KTBL 2006. KTBL, Emissionen der Tierhaltung
Messung, Beurteilung und Minderung von Gasen,
Stauben und Keimen, KTBL-Schrift 229, 2006[15] Lemme 2002. Lemme, A., Hoehler, D., Brennan, J. J.,
Mannion, P. F. (2002). “Relative Effectiveness of
Methionine Hydroxy Analog Compared to DL-Methionine in Broiler Chickens”. Poultry Science(81): 838-845.
[16] Mack 1999. Mack, S., Bercovici, G. (1999). “Idealamino acid profile and dietary lysine specification forbroiler chickens of 20 to 40 days of age”. Brit. Poultry
Science(40): 257-265.
[17] MUGV 2008. Ministerium für Umwelt, Gesundheit undVerbraucherschutz, Ammoniakemissionsfaktoren Tierhaltungsanlagen, Stand 2008[18] STMELF 2003. Bayerische Staatsministerien für Landwirtschaft und Forsten sowie Landesentwicklung und
Umweltfragen, Merkblatt “Verminderung gasförmiger
Emissionen in der Tierhaltung”, 2003[19] Toepfer 2010. Alfred C. Toepfer International GmbH,
Marktbericht Februar 2010, http://www.acti.de/media/
MB_dt_02-10.pdf[20] WWF 2007. WWF Deutschland, Methan und Lachgas- Die vergessenen Klimagase, 2007 “Mitran et al.,Determining the Nitrogen Budget and Total Ammoniacal
Nitrogen Emissions from Commercial Broilers Grown
in Environmental Chambers, 2008[21] Rigolot 2010. Rigolot, C., with S. Espagnol, P. Robin,
M. Hassouna, F. Béline, J.M. Paillat, and J.-Y. Dourmad;
2010. “Modelling of manure production by pigs andNH3, N2O and CH4 emissions. Part II: Effect of animal
housing, manure storage and treatment practices”
Animal, 4:8, pp 1413-1424.
[22] ALLTECH 2014. ALLTECH 2014 Global Feed Survey
Summary. ALLTECH, 3031 Catnip Hill Pike, Nicholasville, Kentucky 40356, USA (Alltech.com)

12. Appendices

FIGURE 17 - RESOURCE CONSUMPTION OF BROILER PRODUCTION

Report of the main results other than GHG emissions

1

Appendices

Broiler production

Appendiceseportof the main results other than GHG emissions

FIGURE 14 - ACIDIFICATION POTENTIAL AP [CML 2001] OF BROILERPRODUCTION

eport
ofproduction
the main results other than GHG emissions
1
Appendices
Broilerroilerproduction
eport ofthe main results other than GHG emissions
Figure 16 - Figure
Resource
consumption of broiler production
16 - Resource consumption of broiler production

roiler production

Emissions
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Figure16 - Resource consumptionof broiler
production(Solution to(Solution Option
toOption(Evonik’s
1
Option23solution)compare)compare)[1](Solutionto(Solution to
Acidification potential AP (Evonik’s
in
0.089
7.359
5.409
kg SO2e/functional unit solution)compare)compare)[1]
Eutrophication
1.8492
1.145
Emissions
Option10.019OptionOption 3[1] potential EP
Acidification potential
AP
in
0.089
7.359
5.409
in PO4e/functional unit
(Evonik’s(Solutionto(Solution toPrimaryenergydemand
PED
in
110
603
1101
kg SO2e/functional unit
MJ/functional unit
solution)compare)compare)[1]
Eutrophication potential
EP
1.849
1.145
Resource consumption
in kg 0.019
1.22
12.56
13.49
[1]
Acidification potential
AP
in
7.359
5.409
crude oilequi./functional
unit 0.089
in PO4e/functional unit
kg SO2e/functional unit
Figure 13 - Acidification potential AP [CML 2001] of broiler
Primaryproductionenergy demand PED in
110
603
1101
Eutrophication potential EP [1]
0.019
1.849
1.145
MJ/functional unitSwine production
FIGURE 15 - EUTROPHICATION POTENTIAL EP [CML 2001] in
OFPO4e/functional unit
Figure 13- Acidification potential AP [CML 2001] of broiler
production
Resource
consumption in kg
1.22
12.56
13.49
BROILER PRODUCTION
production
Primary energySwine
demandPED in110603
1101
crude oil equi./functional unit
MJ/functional unit
Figure 13 - Acidification potential AP [CML 2001] of broiler production
Resource consumption
kg
1.22
12.56
FIGURE 18in- ACIDIFICATIONPOTENTIAL AP [CML
2001] OF SWINE 13.49
PRODUCTION
crude oil equi./functional
unit
Swine production

Emissions

Swine production
Figure 17 - Acidification potential AP [CML 2001] of swine production

Figure 14 - Eutrophication potential EP [CML 2001] of broiler production

13/15

Figure 14 - Eutrophication potential EP [CML 2001] of broiler production
FIGURE 16 - PRIMARY ENERGY DEMAND (PED) OF BROILER

Figure 14PRODUCTION- Eutrophication potential EP [CML 2001] of broiler production
Figure 17 - Acidification potential AP [CML 2001] of swine production
FIGURE 19 - EUTROPHICATION POTENTIAL EP [CML 2001] OF SWINEPRODUCTION
Figure 17- Acidification potential AP [CML 2001] of swine production

13/15

Figure 15 - Primary energy demand (PED) of broiler production

13/15

Figure 15 - Primary energy demand(PED) of broiler production
12/15
Figure 15 - Primary energy demand(PED) of broiler production
12/15
12/15

Figure 18 - Eutrophication potential EP [CML 2001] of swine production

43

Emissions[1]
Acidification
Emissions potential AP in
kg SO2e/functional unit
FIGURE 20 - PRIMARY ENERGY DEMAND (PED) OF SWINE
Eutrophication potential EP [1]Figure 18PRODUCTION- Eutrophication potential EP [CML 2001] of swine production Acidification
unitAP [1] inPO4e/functional
potential
Figure 18 - Eutrophication potential EP [CML 2001] of swine production inPrimaryenergy demand
kg SO2e/functional
unit PED in
MJ/functional
Eutrophicationunit
potential EP [1]Resource
consumption
unit in kg
in PO4e/functional
crudeoilenergy
equi./functional
unit inPrimary
demand PED

Option 1(Evonik’ssolution)
0.1
Option1

Option 2(Solution tocompare)1.221
Option2

Option 3(Solution tocompare)1.316
Option3(Evonik’s(Solution to(Solution to
6.1. Avoided emissions
0.022
0.375
0.375
solution)compare)compare)The credit for the avoided 0.1emissions
belongs1.316
to the
1.221
154
148
281
whole value chain. The avoided
emissions
are indicated
0.022
0.375
0.375
1.31
2.22
3.05
in the below Tables.
MJ/functional unit
Resource consumption in kg
crude oil equi./functional unit
Broiler production

Broiler production

154

148

281

1.31

2.22

3.05

Avoidedproduction
Emissions
Broiler

Figure 19 - Primary energy demand (PED) of swine production
Figure 19 - Primary energy demand (PED) of swine production
FIGURE 21 - RESOURCE CONSUMPTION OF SWINE PRODUCTION

Avoided Emissions
Acidification potential AP [1] in kg
SO2e/functional unit
Eutrophication potential EP [1] in PO4e/functional
unit
Acidification potential AP [1] in kg
SO2e/functional
unit
Primaryenergy demand
PED in MJ/functional
unit
Eutrophication potential EP [1] in PO4e/functional
unit
Resource
consumption in kg crude oil
Primary energy demand
PED in MJ/functional
equi./functional
unit
unit
Resource consumption in kg crude oil
equi./functional
unit
Swine
production

Swine
Avoidedproduction
Emissions
Swine production
Avoided Emissions
Acidification potential AP [1] in kg
SO2e/functional unit
Eutrophication potential EP [1] in PO4e/functional
Acidification potential AP [1] in kg
unit
SO2e/functional
unit
Primaryenergy demand
PED in MJ/functional
Eutrophication potential EP [1] in PO4e/functional
unit
unit
Resource
consumption in kg crude oil
Primary energy demand
PED in MJ/functional
equi./functional
unit
unit
Resource consumption in kg crude oil
equi./functional unit
15/15

Figure20 - Resource consumptionof2 swineOption
production
Emissions
Option 1
Option3
Figure 20 - Resource consumptionof swine(Solution
production(Evonik’s(Solution totoAcidification potential AP [1] in
kg SO2e/functional unit
Eutrophication potential EP [1]in PO4e/functional unit
Primary energy demand PED in
MJ/functional unit
Resource consumption in kg
crude oil equi./functional unit

solution)
0.1

compare)1.221

compare)
1.316

0.022

0.375

0.375

154

148

281

1.31

2.22

3.05

14/15
14/15

Broiler production

Avoided Emissions

Acidification potential AP [1] in kg
SO2e/functional unit
Eutrophication potential EP [1] in PO4e/functional
unit
Primary energy demand PED in MJ/functional
unit
Resource consumption in kg crude oil
equi./functional unit

AvoidedEmissions(Option 2 –Option 1)
7.27

AvoidedEmissions(Option 3 –Option 1)
5.32

1.83

1.126

493

991

11.34

12.27

AvoidedEmissions(Option 2 –Option 1)
1.121

AvoidedEmissions(Option 3 –Option 1)
1.216

0.353

0.353

-6

127

0.91

1.74

Swine production
Avoided Emissions

Acidification potential AP [1] in kg
SO2e/functional unit
Eutrophication potential EP [1] in PO4e/functional
unit
Primary energy demand PED in MJ/functional
unit
Resource consumption in kg crude oil
equi./functional unit

15/15

44

15/15

AvoidedEmissions(Option 2 –Option 1)
Avoided
7.27
Emissions(Option 2 –Option
1)
1.83
7.27
493
1.83
11.34
493

AvoidedEmissions(Option 3 –Option 1)
Avoided
5.32
Emissions(Option 3 –Option
1)
1.126
5.32
991
1.126
12.27
991

11.34

12.27

AvoidedEmissions(Option 2 –Option 1)
AvoidedEmissions
1.121(Option 2 –Option
1)
0.353
1.121

AvoidedEmissions(Option 3 –Option 1)
AvoidedEmissions
1.216(Option 3 –Option
1)
0.353
1.216

-6
0.353

127
0.353

0.91
-6

1.74
127

0.91

1.74

Case 4

Bio-Mono Ethylene Glycol (MEG)
from renewable source

India Glycols
Limited (IGL)

COMMISSIONER AND PERFORMER OF THE STUDY
The study is commissioned and is performed by India Glycols Limited (IGL).

1. Purpose of the study

2. Solutions to compare

The objective of the study is to calculate the avoided
emission of greenhouse gas (GHG) during life cycle of
Bio route Mono Ethylene Glycol (Bio-MEG) production inIndia Glycols Ltd (IGL). The Bio-MEG is an alcohol madefrom agriculture renewable feedstock* instead of MEG
production from conventional petro route.

2.1. Description of the solutions to compare
The solutions are compared at chemical product level.
The Bio-MEG as well as Petro-MEG are exactly same in
the quality as (C2H6O2) and are used in the same way as
raw material for different end products, such as PET
bottle & coolant etc,... However the process of production
is different as given below (see Figure 1).

The study focuses on the use of feedstock such as
sugarcane molasses and alcohol used to produce
Bio-MEG against the petroleum feedstock such as
Crude Oil, Natural Gas, Ethylene, etc. in conventional
Petro route MEG (Petro-MEG) production. Bio-MEG
production using renewable feedstock, saves petroleum
feedstock and leads to reduced GHG emissions[1].
When fossil fuels are burned, carbon dioxide along withother GHGs is released directly to the atmosphere.
Saving of GHG from production of Bio-MEG is mainly
due to use of renewable feedstock as sugarcane
molasses for alcohol production followed by Bio-MEG
production. Bio-feedstock leads to biogenic CO2
emissions defined as CO2 emissions related to thenatural carbon cycle (short cycle)[2].
The difference lies in the role of biomass such as woodand organic waste, which plays in sequestering carbon.
This sequestration occurs within a relatively short timeframe as opposed to the many millions of years it takes
fossil fuels to form.
Bio-MEG is slowly catching up with many PET bottle
manufacturing and is marketed as environmentallyfriendly less carbon footprint products.
This study focuses on life cycle GHG emissions and was
conducted in alignment with the requirement of“Guidelines from the Chemical Industry for accounting
and reporting GHG emissions avoided along the value
chain based on comparative studies,” developed by
ICCA and the Chemical Sector Group of the WBCSD
and International Standard for LCA “ISO 14044:2006
Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment-Requirements and Guidelines”.

Additionally energy use for production of Bio-MEG ismajorly renewable energy as Hydro Power for electricity
need, Bio-Gas, Bagasse, Spent wash slop fired boilers
for steam & electricity generation.
• Grid power of Uttarakhand State India is mainlyhydroelectric power.
• Effluent of Ethanol Distillery is converted to Bio-Gas
and concentrated Slop having significant calorificvalue and used in boiler to produce steam as well as
partially Fossil fuel is also used.
• This High Pressure Steam is used in turbines togenerate electric energy and Medium Pressure &Low Pressure steam from turbine is used in
production/process.
In case of Petro-MEG production, the raw material isfossil fuel (heavy GHG load) as well as the energy use forprocess is fossil fuel fired steam (thermal energy) andelectric energy.
The use of the MEG produced through both Petro routeand Bio route is same.
2.2. Level in the Value Chain
This study focuses on Bio-MEG production processfrom bio ethanol and conventional Petro-MEG in thevalue chain. The use/performance of both MEGs issame. Thus, the level in the value chain of this study is“chemical product level” in accordance with theguidelines.
2.3. Definition of the boundaries of the market
and the application
MEG is a basic building block used for applications that
require Chemical intermediates for Resins, Solvent
couplers, Freezing point depression solvents,
Humectants and chemical intermediates.

* Biogenic Feedstock: Biologically based material is used for production and processes.

45

These applications are vital to the manufacture of a wide
variety of products, including Resins, Deicing fluids, Heattransfer fluids, Automotive antifreeze and coolants,
Water-based adhesives, Latex paints and asphalt
emulsions, Electrolytic capacitors, Textile fibers, Paper,
Leather, etc.
MEG is used worldwide. Global demand for MEG isestimated to be 22 million tonnes in 2012 with a capacityof 28 million tonnes[3]. The demand for MEG continues
to increase steadily and is estimated to reach 29 million
tonnes by 2016[4]. There is around 70 million tonnes
demand of PET globally and have 3% as a conservative demand of PET use Bio-MEG. For this 3% PET,
there is requirement of 600000 tonnes of Bio-MEG andagainst it there is availability of around 250000 tonnesof Bio-MEG globally to cater the need as per scenario
of 2015. IGL alone caters for around 150000 tonnes of
Bio-MEG out of this total available Bio-MEG and restaround 100000 tonnes sourced from other bio route of
Bio-MEG. By 2018, it is expected that there will be risein demand of PET having Bio-MEG, to 4 to 5% globallyand will be looking for more Bio-MEG availability[5].

3. F unctional unit and referenceflow
3.1. Functional unit
For this case study, the functional unit is defined as One
Metric Ton (MT) of MEG produced from cradle togate.
• Process of Bio-MEG production from renewable
feedstock /bio route• Process of Petro-MEG production from petroleum
feedstock/petro routeEnd-uses of MEG (Bio route / Petro route) may vary fromuse as an intermediate for the manufacture of otherchemicals, commercial products, or certain formulated
consumer products, thus service life of MEG produce
through petro route or bio route is same.
3.2. Reference flow
The final MEG produced through Bio route or Petro routeare having same chemical formula and quality. Reference
flow is one Metric ton of MEG (Petro route/Bio route).

Molecular formula of MEG:

C 2H 6O 2

Molecular Structure of MEG :MEG, DEG, TEG & Higher
Glycols production

Boundry of MEG production
Ethylene Oxide

Petro-Glycols throughpetro route♣

Petro-Route Crude Oil

Ethylene
Ethanol Production

Molasses

Bio Glycols through bio
route
Sugarcane Cultivation! Bio -Route

Figure 1 - MEG process Steps of Bio-MEG

46

4. Boundary setting
In this study, all relevant processes affected by the
production of MEG from cradle to gate are analysed.
This study includes agricultural cultivation of sugarcane
as well as excavation of crude oil.
FIGURE 1 - MEG PROCESS STEPS OF BIO-MEG (BIO ROUTE) V/S
Molecular formula ofPETRO-MEG
MEG: C2H6O2
Molecular
Structure of MEG :CONVENTIONAL(PETROROUTE)

MEG, DEG, TEG & Higher
Glycols production

Boundry of MEG production
Ethylene Oxide

Petro-Glycols throughpetro route♣

Petro-Route Crude Oil

Ethylene
Ethanol Production

Molasses

Bio Glycols through bio
route
Sugarcane Cultivation! Bio -RouteThe process stepsof process
Bio-MEG
Figure 1 - MEG
Steps of Bio-MEG
Sugarcane is processed in sugar plant. Sugar, bagasse
and sugarcane molasses are produced. Sugarcane
molasses from sugarcane is converted into ethanol
by fermentation & distillation in distillery. Ethanol isconverted to ethylene through the Ethanol Dehydration
Reactor. The ethylene from the Ethanol Dehydration
Reactor is processed with oxygen to make ethyleneoxide which is then hydrolysed to produce MEG andhigher molecular weight glycols including di-ethylene
glycol (DEG), tri-ethylene glycol (TEG) and heavy
glycols (HG).
The process steps of Petro-MEG
The main method of production of MEG is from
naphtha, mainly derived fromcrude oil. Naphtha with
1/16
steam is fed into a cracker unit where ethylene andother co-products are made. The ethylene from thecracker unit is separated from the co-products andprocessed with oxygen to make ethylene oxide which isthen hydrolysed to produce MEG and higher molecularweight glycols including DEG and TEG[6].
After production of Ethylene, the process is identical till
MEG production, but there is a technological differencein the process. Downstream use of MEG is identical as
quality of both Bio-MEG and Petro-MEG is same.
The study covers the life cycle of MEG production withbio route and with conventional petro route from cradle
to gate. The system boundary consists of “Productionof MEG”. This process consists not only of “Productionsof MEG”, but also of “Raw material production process”
used for production of MEG.
Details of processes and sub-processes are given
below:
A. Bio-MEG production- Process block of Sugarcane Cultivation- Process block of Bagasse, Sugar and Molasses
production-Process block of Ethanol production
Process block of air separation unit (Air Separation
Unit for Oxygen)- Process block of Thermal & Electrical Energy
production- Process block of Bio-Glycols (Bio-MEG, Bio-DEG,
Bio-TEG and Bio-HG) Production
B. Petro-MEG production- Process block of crude extraction- Process block of Natural Gas (NG) & Crude
refining- Process block of Ethylene production- Process block of air separator unit (Air Separation
Unit for Oxygen)- Process block of Ethylene Oxide production- Process block of Glycols (MEG, DEG, TEG & HG)
Production

FIGURE 3 - SYSTEM BOUNDARY OF PETRO-MEG

Crude Oil Extraction
BOUNDARY LIMIT PETRO-MEG

Crude Oil Refining

AIR

Ethylene process

AIR SEPRATION UNT

Ethylene Oxide process

OXYGENMEG Plant

WATER

MEG

DEG

TEG

HG

As shown in system boundary of Bio-MEG production
process starts from sugarcane cultivation and ends at
Bio–MEG, Bio-DEG, Bio-TEG and Bio-HG production.

5. Calculation methodology and data

The system boundary of Bio-MEG study covers from
cultivation of Sugar cane, transportation of sugarcane tosugar plant, production of molasses, production of
ethanol, transportation of ethanol and finally productionof Bio-MEG. The study covers the entire life cycle of the
Bio-MEG production from cradle to gate, i.e. sugarcane
cultivation to Bio-MEG production.

5.1. Methods and formulas used
The study is chemical product level and covers from
cradle-to-gate. GHG emissions from the Production of
MEG i.e.
• CO2e emissions during the phase of raw material
procurement to the manufacture of MEG from cradle
to gateFIGURE 2 - SYSTEM BOUNDARY OF BIO-MEG PRODUCTIONPROCESS

Global Warming Potential (GWP) is calculated over a
specific time interval, commonly 20, 100 or 500 years.
GWP is expressed as a factor of carbon dioxide whose
GWP is standardized to 1.

Figure 3 - System boundary of Petro-MEG

3/16

BOUNDARY LIMIT BIO-MEG

SUGARCANE CULTIVATIONSUGARCANEBAGASSE

SUGAR INDUSTRY

AIR

SUGAR

MOLASSESAIR SEPRATION UNTDISTILLARY (Ethanol Production)

ETHANOL

Bio-MEG Plant

OXYGENWATER

Bio-MEG
Bio-DEG

Bio-TEG

Bio-HG

Figure 2 - System boundary of Bio-MEG Production Process

The system boundary of Petro-MEG covers from crude
oil extraction, ethylene production, ethylene oxide
production and finally conventional MEG production.
The study covers the entire life cycle of the Petro-MEG
production from cradle to gate i.e. crude oil extraction to
MEG production.

5.2. Allocation
When a process has more than two valuable outputs, it
becomes necessary to assign the impacts associatedwith the energy, material, transportation etc. to each of
the output using mass, energy, or economic value as themetric. Allocation is carried out in line with ISO
14040:2006 & ISO 14044:2006. The study handles
allocation issues by ‘mass-economic’ system in theprocess block of power generation. In sugar production
system, molasses is 5% by weight, sugar is 10% by
weight, bagasse is 30% by weight and the rest is water.
But the cost difference among these products is very
wide. Sugar has approximately 10 times higher pricethan bagasse and approximately 6 times higher pricethan molasses. Using mass allocation only would havegiven a distorted result. Due to this reason, masseconomic allocation method has been used[7]. However‘mass allocation’ systems have been used for productionof MEG. In the MEG production, not only MEG, but also
DEG, TEG and Heavy Glycols are produced simultaneously, where MEG is more than 90 % weight, DEG is lessthan 6% by weight and the rest is TEG and Heavy
Glycols.

2/16

47

5.3. Data sources and data quality
A cradle to gate LCA of Bio-MEG and GHG emission in
the life Cycle of MEG (whether it is Bio-MEG or
Petro-MEG), conducted by IGL, are mainly focused inthis case study. Actual production process data of IGL istaken for Bio-MEG production from ethyl alcohol & ethyl
alcohol production from sugar cane molasses (abyproduct of sugar plant).
IGL collected the data of Bio-MEG from Uttarakhand
state of India in North India and collected by Questionnaires, interactions with industry experts, Sugar Manufacturers Association, study of published report andresearch papers on similar topics, economic surveys

etc. in year 2010 to 2011 and updated in 2013-2014.
The data quality were considered in accordance with
ISO 14044 requirement. All the data used for Bio-MEG
production are reproducible because IGL is certified with
Quality Management System (ISO 9001:2008). Under
the system, the data have been managed and recorded
properly and traceable.
Because of LCA data insufficiency in India, Eco Invent
data were taken for Petro-MEG production. The Eco
Invent data of Petro-MEG for this study are mainlypresented plants in Europe and are of the year 20102011 and the last updated in 2012.

Data sources
sources andand collection
collection methodology
methodology forfor Bio-MEG
Bio-MEG production
production
Data

DATA SOURCES AND COLLECTION METHODOLOGY FOR BIO-MEG PRODUCTION
Main Unit
Unit Process
Process
Main(Bio-MEG)(Bio-MEG)
Sugarcane
Sugarcane
Cultivation
Cultivation

Molasses Production
Production
Molasses

Ethanol Production
Production
Ethanol

Bio-MEG Production
Production
Bio-MEG

Data Collected
Collected
Data

Data Source
SourceData

Collection Method
MethodCollection

Land Use
Use Change
Change-- LandFertilizer use
use-- Fertilizer
Pesticide Use
Use-- Pesticide
Use ofof machinery
machinery-- UseIrrigation method
method-- Irrigation
Transportation-- Transportation
Emissions-- Emissions
Sugarcane-- Sugarcane
Transportation
Transportation
Chemicals use
use-- Chemicals
Energy use
use-- Energy
Electricity Use
Use-- Electricity

Sugarcane farmers
farmers-- Sugarcane
Sugar Industry
Industry Annual
Annual-- Sugar
1,2
reports1,2
reports
Agricultural scientists
scientists ofof-- Agricultural
Pant Nagar
Nagar University
University
Pant
Industry experts
experts-- Industry

Questionnaire-- Questionnaire
Interview-- Interview
Literature survey
survey-- Literature

Sugar Industry
Industry Annual
Annual-- Sugarreports
reports
Industry experts
experts-- Industry(consultant ofof sugarsugar(consultant
units)
units)
Published reports
reports33-- PublishedCentralElectricity
Author- Central Electricity Author
ity (CEA)(CEA) reportreport on
on GHG
GHG
ityemissionemission
Molasses Transportation
Transportation -- IGL
IGL processprocess details
details-- Molasses
Steam Production
Production-- Steam
Waste water
water treatment
treatment-- Waste
Chemicals use
use-- Chemicals
Electricity Use
Use-- Electricity
Steam use
use
IGL Process
Process details
details-- Steam-- IGL
Electricity useuse-- Electricity
Oxygen useuse-- Oxygen
Ethanol useuse-- Ethanol
Chemicals use
use-- Chemicals

Questionnaire-- Questionnaire
Interview-- Interview

Questionnaire-- Questionnaire
IGL sitesite visit
visit-- IGL

Questionnaire-- Questionnaire
IGL sitesite visit
visit-- IGL

Data sources and collection methodology for Petro-MEG production in EuropeDatasourcescollection
methodology
Petro-MEG
productionin Europe
DATA
SOURCES
ANDandCOLLECTIONMETHODOLOGY
FORforPETRO-MEG
PRODUCTION
IN EUROPE

Main Unit
Unit Process
Process
Data Collected
Collected
Main
Data(MEG Europe)
Europe)(MEG
Crude
import -- Crude
Crude extraction
extraction
Crude
importtransportation
Transportationtransportation-- Transportation
Steam use
use-- Steam
Crude refiningrefining
Chemicals use
use
Crude
-- Chemicals
Electricity useuse-- Electricity
Steam use
use-- Steam
Ethylene
Oxide -- Ethylene
Ethylene production
production
Ethylene
Oxide
production
Transportation
production-- Transportation
Oxygen useuse-- Oxygen
Electricity useuse-- Electricity
Steam use
use-- Steam
Conventional
MEG -- Steam
Steam use
use
Conventional
MEG
production
Electricity use
use
production-- Electricity
EO useuse-- EO
Chemicals use
use-- Chemicals

Data Source
SourceData

Eco invent
invent44-- Eco

4/16
4/16

48

Collection Method
MethodCollection

SimaPro software
software-- SimaProTable 1 - Comparative characterization results for Bio-MEG and Petro-MEGs as per
IPCC 2013 V1.00 / Characterization

Impact Category

IPCC GWP 100a

Geographic region for production of Bio-MEG is
Uttarakhand state in North India. The data was collectedby IGL. Geographic region for production of Petro-MEG
is Europe. Data of Petro-MEG is readily available to all
over the world as eco invent data.

Kg. CO2 eq.

For Bio-MEG production process block is preparedbased on available data of IGL. For Petro-MEG
production process block data of eco invent.
Bio-MEG process block data is taken based on the dataof adequate period of time with even out the normal
fluctuation. For Petro-MEG production process block of
eco invent where completeness is declared and available
to all.

Petro-MEG
<A2>

1221

1628

FIGURE 4 - GHG EMISSION OF BIO-MEG AND PETRO-MEG

IPCC GWP 100a
(Kg. CO2 eq.)
2000

1628
1221

1500

Technology of Petro-MEG production is largely same as
Bio-MEG production after production of Ethylene. Major
difference is feedstock. Bio-MEG’s feedstock is
Sugarcane molasses followed by Bio-Ethanol andPetro-MEG uses crude oil followed by ethylene as
feedstock.

Bio- MEG
<A1>

Unit

1000
500
0

Bio- Mono Ethylene Glycol ProducPon

ConvenPonal Mono Ethylene glycol ProducPon(Petro route)Figure 4 - GHG emission of Bio-MEG and Petro-MEG

Figure 4 shows the total CO2 emission generated from
Bio-MEG production and from Petro-MEG. The resultsof the study are presented according to the six Kyoto
Protocol gas classifications in CO2 equivalents for
Bio-MEG production at IGL and for Petro-MEG
production. These are compared with each other.
FIGURE 5 - CO2eq EMISSIONS WHILE MANUFACTURING OF BIO-MEG
5/16(CRADLE TO GATE)

Emission in kg CO2 eq per MT of Bio-MEG ProducSon

The source of data of Bio-MEG process block is of theunder study area (India Glycols). For Petro- MEG
production data used is from eco invent which is directly
referred.

1400

1221

1200
1000
800
600

494
282

400

6. Results

0

6.1. Avoided emissions
The comparative main result for Bio-MEG withPetro-MEG is shown in Table 1. IPCC 2013, which is an
update of the method IPCC 2007, is used to analyse
CO2e.
• <A1> in case of Bio-MEG production from Cradle toGate,• <A2> in case of Petro-MEG produced from Cradle to
Gate,
The GHG emission for 1 MT of MEG production (bioroute and conventional petro route) process are shownin Table 1;

IPCC GWP 100a

Bio- MEG<A1>

Unit
Kg. CO2 eq.

Petro-MEG
<A2>

1221

1628

IPCC GWP 100a
(Kg. CO2 eq.)
2000
1500

Steam

Electricity Fossil Fuel Bio-Gas
(RFO)

76
Oxygenliquid29

37

Transport Chemicals

1.0
Other

Total

The total CO generated is 1221 kg CO equivalents per
MT of Bio-MEG production. Process wise details
emission of Bio-MEG production is shown in Figure 5. It
shows that major GHG load comes from Bio-Ethanolfrom molasses
production followed by electricity
Emission in kg CO eq per MT of ConvenSonal-MEG (Petro route)
ProducSonand heat produced fromconsumed,
steam production
1800
1628
1600
residual fuel oil (RFO). GHG impacts of Bio-Ethanol
1400
production
from molasses, spent wash treatment,
1200
Steam
and electricity are main contributors
1000 production
850
800
to GHGload of Bio-Ethanol. Residual fuel oil and Bio-gas
600
are 400
burnt in the335 process heater as fuel for superheating
154
138
126
steam.
20026
12Ethylene

Electricity

Fossil Fuel

OxygenTransport

Chemicals

Other

Total

liquidSpentwash generated in theprocess of distillery (Ethanol
Plant). Spent wash is partially used for bio-gas generation
andconcentrated
as slopof(concentrated
spent
Figure6 - partially
CO eq emissions
while manufacturing
Petro- MEG (Cradle
to Gate)wash). These renwable fuel (biogas & slop i.e. concentrated spent wash) have a good calorific value and use
as fuel in boiler with coal. Aproximately 23% fossil fuel(coal) and 73% renewable fuel (bio-gas and concentrated spent wash i.e. slop) are used as fuel in boiler for
steam generation followed by electricity generation.
2

IPCC 2013 V1.00 / Characterization

Impact Category

Bio-Ethanol

18

Figure 5 - CO2eq emissions
while manufacturing of Bio-MEG(Cradle to Gate)
2
2

0

TABLE 1 - COMPARATIVE CHARACTERIZATION RESULTS FOR
BIO-MEG AND PETRO-MEGS AS PER IPCC 2013 V1.00 /CHARACTERIZATION
Table 1 - Comparative characterization results for Bio-MEG and Petro-MEGs as per

147

137

200

6/16

1628
1221

1000
500
0

Bio- Mono Ethylene Glycol ProducPon

ConvenPonal Mono Ethylene glycol ProducPon(Petro route)Figure 4 - GHG emission of Bio-MEG and Petro-MEG

49

600

494
282

400

0

147

137

200
Bio-Ethanol

Steam

76

18

Electricity Fossil Fuel Bio-Gas
(RFO)

37

29

OxygenliquidTransport Chemicals

1.0
Other

Total

Figure 5 - CO2eq emissions while manufacturing of Bio-MEG (Cradle to Gate)

The GHG emission is higher in MEG production withpetro route as fossil fuel as raw material is used to
produce MEG. Avoided emission of Bio-MEG production
compared to Petro-MEG production is 407 kg CO2eq/
MT MEG production.

FIGURE 6 - CO2eq EMISSIONS WHILE MANUFACTURING OF PETROMEG (CRADLE TO GATE)

1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0

Emission in kg CO2 eq per MT of ConvenSonal-MEG (Petro route)
ProducSon

1628

6.2. Scenario analysis
Base case is calculated with the assumption of no futurechange. The avoided emissions per unit MEG production
in 2020 will also be largely same. The quantity of the
Bio-MEG production in 2020 will be based on demand
forecast and it is expected that there will be rise indemand of Bio-MEG.

850

335

Ethylene

Electricity

154

138

Fossil Fuel

Oxygenliquid126

26
Transport

Chemicals

1
Other

Total

The total CO2 generated is 1628 kg CO2 equivalent
per MT of Petro-MEG production. Process wise details
emission of Petro-MEG production is shown in Figure 6.
It shows that major GHG load comes from Ethylene fromcrude oil production followed by electricity consumed inprocess and Ethylene Oxide produced from Ethylene.
The Eco Indicator 99 study has been used for the environ6/16
mental impact categories: acidification,
nutrient enrichment(eutrophication), land use, climate change, ozone layer
deplition & Radiation etc. With refrence to analysis as per
Eco Indicator 99 methodology given in annexure 1, theenvironmental impacts of Bio-MEG in the life cycle areless than Petro-MEG for the environmental parameter ofradiation, ozone layer, ecotoxicity & land use. Acidification/
Eutrofication impact is traced to sugarcane cultivation. Useof fertilizers has become reason of neutrient enrichment.
Although it will not have any impact on product and it willbe there, as sugarcane cultivation is need of sugar plantfor producing sugar and molasses is a byproduct.

Figure 6 - CO2eq emissions while manufacturing of Petro- MEG (Cradle to Gate)

The avoided emissions are calculated as the difference
between the emissions of Bio-MEG with Petro-MEG
production.

7. Significance of contribution
Use of Sugarcane molasses as feedstock makes an“extensive” contribution to reduced GHG emissions in
Bio-MEG production.
The avoided emissions calculated in this study are
attributed with special emphasis on production stage atchemical plant/industry.

8. Review of results“The Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Bio-MEG
from sugarcane molasses with conventional Petro-MEG
from fossil fuel” report has been peer reviewed by LCA
experts using the methodology IPCC GWP 2007a[12] asper ISO 14040:2006[13] & 14044:2006 guidelines[14] in2011. Later on the same study is updated as per therevised methodology GWP 100a IPCC 2013. The study
consist of production part of MEG from cradle to gate.

The results show below that the avoided emissions per
MT of MEG production is dominated by the GHG
emissions during production stage. Comparing theresults of the two alternatives demonstrates that the
Bio-MEG production has a lower carbon footprint andthus reduces GHG emissions.
The difference of GHG emissions in MEG production
with bio route is predominantly due to use of renewablematerial (sugarcane molasses) as raw material which is
cultivated again.
Table 2 - Table showing the results of the case study

TABLE 2 - TABLE SHOWING THE RESULTS OF THE CASE STUDY
Emissions per life cycle phase(CO2e)

Bio-MEG

Conventional MEG(Petro route)

Avoided Emission

Raw material extraction &Manufacturing* MEG (A)(Cradle to gate)

<A1>
1221

<A2>
1628

<A2>-<A1>
1628-1221

Total emissions

P1=

P2=

Avoided Emission

50

<A1>

<A2>

P2-P1=(<A2>)– (<A1>)

1628-1221
407* Manufacture: From raw
material extraction to
manufacture of per MT of
MEG production from
cradle to gate

9. S
 tudy limitations and future
recommendations
Life cycle assessment studies are in its infancy in India.
There is no India specific database available for most of
the materials. It was a strenuous and difficult task tocollect data for sugarcane cultivation, molasses
production, MEG production etc.. Questionnaires, interactions with industry experts, study of published reportand research papers on similar topics, economic surveys
etc. were used as data collection methodologies as
described in section 5.3 in this report.
In order to complete this study, various scenarios wereconsidered about modelling approaches and calculation
methods as below.
• Fertilizers etc. are used for sugarcane cultivation.
Detail process of fertilizer are directly taken from Eco
invent.
• There have not been significant land use changes insugarcane cultivation zone of North India, but it will
not have impact on CFP/GHG accounting.
• Trash and sugar plant leftovers neither increase nor
decrease the carbon content of the soil, but it will nothave impact on CFP/GHG accounting as it follows
short carbon cycle.
• Various chemicals used in different processes aretaken from Ecoinvent data, which have similar
impacts in Indian conditions.
• All the sugar mills/distilleries process spent wash
used to generate biogas and slop (concentrated
spent wash) which are used in boiler for making
steam and electricity.
Data of various chemicals and fertilizers used in the IGL
process block were filled from Eco invent/USLCI
databases available in SimaPro databases with best
suitable and reliable assumptions based on qualified
estimates, similar site data used for completeness aswell as relevant technology data used.

10. Conclusions
The results of the study are presented by using IPCC
2013 GWP100a methodology. The total CO2 generated
is 1221 kg CO2 equivalents per MT of Bio-MEG
production and 1628 kg CO2 equivalents per MT ofPetro-MEG production. The avoided emissions arepresented as the difference of GHG emissions over an
MEG life cycle (cradle to gate). Avoided emission of
Bio-MEG production compared to Petro-MEG
production is significant. Avoided emission of Bio-MEG
production compared to Petro-MEG production is 407
kg CO2eq/MT MEG production. A comparison of thetwo alternatives demonstrates that GHG emissions
from Bio-MEG production are lower than fromPetro-MEG production.

Bio-MEG production has higher impact of acidification/
Eutrofication. Acidification/ Eutrofication impact is traced
to sugarcane cultivation, although it will not have any
impact on Bio-MEG production. Main reason of using
fertilizers in sugarcane cultivation is neutrient enrichment(acidification/eutrofication). It will be there as sugarcane
cultivation is need of sugar plant for producing sugar andmolasses is a byproduct. As per the comparitive analysis
of Bio-MEG LCA using Eco Indicator 99 methodology
the parameters, radiation, ozone layer, ecotoxicity & land
use have lesser impact on environment compared toPetro-MEG.
Thus, the above results conclude that production of
Bio-MEG is a better option from the GHG emission pointof view than Petro-MEG.

11. References[1] http://www.indiainfoline.com/markets/company/
background/company-profile/india-glycols-ltd/1105[2] Emergy Life Cycle Assessment of Fuel Ethanol In
Brazil - Ometto, A.R.; Roma,W. N. L.; Ortega, E.
[3] http://cpmaindia.com/meg_about.php[4] http://chemical.indianpetrochem.com/megreport[5] h t t p : / / w w w. b i o - b a s e d . e u / m a r k e t _ s t u d y /media/13-03-06PRMSBiopolymerslongnova.pdf[6] https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/rbi-icis/
wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Ethylene-Glycol-Asia-Margin-Report-Methodology-September-2013.pdf[7] Molasses for ethanol: the economic and environmental impacts of a new pathway for the lifecycle
greenhouse gas analysis of sugarcane ethanol Anand R Gopal and Daniel M Kammen[8] Sugar India – Pulse of Indian Sugar Industry : Year
Book 2011[9] Sugar India – Pulse of Indian Sugar Industry : Year
Book 2012[10] Environmental benefits on a life cycle basis of usingbagasse-derived ethanol as a gasoline oxygenate inIndia – K L Kadam[11] Eco invent report no-8 for Chemicals[12] Climate Change 2007: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm[13] ISO 14040:2006 Environmental Management - Life
Cycle Assessment - Principles and Framework[14] ISO 14044:2006 Environmental Management - Life
Cycle Assessment -Requirements and Guidelines[15] Standard Test Methods for Determining the
Biobased Content of Solid, Liquid, and Gaseous
Samples Using Radiocarbon Analysis[16] Energy Efficiency Guide for Industry in Asia – www.
energyefficiencyasia.org

51

12. Appendices• Radiation: Damage, expressed in DALY/kg emission,
resulting from radioactive radiation
Bio-MEG is also established through analytical testing as• Ozone layer: Damage, expressed in DALY/kg
given below procedure and result for 100% Biobased
emission, due to increased UV radiation as a result ofMEG.
emission of ozone depleting substances to air.
• Ecotoxicity: Damage to ecosystem quality, result of
Bio-MEG is analysed from BETA LAB for Biobased
emission of ecotoxic substances to air, water andAnalysis using ASTM-D6866:
soil. Damage expressed as Potentially Affected
The application of ASTM-D6866[15] to derive a “Biobased
Fraction (PAF)*m2*year/kg emission.
content” is built on the same concepts as radiocarbon• Acidification/ Eutrophication: Damage to ecosystemdating. It is done by deriving a ratio of the amount ofquality, as a result of emission of acidifying substances
radiocarbon (14C) in an unknown sample to that of aand nutrient enrichment. Damage is expressed inmodern reference standard. This ratio is calculated as a
Potentially Disappeared Fraction (PDF)* m2*year/kg
percentage with the units “pMC” (percent modern
emission.
carbon). Proportions Bio-based vs. Fossil Based• Land use: Damage as a result of either conversion ofindicated by 14C content.
land or occupation of land. Damage is expressed inTable 2 - Table showing the results of the case study
Potentially Disappeared Fraction (PDF)* m2*year/ m2
Biobased Result of IGL Bio-MEG : 100%or m2a.Land use (in manmade systems) has impact
ThusEmissions
analytically
proved that Bio-MEG
produced Conventional
in Indiaon species
diversity. Based on field observations, a
per life cycle phase
Bio-MEG
MEG
Avoided Emission(CO2Ltd.
(Petro route) scale is developed expressing species diversity pere)
Glycols
through 100% bio route source.
type of <A2>-<A1>
land use. Both regional effects and local
Raw material extraction &
<A1>
<A2>
*
Manufacturing
1221
1628
Annexure
1 MEG (A)effects are1628-1221
taken into account in the impact category.
(Cradle to gate)
The study addresses the following environmental impact
Total emissions
P1=
P2=
P2-P1=<A1>(<A2>)–(<A1>)
categories: GWP or GHG, resource depletion,
acidifica-<A2> With refrence
to analysis
of Bio-MEG production as per
1628-1221
tion, nutrient enrichment (eutrophication), ozone deplition
Eco Indicator 99 the environmental impact of Bio-MEG
Avoided Emission407
etc. Default characterization factors from Ecoindicator99
in the life cycle is less than petro route MEG for the enviand IPCC 2013 GWP100a are applied and the systemronmental parameter of radiation, ozone layer, ecotoxicity
modeling is performed in SimaPro (LCA software tool).
& land use. Bio-MEG production has higher impact ofAcidification/Eutrofication which is traced to sugarcane
IGL’s aim is to be at the forefront of efforts against global
threats such as global warming, stratospheric ozone
cultivation. Use of fertilizers has become reason of
depletion, resource depletion, bioaccumulation andneutrient enrichment. Although it will not have any impact
1 References
persistent chemicals. In the same regards IGL has carriedon product and it will be there, as sugarcane cultivationout the product LCA study as “Comparative Life Cycle
is need of sugar plant for producing sugar and molasses
is a byproduct.
Assessmentof Bio-MEG
frommolasseswith MEG
from[1] Sugar India– Pulse ofIndianSugar Industry: YearBook 2011
fossilfor the :environ[2] fuel”.
Sugar The
India EcoIndicator99– Pulse of Indian study
Sugar Industry
Year Book 2012
mentalimpact categories
for onMEG
production(bioofroute[3] Environmental
benefits
a lifecycle basis
using bagasse-derived ethanol as aandgasoline
conventional
petroroute)–process
is given below;
oxygenate
in India
K L Kadam[4] Eco invent report no-8 for Chemicals
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF BIO-MEG AND CONVENTIONAL MEG AS PER ECO-INDICATOR 99

DALY

Bio- Mono Ethylene
Glycol Production
0.00024

Conventional Mono Ethylene
Glycol Production
0.00033

DALY

2.19747E-06

8.86605E-06

DALY

1.05493E-07

3.20205E-08

PAF*m2yr

201.01

269.39

PDF*m2yr

48.67

18.59

PDF*m2yr

16.01

9.99

Impact category

Unit

Climate change
Radiation
Ozone layer
Ecotoxicity
Acidification/
Eutrophication
Land useof Bio-MEG
conventional
The EcoEnvironmental- Indicator 99impacts
methodology
is aandpowerful
tool toMEG as per Eco-Indicator 99
aggregate LCA results into easily understandable anduser friendly number or units called Eco-Indicators. Thismethod works on a damage function approach. The
damage function presents the relationship between theimpact and the damage to human health or to theeco-system or to the resources. The units are:
• Climate change:Damage, expressed in DALY/kg
Manufacture: From raw material extraction to manufacture of per MT of MEG production from cradle to gate
emission, resulting from an increase of diseases and
7/16
death caused by climate change.
*

52

Case 5

Aircraft materials (CFRP, Carbon Fiber
Reinforced Plastic) for weight reduction

Japan Carbon Fiber
Manufacturers
Association (JCMA)COMMISSIONER AND PERFORMER OF THE STUDYThe Study was commissioned and performed by the Japan Carbon Fiber
Manufacturers Association (JCMA).

1. Purpose of the study
The objective of the study is to calculate the reduction in
CO2 emission during life cycle of an aircraft using more
CFRP (carbon fiber reinforced plastic) with a conventional aircraft. CFRP is used in various aircraftcomponents. The use of CFRP reduces the weight of
the aircraft while maintaining the same strength andsafety. As with automobiles, weight reduction in aircraft
directly leads to improved fuel consumption, thereby
contributing to a reduction in CO2 emissions in thetransportation sector[1].

2. Solutions to compare
2.1. Description of the solutions to compare
The study compares two alternatives aircrafts, one
consists of 3 wt.% CFRP based on Boeing 767 which iscalled conventional aircraft, the others consists of 50wt%
CFRP, that the metal materials is replaced with CFRP,
that is called CFRP aircraft. Consequently, CFRP aircraftis reduced 20% weight of Body weight. The composition
ratio of material of each aircraft is described as follows(Table 1).
final version – 20 August 2015

3. F
 unctional unit and referenceflow
3.1. Functional unit
There are two types of aircrafts as functional unit asshown below, while flying. One conventional aircraft and
one CFRP aircraft are operated over the same aviation
mileage in Japan, and are operated with same weight ofother parts, and with same weight of jet fuel, and withsame weight of passenger and freight.
The functional unit and precondition in the study arecited from “The guideline of the calculation of Avoided offinal version – 20 August 2015 [2]CO2 emission of Japan Chemical Industry
Association
and Carbon-Life
Cycle Analysis (2012) of Japan Chemical
Table 1 – Composition ratio of material in the aircraft body
Industry Association[3].
Material

Others (ton)Total (ton)Conventional aircraft

Total (ton)

CFRP aircraft

2.5
46.0
8.0
3.5
0

24.5
9.5
4.5
7.0
2.5

60.0

48.0

Table 2 – Composition weight ratio during the stage of aircraft usageof conventional aircraft and CFRP aircraft in flight
2.2. Level inthe Value Chain
This study focuses on flying performance of aircrafts by
Conventional
CFRP aircraftcomparing results fromthe aircraft
CFRP aircraft
and theWeight of Body structure
60 ton/unit
48 ton/unit
conventional aircraft(Proportion
under
settinga certain
flyingof CFRP
used:(Proportionof CFRP used:50%)
conditionsin Japan. Thus,3%)the study is madeat theWeight of Other parts
29 ton/unit
29 ton/unit(Interior, Engine, etc)
end-uselevel of the value13chain.
Weight of Jet fuelton/unit
13 ton/unit
Weight of passenger andfreight

32 ton/unit

32 ton/unit

2.3. Definitionof the134boundariesof themarketTotal
ton/unit
122 ton/unit
and the application
While the market share of the CFPR aircraft in 2009 wasalmost nothing, it is expected to reach 10 – 20% sharein the commercial wide body aircrafts market in 2020.

1/4

0

2.5

60.0

48.0

of conventional aircraft and CFRP aircraft in flight

Weight of Body structure

Material
CFRP (ton)Aluminium (ton)Steel (ton)Titanium (ton)Others (ton)

CFRP aircraft

TABLE 2 – COMPOSITION WEIGHT RATIO DURING THE STAGE OFAIRCRAFT USAGE OF CONVENTIONAL AIRCRAFT AND CFRP
Table 2 – Composition weight ratio during the stage of aircraft usage
AIRCRAFTIN FLIGHT

Table 1 – Compositionratiomaterial in thebody
TABLE 1 – COMPOSITIONRATIO
OFofMATERIAL
IN aircraft
THE AIRCRAFT
BODY

Body

Conventional aircraft

The
Bodycomposition
CFRP (ton) weight ratio during
2.5the stage of aircraft
24.5
(ton)
46.0
9.5
usage of Aluminium
two alternatives
consideredin the studyis
Steel (ton)
8.0
4.5
Titanium
(ton)
3.5
7.0
described as follows (Table 2).

Weight of Other parts(Interior, Engine, etc)
Weight of Jet fuelWeight of passenger andfreight
Total

Conventional aircraft
60 ton/unit(Proportion of CFRP used:
3%)

CFRP aircraft
48 ton/unit(Proportion of CFRP used:
50%)

29 ton/unit

29 ton/unit

13 ton/unit

13 ton/unit

32 ton/unit

32 ton/unit

134 ton/unit

122 ton/unit

Above two alternatives are considered in the study so as
to fulfil the same strength and safety.
Jet fuel consumption based on weight of aircraft.
• Jet fuel consumption of the conventional aircraft is
103 km/L.
• Jet fuel consumption of the CFRP aircraft is 110 km/L.
1/4

Flight mileage of service lifetime is defined 500 miles(between Haneda and New Chitose)×2,000 flights/
annual×10 years (Service life), based on “Ordinance ofMinistry about the about the calculation of the greenhousegas emission with the business activity of the specified
emitter (Japan Ministry of the Environment)[5]”.
Reference year of for comparison is year 2007.

53

5. Calculation methodology and data

3.2. Reference flow
The actual reference flow is confidential and is not shown
in LCCO2 Calculation Guidelines for Aircraft from JCMA(The Japan Carbon Fiber Manufacturers Assosiations).
The literature only shows composition ratio of thematerial (see Table1).

5.1. Methods and formulas used
This study starts with a Life Cycle Assessment only focuseson life cycle CO2 emission as a first step and uses thesimplified method. In this study, trade-offs to other environmental impacts are not identified in the screening of LCA.

4. Boundary setting

CO2 emission from the “Production of other parts (Interior,Engine, etc ) [A]” and “Maintenance during the stage ofaircraft usage [B]” and “Disposal and Recycling [C]” in
Figure 1 are balanced out since this process is identical
for two alternatives and they do not change the overall
conclusion of this study. The significance of the CO2
emission being omitted which is the total CO2 emissionof identical part, [A] and [B] make up to 10%[4] of theentire life emission for the CFPR aircraft and the conventional aircraft. The significance of the CO2 emission being
omitted which is the total CO2 emission of identical part,[C] make up to 2%[6] of the entire life emission for the
CFPR aircraft and the conventional aircraft. 2% isestimated by the method written for the literature[6] inchanging the precondition (i.e. Assuming that thecomposition weight ratio of automotive is replaced thecomposition weight ratio of the CFPR aircraft and theconventional aircraft). The omitting emission of [A] and [B]
and [C] do not change the overall conclusion of this study.

The system boundary consists of following three elements
shown in Figure 1.
Production of an aircraft
This process consists of not only “Production of Body
structure”, but also “Production of other parts” used for
production of an aircraft.
Use of an aircraft
This process consists of not only “Flight”, but also
“Maintenance” used for use of an aircraft. And the service
life is 10 years[5].
Disposal and recycling of an aircraft
This process consists of “Disposal and recycling of anaircraft”.
The CFPR aircraft and the conventional aircraft areconsidered to have the same process system boundary.
At the “Production of Body structure”, there aredifferences in the composition ratio of CFRP material
between the CFRP aircraft and the conventional aircraft.

The life cycle CO2 emission is determined by summingup the CO2 emission in the entire life cycle of an aircraft.
The entire life cycle of an aircraft considered in this study
are “The stage of raw material procurement – manufactureof body structure materials”, “The stage of manufacture- aircraft assembly of body structure parts”, and ”Thestage of aircraft usage”.

In detail, the CFRP parts of Body structure of the conventional aircraft and the CFRP aircraft are described asfollows. Fuselage Frame, Wings, Vertical/horizontal tails
are not identical CFRP parts for two alternatives.
• CFRP parts of the conventional aircraft:
Aileron, Spoiler, Elevator, Rudder, Engine cowl.
• CFRP parts of the CFRP aircraft:
Aileron, Spoiler, Elevator, Rudder, Engine cowl,
Fuselage Frame, Wings, Vertical/horizontal tails.

Table 3 shows the preconditions setting to calculate theCO2 emission when the CFRP aircraft and the conventional aircraft fly under the certain flight condition in Japan.

FIGURE 1 - SYSTEM BOUNDARY OF THE CFRP AIRCRAFT AND THE CONVENTIONAL AIRCRAFT

Raw material
Procurement(Other materials)

CFRP material(*) of
Body structure parts

Other material of
Body structure parts

Metal parts
manufacturing

CFRP parts
manufacturing

Other parts
manufacturing

Production of other parts(Interior, Engine, etc )[A](**)
Raw material
Procurement

(*)
(**)

54

Material of
Other parts

Other parts
manufacturing

Use (flight)

Raw material
procurement(CFRP)

Metal material of
Body structure parts

Assembly (Other parts)

Raw material
procurement(Metal)Assembly (Body Structure)

Production of Body structure

Disposal andRecycling of
Aircraft[C](**)

Disposal and Recycling

Use ofAircraft

Production of Aircraft

Maintenance[B](**)

Carbon fiber and Resin
The process/material of [A], [B], and [C] in the broken line is identical for two alternatives in this analysis.
These parts are omitted from the calculation.

Figure 1 - System boundary of the CFRP aircraft and the conventional aircraft[C](**)CFRP material(*) of
Body structure parts

Raw material
procurement(CFRP)CFRP parts
manufacturing

Other material of
Body structure parts

Raw material
Procurement(Other materials)

Other parts
manufacturing

Disposal and Recycling

Metal parts
manufacturing

Use (flight)

Raw material
procurement(Metal)Assembly (Other parts)

Metal material of
Body structure parts

Assembly (Body Structure)

Production of Body structure

Table 4 shows the precondition setting to calculate theCO2 emission in 2020. Three PAN-based Carbon fiber
manufacturers in Japan estimated the amount of carbon(*)
Carbon fiber and Resin
fiber
used
for aircrafts
JCMA
(The
(**) The
process/materialof [A], [B], andin[C] 2020,
in the broken
line is identical
for twoJapan
alternatives Carbon
in this analysis.
These parts are omitted from the calculation.
Fiber manufacturers Association) calculates “the numberof CFRP aircrafts in Japan” from “carbon fiber used for
Figure 1 - System boundary of the CFRP aircraft and the conventional aircraft
aircrafts”
and “carbon fiber used in a CFRP aircraft”.
Production of other parts(Interior, Engine, etc )[A](**)
Material of
Other parts

Raw material
Procurement

Maintenance[B](**)

Other parts
manufacturing

TABLE 3 - PRECONDITIONS APPLIED TO THIS STUDY IN THE STAGE OFAIRCRAFT
Table 3 - USAGE
Preconditions applied to this study in the stage of aircraft usage

Weight of Body
structure
Jet fuel consumption*
Lifetime flight mileage

Amount of jet fuelused
CO2 emissions for jet
fuel

Conventional aircraft
60tons/unit(Proportion of CFRP used:3%)
103 km/L of jet fuel

CFRP aircraft
48tons/unit(Proportion of CFRP used:
50%)
110 km/L of jet fuel500 miles×2,000 flights/annual×10 years
2,000 flights/annual*
500 miles between Haneda and New Chitose*
10 years (Service life)[5]155,300kL/unit
2.5kg-CO2/L

145,500kL/unit[5]

Table 4 - Preconditions of CFRP aircraft in 2020 (*)

Carbon fibre used for aircrafts
in2020Carbon fibre used in a CFRP
aircraftNumber of CFRP aircrafts in
2020

900 tons in Japan
20tons/unit

and Figure 2 below. Table 5 shows the avoided CO2
45 units in Japanemissions per aircraft unit. And Figure 2 shows Life cycle
CO2 emissions of CFRP aircraft and Conventional aircraft.
TABLE 5 - THE AVOIDED CO2 EMISSIONS PER AIRCRAFT UNIT (KT-CO2/
Table 5 - The avoided CO2 emissions per aircraft unit (kt-CO2/unit)
UNIT)

CFRP aircraft Conventional
aircraft
CO2 emissions during the stages of raw material
procurement - manufacture of materials of bodystructure materials (kt-CO2/unit)

0.9

0.7

CO2 emissions during the stage of manufacture aircraft assembly of body structure parts(kt-CO2/unit)

3.0

3.8

110

103

Duringthestage
ofaircraftusage

Fuel consumption during aviation (km/kℓ-jet
fuel oil)
Lifetime aviation mileage (miles)

500 miles × 20,000 flights

Lifetime amount of gasoline used (kℓ/unit)

145,500

CO2 emissions during combustion of jet fuel(kg-CO2/ℓ)
CO2 emissions during the usage stage(kt-CO2/unit·10 years)

155,300
2.5

364

390

CO2 emissions over the entire life cycle(kt-CO2/unit·10 years)

368

395

CO2 emission abatement (kt-CO2/unit·10 years)! 27* Information by a Japanese major airline company
FIGURE 2 - LIFE CYCLE CO2 EMISSIONS OF CFRP AIRCRAFT AND
CONVENTIONAL AIRCRAFT.

2/4

TABLE 4 - PRECONDITIONS
OF CFRP
INin2020*
Table 4 - Preconditionsof AIRCRAFTCFRP aircraft2020 (*)
Carbon fibre used for aircrafts
in2020Carbon fibre used in a CFRP
aircraftNumber of CFRP aircrafts in
2020

3/4

900 tons in Japan
20tons/unit
45 units in Japan* Estimated by three PAN-based Carbon fiber manufacturers in Japan

5.2. Allocation
Table 5 - The avoided CO emissions per aircraft unit (kt-CO /unit)
No allocation was needed in the documented input data.
22

aircraft Conventional

CFRP
5.3. Data sources and data quality
aircraftParts
This
studyduring
usedsecondarydata from “Ordinance ofthe stagesof raw material
CO emissions
Manufacture
0.9
0.7
procurement - manufacture of materials of bodyand Assembly
Ministry
about(kt-CO
the/unit)
about the calculation of thestructure materials
greenhousegasemission
with- the business activity of
CO emissions during
the stageof manufacture
aircraft assembly of body structure parts
3.8
the(kt-CO
specifiedemitter (Japan Ministry of the3.0
Environment)/unit)[5]”, andinformationby(km/kℓ-jet
a Japanese110major airline
The life cycle CO2 emissions of CFRP aircraft and
Fuel “theconsumption
during aviation
103
Figure 2 - Life cycle CO2 emissions of CFRP aircraft and Conventional aircraft.
fuel oil)company
as year of 2007”. These secondary
data
listedConventional aircraft is as follows. (In this case CO2 isDuring Lifetime aviation mileage (miles)
500 miles × 20,000 flightsthetheliteratureof“The
guidelineofthecalculationofalmostall among other GHG elements.)
Lifetime amount of gasoline used (kℓ/unit)
stage
145,500
155,300
of
Avoidedof
CO2duringemission
ofof jetJapan
Chemical Industry
COemissionscombustion
fuelaircraft
2.5[2](kg-CO /ℓ)usage
Association
and Carbon- Life Cycle Analysis (2012) of
CO2 emissions of the entire life cycle is 368kt-CO2/unit
CO emissions during the usage stage390
Japan (kt-CO
ChemicalIndustry Association[3]. 364
in the case of CFRP aircraft, while 395kt-CO2/unit in the/unit·10 years)
CO emissions over the entire life cycle•(kt-COThe
time related coverage of the datacase of conventional aircraft. As a result, CO2 emissions
368is based
395on/unit·10 years)
domestic
data, asyear of 2007.
abatement over the entire life cycle is 27 kt-CO2/unit .
CO Japaneseemission abatement(kt-CO /unit·10
years)! 27• The geographical coverage is basically Japanese
domestic data.
In this case, avoided emissions are mainly influenced in• The technology coverage is based on the statistical
the stage of aircraft usage (i.e. fuel consumption whilevalue of Japan Chemical Industry Association and is“flight” process). Weight reduction of aircraft directly
calculated in conformity to the literature above[2],[3].
leads to improved fuel consumption, thereby contributing
to a reduction in CO2 emissions.
2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3/4

6. Results
6.1. Avoided emissions
The avoided emission in this study is shown in Table 5

CO2 emissions during the stage of raw material
procurement to aircraft assembly
In the CFRP aircraft, CO2 emission during the stage ofraw material procurement and manufacture of body55

structure materials is 0.9kt-CO2/unit, and during thestage of manufacture - aircraft assembly of body structureparts is 3.0kt-CO2/unit.
In the case of conventional aircraft, the former is
0.7kt-CO2/unit, and the latter is the latter is 3.8kt-CO2/
unit, respectively.
CO2 emissions during the stage of aircraft usage
CO2 emissions during the stage of aircraft usage is
364kt-CO2/unit in the case of CFRP aircraft, and390kt-CO2/unit in the case of conventional aircraft.

10. Conclusions

6.2. Scenario analysis
Since assumptions on future conditions can have asignificant impact on avoided CO2 emission calculation, abase case is calculated to assume no future change (i.e.
use of the actual data available). The CO2 emission in2020 is calculated using the data in 2007 listed theliterature[2],[3].No scenario analysis on future developments is performed in this study.

The avoided emissions are 27 kt-CO2/unit over 10 years
as the difference of CO2 emission over an aircraft’s life
cycle. A comparison of the two alternatives demonstrates that the CFRP aircraft has a lower carbon
footprint and reduced CO2 emission. LCCO2 of aircraftis dominated by the use phase of aircraft.

7. Significance of contribution

11. References

The use of Carbon fiber for aircraft results in the weight
reduction and improves fuel efficiency during operation.
The weight lightening by CFRP fundamentally contributes
to fuel efficiency. Nevertheless, the CO2 emission
avoidance efforts and effect calculated at the end-use
level of aircraft are attributed to various partners along thecomplete value chain, and not only to the chemicalindustry.

[1] The Japan Carbon Fibber Manufacturers Association,
Lifecycle Assessment Model, Available from:http://www.carbonfiber.gr.jp/english/tech/lca.html[2] Japan Chemical Industry Association (JCIA), theguideline of the calculation of Avoided of CO2
emission (February 27, 2012).
http://www.nikkakyo.org/upload/3255_4801_price.
pdf (in Japanese)[3] Japan Chemical Industry Association (JCIA), A new
viewpoint for the greenhouse gas reduction - The life
cycle evaluation of the chemical in Japan and theworld - Carbon- Life Cycle Analysis (December,2012).
http://www.nikkakyo.org/upload_files/documents/121225_c-LCA.pdf (in Japanese)[4] “Environmental Life-cycle Assessment of Passenger
Transportation: A Detailed Methodology for Energy,
Greenhouse Gas, and Criteria Pollutant Inventories
of Automobiles, Buses, Light Rail, Heavy Rail andAir”, WORKING PAPER, UCB-ITS-VWP-20082,March 2008[5] Ministry of the Environment, Japan, Ordinance ofMinistry about the about the calculation of thegreenhouse gas emission with the business activityof the specified emitter.
http://www.env.go.jp/council/16pol-ear/y164-03/
mat04.pdf (in Japanese)[6] Koji Yamaguchi, etc, “Effect of replacing automotive
materials on GHG emission” Society of Automotive
Engineers of Japan (JSAE) Paper Number: 20085864,
Oct, 2008 Issued No.100-08 (in Japanese)

8. Review of results
On June 2, 2011, the case study was presented to apanel consisting of four Japanese experts in the field of
LCA. The four experts did not take responsibility for all
elements of an LCA peer review, which is described in
ISO 14044. The review only focused on the methodology
employed to calculate avoided CO2 emission. The
panels understood that the avoided CO2 emission wasachieved by carbon fiber which lightened the weight of
the aircraft.

9. S
 tudy limitations and future
recommendations
This case study shows the avoided CO2 emission byfocusing on the consistence of CFRP material containedin body structure of aircraft. In detail, this study is toassess the avoided CO2 emission comparing with CFRP
aircraft using CFRP by 50% of the body structure andConventional aircraft using CFRP by 3 % of the bodystructure. The avoided CO2 emission is mainly influenced
in the use phase. This means that fuel consumption
while aircraft flying, is affected by the significant change
in the weight of body structure, and fuel efficiency (i.e.

56

the aircraft model). The case study is based on only the
specific condition, and assumptions that were set totypical pattern in Japan, and the limitation of the study
arising from omitting identical processes (i.e. Productionof other parts(Interior, Engine, etc ), maintenance,
disposal, and recycling).And the study does not consider
the increase of fuel efficiency brought by technologicalimprovements until 2020. Consequently the study results
are less realistic and transferable to other conditions andto other regions.

12. Appendices
None

Case 6

Materials for fuelefficient tires

Japan Chemical
Industry Association(JCIA)COMMISSIONER AND PERFORMER OF THE STUDY
The study was commissioned and performed by Japan Chemical
Industry Association (JCIA).

1. Purpose of the study

2. Solutions to compare

The purpose of the study is to calculate and provide thereduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during life
cycle of automobiles in Japan equipped with fuel efficienttires instead of conventional tires. The study focuses on
the chemical products contained in the tire such assynthetic rubber (SBR, styrene-butadiene rubber) andfillers such as carbon black, silica and silane coupling
agents. Hence the study shows and quantifies the
positive contribution that the chemicals formulation andthe specific structure of SBR help the fuel efficient tire
reduce fuel consumption in automobile, which leads toreduce GHG emissions.

2.1. Description of the solutions to compare
The study compares two alternative cars, one is passenger.
Treadcars and trucks/buses equipped with fuel efficienttires andBelt
the other is passenger cars and trucks/buses
equipped
Carcass (ply)with conventional tires by focusing on the cars’ driving
under the traffic condition in Japan. The chemical products
contained in tires are almost same, however SBR withspecific structure and chemical formulation of tires,
especially the silica content are different (see Table 1).

Improvement in automobiles’ fuel consumption has
been enabled by the rolling resistance of the tread
portion (see right graphic). The
Tread
tread portion has lowered theBeltrolling resistance significantly.
Carcass (ply)Chemical products help tire
performance to meet thecompeting goals of reducing fuelconsumption and to enhance road-gripping performance. The improvement of tire performancecomes not only from the entire formulation but also fromthe specificstructureof SBR and the dispersion
position ratio of Chemical
Products in thetires
technology of higher content silica in the rubber. The
SBR with the specific structure produced by solution
Passenger cars
Trucks/buses
polymerization
method, which is a type of synthetic
Conventional
fuel efficient
Conventional fuel efficient
tire
tire
tire
tirephysical properties of the tire andrubber, transforms the
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
reducestheloss of energy
caused by tire friction while
39.0
46.4
77.0
78.8
61.0
53.6 automobile
23.0 is moving.
21.2
anHigher content silica used in
1.0
16.9
1.0
2.8
fuel
efficienttires also
contributes to reduce rolling
50.0
41.3
52.0
47.3
resistancecompatible
with maintaining grip.
8.0
9.6
2.0
1.8
[2]

47.0

50.6

62.0

60.6

This case study focuses on life cycle GHG emissions
and follows the requirements of the document“Guidelines from the Chemical Industry for accounting
and reporting GHG emissions avoided along the value
chain based on comparative studies (guidelines),”developed by ICCA and the Chemical Sector Group of
the WBCSD.

Table 1 - Composition ratio of Chemical Products in the tires [2]TABLE 1 - COMPOSITION RATIO OF CHEMICAL PRODUCTS IN THE TIRES[2]Name of the raw
materials containedin the tire

Passenger cars
Conventional
fuel efficient
tire
tire

Trucks/buses
Conventional fuel efficient
tire
tire

Rubber (Breakdown)

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

・Natural rubber
・Synthetic rubber

39.0
61.0

46.4
53.6

77.0
23.0

78.8
21.2

SilicaCarbon black
Process
Others

Oil

1.0

16.9

1.0

2.8

50.0

41.3

52.0

47.3

8.0

9.6

2.0

1.8

47.0

50.6

62.0

60.6

Note: Mass of rubber is assumed as 100.
Example of Conventional tire for Passenger cars: Rubber 100g, Silica 1g,
Carbon black 50g, Process Oil 8g, Others 47g and Total 206g

2.2. Level in the Value Chain
This study focuses on driving performance of passenger
cars and tracks/buses by comparing results from fuelefficient tires and from conventional tires under setting acertain driving conditions in Japan. Thus, the level in thevalue chain of this study is “the end-use level” in accordancewith the guidelines.
2.3. Definition of the boundaries of the market
and the application
The quantity of fuel efficient tires sold in Japan in 2010 is
17 million and that of conventional tires is 74 million. The
market share for fuel efficient tires in 2010 was 19%[1].The
quantity of fuel efficient tires expected to be sold in Japan in2020 is 78 million and that of conventional tires is 13 million.
The expected market share for fuel efficient tires in 2020 will
be 86%.
1/5

The study forecasts year of 2020, based on technology
data available as of 2012. By using the above data, JCIA
assumed that automobile market in Japan stays flat and thetotal number of fuel efficient tires and conventional tires
remains the same between in 2010 and in 2020.
1/5

57

3. F
 unctional unit and reference flow

4. Boundary setting

3.1. Functional unit
Functional unit is below two types of automobiles whilemoving. Automobiles with fuel efficient tires and those withconventional tires were operated over the same distanceand with the same passenger or freight weight. The
functional unit and service condition in the study is citedfrom “LCCO2 Calculation Guidelines for tires, Ver. 2.0 of theJapan Automobile Tire Manufacturers Association, Inc.”[2].
• Passenger cars to carry the passengers (PCR) with
4 tires• Trucks/buses to carry the passengers/freight (TBR) with
10 tires

The system boundary consists of following three elements
shown in Figure 1.
Production of automobile
This process consists not only of “Productions of tire”, butalso of “Raw material procurement to manufacture ofmaterials other than tire” used for production of
automobile, “Production of parts and assembly otherthan tire”, and “Distribution of parts other than tire”.
Use of automobile
Driving” process of automobile is considered. The service
life is one tire’s duration of life. Therefore maintenance ofautomobile is not included.
Disposal/recycling of automobile
Both “Disposal of tire” and “Disposal/recycling of raw
materials and parts other than tire” are considered.

Above two alternatives considered in the study fulfil thesame function and meet the minimum quality requirements(including regulation and standard) concerning mechanicaland safety properties[3].
Service life is defined below as driving distance[2], based on
one tire’s service life. During the service life, proper airpressure in a tire and tire rotation are maintained daily.
Service life of tires is assumed to be the same between fuelefficient tires and conventional tires.
• The service life of PCR is 30,000km• The service life of TBR is 120,000km
3.2. Reference flow
The actual reference flow is confidential and is not shown in
LCCO2 Calculation Guidelines for tires, Ver. 2.0 of the Japan
Automobile Tire Manufacturers Association, Inc.[2]. The literature
only shows composition ratio of the chemical products
contained in the tire (see Table 1).

PCR and TBR with fuel efficient tires and those of conventional tires are considered to have same process systemboundary. At the “production of tire”, there are differences inthe structure of SBR and composition ratio of chemical
products between fuel efficient tires and conventional tires.

5. Calculation methodology and data
5.1. Methods and formulas used
The study starts with an analysis restricted to GHG as afirst step and uses the simplified calculation method. In
the study, trade-offs to other environmental impacts are
not identified in the screening LCA.

FIGURE 1 - SYSTEM BOUNDARY OF AUTOMOBILES WITH FUEL EFFICIENT TIRES AND WITHCONVENTIONAL TIRES

Use ofautomobile

Production of automobile
Production of automobile other than tire
<A+B+C>
A: Raw materials procurement to manufactureof materials other than tire
B: Production of parts and assembly other than tire
C: Distribution of parts other than tire

Production of tire
Synthetic
rubberRolling
cutting

CarbonBlack
SilicaProcess oil

Rubbercompounding

Disposal/Recycling of
automobile other than tire
<D>
D: Disposal/Recycling of
raw materials andparts other than tire

Driving

ExtrusionrollingNaturalrubber

Disposal of tire
RetreadAssembly
Molding
Vulcanization
Finishing

Rolling
cutting

Organic
rubberchemicals
Non-organic
compounding
agentsFibersSteel cord
Bead wireThis process/material is considered in this analysis.
This process/material is identical fo two alternatives in this analysis.
These parts are excluded from the study.

58

Disposal/Recyclingof automobile

Recycling
EnergyrecoveryIncineration

Landfill

GHG emissions from the ”Production of automobile
other than tire <A+B+C>” and “Disposal/recycling of
automobile other than tire <D>” in Figure 1 are balancedout since these processes are identical for the two alternatives and they do not change the overall conclusion of
the study. The significance of the emissions being
omitted which is the total emissions of identical parts,<A+B+C> and <D> make up 20%[4] of the complete life
emissions for PCR and 8%[5] of the complete life
emissions for TBR. The omitting emission of <A+B+C>
and <D> does not change the overall conclusion of thestudy.
Table 2[2] shows the condition setting to calculate the
GHG emission when tires are equipped with automobiles(PCR and TBR) and the automobiles run under thecertain driving condition.
TABLE 2 - AUTOMOBILES’ OPERATING CONDITIONS IN THE USE
PHASE[2]Table 2 - Automobiles’ operating conditions in the use phase[2]

PCR
Item

Conventionaltire

Fuel consumption
while driving (l/km)*
Service life of tire(km)
Amount of fuel used(l)5.3. Data sources and data quality
The study uses the secondary data from the literature of“LCCO2 Calculation Guidelines for tires, Ver. 2.0 of theJapan Automobile Tire Manufacturers Association,
Inc.”[2].
• The time related coverage of the data is based on
actual consumption of energy and actual production
volume of synthetic rubber from the members ofJapan Automobile Tire Manufacturers Association,
as of year of 2010.
• The geographical coverage is basically Japanese
domestic data.
• The technology coverage is based on the statisticalvalue of Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers
Association and is calculated in conformity to theliterature above[2].

TBR
fuel efficienttire

Conventionaltire

0.09750.25

0.1

Number of tires fitted

5.2. Allocation
Credits for the heat recovery and for recycling in Figure 2
to offset energy and materials in production are appliedin the calculation for each tire type

fuel efficienttire
0.23754

1030,000120,000

3,000

2,925

30,00028,500CO2e emissions
coefficient for fuelVolatile oil (gasoline); 2.81
Diesel; 2.89
[2]
Table
(kg-CO2e/l) 2 - Automobiles’ operating conditions in the use phase

6. Results
6.1. Avoided emissions
The Table 3 shows the avoided emissions for PCR and
TBR with major example of fuel efficient tires and thosewith major example of conventional tires by focusing on
tires.

* The fuel consumption in actual operation is calculated by Japan
Automobile Tire Manufacturers Association
under certain assumptions,
PCR
TBR
such
as an averageConventionalmodel of automobilesreflectingConventional
the driving
Itemfuel withefficientfuel efficient
A,B,C and D, which are CO2e emissions at each phase
PCRjam,tire
TBRso on).[2] Therefore
conditions (i.e. traffic
use of air condition
tireandtire
tireother than tires used in automobiles, are identicalthe fuel consumption does not reflect optimal driving conditions with
Fuel consumption
18%
0.1
0.09750.25
0.2375
between fuel efficient tires and conventional tires. Thus,
regard tofuel 25%
efficiency.
while driving(l/km)*
Service life of tire
(km)

41%

4

Number of tires fitted
75%

10

16%

30,000120,000

they are balanced out in calculating the difference ofemissions at each phase based on the simplified
calculation method.

Figure2 usedshows the disposal/ recycling ratio of used tires
Amountof fuel
3,000
2,925
28,500recoveryIncineration30,000(l) for PCR and
TBR.Incineration
75% of usedEnergy
tiresof
PCR are utilized
Energy recovery
RetreadRecycling25%

CO2e emissions
as heat and 25%of those are incinerated. Regarding
Volatile oil (gasoline); 2.81
Diesel; 2.89
coefficient for fuel(kg-CO
TBR,
2e/l) in addition to utilization of heat and incineration,

retread and materialFigure
recycling
conducted.
2 - End of arelife scenario
FIGURE 2 - END OF LIFE SCENARIO
PCR

TBR
18%

3/5

25%

The results show below that the avoided emissions at
the use phase of automobiles are dominated by the
GHG emissions related to fuel consumption. The impactsof manufacture, production, distribution and disposal/
recycling of automobiles are small. Comparing theresults of the two alternatives demonstrates that the
automobile with fuel efficient tires has a lower carbon
footprint and thus reduces GHG emissions.

41%

16%

75%

Energy recovery

25%

Incineration

Energy recovery

Incineration

RetreadRecycling

Note: In case the simplified calculation method has beenused this should be mentioned explicitly in the report (atthe beginning and Figure
in section
6),ofandthe report require2 - Endlife scenario
ments at page 24 of the guidelines should be taken into
account. http://www.icca-chem.org/ICCADocs/E%2CC%20LG%20guidance_FINAL_07-10-2013.pdf

59
3/5

Table 3 - The avoided CO2e emissions per automobile unit (kg-CO2e/unit)
TABLE 3 - THE AVOIDED CO2e EMISSIONS PER AUTOMOBILE UNIT (KG-CO2e/UNIT)

PCR with 4 tires
TBR with 10 tires
Fuel
Avoided
Fuel
AvoidedConventio
Conventio
Table 3 - The efficient
avoided CO
unit(kg-CO2e/unit)
2e emissions
CO2e per automobile
efficient
CO
2e
phase
nal tiresnal tires
emissionemission
tires
tires
b
b
a
(b-a)
(b-a)
a
Manufacture＊
95.6 + A
100 + A
4.4
1397 + A
1480 + A
83
Production＊
Distribution

Fuel28.0 + B

31.2 + B

3.2

352 + B

356 + B4

6.0 + C

6.4 + C

0.4

101 + C

104 + C3

PCR with 4 tires

AvoidedConventio
Use
8,219
8,430 CO2e 211
efficientphase*
phase
nal tires
emission
tires
disposal/rec
b +D
11.6
8.8
a 2.8 + D(b-a)
ycling＊Entire life
8,351.4+
8,579.2+
Manufacture
227.8
95.6A+B+C+D
+A
100
+A
4.4
cycle
A+B+C+D

TBR with 10 tires

Fuel82,365efficienttires-309 + Da

AvoidedConventio
86,7004,335
CO2e
nal tires
emission-311 +bD-2(b-a)

83,906+88,329+1397 + A A+B+C+D
1480 + A 4,423 83
A+B+C+D＊
Production
28.0
31.2
+ B to manufacture
3.2 of material352 + B*Manufacture A:
From+
rawBmaterial
procurement

356 + B

4

*Production B: From parts production to parts assemblyDistribution
6.02e+C
6.4+ C unit during
0.4
101
+C
*Use phase C: COemissionsperautomobile
the usage phase(kg-CO2e/unit)104 + C

3

Avoided CO2 emission [kg-CO 2 /unit]

Use
8,219
8,430
211
82,36586,7004,335
phase*
Note:
disposal/rec
A: CO2e emissions
thephase of8.8
raw material
e emissions
during2.8 + D during
11.6+D-309 +C:
D CO2-311+D-2 the phase of distribution of
ycling procurement to the manufacture of materials
PCR
other
parts other than tires
Entire thanlife tires8,351.4+
8,579.2+
83,906+228
used in automobiles
D: CO288,329+
e emissions
during211
227.8
4,423 the phase of the disposal/
cycle
A+B+C+D
A+B+C+D
A+B+C+D
A+B+C+D
B: CO2e emissions during the phase of the production
recycling of raw materials and parts other than tires
250.0

200.0

of parts other than tires
150.0

100.0

The case of one PCR unit, equipped with 4 tires• Avoided CO2e emissions
per PCR unit: 228kg-CO2e
4.4
3.2
0.4
• Avoided CO2Manufacture
e emissionsProduction
per one tire:
57.0kg-CO
2eDistribution
In-use
50.0

8.8

0.0

Disposal/recycling

Total

Avoided CO2 emission [kg-CO 2 /unit]

FIGURE 3 - AVOIDED CO2e EMISSIONS PER THE PCR UNIT

Figure 3 - AvoidedPCR
CO2e emissions per the PCR unit
250.0

228

211
200.0

150.0

100.0

4/5

50.0

4.4

3.2

0.4

Manufacture

Production

Distribution

0.0

8.8
In-useDisposal/recycling

Total

The case of TBR unit, equipped with 10 tires• Avoided CO2e emissions per TBR unit: 4,423 kg-CO2e
Figure 3 per- Avoided
2e emissions• Avoided CO2e emissions
one tire:CO
442.3
kg-CO2e per the PCR unit
FIGURE 4 - AVOIDED CO2e EMISSIONS PER THE TBR UNIT

Avoided CO2 emission [kg-CO 2 /unit]

TBR

60

5,000

4,423

4,335

4,000
3,000

4/5

2,000
1,000

83

0

4

3

-2

-1,000

Manufacture

Production

Distribution

In-useDisposal/recycling

Total

Figure 4 - Avoided CO2e emissions per the TBR unit

The quantity of fuel efficient tires sold in Japan in 2010 is
17 million and that of conventional tires is 74.195 million[1].
Accorind to the “Fuji Chimera Research institute“ market
forecast in 2011[1], the fuel efficietn tires market in Japanwas expected to be sold 70 million tires in 2015.
JCIA elicited demand forecast of fuel efficient tires in2020 is 78 million and that of conventional tires is 13.195
million by using the market forecast and by assuming
2% annual growth in Japan.
The breakdown of the fuel efficient tire’s demand in 2020is as follow;• The number of tire for PCR: 73 million tires• The number of tire for TBR: 5 million tires
Total of fuel efficient tire’s demand is 78 million.
Final avoided CO2e emissions are calculated with theone tire’s avoided CO2e emissions brought by Figure 3
and Figure 4 and with the above market forecast in
2020.
The breakdown of the avoided CO2e emissions from fuelefficient tire is as follow;• 57.0 kg-CO2e(One tire for PCR) × 73 million tires =4.16 million t-CO2e• 442.3 kg-CO2e(One tire for TBR) × 5 million tires =2.21 million t-CO2e
Total of avoided CO2e emissions from fuel efficient tires’is 6.37 million t-CO2e.
6.2. Scenario analysis
Assumptions on future conditions could have had asignificant impact on avoided emissions calculation.
Therefore, a base case is calculated to assume no futurechange (i.e. use of latest actual data). The avoided
emissions per automobile unit in 2020 is caluclatedusing the data[2] in 2012. The quantity of the fuel efficienttire expected to be sold in 2020 is based on demand
forecast. No scenario analysis on future developments is
performed in this study.

7. Significance of contribution
The focus product of this study is the chemical products
formulation contained in the tire, such as SBR and fillers
such as carbon black, silica and silan coupling agents. In
addition, the technology by chemical industry, such as
specific structure of SBR and the dispersion of highcontent silica in the rubber contributes to the GHG
emissions avoidance effect as a key solution. The above
chemical substances are parts of key component of tires
that reduce the loss of energy caused by tire friction
while automobiles are driving. Therefore the contributionof the chemical product to the solution is “extensive” inaccordance with the guidelines.
Nevertheless, the GHG emissions avoidance efforts andeffect calculated at the end-use level of automobiles are

attributed to various partners along the complete value
chain, and not only to the chemical industry.

8. Review of results
The study was reviewed by four Japanese experts in thefield of LCA. The review focused on the methodology.
While it did not include all the elements described in ISO
14044, the review did not take exception to the calculations of the GHG emissions. Section 12 Appendices –Results from the critical review shows the detail.

9. S
 tudy limitations and future
recommendations
This case study shows the avoided emissions byfocusing on the chemical products contained in tire. The
avoided emissions are mainly resulted from the usephase of automobiles. This means that fuel consumption
while automobile driving, is heavily influenced by tires’performance, such as rolling resistance and road-gripping performance. The results are also affected by the
car model and driving conditions. The case study isbased on a specific conditions and assumptions thatwere set to demonstrate an average situation in Japan.
The study does not consider the increase of fuel efficiency
brought by technological improvements and does
assume that the fuel efficiency of cars stays stable until
2020. Consequently the study results are less realistic
and transferable to other conditions and to othercountries.

10. Conclusions
This study calculates and provides the reduction in GHG
emissions during life cycle of automobiles in Japanequipped with fuel efficient tires instead of conventionaltires by using the secondary data and simplified
calculation methodology. The main focus of the study
was to demonstrate the contribution of chemical
products and technology in fuel efficient tires to GHG
emissions reduction and a lower carbon footprint. The
result of this analysis is dominated by the use phase of
automobiles driving.

11. References[1] Fuji Chimera Research Institute, Inc.. Current
Situation Concerning Plastic Highly Functional
Materials and Future Outlook in 2011, Fuji Chimera
Research Institute, Inc. Tokyo January 2011[2] Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers Association,
Inc.. LCCO2 Calculation Guidelines for tires, Ver. 2.0of the Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers
Association, Inc. (general incorporated association)

61

Avoided CO2 emission [kg-CO 2 /unit]

April 2012. Available (2014-11-18) from:http://www.jatma.or.jp/environment/pdf/lcco2guideline.pdf (in Japanes)[3] JIS (Japanese Industrial Standards) D4230 Automobile
Tyres[4] MAZDA MOTOR CORPORATION, Environmental
Management, Initiatives in LCA. Available (2014-11TBR
18) from: http://www.mazda.co.jp/csr/environment/
5,000
management/lca_measures.html
4,335
4,000 Motors LTD., Environmental Performance,[5] HINO
3,000
Environmental
Load Reduction Activities Based on
Life2,000
Cycle Assessment (LCA). Available (2014-1119) 1,000
from:
83
4
3
http://www.hino-global.com/csr/environment/0
activity/lca.html-1,0001. With regard to CO2e emissions during the stage ofdisposal/recycling of tires for PCR, the details of the
below figures of emissions from fuel efficient tires andthe ones from conventional tires is expected to
explain.-conventional tires: 2.9 kg CO2e/tire-fuelefficient tires: 0.7 kg CO2e/tire
2. The case study is expected to explain the settings ofthe market size of fuel efficient tires in 2020. It is
4,423 the scenario be described in an
desirable thateasy-to-understand way.

The JCIA response to the above recommendations isfollows;
1. The details of CO2e emissions during the stage of-2
disposal/recycling
were shown by Table 4.
2. Regarding toTotal
market size of fuel efficient tires in 2020,
Manufacture
Production
Distribution
In-useDisposal/recycling
corrections have been made to the explanations
12. Appendicesconcerning the quantity of fuel efficient tires expected
Figure 4 - Avoided CO2e emissions per the
TBR
unit
to be
sold
annually in 2020.
Results from the critical review
The recommendations from the panel to the study arefollows;
Table 4 - GHG emissions and the reduction in emissions
during the stage of disposal/recycling (unit: kgCO2e/ PCR, having 4 tires)

TABLE 4 - GHG EMISSIONS AND THE REDUCTION IN EMISSIONS DURING THE STAGE OF DISPOSAL/RECYCLING(UNIT: KGCO2e/ PCR, HAVING 4 TIRES)

Proportion of recycling
GHG emissions

Reduction in emissions
CO2 emissions during
disposal/recycling phase

Thermal utilization
Except recycling
Transportation for
procurement
Thermal utilization
Simple incineration
Total: A
Thermal utilization :B
A+B

Driving condition in Japan• average of running distance in one month in Japan :450km>>>5400km in a year as of year of 2005
Available (2015-05-20) from:http://www.jama.or.jp/
lib/jamareport/100/03.html Japan Automobile Manufactures Association Inc. JAMA Report No.100• average of running distance at the time of automobile
safety inspection ( the first inspection for 3 years andlater on for two years) for a private car: 10575km asof year of 2004, the report of The Minister of Land,
Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism

5/5

62

Conventional
tyres
75%

Fuel efficient
tyres
75%

25%
1.6

25%
1.6

46.8
15.6
64.0
-52.4

38.4
12.8
52.8
-50.0

11.6

2.8

Case 7

Multilayer Polyethylene
packaging films

SABIC

COMMISSIONER AND PERFORMER OF THE STUDY
The study was commissioned by Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC) and was
performed by Rajesh Mehta, SABIC.

1. Purpose of the study
This study is conducted to provide a case study on “A
Comparative Lifecycle Assessment on Multilayer Polyethylene Packaging Films” in alignment with therequirements of the document “Guidelines from the
Chemical Industry for accounting and reporting GHG
emissions avoided along the value chain based oncomparative studies,” developed by ICCA and theChemical Sector Group of the WBCSD.
The objective of the study is to calculate the reduction
in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during life cycleof a five layered packaging film as compared to theconventional three layered packaging film. This study,
at a chemical product level, compares two multi-layered polyethylene (PE) packaging film solutions of1000 square meter film area each. These films aremarketed and consumed in Europe.
Packaging is required to protect the intended productfrom damage. Companies and consumers are moving
towards sustainable packaging solutions by lower
amounts of raw materials, reducing costs anddeveloping additional packaging functionalities. Incorporating sustainability in packaging materials involves
reducing the amount of material used by decreasing
the wall thickness, changing the design of the
package, using recycled material etc. However such
solutions may not always result in providing a good
protection to the products.
SABIC has developed a recipe for multilayer PE
packaging film, which enhances material properties ofthe film and improves its material effectivenessallowing 22% reduction in film thickness[1-4]. SABIC’s
five layer packaging film matches the three layer
reference film specification with respect to shrink
force, optical and tensile properties but is 22% lighterin weight for equivalent functional unit basis i.e. 1000m2 of film area[1-4]. In this work, we conducted lifecycle
analysis of polyethylene (PE) multilayer packaging film
used for packaging of a set of six bottle beverage
pack, Figure 1.

FIGURE 1 - 1
 (a) MULTILAYER POLYETHYLENE PACKAGING FILM,
1(b) PACKAGING OF PACK OF SIX BEVERAGE BOTTLE
WITH MULTILAYER PE PACKAGING FILM

1(a)

1(b)

Figure 1 - 1(a) Multilayer polyethylene packaging film,
1(b) Packaging of pack of six beverage bottle with multilayer PE
packaging film

2. Solutions to compare

2.1. Description of the solutions to compare
The focus of this study is a comparative cradle to end oflife (EOL)Threelifecycle
film
Conventional
Layer assessment of SABICSABICfiveFivelayer
Layer PE
Packaging Filmcomprisingof 35 microns film thickness
with convenPackaging
Filmtional three layer packaging film comprising of 45 microns
C4 LLDPE + LDPE
+ LDPE
filmmLLDPE
thickness.
This study is conducted for collation+ LDPE
shrink packaging for a set of six beverageHDPE
bottles.
LDPE + HDPE

LDPE + HDPE

Globally, different materials such as paper,
HDPEcorrugated+ LDPE
board and cardboard, plastic, aluminium,
tinplate etc.
C4 LLDPE + LDPE
+ LDPE
aremLLDPE
used
for packaging of products. But for flexible
packagingmarket, plastics packaging constituted more
Total film thickness down from 45 microns to 35 microns (22% downgauging)than 80% of the market share in 2011. Within plastics
flexible packaging market sector, collation shrink film
Figure 2 - Conventional three layer packaging film (45 µm)
application
is a sub-category. The present LCA study isversus SABIC five layer packaging film (35 µm)
conducted specifically on this collation shrink film
application. In 2011, collation shrink film packaging was
31% of the plastics flexible packaging market.
1/7Over the last couple of decades, use of multilayer
concepts in flexible packaging film has increased ascompared to monolayer films. Three-layer flexible
packaging film became commercially available in late
90s and since then, have increased their market sharefor packaging film applications and hence three layer
solution is selected as market incumbent for the PE
packaging film application.

63

The five layer film results in packaging having excellent
sealing properties in combination with excellent
resistance to puncture, tear propagation, creep andexpansion pressures. About 22% reduction in thickness
for the five layer film, as compared to three layer film, isachieved by controlling the amount as well as specification of polyethylene in each of the five layer. Further,versatility of five layers extrusion setup allows the use ofdifferent types of raw materials in an efficient
combination. The total thickness of the film depends on
the packaging size and on the content of the packaging.
For example, the thickness of the five layer film used for
packing diapers may range between 20 and 60
micrometers. Generally thin film is applied for the
package or bag with the lowest content of diapers andthe thickest film is applied for the package with thehighest amount of diapers.
Each packaging1(a)film is made up of three1(b)different polymer
types, namely linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE),
high density polyethylene (HDPE), low density polyethylene (LDPE). Figure 2, shows a layer wise structure of
the two films. mLLDPE (Mettalocine-LLDPE) in threelayer film is replaced by C4-LLDPE (butane-LLDPE) in
five layer film. Figure 3, shows kilograms per functional
unit of different polyethylene types in respective
solutions[2,3].
Figure 1 - 1(a) Multilayer polyethylene packaging film,`
1(b) Packaging of pack of six beverage bottle with multilayer PE

2.3. Definition of the boundaries of the market
and the application
The study compares two alternatives for packaging of aset of six beverage or water bottles that have a capacityof 1.5 litres each and are manufactured and sold in
Europe. The differences between the two alternatives i.e.
the five layer PE film and the conventional three layer film
are considered in this analysis. The focus of this study is afull cradle to end of life (EOL) lifecycle assessment. Use
phase, including transportation, is not considered as it isassumed to be identical for both product systems. Bothsolutions provide same functionality, and the consumers
do not feel any difference. Production of beverage bottles,
beverage, and related transport are out of the systemboundaries and are omitted since they are out of scope.
Energy demand for wrapping of packaging film for aset of six beverage bottles is minor compared to otherunit operations and lifecycle stages. Hence thewrapping process is excluded in this study. Since oneof the aims of the study was to generate credible LCA
results within reasonable time, small errors in lifecycle
footprint calculation resulting due to omission of
wrapping process can be justified. Therefore, during
the goal and scope discussion meetings it was
decided to include most material lifecycle stages andprocesses impacting the lifecycle GHG emissions of
PE packaging film.

packaging film

FIGURE 2 - CONVENTIONAL THREE LAYER PACKAGING FILM (45 μM)
VERSUS SABIC FIVE LAYER PACKAGING FILM (35 μM)

Conventional Three Layer
Packaging Film

SABIC Five Layer PE
Packaging Film
C4 LLDPE + LDPE

mLLDPE + LDPE

HDPE + LDPE
LDPE + HDPE

LDPE + HDPEHDPE + LDPE
C4 LLDPE + LDPE

mLLDPE + LDPE

3. F
 unctional unit and reference
flow

Total film thickness down from 45 microns to 35 microns (22% downgauging)

Figure 2 - Conventional three layer packaging film (45 µm)
versus SABIC five layer packaging film (35 µm)

FIGURE 3 - MASS (KILOGRAMS PER FUNCTIONAL UNIT) OF PE TYPESIN TWO ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS- THREE LAYER FILM AND FIVE
1/7
LAYER FILM

Mass (kilograms per functional unit) of PE types in two alternative solutions
5.2
14.2

7.9

8.7

LLDPE
LDPE

LLDPE
LDPE

HDPE

HDPE

22.5

Use of multilayer PE film in packing six bottles of water packor beverage pack (Figure 1(b)) is specifically considered forthis lifecycle study.

Five Layer Film

Figure 3 - Mass (kilograms per functional unit) of PE types
2.2. inLevel
in the Value Chain
two alternative solutions- three layer film and five layer film
This study focuses on chemical product level andmeasure the reduction in emissions generated by fivelayer packaging film as compared to conventional three
Table 1 - Reference flows per functional unit (1000 m )layer packaging film.
2

Polyolefin Type

LDPE

3.1. Functional unit
Function
Primary role of packaging is to prevent the product fromgetting damaged during transporting, storing, handling,
shelving, preservation, opening and usage in to account.
In this study, multilayer PE packaging films is considered
for applications such as six bottles water packs, beercans pack, beverage collation shrink film.

16.1

Three Layer Film64

The quantity of polymer grades sold by SABIC in Europe
in 2012 for multilayer PE packaging film application is
confidential and not reported. Therefore, for calculating
total avoided emissions potential of five layer solution,
present study relied on estimated volumes of collation
shrink film application for European market. AMI consulting
indicates that the specific application of collation shrink inEurope represented 0.95546 million tons in 2012.[5]Reporting company’s solution

Solution to compare to

Five Layer collation Shrink Film
(35 microns)

Three Layer Collation Shrink Film
(45 microns)

kg/functional unit

kg/functional unit
7.9

14.2

Functional unit of the product
The functional unit for this study is 1000 square meters ofmultilayer PE collation shrink packaging film for packaging
of set of six beverage bottles of 1.5 litres each.

The functional unit has been selected taking into accountthe fact that the intended use and performance of boththe multilayer films are identical.
Quality Requirements
The two alternative solutions considered in the study
have different film thicknesses, 45 microns and 35
microns thickness respectively, yet both fulfil the samefunction, protecting and transporting of a set of six
beverage bottles of 1.5 litres each. The two packaging
films have same key product properties namely puncture
and tear propagation resistance, optical properties, andshrink force.
Service Life
The service life of the packaging film is set by the expiry
date of the product packed, considering the fact that the
product was not opened. Service life of these films
comprise of beverage pack at manufacturing site,transport of the packaged product to retailers, storage,
and sale of final product. Service life of packaging film issame for SABIC’s five layer solution and conventional
three layer solution. Both films are produced, marketed
and consumed in Europe. Reference year for comparison
is year 2012.

4. Boundary setting
Figure 4 shows the entire life cycle of multilayer PE
packaging film. The system boundary consists offollowing four elements 1. Production of Polyethylene:
This process consists not only of production of polyethylene from ethylene, but also production of all
upstream raw materials and transportation or distribution of raw material from cradle to polyethylene
manufacturer gate. The PE packaging film is madeup of 100% virgin polyethylene grades.
2. Processing:Blown Film Extrusion process is considered.
3. Distribution:
Standard transportation distances are assumed forthis step. Distribution of polymer grades to convertersites is considered. Transportation distance between
the film producer, i.e. converter, and beverage manufacturer is excluded since the film will be produced in
the local market, within a 250 km radius.
4. Disposal/recycling of PE packaging film:
Landfill and incineration of PE packaging film andrecycling of PE packaging film are considered. For
the amount of PE material that is recycled into second
life, 50:50 allocation method is used for sharing ofproduction and recycling burdens between first andsecond life.

3.2. Reference flow
Table 1 shows the reference flow, which is the amount of
product necessary per functional unit for each productsystem. The reference flow is mass of each polyolefin
The product system includes the following life cycle
type, grade, required per 1000 m2 of packaging film. As
Mass (kilograms per functional unit) of PE types in two alternative solutions
stages:mentioned in earlier, thickness of the three layer film is•8.7Raw material
extraction
45 microns 5.2
where as that of SABIC’s five layer film is
7.9
LLDPE
LLDPE
• Material processing
35 microns.
14.2
LDPE
LDPE
• Product manufacturing
HDPE• Final Disposal/ HDPE
End of Life (EOL)
22.5

16.1

Use phase of the film is outside the system boundary.
Five Layer Film
Use phase of the film comprises of beverage packaging
at manufacturing site, transport of the packaged productto retailers, storage, sale, and finally consumption of
packaged product.

Three Layer Film

Figure 3 - Mass (kilograms per functional unit) of PE types
in two alternative solutions- three layer film and five layer film

Packaging of six bottles pack with five layer film andthose of conventional three layer film are considered tohave same process of production, use, disposal, andrecycling. There are differences in the film thicknesses
Table 1 - Reference flows per functional unit
(1000m2) of the two films, Table 1.
andstructure

TABLE 1 - REFERENCE FLOWS PER FUNCTIONAL UNIT (1000 M2)

Polyolefin Type

Reporting company’s solution

Solution to compare to

Five Layer collation Shrink Film
(35 microns)

Three Layer Collation Shrink Film
(45 microns)

kg/functional unit

kg/functional unit

LDPE

7.9

14.2

LLDPE

16.1

22.5

HDPE

8.7

5.2

Total

32.7

41.9

65

FIGURE 4 - SYSTEM BOUNDARY FOR MULTILAYER PACKAGING FILM LIFECYCLE

System Boundary
Processing
Blown Film Extrusion(Europe)

Production of Polyethylene (Europe)
LDPE

Crude Oil

NaphthaMultilayer
Packaging Film

LLDPE

Ethylene

HDPE

environmental loads of the raw material
acquisition/disposal/recycling are sharedequally between the 1st and 2nd life
35%
Landfill

Disposal

33%
Incineration

32%
Recycling
27.1%

Avoided Electricity

Yield=84.7%

Avoided Virgin Material

4.9%
Landfill

50 : 50 Allocation Approach for Recycling
EU 2010 recycling rates for plastics packaging. Source EOL Statistics : PlasticsEurope Report “Plastics- the Facts 2011”

Figure 4 - System Boundary for Multilayer Packaging Film Lifecycle
5. Calculation
methodology and data of recycled HDPE pellet were used and adapted for5.1. Methods and formulas used
This study is conducted in accordance with guidelines
from the Chemical Industry for accounting and reporting
GHG emissions avoided along the value chain based oncomparative studies, developed by ICCA and theChemical Sector Group of the WBCSD.
To clearly differentiate GHG avoidance resulting from thepresent innovation, this study assumes that there is nodifference in manufacturing of virgin HDPE, LDPE,
LLDPE that is used in five layer as well as the film threelayer film. Therefore, the study uses industry averagedataset to model production of virgin plastics in Europe
i.e Ecoprofilies from PlasticsEurope.[6-8] Comparison ofdifference in SABIC product and supply chain footprint,
cradle to gate, versus industry average footprint is out of
scope of the study. The comparison is at chemical
product level innovation by developing a better recipe toachieve 22% thinner films with same type of polymer
types.
All the background data were selected from the Ecoinvent
version 2 dataset available in SimaPro version
7.3.3.[83/7

14,16]For the two product systems compared, it is assumed
that there is no major difference in specific energy
consumption for blown film extrusion process due tochange in number of layers, material or grades. Justification for this assumption is that all of the grades considered
are PE types and are co-extruded.
For recycling processes, lifecycle inventory dataset fromFranklin associates for collection, sorting and production

66

Europe geography[17]. Data reported on mass, energy,
fuel consumption, transportation type and distance wasused to build recycled HDPE model in SimaPro 7.3.3.
Adaptation of the recycling processes from US
geography to Europe geography was done by using
Europe specific Ecoinvent background datasets. Major
assumptions applied for this adaptation is that collection,sorting, production of recycled HDPE processes are
similar in two geographies.
5.2. Allocation
Some amount of postconsumer multilayer PE film isrecycled into second life and used for replacing virgin PE
in other low end applications. For the amount of PE filmthat is recycled back into second life, 50:50 allocation
method is used for allocating virgin material production
burden and recycling burdens between first and second
lives. This rule is commonly accepted as a “fair” split
between two coupled systems.
Every one kg of recycled plastic does not replace
equivalent amount of virgin plastic due to material losses
in the recycling process and inferior material propertiesof recycled plastic. Reported data from Franklin
Associates on recycling yield, 84.7%, was used.
As material properties of recycled plastic are inferior tovirgin plastic, a higher amount of recycled plastic is
required to replace virgin plastic to meet the same functionality.[18,19] This study uses data reported by UK’s
Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP) in its
LCA study on milk packaging systems.[19] According to
the WRAP report, for an open loop recycling, 1 kg ofrecycled HDPE replaces 0.825 kg virgin HDPE due tomaterial property requirements. Therefore, after taking

into account recycling yield and material property
differences every 1 kg recycled plastic film will only
replace 0.6988 kg of virgin PE. In 50:50 allocation
approach, for the amount of PE recycled into second
life, this translates into 65.06% virgin PE footprint taken
up by first life and only 34.94% of virgin PE material
footprint taken up by recycled PE.
Four different allocation approaches to recycling wereapplied to study the effect of allocation approach on
packaging film’s first life absolute footprint. For all
allocation approaches, same recycling yield and material
property degradation relationship between recycled andvirgin PE is used. Results on sensitivity analysis areshown in section 7.
5.3. Data sources and data quality
PlasticsEurope’s Eco-profiles datasets on LDPE, HDPE,LLDPE resins are used to calculate cradle to gate
footprint of respective polymer resins[6-8]. Eco-profile
datasets from PlasticsEurope are industry averagedatasets of European plastics manufacturers.
For blown film extrusion, Ecoinvent datasets is used.
Comparison of energy consumption of blown film
extrusion process was done with energy consumption
data reported in other literature sources.[20,21] Average
electricity consumption of film extrusion processreported by Ecoinvent is 0.66 kwh/kg of plastic film,
which is consistent with data reported in reference[20]but 50% lower than industry average data reported inreference [21]. Ecoinvent film extrusion dataset wasconsidered to be more representative as it had
generated entire input and output data set for film
extrusion after a comparison with APME and BUWAL
reported input-output data.[9] Reference [21] reported
high variance in energy consumption data due to ageof machinery, utilization rates and other factors. SABIC
product development and marketing experts also
confirmed representativeness of Ecoinvent data basedon their experience. It must be noted that it difficult to
get primary data from individual converters due toconfidentiality reasons. Having access to energy andbill of material data of blown film extrusion processprovides direct access to converter’s cost model, which
is business sensitive information.
Further, Ecoinvent datasets on transportation, landfill,incineration and end of life scenario are used. [9-14] PlasticsEurope end of life statistics for Europe geography isused.[15] Primary data from SABIC‘s product development
trials conducted in year 2011, has been used for the film
design. Table 2, lists type of datasets used for building
lifecycle stage or unit operation model. Information on
temporal, geographical and technological coverage ofdatasets used is also provided.

Table 2 - Lifecycle Inventory Datasets
TABLE 2 - LIFECYCLE INVENTORY DATASETS

Lifecycle Stage orUnit Operation

Temporal Information

GeographicalCoverageTechnological
CoverageType of Dataset
Used

Reference

Resin ProductionVirgin HDPE resin

European industry averagedata of the year 1999-2001.

Based onEuropean average
production ( 24
production sites)

The most
representative
Technologies

Industry average data

Ecoinvent life cycle inventory adaptedfrom PlasticsEurope Eco-profiles.
Ecoinvent Report # 11

Resin ProductionVirgin LDPE resin

European industry averagedata of the year 1999-2001.

Based onEuropean average
production ( 27
production sites)

The most
representative
Technologies

Industry average data

Ecoinvent life cycle inventory adaptedfrom PlasticsEurope Eco-profiles.
Ecoinvent Report # 11

Resin ProductionVirgin LLDPE resin

European industry averagedata of the year 1999-2011.

Based onEuropean average
production ( 8production sites)

The most
representative
Technologies

Industry average data

Ecoinvent life cycle inventory adaptedfrom PlasticsEurope Eco-profiles.
Ecoinvent Report # 11

Transportresin to converter

2000

European average

Road transport European fleet
average – Truck

Industry average data,
Lorry > 16 t

Ecoinvent Report 14_Transport,
Ecoinvent V2.0 (2007)

Film Extrusion Process

1993-1997

European averagereported by
EcoinventThe most
representative
Technologies

Industry average data
(Literature)

Reported Ecoinvent LCI dataset on
blown film extrusion used.
Ecoinvent Report 11_II_Plastics

Multilayer film
recipe/thickness

2011

European

Product Specific

Actual Data

SABIC Recipe and SABIC reported
material property data for PE grades
used.

Use Phase

Excluded

NA

NA

NA

NA

TransportEnd of Life

2000

European average

Road transport
European fleet
average – Truck

Industry average data

Ecoinvent Report 14_Transport,
Ecoinvent V2.0 (2007)

End of LifeManagement

2011

EU-27 2010
recycling rates forplastics packaging

2011 European
Scenario

EU-27 average

PlasticsEurope Report “Plastics- theFacts 2011”

End of Life ModelsLandfill, Incineration

2000

European average

The most
representative
Technologies

Literature

Ecoinvent Report #13_I_Waste_treatment_General_V2.1
Ecoinvent Report
13_II_Waste_Incineration_V2.1
Ecoinvent Report 13_III_Landfills_V2.1

Recycled PE LCI

2011

US industry
average adapted
for European
geography

The most
representativetechnologies

Industry average data

Adapted from Franklin Associates LCI
on recycled HDPE. All unit process
datasets were adapted for Europe andEuropean background datasets were
used

67

6. Results
6.1. Avoided emissions
The main results for five layer PE film and three layer PE
film for packaging of set of six beverage bottles areshown in Table 3.
Table 4 - The avoided CO2e emissions per 1000 m2 of packaging film(kg
CO2e/1000 m2 of film)
TABLE 3 - THE AVOIDED CO
2e EMISSIONS PER 1000 M2 OF PACKAGING FILM (KG CO2e/1000 M2 OF FILM)

Emissions per life cycle phase(CO 2e)Reporting company’s solution

Solution to compare to

Avoided Emissions

Five Layer collation Shrink Film
(35 microns)

Three Layer Collation Shrink Film
(45 microns)

kg CO2 eq./functional
unit

Production of Polyethylene

66

Processing- "Blown Film Extrusion"

18

Distribution

1

Use phase
End of Life
Entire Lifecycle-

Table 4 - The avoided CO2e emissions per 1000 m2 of packaging film
85
19(kg CO2e/1000 m2 of film)
22

60

0

Emissions per life cycle phase(CO 2e)

-

145

4

1

Production of Polyethylene

78

Reporting company’s solution

Solution to compare to

Avoided Emissions

Five Layer collation Shrink Film
(35 microns)

Three Layer Collation Shrink Film
(45 microns)

kg CO2 eq./functional
unit

18

Processing- "Blown Film Extrusion"
185

66

85

19

40 18

22

4

1

1

0

Distribution
Use phase--

End of Life
Entire Lifecycle

78

18

185

40

FIGURE 5 - LIFECYCLE GHG EMISSIONS OF FIVE LAYER PE PACKAGING
FILM, AND CONVENTIONAL THREE LAYER PACKAGING FILM
200

GHG Emissions, kg CO2 eq. perfunctional unit

GHG Emissions, kg CO2 eq. perfunctional unit

The avoided emissions are calculated as the difference
between thelife cycle GHG emissions of five layer PE
200film and those with conventional three layer PE film.

60
145

Solution tocompare to
The results show that the avoided
emissionsper150
packaging film are dominated by the GHG emissions
Reporting company’s
related to production of polyethylene,end of solution
life
disposal, and blown film extrusion process. The impact
100is small. Comparing the results of the twoof distribution
alternatives demonstrates that five layer PE packaging
film has a 22% lower carbon footprint and thus reduces
GHG emissions.
50

150

Solution to compare toReporting company’s solution

100

50

0
Production of Processing-Distribution

Use phase

End of Life

EntireFive Layer Film Avoided Emissions Case
Polyethylene "Blown Film
Lifecycle
Extrusion"• Avoided CO
0 2e emissions per functional unit:
40 kg-CO2e/functional
Production ofunit
Processing- Distribution Use phase
End of Life
EntirePolyethylene"Blown• Quantity of polymer
gradessoldFilm
by SABIC in Europe
As mentioned Lifecycle
in section 5.2, sensitivity studies were
Extrusion"
Figure 5 - Lifecycle GHG emissions of five layer PE packaging film, andin 2012 for multilayer PE packaging film application
carried outconventional
to understand
impact of different allocation
three layer packaging film.
is confidential and not reported. Therefore, total
approaches to recycling on packaging film’s first life
avoided emissions potential of five layer solution,
absolute footprint. The four studied allocation approaches
was arrived using estimated volumes of collation
are namely cut-off, 50:50 allocation, open loop recycling
5 - Lifecycle
emissionsof fivelayer PE andpackaging
and allocation approach.
shrinkFigure
film application
forGHG
Europeanmarket.
Hence,
avoidedfilm,
burdenconventional
three
layer
packagingfilm.
total avoided CO2e emissions potential for European
collation shrink film market, 0.95546 million tons in
Cradle to EOL lifecycle impacts were smallest when
2012, is calculated to be 1.168 million tons CO2e.
avoided burden allocation approach was applied,followed by 50/50 and open loop. Cut off approach
Figure 5, shows comparison of lifecycle GHG emissions
showed highest environmental footprint for PE packaging
for SABIC five layer PE film versus conventional
threefilm. Table 4 shows results from the sensitivity studies.
5/7
layer PE film for the studied application. Clearly, five
Although type of allocation approach used, impacted
layer film has better environmental performance
total avoided emissions, overall conclusion of the study
compared to three layer film in all lifecycle stages. It
does not change.
must be noted that use phase is outside systemboundary in the present study.
5/7

68

Table 3 - Comparison of Recycling Allocation Approaches
TABLE 4 - COMPARISON OF RECYCLING ALLOCATION APPROACHES

Reporting company’s solution

Solution to compare to

Avoided Emissions

Five Layer collation Shrink Film
(35 microns)

Three Layer Collation Shrink Film
(45 microns)

kg CO2 eq./functional
unit

Cut-Off Approach

153

196

43

50:50 Allocation

145

185

40

Open Loop Allocation

152

195

42

Avoided Burden

136

174

38

Allocation Approach Used

Further, sensitivity studies were also performed to measure
6.2. Scenario analysis
effect of higher
recycling
rates;
increasein
10%
recycling
No scenario analysis on future developments isTable 4 - Seven
Environmental
Impact Categories that are studied
Table 3 - Comparisonof Recycling
Allocation Approaches
rate reduced the lifecycle GHG emissions by 4.4%.
performed in this study.
In the goal and scope of the studied it was decided toevaluate seven Impact
environmental
impact Unit
categories to
7. Significanceof contribution
category
Impact Assessment
Methodensure thatno trade-offs orkg negativeenviron- IPCC 2007 GWP 100a
Globalthere
warmingare(GWP100)
CO2 eqmental impacts in any of the impact categories. Table 5
The chemical products addressed in this study, namely
Terrestrial
acidification
kg SO2andeq respective
below lists
all studied
impact categories
different types of polyethylene grades, make fundamental
impact assessment methods that are used.
contribution to reduced GHG emissions. Innovation in
Freshwater eutrophication
kg P eq
this specific case is realized by product design based on
TABLETable
5 - SEVENENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
CATEGORIESTHAT ARE ReCiPerightcombination of polymer resins and number of layers
4 - Seven
Environmental Impact
Categories
that are studied
Midpoint (H) V1.05
STUDIED Marine eutrophication
kg N eq/ World
ReCiPeH new enhanced resins. The substances areratherthan
key components of PE packaging film that reduce
Particulate
kg PM10eq Method
Impactcategorymatter formation
Unit
ImpactAssessment
material use in packaging application.
Reporting company’s solution

Solution to compare to

Avoided Emissions

Five Layer collation Shrink Film
(35 microns)

Three Layer Collation Shrink Film
(45 microns)

kg CO2 eq./functional
unit

Cut-Off Approach

153

196

43

50:50 Allocation

145

185

40

Open Loop Allocation

152

195

42

Avoided Burden

136

174

38

Allocation Approach Used

Global warming (GWP100)

kg CO2 eq

Terrestrial acidification
formation

kg SO2 eq

IPCC 2007 GWP 100a

Photochemical ozone

kg NMVOC eq

Cumulative Energy Demand
Freshwater eutrophication
kg P eq

MJ surplus

Marine eutrophication

kg N eq

ReCiPe Midpoint (H) V1.05/ World ReCiPe H

Particulate matter formationkg PM10 eq

Photochemical ozone
formation

kg NMVOC eq

Cumulative Energy Demand

MJ surplus

The calculated avoided emissions are not attributed tovalue
Cumulativeindividual
Energy Demand
V1.08chain partners.

Cumulative Energy Demand V1.08

On a lifecycle comparison basis, it was observed that
SABIC five layer film has lower environmental impacts forall studied impact categories compared to three layer
film. Depending on impact category, environmental
6/7
performance of SABIC five layer film was 20-24%
better.
FIGURE 6 - COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF ALL STUDIED
6/7
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CATEGORIES(AS A PERCENTAGE)

Global warming
Potential (GWP 100a)

100
80

Cumulative Energy
DemandTerrestrial
Acidification

60
40
20
0

Photochemical Ozone
FormationFreshwater
Eutrophication

Particulate Matter
Formation

Marine Eutrophication

Solution to compare toReporting company’s solution

8. Review of results
In September 2013, the study was presented to in IndianLife Cycle Management conference.[22] The scientificcommittee reviewed the abstract and presentation,
however conference scientific committee review does
not fall under an LCA peer review, which is described in
ISO14044.[23,24] The review only focused on themethodology employed to conduct comparative lifecycle
assessment.

9. S
 tudy limitations and future
recommendations
Total avoided emissions for collation shrink film application
is mainly influenced by the type of application andresulting reduction in film thickness for studied application.
SABIC PE grades for five layer collation shrink film
application are supplied for other packaging applications
namely diaper compression packaging, and packaging
of insulation materials, rockwool, foams, textile articles
and waste. Actual reduction in film thickness achieved forspecific application may be different compared to
packaging of set of beverage pack.
Another limitation of the study is assumptions aroundrecycling. In general, packaging films are difficult torecycle due to their large volume to mass ratio and lack

Figure 6 - Comparative assessment of all studied environmental impact categories(as a percentage)69

of recycling infrastructure. This study assumes that
Europe recycling statistics on plastics packaging isvalid for multilayer packaging films. However, overall
conclusion that SABIC five multilayer film result in 22%
reduction in GHG emissions compared to conventional
three layer film does not change. This was validated
through sensitivity study assuming 50% landfill and
50% incineration scenario for EOL.
The study compares chemical product level innovation
having a better recipe to achieve 22% thinner films withsame type of polymer types. Therefore, comparison ofdifference in SABIC cradle to gate supply chain footprint
versus industry average footprint is out of scope of thestudy. Use of industry average data is the third limitationof the study considering the fact that there aredifferences in production processes, transportation,and upstream supply chain of individual chemical
manufacturers of LDPE, HDPE, and LLDPE. Inclusionof specific supply chain data will eliminate this limitation,and help improve the study further.
Another limitation of the study is use of old LCI datasetsin the absence of non-availability of latest LCI data.
Considering that chemical industry and its value chain
continuously strives for improving its energy efficiency,
reducing waste, and optimizing supply chain, it isexpected that use of slightly older LCI datasets will
result in minor over estimation of GHG footprint andavoided emissions.

10. Conclusions
Results from the study show that 22% reduction in film
thickness of the packaging film results in close to 22%
reduction in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions. Every
1000 m2 of five layer PE film result in 40 kg of avoided
GHG emissions compared to conventional three layer
film (50/50 Allocation Approach). We concluded that
increase in material effectiveness through productinnovations has a linear impact in reduction of environmental footprint of this specific PE packaging film case.

11. References[1] WIPO International Patent # WO 2010/046098 A1,“Multilayer Film”, Alberto Ronzani, 29 April 2010.
[2] http://www.plastemart.com/upload/Literature/
Shrink-films-collation-thin-films-european-market.
asp[3] http://www.sabic.com/europe/en/news-andmedia/news/2013/20131015---Next-generationsustainable-multi-layer-film-solutions-from-Sabic[4] http://www.sabic.com/europe/en/news-andmedia/news/2010/20101027---SABIC-s-smartconcept-in-multi-layer-film-packaging-raises-thelevels-of-performance70[5] AMI consulting report, Stretch & Shrink Film 2012.
[6] Eco-profiles of the European Plastics Industry,“HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE (HDPE)”, A
report by I Boustead For PlasticsEurope, 2005.
[7] Eco-profiles of the European Plastics Industry,“LOW DENSITY POLYETHYLENE (LDPE)”, A reportby I Boustead For PlasticsEurope, 2005.
[8] PlasticsEurope (May 2009) Eco-profiles & Environmental Declarations _ Methodology, PCR & Protocol, Belgium; Brussels.
[9] Ecoinvent Report# 11_II_Plastics[10] Ecoinvent Report# 01_OverviewAndMethodology[11] Ecoinvent Report 13_I_Waste_treatment_General_
V2.1[12] Ecoinvent Report 13_II_Waste_Incineration_V2.1[13] Ecoinvent Report 13_III_Landfills_V2.1[14] Ecoinvent Report 14_Transport[15] PlasticsEurope Report “Plastics - the Facts 2011:
An analysis of European plastics production,
demand and recovery for 2010”, 2011.
[16] SimaPro 7.3.3, http://www.pre-sustainability.com/
simapro-lca-software[17] Franklin Associates Final Report “Life cycle inventoryof 100% postconsumer HDPE and PET recycledresin from postconsumer containers andpackaging”, April 2010.
[18] WRAP Final Report “Life cycle assessment of
example packaging systems for milk”, Jan 2010.
[19] WRATE tool http://www.wrate.co.uk/[20] http://www.ptonline.com/articles/whats-your-process-energy-fingerprint[21] Reduced Energy Consumption in Plastics
Engineering 2005 European Benchmarking Surveyof Energy Consumption and Adoption of Best
Practice, ‘Analysis of a survey of the European
plastics processing industry conducted from April
to September 2005’.
[22] R. Mehta, G. Coun, M. Heijden V. Der, and PS
Sreenivasan: A comparative LCA on multilayer PE
packaging films, ILCM 2013, 26-27 Sept. 2013,
Bangalore.
[23] ISO 14040:2006 “Environmental management —Life cycle assessment — Principles and framework”.
[24] ISO 14044:2006 “Environmental management —Life cycle assessment — Requirements andguidelines”.

Case 8Engineering plastics
for vehicle light-weighting

SolvayCOMMISSIONER AND PERFORMER OF THE STUDY
The study has been commissioned by Solvay Engineering Plastics and has been
performed by Solvay Research & Innovation (Jean-François VIOT).

1. Purpose of the study
The objective of the study is to illustrate the potential oflight-weight car parts in designing increasingly fuel-efficient cars in all car segments (small and medium size,
large cars). The study focusses on a particular car model
for which a car part made of engineered plastics has
been designed and adopted by the car manufacturer forthis specific model.
The study demonstrates the contribution of a single
small car part, by calculating the reduction in greenhousegas (GHG) emissions resulting from the use of anengineering plastic (Solvay’s Technyl® A 218 V50 BLACK
21 N, named Technyl® in the report) instead of aluminium
alloy (Al Si9 Cu3) as material for an automotive part: an
Engine Mount Housing (see Figure 1) that provides thesame service, during the same life span. The study
encompasses the full life cycle of the two versions of thatpart, considering of course in particular their contributions to the automotive fuel consumption during its
usage phase.
This study therefore consists of a comparison of GHG
emissions occurring during the various life cycle steps:• production of materials,• manufacturing of the car part,• use-phase of the car part,• end of life of the car part,for both solutions for the car part.
FIGURE 1 - VIEW OF THE ENGINE MOUNT HOUSING, A CONNECTINGPART BETWEEN THE ENGINE AND THE VEHICLE STRUCTURE, IN ITSAPPLICATION SURROUNDING (FROM [6])This study is conducted in alignment with the requirements of the “Guidelines from the Chemical Industry foraccounting and reporting GHG emissions avoided along
the value chain based on comparative studies”,
developed by the Chemical Sector Group of the WBCSD
and ICCA.
The general context of this study is the reduction of fuelconsumption and related CO2 emissions for vehicles,
and more particularly for passenger cars. Indeed, environmental regulations on vehicle emissions pushautomotive manufacturers to design and produce
vehicles that consume less fuel while maintaining
performance. To achieve this, the potential levers
available to car manufacturers and their suppliers are
manifold. One of these levers is vehicle weight reduction.
Progresses made in the combined fields of material
performance and car parts design allow increasing
access to lighter elements for identical functions, both interms of initial performance and in terms of maintaining
these performance during the lifetime of the vehicle.
For years now, replacing metal parts by engineering
plastics has continuously increased, conquering car
parts with high level specifications, such as “under thehood” elements.
Amongst recent successes is the “Engine Mount
Housing” made of Technyl® instead of aluminium alloy,
for a range of small and medium size cars.
This study reports the case example of Engine Mount
Housings for a specific small-medium size car model(see characteristics below). For this new car, the Engine
Mount Housing is made of Technyl®, instead ofaluminium alloy. It is already known [6] that such a new
design reduces the weight of the part by 30% ascompared to the more traditional aluminium alloy part,substituted for this new model in order to reach theobjectives of light-weighting. This study however
endeavours to take all life cycle stages, not just the usephase, into account. To be noted that there is no environmental trade-off (other environmental negative
effects that would impact the value of the solution)
related to the low-carbon solution.
This study of a particular small car part also illustrates
the past and future further weight gains achievable for ae 1 - view of the Engine Mount Housing, a connecting part between theine and the vehicle structure, in its application surrounding (from [6])71

broad range of under-the-hood car parts, especially alsoin larger cars, where an even broader range of parts canstill be further lightened (for example: weight reduction
can go up to 40% in case of larger Engine Mount
Housings equipping larger cars).

considered as an example (Engine Mount Housing). CO2
emissions are compared between the 2 solutions(Technyl® or aluminum alloy) during each life cycle step.
In the usage step, the contribution of the part to thevehicle fuel consumption is considered through its
contribution to the vehicle weight.

2. Solutions to compare

Definition of boundaries of the market and theapplication
Annual production of the considered car, equipped withTechnyl®-based Engine Mount Housing, represents
280000 vechicle in 2014. It is produced in Europe.
The Engine Mount Housings are also manufactured inEurope.
• Aluminium alloy Al Si9 Cu3 is considered to be
produced in Europe.
• Technyl® A218 V50 Black 21N is produced in Europe
by Solvay.

2.1. Description of the solutions to compare
In line with the previous paragraph, the two versions of
the Engine Mount Housing are defined as follows:
Version 1 (solution to compare, used in similar car
models):Material: Aluminium alloy Al Si9 Cu3,
Weight: 400 grams (corresponding to a weight gain of
30% between the two versions) manufactured
by die casting,
Version 2 (solution of reporting company, equipping
the new Peugeot 208):
Material: Technyl® A 218 V 50: a polyamide 6.6
compound (reinforced with 50% glass fibers) + metals
inserts (steel: 11SMnPb30)
Weight: 280 grams:- 236 grams Technyl® A 218 V50- 44 grams steel 11SMnPb30
manufactured by injection molding,

3. F unctional unit and referenceflow

3.1. Functional unit
The function of an Engine Mount Housing is to ensure apoint of attachment between the engine/gearbox set
and the car body. There are three such points ofattachment in this car (see Figure 1, parts highlighted inblue), different in shape and design. The Engine Mount
Housing studied here is the one located at the upper
Figure 1 - view of the Engine Mount Housing, a connecting part between the
FIGURE 2 - ILLUSTRATION OF THE TWO VERSIONS OF THE STUDIED
side of the engine. The other two are located:engine and the vehicle structure, in its application surrounding (from [6])ENGINE MOUNT (ONLY PARTS INDICATED BY THE RED ARROWS ARE• One at the upper side of the gearbox,
CONSIDERED)• One at the lower side of the engine (essentially
supporting the torque when the engine is running.
Both versions of the studied Engine Mount Housing
bring exactly the same function. The Engine Mount
Housing service life is equal, in both versions, to theservice life of the car: Under regular operation, there isno need for replacement during the car life. All computations in the car industry are based on a life span of
150 000 km, for small cars. This value is thus adopted
in this study.
The functional unit of the Engine Mount Housing is thus
defined as:
Quantifying projections of the respective market sharesof the 2 versions is most difficult, since substitution of
To ensure one attachment point between themetal by plastics for that car part is an ongoing process,
Table 1 – Chemical composition of grade ENAC AISi9Cu(Fe) (ENAC 46000)
engine/gearbox set and the vehicle structure in awhich depends on car brands and even models withinsmall-medium size car, throughout the vehicle’s
each brand. Parameters such as car size and motorizalifetime (150 000 km).
tion are essential and a relevant overall picture is today
impossible to be drawn. However the trend is clearly
Car characteristics are:towards significantly more plastic engine mount housingsin the future for the sake of light-weighting, in many car• Empty weight: 975 kg
models, thus with significant and growing market shares.
• Fuel (gasoline) consumption in mixed cycle
1/5(NEDC): 4,5 litres/100 km
2.2. Level in the Value Chain
This study is conducted at the end-use level. It
No reuse of the part is considered since most unlikely
encompasses the entire life cycle of the automotive partto occur.
Figure 2 - Illustration of the two versions of the studied Engine Mount(only parts indicated by the red arrows are considered)72

3.2. Reference flow
The reference flow is the mass of product necessary to
manufacture one Engine Mount Housing:• 400g for version 1;• 280g for version 2.

4. Boundary setting

The steps of the life cycle considered in both Versions
are the following:
Production of materials: ingredients, intermediates
and raw materials for manufacturing the car part,
Version 1 (solution to compare, used in similar car
Manufacture of the car part: Technyl® A 218 V50 ismodels)produced in Europe by Solvay. A schematic process• Material:
Aluminium alloy Al Si9 Cu3 (ENAC 46000),
route is given at Figure 3.
Figure 1 - view of the Engine Mount Housing, a connecting part between the• Weight:
400
grammesUse of the (fromcar part:engineandthe vehicle structure, in its application surrounding[6]) the contribution of the “Engine• 60% of the aluminium is originated from recycling
Mount Housing” to fuel consumption of the vehicle - this
(35% from new scraps, 25% from old scraps);
contribution is exclusively depending on the weight of• 40% of the aluminium is primary.
this car part, that the vehicle carries throughout its life,
manufactured by die casting.
End of life of the car part: the dismantling step of thepart is omitted, but end-of life is included
Data for the Aluminium alloy model is based on Ecoinvent- For version 2 (Technyl®), no end-of-life recycling isv2.2 datasets and on ENAC 46000 composition (Table 1).
actually in place ; in the absence of more precise
data, the hypothesis of 50% incineration (with no
Version 2 (solution of reporting company, equipping
energy recovery) and 50% landfilling has been
the new Peugeot 208)
adopted.
• Material Technyl® A 218 V 50:- For the aluminium version alloy it can be assumed- 50(-ε)% polyamide 6.6, 50% glass fiber,that the Engine Mount Housing is fully recycled.
- -ε masterbatch
However recycling operations for the Engine Mount- + metals inserts (steel: 11SMnPb30).
Housing are outside the system boundary: in the• Weight : 280 grams:
EAA datasets for aluminium the benefits and- 236 gram Technyl® A 218 V50,
burdens of recycling are attributed to the recycled- 44g steel 11SMnPb30.
material (according to scheme in Figure 4). As a
Figure 2 -by
Illustrationof the two versions of the studiedconsequence,
Engine Mount in the present study, no GHG
Manufactured
injection molding.
(only parts indicated by the red arrows are considered)emission of the recycling process of aluminium
alloy Engine Mount Housing should be added.
Table 1 – Chemical composition of grade ENAC AISi9Cu(Fe) (ENAC 46000)

TABLE 1 – CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF GRADE ENAC AISI9CU(FE) (ENAC 46000)®
FIGURE 3 - SCHEMATIC MANUFACTURING FLOWCHART
1/5FOR SOLVAY’S TECHNYL A 218 V50 BLACK 21N

Electricity

Natural gas

Water

Additives
Steam
HydrogenPrimary resources

Natural Gas
Butadiene

AdipoNitrile

SolvayPerimeter

Masterbatch

Nylon Salt
(monomer)

Polyamide 6.6

Effluents

Water

Hexamethylene
DiamineAmmonia
Technyl®
A 218 V50

Process Aids
Cyclohexane

Cyclohexanol/
Cyclohexanne

Adipic Acid

Nitric Acid
Glass Fibers

Emissions73

e 3 - Schematic manufacturing flowchart for Solvay’s Technyl® A 218 V50
Black 21N

FIGURE 4 - SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF THE SYSTEM BOUNDARIES FOR PARTLY RECYCLED ALUMINIUM

Note that:4 - Schematic representation
5. Calculation
methodology
and data
Figureof the systemboundaries• The production and maintenance of the car itself arefor partly recycledGreenhousealuminium
identical for both solutions.
Gas emissions are calculated using the• The operations to place the part on the vehicle(mounting) are omitted, since equivalent for both
solutions, and negligible anyway.
2/5• Transport is not considered (excepted that included
in background data) ; this is a conservative
assumption since the transported quantities areglobally higher in the case of the aluminium alloy
Engine Mount Housing; moreover the distances are
small as compared to the distance covered by thecar (150 000 km) during its lifetime*.
• For the use phase, for both cases, only the weight ofthe part is taken into account.
• As often in Life Cycle Assessments of industrial
products, the construction and the future demolitionof manufacturing infrastructure equipment are notincluded in inventories.
• Car fuel consumption, apart from the Engine Mount
Housing contribution, is outside the system boundary,since equal for both solutions.

latest IPCC 2013 100y set of GWP, as available in
SIMAPRO 8.0.3.14.
For the usage step, emissions consist in the contributionof the part to the car gasoline consumption. The Engine
Mount Housing is a motionless part in the vehicle, thathas no incidence on vehicle penetration into air (aerodynamics) and that does not participate to rolling resistance.
Therefore it contributes to car gasoline consumption
through its weight only.
Relationship between weight and vehicle consumption
has been thoroughly studied. In the present study,
recommendations from SAE (reference [1], see note
below), presently most commonly used in the automotive
industry were followed, i.e. a reduction by 10% of theoverall weight of the car leads to a reduction in the carfuel consumption of 6%. This rule is considered to belinear, thus a gain of x% in the overall car weight leads toa reduction in the car fuel consumption of 0.6 x%.
Note: Table 2 below summarizes the output of each of
those 4 references and their application to the present
case study. Reference [1] is the SAE reference commonlyused by car manufacturers. References [2] and [4] areamong major papers. Reference [3] proposes a review
and a synthesis of various papers.

* Usage phase of the Engine Mount Housing is equivalent to its transportation by a passenger car during 150 000 km

74

Table 2 - Recommendations from SAE (reference 1) and other major guidelines on

TABLE 2the- RECOMMENDATIONSFROMSAE (REFERENCE
1) AND
OTHER MAJORinGUIDELINES
ONcars,THE
relation between
weightgain and fuelconsumption
passenger
RELATION BETWEEN WEIGHT GAIN
AND FUEL to
CONSUMPTION
INcasePASSENGER
application
the present
study CARS, APPLICATION TO THE
PRESENT CASE STUDY

car characteristics

empty weight

975 kggasoline consumption

4,50 litres/100 km

version 1 : Aluminium Alloy(solution to compare)version 2 : Technyl®
(reporting company solution)engine mount mass

mass gain between the two versions
reference [1]reference [2]400 g

0,041% of total vehicle mass

280 g

0,029% of total vehicle mass

120 g0,012% of total vehicle massreference [3]to transport a mass of 100 kg in a mass gain of 100kg leads to a
consumption reduction of :a mass gain of 10% leads to a a passenger car over 100 km- 0.35 litres of gasoline orconsumption reduction of consumes :- 0.30 litres of Diesel- 0.15 litre of gasoline or6%over 100 km- 0.12 litres of Diesel

general rulereference [4]to transport a mass of 100 kg
over 100 km consumes
0.186 litres of gasoline

consumption due to engine
mount housing version 1(aluminium alloy)

over 100 km

0,0011 litres

0,0006 litres

0,0014 litres

0,0007 litresover 150 000 km

1,66 litres

0,90 litres

2,10 litres

1,12 litresover 200 000 km

2,22 litres

1,20 litres

2,80 litres

1,49 litresconsumption due to engine
mount housing version 2(Technyl®)over 100 km

0,0008 litres

0,0004 litres

0,0010 litres

0,0005 litresover 150 000 km

1,16 litres

0,63 litres

1,47 litres

0,78 litresover 200 000 km

1,55 litres

0,84 litres

1,96 litres

1,04 litres

Consumption reduction due over 100 km
0,0004 litres
0,0003 litres
0,0002 litres
0,0002 litresto susbstitution of version 1
0,63 litresover 150 000 km
0,50 litres
0,27 litres
0,33 litresby version 2 for the engine
Table
2 - Recommendations
from1) and otheron
0,84 litres major guidelines
over 200 000 km
0,66
litres SAE (reference
0,36 litres
0,45 litres
mount housing

the relation between weight gain and fuel consumption in passenger cars,-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------application to the present case study

5.3. Data sources and data quality
5.1. Methods and formulas used
- Al Si9 Cu3
model
present production
study
and manufacture of the car part
GreenhouseTable
Gas 2emissions
are(ENAC
calculated
using
thein theMaterial
empty46000)
weight975 kgcar characteristics
gasoline
consumption
4,50
litres/100
km
latest IPCC 2013 100y set of GWP, as available inversion 1 : Aluminium Alloyof total vehicle mass to compare, used in similar car
enginemount mass 8.0.3.14.
400 gVersion 0,041%
1 (solution
SIMAPRO(solution to compare)sourcedatasetcontribution
version 2 : Technyl®
280 gmodels) 0,029% of total vehicle masscompany
solution)
EAA 2013
Aluminium, primary, from EAA(reporting(data issued
in 2013,based on 2010 production)
34,0%
0,012% of totalalloy
vehicle mass29,7%
betweentheversions
120 g•	
EAA 2013
Aluminium, secondary,from
EAA
(data
issuedintwo
2013,
based on 2010
Aluminium
Al Si9 Cu3, which composition is
The simplified
methodproposedmass
ingaintheICCA
guidance
is production)
2013
Aluminium, secondary, from old scrap, from EAA (data issued in 2013, based on 2010 production)
usedEAA(consistently
with both reference
the systemboundary
andgiven in Table 3,
is21,2%modelled
using :
[1] U
reference [2]reference [3]reference[4]
Ecoinvent v2.2 Chromium, at regional storage/RER
0,1%functional
thisUmeans thattoonlyLatestfrom theEcoinventunit
v2.2 definition):Cast iron, at plant/RER
0,7% European Aluminium Associationof 100kg
leads to dataatransportthea masscontriof 100 kg in a mass gain–
consumption reduction of :a massgain of 10%Uleads to a a passenger car over 100 km
to transporta massof 100 kg[5]
Ecoinvent v2.2 Copper, at regional
storage/RER
for aluminium
butionof generaltheruleEngine Mountis considered.
,3,0%
issuedin 2013 and based on data
- 0.35 litres of gasolineorconsumes:
consumptionHousing
reduction ofover 100 km consumes
Ecoinventv2.2 Manganese, at regional
storage/RER
U0,3%0.30 litres of Diesel
0.15 litre of gasoline or
6%
0.186 litres of gasoline
Excepted
that Upart, the --carsin the two -overrepresentativeof0,2%
year 2010 for :Ecoinventthev2.2 material
Magnesium, atof
plant/RER
100 km0.12 litres of Diesel
Ecoinventv2.2 MG-silicon,hereat plant/NO
9,6% used in Europe
solutionsconsidered
areUfullylitresidentical. Thechange— Primary Aluminium
0,0014 litresover
100 km at regional0,0011
0,0006 litres
0,0007 0,6%
litresEcoinventprimary,
storage/RER U
consumption
due tov2.2
engineZinc,inmountthe
EngineMount
hasneither
Secondary Aluminiumfrom new scraps (post-inhousing
version
2,10 litresover
150
000 km Housing
1,66 litresmaterial
0,90
litres1,12 litres
Ecoinventv2.21 Nickel,
secondary,from electronicand electric scrap
recycling,at refinery/SE U—
0,3%(aluminium alloy)
2,80 litres
Ecoinvent onv2.2 Lead,secondary,at plant/RER
U
0,2%
over
200
000 km of
1,20 litres
1,49 litres
incidence
therest
the2,22 litrescar
design nor
on itsdustrial scraps)
Ecoinvent v2.2 Tin,overat regional
U litres0,0010100 km storage/RER
0,00080,0004 litres
0,0005 0,1%
litresoperation
conditions.
— litresSecondary aluminium
from old scraps (end-of-life
consumption due toenginemount housing version 2
1,47 litresover 150 000 km
1,16 litres
0,63 litres
0,78 litres
wastes)(Technyl®)
1,96 litresover 200 000 km
1,55 litres
0,84 litres
1,04 litres
5.2.
Allocation
EcoinventV2.2 databasefor the other components ofConsumption reduction due over 100 km
0,0004 litres
0,0003 litres
0,0002 litres
0,0002 litresto susbstitutionof version has
1No
allocation
been
the
the
0,63alloy.
litresover 150000 km necessary
0,50 litres while modelling
0,27 litres
0,33 litresby version 2 for the engine
0,84 litres
0,66 litres
0,36 litres
0,45 litres
mount housing
foregrounddata.over 200 000 km-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3/5

Table 2 - Al Si9 Cu3 (ENAC 46000) model in the present study

TABLE 2 - AL SI9 CU3 (ENAC 46000) MODEL IN THE PRESENT STUDY

sourcedatasetEAA 2013
Aluminium, primary, from EAA (data issued in 2013, based on 2010 production)
EAA 2013
Aluminium, secondary,from EAA (data issued in 2013, based on 2010 production)
EAA 2013
Aluminium, secondary, from old scrap, from EAA (data issued in 2013, based on 2010 production)
Ecoinvent v2.2 Chromium, at regional storage/RER U
Ecoinvent v2.2 Cast iron, at plant/RER U
Ecoinvent v2.2 Copper, at regional storage/RER U
Ecoinvent v2.2 Manganese, at regional storage/RER U
Ecoinvent v2.2 Magnesium, at plant/RER U
Ecoinvent v2.2 MG-silicon, at plant/NO U
Ecoinvent v2.2 Zinc, primary, at regional storage/RER U
Ecoinvent v2.2 Nickel, secondary, from electronic and electric scrap recycling, at refinery/SE U
Ecoinvent v2.2 Lead, secondary, at plant/RER U
Ecoinvent v2.2 Tin, at regional storage/RER U

contribution
34,0%
29,7%
21,2%
0,1%
0,7%
3,0%
0,3%
0,2%
9,6%
0,6%
0,3%
0,2%
0,1%

75
3/5

• Manufacture of the car part	For part manufacture, as data on Aluminium die casting
are not available in Ecoinvent v2.2, it has been approximated by: “Casting, brass/CH U”.
	Such a proxy is justified by the very low contribution ofthat process step to CO2 emissions over the entire life
cycle.

Namely, 2.33 kg CO2 eq. are emitted during the
combustion of 1 litre of gasoline while 0.52 kg CO2 eq.
are emitted during the production and distribution of
1 litre of gasoline. Gasoline losses by evaporation during
the entire life cycle are included in the inventory of
airborne emissions, but they have no effect on GHG
emission since their GWP is equal to 0.

Version 2 – (solution of reporting company, equipping
the new Peugeot 208)•	Polyamide 6.6 and Technyl® A 218 V50 models are
based on primary data from Solvay’s production in
Europe. A schematic process route is given at Figure 2.
The dataset “Nylon 66, at plant/RER U” from Ecoinventv2.2 are not used here because not representative
anymore of the current industrial processes in place.
Plastics Europe has issued a new ecoprofile forPolyamide 66 (or Nylon 66) in 2014, based on
production data from 4 European Polyamide 66
producers (including Solvay). The overall reference
year for this Eco-profile is 2011-2012. The primarydata used here are those provided by Solvay to Plastics
Europe for that ecoprofile update.
•	Glass fibers are modeled by Ecoinvent v2.2 dataset :“Glass Fiber, at plant/RER U•	Masterbatch components are also modeled from
Ecoinvent datasets.
•	Metal inserts are modeled based on Ecoinvent v2.2
for both materials and processes:– “Steel, low-alloyed, at plant/RER U”– “Section bar rolling, steel/RER U”– “Turning, steel, conventional, primarily dressing/RER U”– “Zinc coating, pieces/RER U”• Manufacture of the car part	Part manufacture (injection moulding) is modeled withtypical data provided by the industry, Ecoinvent v2.2
dataset “Injection moulding, RER/U”, being too far
from the reality. Injection moulding data are confidential, obtained from the customer (plastics processing).

End of life of the car part
Version 1 – aluminium alloy (solution to compare)As explained in section 4, recycling burdens and benefitsof aluminium alloys are attributed to the recycled
aluminium (from old scraps) included in the material
used. No further emissions are considered at the end oflife of the engine mount housing made of aluminium
alloy.

Use of the care part
GHG emissions attributed to gasoline consumption havebeen calculated from Ecoinvent v2.2:•	« Operation passenger car, petrol, EURO5/CH U »,taking into account the sole emissions due to gasoline
combustion, i.e. excluding emissions due to :- Tire wear
- Brake wear
From that process, it can be calculated that the
combustion of 1 litre of gasoline emits 2.85 kg CO2 eq.
of Greenhouse Gases. Those emissions include:• Emissions during gasoline production and distribution•	Emissions due to gasoline combustion
It is thus a real “cradle-to-grave” inventory of GHG
emissions during gasoline life cycle.

76

Version 2 – Technyl® (solution of the reporting
company)
End-of-life is modeled as 50% landfilling, 50% incineration with no energy recovery.
-	Landfilling is modeled by: Ecoinvent v2.2 “Disposal,
polyurethane, 0.2% water to inert material landfill/CH
U”, chosen as a representative proxy.
-	Incineration is modeled by CO2 emissions due to theorganic part of Technyl® (50%), approximated as
Polyamide 6.6. Polyamide 6.6 chemical formula is :C12H22O2N2, Mw = 226. The combustion of
Polyamide thus leads to the emission of (12x44)/226 =2.34 kg CO2.
	Each Engine Mount Housing contains 236 grams ofTechnyl®, which corresponds to 118 grams of
Polyamide 6.6, with the above hypothesis. Incinerationof 50% of the engine mount housing at their end of life
will correspond to the emission of 0.14 kg of CO2 perEngine Mount Housing.

The sources of data are summarized in the following
Table 3 - Summary of data sources used for this study
Tables:Table 3 - Summary of data sources used for this study

TABLE 3 - SUMMARY OF DATA SOURCES USED FOR THIS STUDY
Reporting company's solution :data sources
Technyldata sourcesmaterial
production
material
production
part manufacture

contribution tovehicle consumption
part manufacture
end of life
contribution tovehicle consumption

Ecoinventfor raw
materials& additives
Reportingcompany's
solution:
Technylprimary data for Solvay's process to Technyl
Ecoinvent for raw materials & additives
primary data

Solution to compare :Aluminium AlloyEAA 2013 for aluminium

Solution to compare :Aluminium Alloy
Ecoinvent v2.2 for other alloy components
EAA 2013 for aluminium

Ecoinvent v2.2

primary data for Solvay's process to Technyl

Ecoinvent v2.2 for other alloy components

SAE computation + Ecoinvent v2.2
primary data
- Ecoinvent for landfilling- Direct computation of CO2 emission for
SAE computation + Ecoinvent v2.2

SAE computation + Ecoinvent v2.3
Ecoinvent v2.2

- Ecoinvent for landfilling- Direct computation of CO2 emission forend of lifenone
SAE computation + Ecoinvent v2.3
none

Table 5 - Data sources – additional information
TABLE 5 - DATA SOURCES – ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Table 5 - Data sources – additional information

6. Results
6.1. Avoided emissions
GHG emissions during the entire life cycle of both
solutions are summarized in Figure 5 as well as in Table
6, for one Engine Mount Housing.
FIGURE 5 - GRAPHIC VIEW OF AVOIDED EMISSIONS AND THEIR DISTRIBUTION OVER THE LIFE CYCLE OF
THE ENGINE MOUNT HOUSING

4/5
4/5

Figure 5 - Graphic view of avoided emissions and their distribution over the life
cycle of the Engine Mount Housing

Table 6 - Avoided emissions over the entire life cycle of the Engine Mount
Housing (according to reference [2] recommendations for the relationshipbetween car weight reduction and car fuel consumption

77

Figure 5 - Graphic view of avoided emissions and their distribution over the life
cycle of the Engine Mount Housing

TABLE 6 - AVOIDED EMISSIONS OVER THE ENTIRE LIFE CYCLE OF
THE ENGINE MOUNT HOUSING (ACCORDING TO REFERENCE [2]Table 6 - Avoided emissions
over
the entire life BETWEEN
cycle of theCAR
Engine Mount
RECOMMENDATIONSFOR THERELATIONSHIP
Housing(according toreference[2] recommendations
WEIGHT
REDUCTIONANDCAR FUELCONSUMPTION for the relationshipbetween car weight reduction and car fuel consumption

for ONE engine mount

Reporting company's solution :Technyl

Solution to compare :Aluminium Alloymaterial production

1,1 kg CO2 eq.

1,8 kg CO2 eq.

part manufacture

0,05 kg CO2 eq.

0,02 kg CO2 eq.

contribution tovehicle consumption

3,3 kg CO2 eq.

4,7 kg CO2 eq.

end of life

0,1 kg CO2 eq.

0,0 kg CO2 eq.

TOTAL EMISSIONS

4,6 kg CO2 eq.

6,6 kg CO2 eq.

avoided emissions

2,0 kg CO2 eq.

The GHG emissions throughout the life cycle for one
Engine Mount Housing are:• 4.6 kg CO2eq. for an Engine Mount Housing made ofSolvay’s Technyl®
• 6.6 kg CO2eq. for an engine mount made ofaluminium alloy Al SI9 Cu3
5/5

For the entire life cycle, the avoided emissions due to the
choice of Technyl® instead of aluminium alloy as thematerial for the Engine Mount Housing in the defined carthus amount to 2.0 kg CO2eq.
For the annual production of 280 000 vehicles/year,
those avoided emissions sum up to 560 t CO2eq.
It is realistic to consider that the car model considered
will be produced over a ten year period. Thus deciding touse Technyl®, instead of aluminium alloy would save up
to 5,600 t CO2eq. over the entire production of the car.
Of course further improvements in car efficiency should
be taken into account in such a calculation. However,
although car fuel efficiency will in general, improve in the
coming 10 years considered, this should have very little
incidence on the calculated avoided emissions of thiscase study since : (1) the car model considered isequipped with a fairly recent engine type, which will very
probably not be changed on this car model in the years
to come or even on the whole production of this specific
car model; (2) if an engine substitution / improvement
would nevertheless take place that would increase thefuel efficiency of the car, thus also of transporting theconsidered car part, it would be relatively marginal,
inducing only slight changes in the calculated avoided
emissions.
Sensitivity to assumptions on relationship between
car weight and fuel consumption
The rule used for the relationship between car weight
reduction and reduction in car fuel consumption,
explained under §5 (“a gain of X% in the overall car
weight leads to a reduction in the car fuel consumptionof 0.6 X %”) is a major hypothesis in this study.

78

On-going and future improvements in engine efficiency
might impact that rule. No information is available topropose a more relevant rule for the car considered. If
recommendations of reference [2] (which lead to thelowest benefit in car fuel consumption for a given weight
reduction) would be followed, instead of those ofreference [1], th is would lead to avoided emissions of
3920t CO2 eq. (instead of 5600) over the entire
production the car.
6.2. Scenario analysis
For the annual production of 280 000 vehicles/year,
those avoided emissions sum up to 560t CO2eq.
It is realistic to consider that the car model considered
will be produced over a ten year period. Thus deciding touse Technyl®, instead of aluminium alloy would save up
to 5600 t CO2eq. over the entire production of the car.
Of course further improvements in car energy efficiency
should in fact be taken into account in such a calculation.
However, although car fuel efficiency will in general
improve in the coming 10 years considered, this shouldhave very little incidence on the calculated avoided
emissions of this case study since: (1) the car model
considered is equipped with a fairly recent engine type,which will very probably not be changed on this car
model in the years to come or even during the whole
production period of this specific car model; (2) if anengine substitution / improvement would neverthelesstake place within these 10 years that would increase thefuel efficiency of the car, thus also of the transport of theconsidered car part, it would be relatively marginal,
inducing only slight changes in the calculated avoided
emissions.

7. Significance of contribution
At the level of the Engine Mount Housing, the contribution of the reporting company’s solution in avoided
emissions is fundamental.
At the level of the car, the gain weight –when substituting aluminium alloy by Technyl® for this specific carpart - represents 0.012% of the total car weight. Thenthe contribution of the reporting company’s solution to
avoided emissions is minor.
However, this example has been chosen to illustrate,
in a particular case, the substitution of aluminium by
Technyl® in the automotive industry, leading to significant
weight savings of the whole car. That process of substitution has begun many years ago and will continue forsome years. It is a major – if not the most important contributor to car light-weighting, in all model of cars,
with a high potential remaining especially in large cars.
The challenge is to keep the level of performances andduration of parts with higher and higher level of specifications.

As far as attribution to different actors in the value
chain is concerned, the calculated avoided emissions
are not attributed to individual value chain partners.
The substitution of the aluminium-based solution by
the Technyl®-based solution is the result of different
innovations and progresses that are shared all overthe value chain. It is more relevant to consider it ascollective progress than to try to distribute it between
several individual contributors.

8. Review of results
A full study – including the analysis of other environmental indicators, in order to have a true multi-criterial
analysis, as required by ISO 14040 & ISO 14044 – hasbeen presented to a panel of French experts in the fieldof LCA and materials, for a critical review. The final
answer is expecting in July 2015. This more extended
study demonstrates in particular that emissions nottaken into account here (mounting, transport of car
parts, etc… represent in both cases only a few percentof the total emissions considered for this car part, andthat they are very similar for both solutions, and would if
taken into account (but no significantly) be in favour ofthe plastic solution.

9. S
 tudy limitations and future
recommendations
A point of attention for the validity of the study in the
future is – as detailed in § 6 - the model for car mass/fuelconsumption relationship for passenger vehicles. That
relationship is sensitive to engine and powertrain
efficiency which are expected to further improve in the
coming years. A follow-up of those model evolutions andpossible updating of the calculations have to be planned.

transport during the vehicle life span) but also in the
production steps since less material needs to be
produced and transformed.
Thus, the study demonstrates the potential of further gain
in energy efficiency via the replacement of even small,under-the-hood, car parts by light-weight car parts.

11. References[1] SAE Technical paper series # 982185 - EUCAR –Automotive LCA guidelines – Phase 2 (Dec 1998)[2] On the calculation of fuel savings through lightweight
design in automotive life cycle assessments, by
Christoph Koffler & Klaus Rohde-Brandenburger,
Int. J Life Cycle Assess (2010) 15 pp 128 – 135[3] Energy savings by light-weighting Final report, by
IFEU (a study commissioned by the Aluminium
Institute, January 2003
[4] Life Cycle Assessment of Vehicle light-weighting : A
physics-based model of mass-induced fuelconsumption, by Hyung Chul Kim & Timothy J.
Wallington, Env. Sci. Tecnol. (2013) 47, pp 14358 –14366[5] Environmental Profile Report for the European
Aluminium Industry : Life Cycle Inventory data foraluminium production and transformation processes
in Europe (data for the year 2010) European
Aluminium Association, – April 2013[6] Elastomer-Plastic Engine Mounts – Vibration
Reduction and Lightweighting, presented byTrelleborg Vibracoustic at 17th Kunststoff- Motorbauteile Forum, Spitzingsee, Germany, Jan, 28th
2014.
[7] Eco-profiles and Environmental Product Declarations of the European Plastics Manufacturers :Polyamide 6.6 (PA6.6) ; PlasticsEurope ; February
2014, available at http://www.plasticseurope.org/

10. Conclusions
The avoided emissions are presented as the differenceof GHG emissions between an aluminium-alloy-based
Engine Mount Housing and a Technyl® (glass fiber
reinforced polyamide 6.6) Engine Mount Housing, overtheir entire life cycle. Both solutions equally fulfill all therequirements for ensuring a link point between theengine and the body of a small-middle size passenger
car. When made out of Technyl®, this small car partensures avoided emissions representing as much as 2.0
kg CO2eq. per car during its entire life cycle as comparedto the aluminium-alloy-based solution, equivalent to5600 t CO2eq. over the total production of that specificpassenger car (estimated at 280 000 cars/year during
10 years). The major reason for this reduction is thelower weight of the polyamide 6.6-based version ascompared to the Aluminium Alloy-based version, notonly in the usage phase of the part (a lighter part to79

Case 9

Broiler production with feed
additive DL-Methionine

Sumitomo
ChemicalCOMMISSIONER AND PERFORMER OF THE STUDY
The study was commissioned and performed by Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd.

1. Purpose of the study
The objective of this study was to evaluate the reductionof greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from broiler
production in Japan using a chemically synthesizedmethionine product “DL-Methionine” as a feed additive.
Livestock production is a major emitter of GHG. In
particular, the emission of nitrous oxide (N2O) fromlivestock manure management, which has a greenhouseeffect around 300 times greater than carbon dioxide,accounts for 30% of the total GHG emissions from theagricultural sector in Japan[1].
One possible measure to achieve GHG reduction is to
reduce the animal excretion of nitrogen, which is asource of N2O emission in manure management.
Reducing nitrogen content in feed supplemented withcrystalline single amino acids is the most effective way of
reducing nitrogen excretion.
As methionine is the first limiting amino acid in poultry
feed, usage of DL-Methionine plays a key role in reducing
the nitrogen content in broiler feed.
Thus, in this case study, the contribution of DL-Methionine to GHG reduction in broiler production was
evaluated by carbon-Life Cycle Analysis (cLCA).
This case study focuses on life cycle GHG emissions
and follows the requirement of the document “Guidelines
from the Chemical Industry for accounting and reporting
GHG emissions avoided along the value chain based oncomparative studies (guidelines),” developed by ICCA
and the Chemical Sector Group of the WBCSD.

The control feed is not supplemented with DL-Methionine and has a higher overall protein content withexcessive amounts of amino acids that are not utilized
by the animal, resulting in proportionally higher nitrogenexcretion.
On the other hand, as both feed options are assumed tosatisfy all the nutritional requirements of broiler including
methionine, they can provide the same function on the
productivity of broiler meat as the final product.
Table 1 - Options of broiler feed

TABLE 1 - OPTIONS OF BROILER FEED

Option 1 (Study feed)

Option 2 (Control feed)

Broiler feed with
DL- Methionine
supplementation

Broiler feed without
DL-Methionine
supplementation

2.2. Level in the Value Chain
DL-Methionine is used as a feed additive to manufacture
feed for livestock production. It is added and mixed withother feed ingredients such as corn, soybean meal andseveral micro nutrients to satisfy the nutritional
requirement of animals. In this study, as two options ofbroiler feed with or without DL-Methionine are evaluated,
the level in the value chain of this study can be definedas “the end-use level” in accordance with the guidelines.
The value chain structure involved in the study is shownin Figure 1.
Figure 1 - Value chain structure

2. Solutions to compare
Table 2 - Nutritional value of the broiler feed in the study
2.1. Description of the solutions to compare
In this study, two options of broiler feed with different
protein contents are compared: a study feed suppleNutritional value
Study feed
Control feed
mented with DL-Methionine and a control feed without
DL-Methionine as shown in Table 1. The study
feed energy (ME)Metabolizable
3,210 kcal/kg
3,210 kcal/kg
contains DL-Methionine to optimize its essentialamino
Crude protein (CP)19.50%
25.60%
acid profile and thereby cut down on the excess amounts
Digestible methionine + cysteine
0.76%
0.76%
of other amino acids that cannot be utilized in broiler
production. As a result, it is possible to reduce nitrogenexcretion and N2O emission during manure processing.

80Broiler feed with
DL- Methionine
supplementation

Broiler feed without
DL-Methionine
supplementation

FIGURE 1 - VALUE CHAIN STRUCTURE

The function of feed is to rear broilers, that is, to provide
2.3. Definition of the boundaries of the market
appropriate nutrients required for maximizing broiler
and the application Figure 1 - Value chain structure
meat production.
The several conditions for calculating GHG emissions inthis study were based on the situation in 2011. The
A broiler feed must satisfy the requirements for metabostudy forecast of 2020 was assumed under the same
lizable energy (ME) (3,210 kcal/kg) and digestible
conditions as those in 2011 except for the annual broiler
methionine plus cystine level (0.76%) to achievemeat production.
adequate
growthaccording to the nutritional requirement
Table 2 - Nutritional value of the broiler feedin thestudy
broilerstrain[2].feed
The market share of the study feed containing DL-Me-Tableof1a-major
To satisfy these requirements,
Optionsof broiler
thionine was estimated to be almost 100% in Japan in
the broiler feed in this assessment had estimated crude
both 2011 and 2020.
protein (CP) contents of 19.5% with DL-Methionine andNutritional value
Study feed
Control feed
25.6% without
as shown in Table 2. The productivity of
Option 1 (Study feed)
Option 2 (Control feed)
broiler meat
was kcal/kg
assumed to be equal between the two
Metabolizable energy (ME)3,210 kcal/kg
3,210
3.
F

unctional
unit
andreference
feedwith
options because
both feeds satisfy the nutrient
Broiler
feed
Broiler
Crude protein (CP)19.50%
25.60% feed without
flow
requirements of theDL-Methionine
animal for maximum growth.
DL- Methionine
Digestible methionine + cysteine

0.76%supplementation

3.1. Functional unit
This study compared two options of broiler feed withdifferent protein contents. It was assumed, however, thatboth products had similar amino acid scores and thatthe function of the final product, i.e, broiler meat, wascomparable with both feed. This allowed us to focus oncomparison between the two feed options.
The function defined for the study and the control feed
was to produce broiler meat, and the functional unit was
defined as 1 kg of broiler meat.

0.76%
supplementation

The essential amino acid profiles of the DL-Methionine-supplemented and unsupplemented feed areshown in Figure 2 as percentages of dietary requirements for broilers. Ideally, the feed should contain eachof these essential amino acids at levels of 100% of therequirement for adequate production. Both of the broiler
feed contain all essential amino acids at or more than
100% of what is required, which are considered
equivalent in terms of feed functionality.
On the other hand, amino acids that are supplied inexcess of 100% are not utilized by the animal and are
excreted. By efficiently satisfying the requirements using
DL-Methionine (indicated in red in Figure 2), less nitrogenis excreted after the broilers have eaten the study feed.

The intended audience who could benefit 1/8
from supplementation of DL-Methionine is poultry farmers.
As livestock feed is consumed immediately, it does not
Figure 1 - Value chain structure
have a service life.
Function:
Broiler production
Functional unit:
1 kg of broiler meat
Intended audience: Poultry farmers

Table 2 - Nutritionalvalueof the broiler
feedthe study
TABLE
2 - NUTRITIONALVALUE OFTHE inBROILER
FEED IN THE STUDY

Nutritional value

Study feed

Control feed

3,210 kcal/kg

3,210 kcal/kg

Crude protein (CP)19.50%

25.60%

Digestible methionine + cysteine

0.76%

0.76%

Metabolizable energy (ME)81

FIGURE 2 - ESSENTIAL AMINO ACID PROFILE EXPRESSED AS PERCENTAGES OF DIETARYREQUIREMENTS FOR BROILER

The feed used for calculation of GHG emissions werebased on the feed formulation in 2011. The demand in2020 was assumed to be the same as that in 2011.
The contribution to GHG emission reduction was
calculated for all feed that are assumed to be manufactured in one year (2020) and used until the end of the life
cycle.

Arginine

Isoleucine

ValineTryptophan

Threonine

Arginine

Lysine0Isoleucine

0

Valine50

Tryptophan

50

Threonine

100

Methionine + Cystine

100

Methionine + Cystine

Control feed with DL-Methionine
150

Lysine% of requirements of broiler

Study feed with DL-Methionine
150

It was assumed that each bird was reared for 48 days,
which is the typical rearing period of a broiler in Japan,
and reached 3.32 kg of body weight with 6.11 kg of feed
per bird fed during this period according to the broiler
strains manual[4]. The proportion of broiler meat against
live body weight was assumed to be 63.7%[5].

Japan was selected as the location for the assessment.
3.2. Reference flow
The feed formulations are shown in Table 3. Both feed
options were formulated and designed based on the
nutritional requirements of a major broiler strain[2] andthe nutritional composition of feed ingredients[3].
Except for the CP content, it was assumed that thesame feedingpracticesamino
were usedboth feed
options. as percentages of dietary
Figure2 - Essential
acidin profile
expressed
This includes nutritional requirementsforME,
digestible
requirements for broiler
methionine plus cystine levels and other essential
nutrients for broiler production.

Table 3 - Feed formulation

TABLE 3 - FEED FORMULATION

Ingredients

Study feed

Corn

58.0%

45.0%

Soybean meal

33.3%

38.3%

Corn gluten meal

0.0%

7.8%

Soybean oil

5.5%

5.9%

Vitamins and minerals

3.0%

3.0%

DL-Methionine

0.2%

0.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Total

82

Control feed

4. Boundary setting
System boundaries defined for the two feed options areshown in Figure 3. This study mainly focused on theingredient procurement and manure management
processes
to calculate
emissions.
<System boundaryfor GHG
the study
feed>

As the other processes including mixed rations, transportand rearing of birds were the same under the two feed
options, they were not taken into account to streamline
the calculations as shown in Table 4.

<System boundary for the study feed>
SYSTEM BOUNDARY FOR THE STUDY FEED

<SystemboundarythecontrolFEED
feed>
SYSTEM
BOUNDARY
FORforTHE
CONTROL<System boundary for the control feed>

Note: Transport between the processes is not illustrated.
Figure3 - Systemboundary
Processes
includedin GHG emission
calculation
Note: Transport
betweenthe processes
is not illustrated.
Sharedprocesses
Processes
included in GHG emission calculation
SystemSharedboundary
processes
System boundary

Table 4 - Supplementary information on system boundary
TABLE 4 - SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ON SYSTEM BOUNDARY

Study productControl product

○
○

○
○

Ingredient procurement
Production of feed
Distribution
Poultry rearing
Manure management○: included in the calculation

3/8
3/8

-: not included in the calculation

Table 5 - GHG emissions during the manufacture of feed ingredients

Unit: kg CO2e/kg of feed
Ingredients
Corn

Study feed

Control feed
0.044

0.034

83

5. Calculation methodology and data

6. Results

5.1. Methods and formulas used
This study starts with an analysis restricted to GHG as afirst step and uses the simplified calculation method. In
the study, trade-offs to other environmental impacts are
not identified in the screening LCA. GHG emissions perunit of broiler meat were calculated in this study.
Differences in GHG emissions associated with the two
feed options, however, would occur at the levels ofingredient procurement and manure management. As
the other processes were the same under the two feed
options, they were not taken into account to streamline
the calculations.

6.1. Avoided emissions
GHG emissions by ingredientCO2 emission on per kg of feed basis during feed manufacturing was calculated as shown in Table 5 according
to the feed formulation shown in Table 3 using the CO2
emission coefficient database for food-related ingredientsand MiLCA software (Master Database Structure Ver.
1.2.0 and IDEA Ver. 1.1.0).

Simplified calculations were used as GHG emissions
were expected to be equal during the processes thatwere the same under the two feed options and would
not affect the absolute value of contributions to GHG
emission reduction during the life cycles of theseproducts.
Emissions unaccounted for
A. GHG emissions during the feed manufacturing
process
B. GHG emissions during distribution (from feed mills tobroiler farms)
C. GHG emissions during the rearing period at broiler
farms
Typical percentages of unaccounted emissions tototal emissions
Typical percentages of unaccounted emissions A, B
and C to total emissions are not available.
In addition, the calculation of GHG emissions included
only CO2 in the ingredient procurement and N2O in the
manure management. In the ingredient procurement,
CO2 emission was approximately equal to GHG
emissions at the level of feed manufacturing because theimpact of other GHGs was likely to be minimal. In the
manure management, GHGs except N2O did notincluded in the calculation in accordance with the cLCA
offset guideline because these emissions were likely to
be similar for both feed options.
5.2. Allocation
No allocation was performed in this case study.
5.3. Data sources and data quality
The study uses secondary data from the CO2 emission
coefficient database for food-related ingredients and
MiLCA software (Master Database Structure Ver. 1.2.0
and IDEA Ver. 1.1.0).
The two feed options were formulated in accordancewith the nutritional requirements of the broiler strain[2].
The conditions of manure management process werebased on a report in Japan[1].

84Although the applied CO2 emission coefficient databaseis based on CO2 data alone, we assumed that CO2
emission was approximately equal to GHG emissions at
the level of feed manufacturing because the impact ofother GHGs was likely to be minimal.
The values on per kg of feed basis were converted into
the functional unit (per kg of broiler meat) as shown in
Table 6 based on the assumption of feed intake (6.11kg/bird), body weight at 48 days of age (3.32kg) and the
proportion of meat against live body weight (63.7%).

Table 5 - GHG emissions during the manufacture of feed ingredients
Table 5 - GHG emissions during the manufacture of feed ingredients
TABLE 5 - GHG
EMISSIONS DURING THE MANUFACTURE
OF FEED INGREDIENTS (UNIT:
KG CO
2e/KG OF FEED)
Ingredients
Study feed
Control
feed

Corn

0.044

Ingredients
Soybean meal
Corn
Corn gluten meal
Soybean meal
Soybean oil
Corn gluten meal
Vitamins and minerals
Soybean oil
DL-Methionine
Vitamins and minerals
Total
DL-Methionine

Study feed

Total

0.034
Control feed

0.058
0.044
0
0.058
0.025
0
0.071
0.025
0.019
0.071
0.217
0.019
0.217

0.067
0.034
0.009
0.067
0.027
0.009
0.071
0.027
0
0.071
0.209
0
0.209

Table 6 - GHG emissions during the manufacture of feed ingredients
TABLE 6 - GHG EMISSIONS DURING THE MANUFACTURE OF FEED INGREDIENTS (UNIT: KG CO2e/KG OF BROILER MEAT)

Table 6 - GHG emissions during the manufacture of feed ingredients
Ingredients

Study feed

Ingredients
Soybean meal
Corn
Corn gluten meal
Soybean meal
Soybean oil
Corn gluten meal
Vitamins and minerals
Soybean oil
DL-Methionine
Vitamins and minerals
Total
DL-Methionine

Study feed

Corn

Control feed
0.126

0.098
Control feed

0.168
0.194
0.126
0.098
0.000
0.027
0.168
0.194
0.074
0.079
0.000
0.027
0.205
0.205
Table 6 - GHG emissions during the manufacture of feed ingred
0.074
0.079
0.054
0
0.205
0.205
0.628
0.603
0.054
0
Unit: kg CO2e/kg of broil
0.628IngredientsTotal

GHG emissions from waste management

Study feed
0.603

Control feed

Corn

0.126

0

Soybean meal

0.168

0

[1]
TableGHG
7 - N2emissions
O emission
coefficientsby manure processing
methodMethods
of livestock
manure management include sun
frommanure management
were

drying, thermal drying, composting, piling, incineration
calculated under the following conditions. CO2 andCorn glutenandmealmethane[1]0.000fermentation. The percentagesof thefromorganic materials
in the manure
Tablemethane
7 - N2Oemissions
emissioncoefficientsby manureprocessing method
were not included in the calculation in accordancewith oilmethods used in Japan are shown in0.074
Figure 4, and N2O
Soybeanthe cLCA offset guideline
because these emissions wereemission coefficients by manure processing method are
Sun drying
0.02 and minerals
Vitamins
0.205
likely to be similar for both feed options.
shown in Table 7. GHG emissions from broiler manure
Thermal drying
0.02
DL-Methionine
0.064
management were calculated basedon the manureSundrying0.02
Composting
0.0016
The percentage reduction in manure nitrogen was Total
nitrogen contents as shown in Table
8 and GHG
0.628
[6]
Thermaldrying0.02
calculated by the following
equation:
Piling0.02 emissions per kg of broiler meat are shown in Table 9.
% Reduction in manure
nitrogen = 0.64 + 7.25 ×0.0016%
Composting
Incineration
0.001
Reduction in feed CP
FIGURE 4 - PERCENTAGES OF MANURE MANAGEMENT METHODS
PilingMethane fermentation

0.02
0.02

0

0

0

0

USED IN JAPAN[1]0.001
Since reduction in feedIncineration
CP was 6.1% with DL-MethioOther
0.02
nine (calculated from thefeed fermentation
formulation Table), 0.02
theMethanecalculated manure nitrogen
reduction was 44.9%. 0.02
Other
1/2

Assuming 2.62 g/bird/day of manure nitrogen content
with the control feed, reduction of 1.18 g/bird/day of
1/2
nitrogen was expected with DL-Methionine[nitrogenexcreted/bird/day = 2.62 g/bird/day × (1 – 0.449) = 1.44
g/bird/day]. For 48 days of rearing, the total amount of
nitrogen excretion was estimated to be 69.12 g/bird with
DL-Methionine (1.44 g/bird/day × 48 days) and 125.76
g/bird without DL-Methionine (2.62 g/bird/day × 48days).

Figure 4 - Percentages of manure management methods used in J85

emission coefficients by manure processing method[1]TABLE 7 - N2O EMISSION COEFFICIENTS BY MANURE PROCESSING METHOD[1] (UNIT: G N2O-N/G-N)

Sun drying

0.02

Thermal drying
0.02
Table 8 - Manure nitrogen contents and GHG emissions from manure
Composting
0.0016
Piling0.02

Incineration

0.001
Study feed

Methane fermentation
MethodOther

Control feed

0.02

Manure nitrogen

GHG emission

Manure nitrogen

GHG emission

g/bird/48 days

g CO2e/bird/48 days

g/bird/48 days

g CO2e/bird/48 days

0.02

Sun drying
1.73
16.84
TableNITROGEN
8 - Manure
nitrogencontents
andGHG
emissionsmanureTABLE 8 - MANURECONTENTSAND
GHG EMISSIONSFROMMANUREfrom3.14

30.63

Thermal drying

0.76

1.38

13.48

Composting

13.34

10.4

24.27

18.92

247.15Control feed

449.67

Piling25.37

Incineration

MethodStudy feed

46.15

Manure nitrogen

GHG emission

Manure nitrogeng/bird/48 days

g CO2e/bird/48 days

g/bird/48 days

MethaneSun drying
fermentation
Other

7.41

1/2

21.08

10.27

0.071.73

Thermal drying
Composting

Total Piling

16.84
0.67

3.14

0.76

7.41

1.38

13.34

10.4

24.27

6.77

69.1225.37

66

358.74247.15

GHG emission

38.36

0.13

1.23

30.63
13.48

12.32

120.0818.92

125.7646.15

449.67

38.36

18.69

Incineration

21.08

10.27

Methanefermentation

0.07

0.67

0.13

1.23

Other

6.77

66

12.32

120.0869.12

358.74125.76652.68

Total

18.69

g CO2e/bird/48 days

652.68

Table 9 - GHG emissions from manure management (per kg of broiler meat)
TABLE 9 - GHG EMISSIONS FROM MANURE MANAGEMENT (PER KG OF BROILER MEAT)

Table 10 - GHG emissions and contribution to GHG emission reduction per kg of broiler
meat

Sun drying
Ingredient procurement

Study feedkg CO2e/kg of broiler
meat
Study feed

Control feedkg CO2e/kg of broiler
meat
Control feed

0.008
0.628

Production
Thermaldryingof mixed feed rations

0.603 0.014

A
0.004

Distribution

A 0.006

B

B

C

C

Composting

0.005

Piling

0.117
0.170

0.309

Incineration Life cycle total

0.005
0.798

0.912 0.009

Contribution
Methane fermentation▲ 0.114
0.000

0.001

Other

0.031

0.057

0.170

0.309

Poultry rearing
Manure management

Total

Life-cycle GHG emissions
Life-cycle GHG emissions for both of the study andcontrol feed are shown in Table 10 and Figure 5.
It was estimated that the life-cycle GHG emissions were0.798 kg CO2e and 0.912 kg CO2e per kg of broiler meatproduced by the study and control feed, respectively.

0.009
0.213

Contribution to GHG emission reduction per kg of broiler
meat.
The estimated contribution of the study feed to GHG
emission reduction was 0.114 kg CO2e per kg of broiler
meat, based on the difference in life-cycle GHG emissions
between the two feed options.

2/2

TABLE 10 - GHG EMISSIONS AND CONTRIBUTION TO GHG EMISSION REDUCTION PER KG OF BROILER MEAT (KG CO2e/KG OF BROILER MEAT)
6/8

86

Table 10 - GHG emissions and contribution to GHG emission reduction per kg of broiler
meat
Table 10 - GHG emissions and contribution to GHG emission reduction per kg of broiler
meat

kg CO2e/kg of broiler meat
Study feed
Ingredient procurement

Study feed

Control feed
0.628

0.603

Control feed

Productionof mixed
feed rations
Ingredientprocurement

0.628 A

0.603

A

Distribution
Production of mixed feed rations

AB

A

B

B

C

Poultry
rearing
Distribution

BC

Poultry
rearing
Manuremanagement
ManuremanagementLifecycle total
Life cycle total
Contribution

C
0.170

C
0.309

0.170
0.798

0.309
0.912

0.798

0.912

▲ 0.114▲ 0.114

Contribution

FIGURE 5 - GHG EMISSIONS AND CONTRIBUTION TO GHG EMISSION REDUCTION PER KG OF BROILER MEAT (KG CO2e/KG OF BROILER MEAT)

2/2

6.2. Scenario analysis
The contribution to GHG emission reduction in 2020
Based on the life-cycle GHG emission per kg of broiler
Figure 5 as
- GHGemissionsand contribution
emission
reduction
was estimatedfollows
and summarizedin Table 11.to GHG
meatwith DL-Methionine(0.798 kg CO2e), the total
1. Poultry meat production in per
the kgstudy
feed group:of broiler
meat GHG emission was estimated to be 1,132.4k t CO2e1344.50 kt in 2011 and 1419.08 kt in 2020[7].
(0.798 kg CO2e/kg broiler meat × 1419.08 kt =2. Contribution to GHG emission reduction per kg of
1,132.426kt CO2e) for the study feed in 2020.
broiler meat: 0.114kg CO2e per kg of broiler meat
3. Overall contribution to GHG emission reduction:
Contribution to GHG emission reduction per kg of
broiler meat × amount of poultry meat production peryear= 0.114 kg CO2ekg-broiler meat × 1419.08kt
poultry production= 161.77kt CO2e
7/8

TABLE
11 - 11
CONTRIBUTION
TO GHG
REDUCTION
BY THE STUDYPRODUCTIN 2020
Table- Contribution
toEMISSION
GHG emission
reductionby thestudy productin 2020

1) Inputs for 2020i)

Amount of poultry meat production(kt)

1419.082) Contribution to GHG emission reduction in this input scenario-Life-cycle contribution per kg of feed mix with DLmethionine
Contribution of the study product in 2020(kg
CO2e/kg
broiler meat)▲0.114(kt CO2e)▲161.7787

7. Significance of contribution

10. Conclusions

DL-Methionine is the key component to contribute to the
reduction of GHG emissions by cutting down on theexcessive amounts of amino acids in broiler feed andthereby reducing the amount of nitrogen excreted.
Therefore, the contribution of the chemical product tothe solution is “extensive” in accordance with theguidelines. Contributions to the reduction of GHG
emissions, however, can be attributed not only to thechemical industry but also to the entire value chain fromfeed ingredient levels to broiler producers.

This study calculates and proposes the reduction of
GHG emissions during broiler production mainly focusing
on ingredients procurement and manure management
processes between two feed options based on
secondary data and a simplified calculation methodology.
The study revealed that decreasing nitrogen content infeed by supplementing chemically synthesized feed
additive “DL-Methionine” can contribute to reduce GHG
emissions from broiler production.

8. Review of results
This report was prepared by translating and revisingparts of the report “Innovations for Greenhouse Gas
Reductions - Life Cycle Analysis of Chemical Products inJapan -” published by Japan Chemical Industry
Association on Mar 2014 with reviewing by a technicalcommittee in the association. The review focused on themethodology. While it did not include all the elements
described in ISO 14044, the review did not takeexception to the calculations of the GHG emissions.

9. S
 tudy limitations and future
recommendations
As the production of feed, transport and rearing birds areshared processes between the study and control feed,
they were not included in the GHG emission calculationsin the present study. Although GHG emissions fromthese unaccounted processes should have been
provided as percentages of total GHG emissions, reports
or any other type of data were not available. In addition,
the calculation of GHG emissions in the processes ofingredients procurement and manure management
process only focused on CO2 and N2O respectively due
to the limitation of available data. These are one of thepriorities for future work.
Finally, the focus of the present study is the assessmentof broiler feed, and the future contribution to GHG
emission reduction was estimated based on the
projected demand for the year 2020. For layers, pigs,
cattle and other livestock species, individual assessments
are necessary to estimate GHG emissions in these
sectors, because feed compositions are different among
these animals.

88

11. References[1] National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report ofJAPAN (April 2013), National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan[2] ROSS Nutritional Supplement 2009, Aviagen[3] Standard Tables of Feed Composition in Japan(2009), Japan Livestock Industry Association[4] ROSS 308 BROILER: Performance Objectives
2012, Aviagen[5] Handbook of poultry feed from waste - Processing
and Use – Second Edition, Springer-Science+Business Media, B.V., 2000
[6] The Trend of Studies on Reducing Nutrient Excretionin Poultry and Pigs by Nutritional Approaches,
Animal Science Journal 72 (8): J177-199, 2001
[7] OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2012, OECD and
FAO

12. AppendicesThis report introduces effective methodology for reducing
GHG emissions from livestock manure management bydecreasing nitrogen content in feed with feed additive
amino acids including DL-Methionine. The measure has
been certified for swine and broiler production in the
J-Credit Scheme, which is designed and operated tocertify the amount of GHG emissions reduced andremoved by approved methodologies within Japan.

Case 10

A comparative study of three foulingcontrol systems for marine vessels

AkzoNobel

COMMISSIONER AND PERFORMER OF THE STUDYThis life-cycle assessment was commissioned by AkzoNobel Marine Coatings, carriedout by AkzoNobel Sustainability and reviewed by Quantis.

1. Purpose of the study
AkzoNobel is a world-leading supplier of performancecoatings, decorative paint and specialty chemicals formarine applications.
This study was originally commissioned by AkzoNobel
Marine Coatings, a part of AkzoNobel supplying coatings
for marine applications. The study has been performed
by AkzoNobel Sustainability.
Objective of the study is the comparison of three foulingcontrol systems for marine vessels. The goal of thisstudy is to answer the following question:
How big are the greenhouse gas avoided emissions
when choosing an Intersleek 1100SR or Intersleek 700
system over an Intersmooth 7460HS system?
This study focuses on three products:
1. Intersleek 1100SR, a biocide-free fluoropolymer
fouling control system
2. Intersleek 700, a silicon-based fouling control system
3. Intersmooth 7460HS, a widely used biocide foulingcontrol system

2. Solutions to compare
Marine vessels are used for transportation of goods andpeople and for leisure activities. The hulls of marine
vessels are coated for general protection, for corrosion
protection, to prevent fouling and for aesthetic reasons.
The energy required to propel a marine vessel throughthe water is influenced by the hydrodynamics of thevessel which in turn is largely controlled by hull form andpropeller design. The choice of coating used on theunderwater hull of a vessel can significantly affect the hull
performance due to the surface nature of the coating(i.e. how smooth it is) and by how well the coating
influences the settlement of fouling organisms.
The settlement of fouling organisms on the underwater hullis well known to adversely influence the fuel consumptionof vessels. A layer of slime (multi-culture comprised ofbacteria and phytoplankton) is said to result in increased
fuel consumption of between 2%-10 %, weed growth in
the region of 10%-30%, and animal growth (such as
tubeworms or barnacles) in excess of 40%.

The fouling control systems compared in this study areIntersleek 1100SR SPC, Intersleek 700 and Intersmooth
7460HS. Each individual fouling control system consistsof layers of different coatings all of which performdifferent functions; together they are referred to as the“scheme”.
All fouling control schemes use Intershield 300 to protect
the underlying steel substrate of the vessel. Intershield
300 is a high quality pure epoxy coating with aluminium
to prevent corrosion of the steel substrate and iscompliant with the International Maritime Organisation(IMO) Performance Standard for Protective Coatings(PSPC). To ensure good inter-coat adhesion within theschemes, each fouling control system has its own
unique tie-coat. A tie-coat is a coating specificallydesigned to allow two opposing types of coatings tostick together within the scheme as a whole. For theIntersleek systems (both Intersleek 700 and 1100SR),
the tie-coat is Intersleek 737, whereas for theIntersmooth 7460HS system, the tie-coat is Intergard
263. The main difference in the three fouling control
systems occurs in the final coats, which are subjected to
the general environment through which the vessel
trades. The final coats are Intersmooth 7460HS,
Intersleek 757 (for the Intersleek 700 scheme) andIntersleek 1100SR (for the Intersleek 1100SR scheme). It
is the final coat in the scheme, which controls both thecontrol of fouling growth and influences the hydrodynamic water flow passing the hull of the vessel.
Figure 1 shows the scheme in a diagrammatic form. The
different layers within the schemes are applied at set
thicknesses according to their function and the vessel’soperational profile. The schemes are shown in tables 6
and 12. The content of Volatile Organic Compounds(VOC) and volume solids of each of the coatings areproperties which together with the layer thicknesses
determine the amount of paint needed for each vessel(see table 2).
Both the Intersleek 700 and Intersleek 1100SR systems
work through a completely non-toxic mechanism, as
they do not contain biocides. Both coatings, when first
applied to the underwater hull of a vessel, form a smoothsurface layer with Intersleek 700 being slightly rougher
than Intersleek 1100SR. The low surface profile of bothcoatings helps to minimise the effect on the hydrody-89

namics of the vessel, which results in lower fuelconsumption (when compared to Intersmooth 7460HS).
Both systems are curing products, which mean thatwhen they are applied to the underwater hull, thecomponents within the systems react together to form across-linked polymer matrix. Once cured, the paintsystems do not change their form or react with seawaterand so the initial smooth surface layers are maintained.
Intersleek 700 controls the growth of fouling organisms
by creating a hydrophobic surface to which organisms
such as barnacles have difficulties adhering to. Most
fouling organisms excrete a protein-glue to attach to asurface and hydrophobic surfaces make it difficult forthat glue to spread and create good adhesion between
the surface and the organism itself. As Intersleek 700
does not contain any biocides, fouling organisms will
attach weakly if a vessel is static but once the vessel
starts to operate, the friction of the water on the outerhull of the vessel will remove the fouling organism.
Intersleek 1100SR works on a similar principle but
instead of creating a pure hydrophobic system, thesurface of this coating can be described as being
amphiphilic, i.e. a mixture of hydrophobic andhydrophilic. The surface of Intersleek 1100SR is a
microscopic mosaic of hydrophilic and hydrophobic
domains that effectively “confuse” settling larvae offouling organisms and make the surface unattractive forthem to grow. On Intersleek 700, organisms can only
create a weak adhesion to the surface and are easily
removed by the vessel moving through water.
For the Intersmooth 7460HS the fouling growth iscontrolled through the slow dissolution of the paintmatrix which undergoes a reaction with seawater ions.
At the same time, biocides, dispersed within the body ofthe coating, are released into the local environment. The
biocides control the growth of fouling organisms throughbasic deterrence by making the surface unsuitable forsettlement but also by creating a local toxic effect.
Studied system, data and assumptions
The study assumed that the vessel would be constructed
at a European new construction facility (Odense wasselected due to the capability there to build the largest
vessels) and repaired in the Middle East (Dubai wasselected as the highest throughput maintenance yard inthat region). This was so that transport distances could
be calculated and factored into the study. However,those transport factors were expected to have limited
effect on the results of the study and it is therefore
re a s o n a b l e t o a s s u m e t h a t c o n s t r u c t i o n a n dmaintenance of a vessel anywhere in the world becovered in this study.
Since this study takes the life-cycle perspective of thefouling control systems it includes all stages from theextraction of natural resources through the different
refining stages to the final generation of all the activities
and products depicted in figure 2. This means that theenvironmental interventions caused by the grey shaded
activities, and the activities upstream and downstream
from these, are included as well. The environmental
influence caused by the production and future demolitionof machines, industrial plants and infrastructure are
however not included. The rationale for this is that basedon previous studies it has been concluded that these
activities’ impact on the overall impact of the system will
be very small and not influence the result.
Below, the system is described further regarding thenumbered unit processes. In figure 2 they are depicted interms of activities and flows required. Assumptions andcut-offs are made to complete the modelling. Table 3(confidential information: not included in this report)
summarises all the technical and elementary flows
included in this assessment, and the environmental
impacts that are associated indirectly to the technicalflows 1 via industrial activities, or directly to theelementary 2 flows. The magnitude of all flows in has been
provided by AkzoNobel Marine Coatings and is based onreal case observations and on experience from working
closely with the shipping industry. The magnitudes
specified for the flows represent a container ship when
operating 15 years. Table 4 (confidential information: notincluded in this report) presents the costs that wereapplied for different products and services. For
information regarding sources for inventories for theactivities in scope, contact AkzoNobel Sustainability.

FIGURE 1 - THE DIFFERENT LAYERS OF THE COMPARED COATING SYSTEMS.

5
4
3
2
1
0

Intersmooth 7460HS

Intersleek 700

Intersleek 1100SR

Intersmooth 7460HS
Intersmooth 7460HS
Intersmooth 7460HS
Intergard 264
Intershield 300
Hull

Intersleek 757
Intersleek 737
Intershield 300
Intershield 300
Hull

Intersleek 1100SR
Intersleek 737
Intershield 300
Intershield 300
Hull

1 A technical flow is a flow of a material or energy carrier that is kept within the techno sphere2 An elementary flow is a flow of a material or energy carrier which is either brought from nature into the techno sphere, or emitted from the techno sphere to nature

90

3. F
 unction of the product/application
Functional unit
The study takes the ship owners’ perspective andfocuses on how the choice of the fouling control system
for the underwater hull influences the carbon dioxide
emissions of a vessel. The function of the study istherefore the movement of a vessel, and the functional
unit defines the distance travelled by a vessel of a certain
weight (including cargo, personnel, etc.) and hull form
during a certain period.
The vessel classes considered in this study are Bulk
Carrier, Crude Oil Tanker, Container Ship, Liquid Natural
Gas carrier (LNG), Roll-On Roll-Off ferry (Ro-Ro) andCruise Liner. Each vessel class differs in its operational
profile – speed, activity (time in port versus thattravelling), fuel consumption and dry-docking cycle (30or 60 months).

Table 1 quantifies the functional unit for the different
vessel classes. For the Containership class the functional
unit is:“The travel of 2 365 200 nautical miles of a 300 meterlong container ship, with an underwater area of 12 000m2 and a loading capacity of 70 000 dead weight tonne,
during 15 years of operation, including 3 maintenancecycles.”
The actual load is an average for the trading of theparticular vessel. Tankers, bulkers and LNG all traderoughly 75% loaded, 25% in ballast (loaded taking cargo
to destination, ballast returning to loading port). Ferries,
cruise and container ships all roughly trade at the samelevel. Ferries and Cruise have no significant change indraft between loaded and unloaded due to the relative
weight of the cargo being so much smaller than theweight of the ship. Container ships do have some ballast
time but the majority of time they are ferrying aroundcontainers from port to port loading and unloading at
each port, hence generally remaining the same draft.

TABLE 1 - DEFAULT PROPERTIES FOR THE DIFFERENT VESSEL CATEGORIES.

Size
Speed
Underwater Area
Fuel Consumption
Fuel Consumption
Activity
Fuel Consumption
Drydock Cycle
SeamilesRounded Seamiles
Length of vessel

Dead Weight Tonne
Knots
Square Metres
Tonnes/day
Tonnes/km
Percent
Tonnes/yearYears
Seamiles/month
Metres

Bulker
6K SMM
70 00013
10 000
35
0.061
73%
9 326
2.5
6 928
6 000
100

TankerContainer Container
LNG
6K SMM 13K SMM 10K SMM 12K SMM
300 000
67 00067 00075 0001120
16
19
19 000
12 000
12 000
12 000
100
150
120
150
0.205
0.169
0.169
0.178
80%
90%
90%
90%
29 20049 27539 42049 275
5
5
5
2.5
6 424
13 14010 512
12 4836 000
13 000
10 000
12 000
350
300
300
250

Ro-Ro
Cruise9K SMM 11K SMM
16 00045 000
19
23
3 000
5 000
20
60
0.024
0.059
70%
70%
5 110
15 330
2.5
2.5
9 709
11 7539 000
11 000160
250

TABLE 2. VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS (VOC) CONTENT AND VOLUME SOLIDS OF THE PAINTS.

VOC content w/w %Volume solids v/v%

INTERSHIELD
300
30%
60%

INTERGARD
263
31%
64%

INTERSMOOTH
7460HS SPC
30%
54%

INTERSLEEK
737
38%
56%

INTERSLEEK
757
16%
72%

INTERSLEEK1100SR
23%
74%

3.1 Service life of the solution
The typical commercial cycle of a ship is that between
every 10 and 15 years in-service, the underwater hull iscompletely sand-blasted and all paint completely
removed. For this study, it has been assumed that thecoatings are completely removed after 15 years.

913.2 Time and geographic reference of the study
This study was conducted in 2014 and is valid for all
ships painted with the three materials, respectively.
Since the product life is 15 years on the substrate thestudy and its results are valid until at last 2029.
Reference periods for the data used varies dependent of
the individual sources. However, future updates ofapplied data by e.g. suppliers, industry associations or
database providers are not expected to affect the
study’s overall results significantly.
The study is based and focused on state-of-the-art
marine coating technologies as applied today and it
does not include scenarios to project impacts ofpotential future coating systems.
The coatings are manufactured by AkzoNobel Marine
Coatings in Felling, United Kingdom, and in Damman,
Saudi Arabia. Coatings of the Intersleek range areproduced in Felling only, whereas all of the other coatings
are produced in Felling for the initial application to thevessel in Denmark and in Damman for the maintenance.

Unit process 1: Manufacturing of coatings andthinner in Felling and Saudi plants
Intersleek 737, 757 and 1100SR are three component
coatings meaning that each “unit” of paint is comprisedof three containers of individual components. Intershield
300 and Intergard 263 are two component coating(hence two containers) and Intersmooth 7460HS is asingle component coating (one container).
The individual components in each paint are produced
by dispersing/mixing a set of raw materials according todefined process sequences and recipes. A small amountof raw materials is lost as VOC emissions and as generalyield loss (e.g. raw material residues in originalcontainers). Once manufactured, the finished goods arefilled into relevant containers of varying sizes andtransported to the appropriate location. The yield losses,
heat and electricity demand in the manufacturing andthe transportation work required for the distribution of
the both raw materials and finished goods are primarydata provided by AN M&PC.

4. Boundary setting
FIGURE 2 - FLOWCHART OF THE STUDIED SYSTEM AND THE PROCESSES REQUIRED TO PRODUCE THE FUNCTIONAL UNIT AND WHICH THE
CHOICE OF COATING SYSTEM INFLUENCES.

Upstream processes (up to cradle) generating natural resources, chemical intermediates, transportation work, etc

Diesel and PE sheet
production

Raw materials, Containers, Heatand Electricity production

T
RM

Electricity

T

Heat

T
PE
sheet

Containers

Unit process 1:
Manufacturing of intermediates,
coatings and thinners in Felling andSaudi plants

T
Paints &Thinners

Paint

T

T

T

T

DieselUnit process 2:
New building

Fuel

CoatedVesselPaint

VOC
Incineration &recycling

To environment

92

VOC

Emissions fromDiesel comb.

To environment

T

Unit process 3:
In service

Leaching ofpaint components

T

T

T

Water
Grit
DieselPE sheet
Detergent

LubricantsT
Solid (dry) wasted Paint
Grit (including old paint in M&R)
Paint cans
T

Diesel, PE sheet, Grit,
Deterget and waterproduction

Fuel and lubricants
production

OperatingvesselPaint

Unit process 4:
M&R and Removal of paint

Grit
Includingold paint
T

Waste
water

T

Loss of paintthrough abrasion
Emissions from
Fuel burning

To environment

Functional Unit:
Service provided by shipowner operating a coatedocean vessel

VOC
Paint
Landfill

WWT

To environment

The spray pump compressor consumption and thecherry picker consumption are considered to be diesel
at 6 litres/hour and 10 litres/hour respectively.

Altogether, both fouling control systems consist of 60
raw materials some of which are pure substances andothers homogeneous mixes of several different
substances. Some of the base polymers that go into thecoatings are also produced by AkzoNobel Marine
Coatings.

For the application of the Intersleek paints it is arequirement for the above water parts of the vessel to beprotected from overspray with a plastic sheet (assumed
to be polyethylene) around two metres wide which is
attached at the waterline.

Unit process 2: New building of vessel
The first application of the coating systems at newbuilding of the vessel is assumed to take place inOdense, Denmark, according to the schemes presented
in table 6. The vessel is assumed to be in a fully blasted
condition with steel ready to be painted. This is only
realistic for a small vessel as larger vessels areconstructed from pre-fabricated blocks with applicationof the coatings taking place at various stages in theconstruction of the vessel. However, due to thecomplexity of the building process it was felt that thiswas a fair assumption to make.

The amount of paint applied (see table 7) is calculated
from the required dry film thickness, volume solids of thecoating and an application loss factor of 30%. The
assumption is that 25% will be lost to the environment
through overspray and 5% will be lost in tins as paintresidue or in spray lines. A small amount of thinner is also
used as a cleaning agent for the spray equipment.
All solvents in the paints that are not left in containers or
captured are assumed to be emitted to the environmentas VOC emissions without prior treatment. All thecontainers and the paint leftovers are sent as hazardous
waste to a waste treatment facility where the wet paint isseparated from the containers and incinerated with heatrecovery. The steel in the steel containers is recovered
and recycled.

For the multi component coatings the different parts are
mixed before application. The coatings are assumed tobe applied by a human work force of six people withairless spray guns. One spray gun, pump and cherry
picker is assumed for each sprayer. The pumps are of
68:1 ratio and the input pressure is 80 pounds per
square inch (psi).
TABLE 3 - NEW BUILDING SCHEMES – DRY FILM THICKNESS IN MICRONSIntersmooth 7460HS SPC
Intershield 300
Intergard 263
Intersmooth 7460HS SPC
Intersmooth 7460HS SPC
Intersmooth 7460HS SPCTOTAL Intersmooth 7460HS SPC

microns
microns
microns
microns
microns
microns

Intersleek 700, 900, 1100SR
Intershield 300
Intershield 300
Intersleek 737
Intersleek 1100SR

microns
microns
microns
microns

Bulker
6K SMM
150
100

Tanker
6K SMM
150
100

Container
13K SMM
150
100

Container
10K SMM
150
100

LNG
12K SMM
150
100

Ro-Ro
9K SMM
150
100

Cruise11K SMM
150
100

150
150
100
150

150
150
100
150

CONFIDENTIAL
Confidential
data

150
150
100
150

150
150
100
150

150
150
100
150

150
150
100
150

150
150
100
150

TABLE 4 - PAINT VOLUMES, IN LITRE, FOR THE APPLICATION, INCLUDING LOSS OF PAINT.

Confidential data

93

Unit process 3: In service
The in service stage of the lifecycle refers to the operationof the vessel and the global transportation of goods andpeople. The main activity during the in service stage,
which may be influenced by the choice of coating
system, is the vessel engine operation with its corresponding fuel consumption. Different vessels requiredifferent amounts of fuel, mainly dependent on the sizeand speed of the vessel during in service. Table 8 shows
the fuel consumption that has been estimated for thedifferent vessels when coated with either of the schemes.
It also illustrates the assumed speed, activity and transportation distance related to the specified fuelconsumption.
The Intersleek coating systems improves several
aspects of coating performance, which have an influenceon the fuel consumption, compared to the Intersmooth
7460HS system. Examples are lower surface hullroughness, better coefficient of friction and better foulrelease properties, which, for the Intersleek 1100SR
system leads to predicted reduction in fuel consumption
of 6% but with actual vessels showing up to 9%
reductions relative to the Intersmooth 7460HS system.
As a starting point for this study, fuel reductions of 4%
and 6% relative to Intersmooth 7460HS were assumed
for Intersleek 700 and Intersleek 1100SR respectively.
This assumption is backed up by independent studies at
Newcastle University in the UK (see [1] and [2]) as well as
ship operator testimonies on the performance of thesecoatings (K Line testimony of 8%, Mercator testimony of
6% for part vessel and 9% for full vessel).
In addition to fuel, the vessel engine also consumes
lubrication oil for the smooth operation of moving parts.
The amount of lubricant oil that is needed is assumed to
be proportional to the work performed by the engine(see [3]), and hence also to the amount of fuel burned.
During the in service stage, coating is lost from the hullthrough mechanical forces (abrasion, general wear-andtear).
Vessels have to be routinely dry-docked at regularintervals for class inspection (every five years for the first
fifteen years as a minimum) as well as for maintenanceand repair of the fouling control system. Different vessel
categories have different docking cycles. For this study,
the dry-docking records from the International Paint
Dataplan system were analysed to assess the docking
cycle for each class of vessel (see table 11 for dry-dockschematic). Table 9 shows the share of the underwaterarea that is estimated to be damaged during in service.
As an absolute worst case evaluation all paint on thisarea including the underlying anticorrosive and tie-coat
is assumed to be lost to the marine environment. In
practice, losses to the marine environment will vary from94

region to region. The estimates used for each class ofvessel come from actual dry-docking experience foreach vessel and coating type. Typically, Intersleek
systems (both 700 and 1100SR) show lower levels ofdamage when compared to Intersmooth 7460HS.
Intersmooth 7460HS coating is a class of biocidal
antifouling known as self-polishing copolymers (SPC);
these paints are designed to dissolve away into theenvironment during use, so significant quantities of thispaint is also lost to the marine environment.
Furthermore, it has been assumed that some coating
components will also leach from the Intersleek coating
systems at very low levels.
The total amount of paint that is emitted to the marine
environment during the in-service period is therefore
assumed to be equal to the amount of paint (dry) thathas to be applied during maintenance and repair plus
the amount of paint that is lost between the last
maintenance and repair and removal (assumed to be thesame as during service interval M&R 3 – M&R 4) plus
components leaching out (and not accounted for in the
M&R volumes).
The only raw materials with any specific leaching factors
are as follows: all components of Intersmooth 7460HS(including acrylic copper copolymer, zinc pyrithione andcuprous oxide), methylphenyl siloxane in Intersleek 757
and Fluorolink E10H in Intersleek 1100SR (see table 10
for leaching factors for these components).
The leaching factors for the two components in theIntersleek paints are based on estimates from initialleaching evaluations rather than absolute scientific data.
The components that make up the acrylic copper
copolymer used in Intersmooth 7460HS are released as
sodium naphthenate, copper chloride and a sodium saltof the acrylic copolymer. For the marine eco-toxicity
potentials assigned to these components see section“Environmental Impact and Eco-Efficiency Assessment”.
All the carbon in the emitted paint is assumed to beoxidized to fossil CO2. In addition to the CO2 emissions,the toxicity of the emitted paints is also considered.

TABLE 5 - FUEL CONSUMPTION, AND OTHER PARAMETERS, FOR THE SIX DIFFERENT VESSEL CLASSES WHEN COATED WITH THE INTERSLEEK1100SR COATING SYSTEM.

Bulker
6K SMM
Fuel Consumption
Activity
Fuel Consumption
Drydock Cycle
SeamilesTankerContainer Container LNG
Ro-Ro
Cruise6K SMM
13K SMM
10K SMM
12K SMM
9K SMM
11K SMM
35
100
150
120
150
20
60
73%
80%
90%
90%
90%
70%
70%
9 326
29 20049 27539 42049 2755 110
15 330
2,5
5
5
5
2,5
2,5
2,5
6 928
6 424
13 14010 512
12 4839 709
11 753Tonnes/day
Percent
Tonnes/yearYears
Seamiles/month

TABLE 6 - PERCENT OF THE UNDERWATER AREA THAT IS DAMAGED DURING IN SERVICE AND NEEDS TO BE REPAIRED DURING MAINTENANCE
AND REPAIR.

Bulker
6K SMM

Tanker
6K SMM

Container Container LNG
13K SMM 10K SMM 12K SMM

Ro-Ro
9K SMM

Cruise11K SMMIntersmooth 7460HS scheme
Drydock 1
Drydock 2
Drydock 3
Drydock 4
Drydock 5

1
2
3
4
5

10
30
40
50
100

15
30
100

20
40
100

20
40
100

10
25
35
50
100

10
20
30
40
100

7
15
25
35
100

Intersleek 700, 900, 1100SR scheme
Drydock 1
Drydock 2
Drydock 3
Drydock 4
Drydock 5

1
2
3
4
5

5
15
5
15
100

5
15
100

10
20
100

10
20
100

5
10
5
15
100

5
10
5
15
100

5
10
5
15
100

TABLE 7 - LEACHING FACTORS FOR COMPONENTS LEACHING TO THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT DURING IN SERVICE. THE LEACHING FACTORSCOMMUNICATE HOW MUCH OF THE COMPONENTS IN THE PAINT THAT IS DISSOLVED LEACHES TO THE ENVIRONMENT.

Confidential data

Unit process 4: Maintenance, repair and removal ofpaint
The maintenance, repair and removal of the foulingcontrol systems is assumed to take place in Dubai
according to the dry dock schematic in table 11. At
maintenance and repair the underlying coats are only
applied on the damaged areas whereas the top coats
are applied over the whole underwater area, according
to the schemes in table 12.
Before application, the vessel is washed and the areas
selected for repair prepared through grit blasting. A
vessel already coated with the Intersmooth 7460HS
scheme will be washed once throughout the docking,whereas a vessel coated with either Intersleek 700 orIntersleek 1100SR schemes will be washed two times,
the second wash comprising a detergent wash. For
washing, it has been assumed that 5 litres of water per
square meter will be needed per wash and 60 litres ofdetergent per detergent wash. The grit blasting isassumed to be carried out by 10 blasters and 6 cherry
pickers at a rate of 50 m 2 /man/hour. The gritconsumption is 45 kg/m2.
Application of the repair scheme is considered in thesame way as for application at the new construction
stage.
The amount of paint applied (see table 13) is calculated
from the required dry film thickness, volume solids of the95coating and an application loss factor of 30%. The
assumption is that 25% will be lost to the environment
through overspray and 5% will be lost in tins as paintresidue or in spray lines. A small amount of thinner is also
used as a cleaning agent for the spray equipment.
All solvents in the paints that are not left in containers or
captured are assumed to be emitted to the environment
without prior treatment. All the containers and the paintleftovers are sent as hazardous waste to a waste
treatment facility where the wet paint is separated fromthe containers and incinerated with heat recovery.
The grit and old paint are considered to be sent tolandfill. From the off-gases of the landfill (mostly methane)energy in the form of electricity is recovered and credit isgiven for avoided emissions from Saudi-Arabian country
grid electricity.

The impact of this credit is insignificant in size regarding
the full life-cycle impacts considered in this study. The
wash water is assumed to be sent to a municipal waste
water facility via a public sewage system.
The typical commercial cycle of a ship is that between
every 10 and 15 years in-service, the underwater hull iscompletely blasted and all paint removed. For this study
it has been assumed that the coatings are completely
removed after 15 years. Before removal, the vessels are
washed in the same way as during maintenance andrepair. The paint is then removed through grit blasting.
The wash water and the grit and old paint are assumed
to be treated the same way as during maintenance andrepair.

TABLE 8 - DRY DOCK SCHEMATIC.

0
BulkerNB
TankerNB
Container NB
LNG
NB
Ro-Ro
NB
CruiseNB

1

2

3
Drydock 1

4

5

6
Drydock 2

Service Year
7 8
9Drydock 3

Drydock 1
Drydock 1
Drydock 1
Drydock 1
Drydock 1

10

11

12
Drydock 4

13 14

Drydock 2
Drydock 2
Drydock 2
Drydock 2
Drydock 2

Drydock 3
Drydock 3
Drydock 3

Drydock 4
Drydock 4
Drydock 4

15
RemoveRemoveRemoveRemoveRemoveRemoveTABLE 9 - MAINTENANCE SCHEMES SHOWING DRY FILM THICKNESS OF ALL PAINT LAYERS

Intersmooth 7460HS SPC
Intershield 300
touch-up
Intergard 263
touch-up
Intersmooth 7460HS SPC
full coat
Intersmooth 7460HS SPC
full coat
Intersmooth 7460HS SPC
full coat
Total Intersmooth 7460HS SPC

microns
microns
microns
microns
microns
microns

Intersleek 700, 900, 1100SR
Intershield 300
touch-up
Intershield 300
touch-up
Intersleek 737
touch-up
Intersleek 700, 900, 1100SR full coatmicrons
microns
microns
microns

Bulker
6K SMM
150
100

Tanker
6K SMM
150
100

Container
13K SMM
150
100

Container
10K SMM
150
100

LNG
12K SMM
150
100

Cruise11K SMM
150
100

150
150
100
100

150
150
100
100

CONFIDENTIAL
Confidential
data

150
150
100
100

150
150
100
100

150
150
100
100

150
150
100
100

TABLE 10 - PAINT VOLUMES, IN LITRES, FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR, INCLUDING LOSS OF PAINT.

Confidential data

96

Ro-Ro
9K SMM
150
100

150
150
100
100

4.1 Data quality
Suppliers were contacted for manufacturing data for all
the raw materials that constituted more than 1% of theoverall coating weight or raw material cost. However,inventories could only be established for 9 raw materials
based on supplier responses. Raw materials from
respondents represent however 42% of the total raw
material weight required for producing all paints needed
for the Intersleek schemes and 39% of all the paintrequired for production of all paints needed for theIntersmooth 7460HS scheme, respectively. For all theother raw materials, i.e. 58%, inventories were generated
by taking generic and public available datasets and/or
through literature, research and partially roughestimations on the production (see table 5). For detailed
information regarding how the production of the raw
materials has been modelled, contact AkzoNobel
Sustainability. The influence of raw materials to theoverall results and conclusions of the study are
elaborated in the sensitivity analysis.

The waste treatment facility to which the paint containers
from the new building are sent treats many different waste
flows in the same processes. All the inputs to theseprocesses and all the emissions from these processes,
except carbon dioxide emissions, have been allocated tothe different waste flows based on mass. The emission offossil carbon dioxide has been calculated according to thecarbon content of the waste. However, this waste treatment
system also produces heat, which is supplied to the local
district heating system, and steel. The amount of heat andsteel that is produced for a certain waste flow is calculated
according to the heat content of the waste and the content
of recoverable steel. In this case, allocation has been
avoided by applying the system expansion (or avoided
impacts) approach, which in this case results in that a credit
is given to the coating system, which corresponds to theenvironmental impacts that would be generated if the heatproduced by the waste incinerator and the steel recovered,would be replaced by heat production in a natural gas
boiler and production of virgin steel.

Some cut-offs were made for certain stages of thelife-cycle. The production and waste treatment of the
packaging material related to the distribution of the raw
materials have not been taken into account. Also thewaste treatment of any other waste generated at the
manufacturing sites has not been included in thisassessment. The reason for this is that a very small
amount of waste is generated in the manufacturing, andthe treatment of this waste is estimated to contributewith less than 1% to the overall environmental impact.

The landfill facility to which the paint containers and gritand old paint from the new building are sent produces
electricity, which is supplied to the national electricity
system. Also in this case, allocation has been avoided byapplying the system expansion approach, which in thiscase results in that a credit is given to the coating
system, which corresponds to the environmental
impacts that would be generated if the electricity would
be produced in the same way as average Saudi Arabianelectricity.

Also input raw materials and/or formulations that
contributed less than 1% to the total mass of the finishedBAF paint were left out of consideration. In no casehowever did the coverage through the other materials
drop below 97% of the total.
4.2 Methods/formulas used
Greenhouse gas emissions were accounted according
to IPPC AR5
The only processes in the studied system for which
allocation is an issue are processes related to the
production of some of the raw materials and the waste
treatment of the waste items after new building andmaintenance at repair and removal.
For the raw materials which have been estimatedthrough literature research, and for the production
systems modelled with help of information fromsuppliers, allocation based on mass has been applied
mainly due to the limited amount of information available
for these production systems that would be needed inorder to allocate in a different way. For the raw materials
for which publicly available inventories have been used,
the allocations in the underlying LCA studies have notbeen changed.

5. Results
The basic vessel classes considered in this study were Bulk
Carrier, Crude Oil Tanker, Container Ship, Liquid Natural Gas
carrier (LNG), Roll-On Roll-Off ferry (Ro-Ro) and Cruise Liner.
The results for the different vessel classes showed very
similar patterns, and generated the same conclusions.
Hence, in order to limit the length of this report only the
results for the container ship will be presented here. However,
the results for the other vessel classes are readily available on
request. All results are presented relative to the functionalunit.
As the aim of the study is to identify the environmental
consequences of choosing the Intersleek fouling control
system instead of the Intersmooth 7460HS system, theresults show the difference in environmental impacts whenchoosing Intersleek 1100SR or Intersleek 700, respectively
instead of Intersmooth 7460HS as BAF paint.
The results show that the Intersleek fouling control systems
have lower GHG emissions when compared to Intersmooth
7460HS. The impacts related to the fuel use during the inservice stage represent almost 100% of the studied systems
total GHG emissions and by far outweigh impacts related to
production, distribution, and application of the paints.

97

TABLE 11 - TOTAL GHG IMPACT FOR THE REFERENCE SYSTEM.

Category
Global warming potential

Intersmooth
7460HS
2 664

Intersleek
700
2 557

Intersleek
1100SR
2 504

Unit
ktonne CO2-equiv.

The following graphs illustrate the differences between
the different anti-fouling schemes. “Production ofingredients” hereby describes the total amount of paints
produced over the entire life-cycle. “Application NB” aswell as “M&R and removal” only cover the energies usedand specific emissions directly arising from those
activities.
TABLE 12 - AVOIDED GHG EMISSIONS RELATIVE TO THE REFERENCE SYSTEM.

Intersmooth
7460HS scheme
Production of ingredients
Trp of ingredients and thinner
Paint and thinner manufacturing
Containers manufacturing
Trp of paint and thinner
Application NB
In service
M&R and removal
Waste treatment end of life
SUM
avoided emissions (rel.)0%Intersleek 700
scheme
81
12
2
3
3
33
106 550106
106 790-4%Intersleek
unit
1100SR scheme84
t CO2eq / functional unit
12t CO2eq / functional unit2
t CO2eq / functional unit
4
t CO2eq / functional unit3
t CO2eq / functional unit
31
t CO2eq / functional unit
159 819
t CO2eq / functional unit
105t CO2eq / functional unitt CO2eq / functional unit
160 060
t CO2eq / functional unit
-6%

FIGURE 3 - DIFFERENCE IN GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL.

The credit for the avoided emissions belongs to thecomplete value chain even though the credit isdominated by the “In service” stage.

98

AkzoNobel International paint claims the most importantpart of the avoided emissions for itself due to thespecific chemical nature and the properties of theIntersleek range products.

6. Key parameters
The impacts related to the fuel use during the in service
stage represent almost 100% of the studied systems
total green-house gas emissions, and by far outweighthe impacts related to the production, distribution, andapplication of the paints.

7. Integrating uncertainties andscenarios of future developments
Since the fuel efficiency during the operation of thevessel is dependent on several other factors which the
choice of coating system does not influence, the real fuelrequirements will vary from vessel to vessel and between
different service periods. Furthermore, in a futurescenario in which vessels can operate on sustainable
fuels, less weight will be put on fuel requirements, andmore focus will be put on the materials of the vessels.

In order to take these aspects into account and tohighlight the GHG emissions of the production, distribution, application, maintenance, and removal of thepaints, the fuel requirements and use of lubricant oil
during in service are now set to be independent of the
choice of coating system. All activities related to the fueland lubricant oil can therefore be excluded from thecomparison. To simplify interpretation, the results for the
Global warming potential impacts are now presented as
the impacts associated with the use of each coating
system. The differences between the impacts represent
GHG emissions-related consequences of a change
between fouling control system.

TABLE 13 - AVOIDED GHG EMISSIONS RELATIVE TO THE REFERENCE SYSTEM (EXCL. FUEL CONSUMPTION)

Intersmooth
7460HS scheme
Production of ingredients
Trp of ingredients and thinner
Paint and thinner manufacturing
Containers manufacturing
Trp of paint and thinner
Application NB
In service
M&R and removal
SUM
avoided emissions (rel.)0%Intersleek 700
scheme
81
12
2
3
3
33
12
106
252
-58%

Intersleek
unit
1100SR scheme84
t CO2eq / functional unit
12t CO2eq / functional unit2
t CO2eq / functional unit
4
t CO2eq / functional unit3
t CO2eq / functional unit
31
t CO2eq / functional unit
12t CO2eq / functional unit
105t CO2eq / functional unit
253
t CO2eq / functional unit
-58%

FIGURE 4 - DIFFERENCE IN GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL (EXCL. FUEL CONSUMPTION)

99

From the diagrams it is evident that the Intersleek 700
and 1100SR coating systems perform significantly
better than the Intersmooth 7460HS system in terms ofglobal warming potential. The main reason for this is thatless volume of coating is needed since the Intersleek
finish coatings are not self-polishing coatings and since
they have shown to have higher resistance to damage(less paint is emitted due to mechanical forces.
Other outstanding results are:•	The alternative’s performance in GWP is highly
correlated to the volumes of paint. This is aconsequence of the following aspects of the coating
systems:•	There is a relatively small difference between thepaints on a volume by volume basis with regard
to solvent content and impacts in these impact
categories.
•	The raw material production has the highest
contribution to the GWP, however the emissionsof solvents (VOC) at application of the paintduring new building and maintenance and repair
also has a high contribution.
Hence, it is evident that the major opportunity for environmental impact mitigation is to produce biocidal antifouling control systems which:•	Further enhance the fuel efficiency during vessel
operation• Require lower amounts of paint• Are based on lower amounts of solvents•	Are produced from raw materials which are based on
renewable or non-scarce resources
However there are other aspects which also areimportant in the longer term, such as working with thecomplete supply chain to facilitate sustainable material
management. For example, renewable solvents can betreated before being emitted, and cans, tins andnon-used paint can be managed via a take backscheme.
The studied system is comprehensive and modelled at ahigh level of detail to ensure that no major impacts would
be overseen, however a cut-off was made for thetreatment of raw material packaging waste and otherwaste from the manufacturing of the paints. Consideringthat the impact of this waste normally has a small impact
in relation to the production of the raw materials andpaint, this cut-off of waste treatment in manufacturing is
not considered to influence the outcome of this study.
This is further supported by the fact that there are no
major differences in the amount, category and treatmentof the raw material packaging waste between the threesystems, hence also the relative environmental impact
from the raw material packaging waste of the threesystems is likely to be aligned with the paint volumes
required.

100

Even at no reduction in fuel requirements (which is thebase case assumption), the Intersleek systems havesignificantly lower GHG emissions. This is mainly
because less paint is needed and since the reduction inenvironmental impact is valued to motivate the higher
paint costs associated with the Intersleek systems by
the applied weighting methodology. The Intersleek
systems also reduce dependency on scarce resources,
especially copper, and emissions of VOC, which areimportant aspects when looking at the overall environmental impact of paint.
Finally, a transition to raw materials based on renewable
and less scarce resources (especially copper) and topaints with lower solvent content will be required in orderto safeguard from future sustainability pressures.

8. Q ualitative assessment
attribution
According to the functionality approach as presented intable 3 in the avoided emissions guidelines the contribution of the Intersleek product to the value chain avoided
emissions is “fundamental”

References[1] Candries, M., Atlar, M. (2005), “Experimental Investigation of the Turbulent Boundary Layer of Surfaces
Coated with Marine Antifoulings”, Journal of Fluids
Engineering, Vol 27[2] Candries, M., Atlar, M. (2003), “On the Drag andRoughness Characteristics of Antifoulings”, Journalof Maritime Engineering, Vol 27[3] Marine Engine, IMO Tier I, Programme 2009

Case 11

The Green Sense® Concrete solution –optimizing concrete mixtures by reducing
cement content

BASF

COMMISSIONER AND PERFORMER OF THE STUDY
The study was commissioned by BASF Construction Solutions GmbH, performed by
Anahí Grosse-Sommer of BASF SE and David Green of BASF Corporation and reviewed
by Quantis

1. Purpose of the study
This comparative life cycle assessment was conducted
to quantify the environmental benefits associated withlowering the cement content of concrete mixtures.
Specifically, this study conducted according to ISO
14040 and ISO 14044 examines the avoided greenhousegas (GHG) emissions of concrete mixtures based on the
optimization of the concrete mixture design through theuse of supplementary cementitious materials and theappropriate chemical admixtures to meet or exceed
design and construction specifications. The effect ofsuch a substitution on environmental impact categories
besides GHG emissions is briefly addressed as well.
This analysis serves as a case study according to therequirements listed in “Guidelines from the Chemical
Industry for Accounting and Reporting GHG Emissions
Avoided Along the Value Chain Based on Comparative
Studies” developed by ICCA and the WBCSD chemical
sector group in 2013 and updated in 2016. It is a
Category 3 study in which average concrete mixtures
are compared with mixtures requiring lower cement
content and containing unique admixtures to meet or
exceed the original design specifications.

2. Solutions to compare
2.1 Description of the solutions to becomparedTwo concrete mixtures were compared in this study: aconventional standard concrete mixture and an
optimized concrete mixture. The optimized mixtures,
known as Green Sense® Concrete, are designed forspecific building applications in which proprietary
admixture solutions are selected to maintain or exceed
the original concrete properties while reducing thecement content. Cement is associated with a large
carbon footprint due to the calcination process required
during its manufacture. Certain cement replacement
materials may require unique admixtures to attain theappropriate performance characteristics of the concrete
design. The appropriate admixture selection andapplication supports the cement reduction while keeping
concrete properties, both in the fresh and hardened
state, at an optimum level. Green Sense ® Concrete
mixes are developed by BASF for a specific customer

application to achieve high technical performance at
reduced environmental impact and thus vary from one
construction project to another.
Concrete is generally composed of binders, aggregates,
admixtures and water. The binder, typically cement, isactivated by water and serves to bind together andsolidify the aggregates such as sand or gravel. The input
materials for the concrete mixtures compared in thisstudy are shown in Table 1. Due to confidentiality considerations, the average of 250 actual studies is reported
here rather than one specific concrete mix. Thus, theconventional concrete mixture composition is representative for typical North American construction and isbased on the average of 250 concrete mixtures; theGreen Sense Concrete composition in the table issimilarly the average of 250 actual Green Sense Concrete
mixtures that were developed by BASF for customers’
residential, institutional and commercial construction
projects in the US in the time period 2012-2016.
TABLE 1 - INPUT MATERIALS OF THE CONCRETE MIXTURES

Material
cementconventional
concrete mix

Green Sense®
Concrete mix

kg/m3

299

196

slag

kg/m³

8

133

sand

kg/m3

832

819

gravel

kg/m

3

1030

1001

admixtures

ml/100kg

707

798

water

l/m3

160

156

While the conventional concrete mixture also contains
generic admixtures, the Green Sense Concrete mixture
is evaluated in the laboratory to best address specificconstruction application needs. Admixtures included in
the concrete mixtures include water reducers, airentrainers and workability-retaining admixtures.
The properties of the Green Sense ® Concrete with
reduced cement content are comparable or improved
when compared to the conventional mixture. To simplify
the comparison, it was assumed that the properties
were the same. Relevant attributes include, for example,
workability of the wet mixture and strength of thehardened concrete.

1012.2 Definition of the boundaries of the market
and the application
Concrete is the most widely used man-made material in
the world. On average nearly three metric tonnes ofconcrete are used per person every year (2). In the USA,annual production of concrete is over 500 million metrictonnes (3). Green Sense Concrete ® can replacesubstantial amounts of conventional concrete, its use
effectively limited by the availability of secondary cementitious materials (SCM) such as slag or fly ash. TheseSCM are produced in the range of hundreds of millions oftons annually. BASF offers the solutions on a global basis
and more than 100 million cubic meters of concrete withhigh SCM content have been placed so far.

4. Boundary setting
The system boundaries of the average concrete mixture
are shown in Figure 1. The study includes the productionof concrete components including binders, aggregates,
admixtures, and water. Mixing, placement, use andend-of-life of the concrete mixtures are identical and notincluded in this assessment. Compared to the impactsof the concrete raw materials on GHG emissions thecontribution of these life cycle steps are small.
FIGURE 1 - SYSTEM BOUNDARIES

3. F
 unctional unit and referenceflow
3.1 Functional unit
The functional unit of this study is the production of 1 m3
concrete for general construction projects for the US
market in the time period 2012-2016. The density of these
concrete mixtures is about 2300 kg/m3. The functional
and technical properties of the concrete mixtures arecomparable, so the use and end-of-life phase are assumed
to be identical and are not included in the system boundaries.
3.2 Reference flow
The reference flow is 1 m3 of concrete. The admixture
amount varies by alternative according the input
materials shown in Table 1.
3.3 Quality requirements
Concrete must fulfill quality requirements both during
application of the building materials as well as in the useof the completed building structure. In the wet state,concrete needs to be easily workable, easy to pump,place and set. In the hardened state, concrete has to be
durable and require minimal maintenance. Both concrete
mixtures in this study fulfill these requirements.
Advantages of the Green Sense® Concrete mix – suchas good workability in extreme environments,
pumpability to hundreds of meters in height, anddecreased hardening times – have not been included inthis assessment since the effects of these advantages
on environmental impacts are difficult to quantify.
3.4 Service life of the solution
Concrete structures have varying life spans that varywith use, climate conditions and more. The concrete
mixtures in this study are assumed to have a service lifeof 50 years. However, in this study the use of theconcrete structures is not included; therefore, theservice life has no relevance for the assessment.
3.5 Time and geographic reference of the study
The study covers construction projects in the US market
in the time period 2012-2016.

102

For the raw materials used in concrete manufacture,transportation to the manufacturing site has been taken
into account. These transportation distances are shownin Table 2.
TABLE 2 - RAW MATERIAL TRANSPORTATION DISTANCES AND MODE

Materialtransport distance (km)mode (km)cement

200

truck

slag

1000

barge

sand

100

truck

gravel100

barge

admixtures

100

truck

5. Calculation methodology anddata
5.1 Methods and formulas used
This study is a cradle-to-gate assessment of thefollowing environmental impact categories:• climate change [kg CO2-eq]• photochemical ozone formation [kg NMVOC-eq]• ozone depletion [kg CFC11-eq]• acidification [mol H+-eq]• eutrophication marine [kg N-eq]• eutrophication freshwater [kg P-eq]• resource depletion [kg Sb-eq]• human toxicity [toxicity points]

With the exception of the global warming potential and the
toxicity potential the impact assessment methodology
follows the EU PEF Guidance (4). EU PEF assessment
methodology for climate change is based on IPCC 2007
100-year values. For this comparative study the climatechange characterization factors used are according to AR5(5) as implemented in the GaBi Software (thinkstep AG,
compilation 7.2.2.28). The human toxicity potential follows
BASF methodology (6, 7) and has been implemented in the
GaBi Software by thinkstep AG as well.
5.2 Allocation
No allocation was needed for the input data. Some of
the life cycle inventory (LCI) data of the backgroundprocesses may include allocation. The assumptions
underlying any allocation in generic product pre-chainsare documented in the corresponding database.
5.3 Data, data sources and data quality
The foreground data, i.e. the concrete mixture compositions, are based on 250 comparative life cycle
assessment studies that BASF has completed in recent
years, comparing average concrete mixtures with Green
Sense® Concrete mixtures.

These assessments cover actual Green Sense ®
Concrete mixture compositions based on laboratory
optimization.
LCI data comes from the GaBi database (thinkstep AG,
database version 6.115). These are average LCI and
quality is assumed to be appropriate for the purpose of
the study. Admixtures for the Green Sense® Concrete
mixture are based on actual BASF admixture production
processes and the primary data is of high quality.

6. Results
6.1 Avoided GHG Emissions
The cradle-to-gate GHG emissions associated with the
production of the two concrete mixtures are shown in
Figure 2. The binder components, i.e. the cement andslag, dominate the product carbon footprint. The contributions of the other materials are essentially negligible.
Transportation of raw materials and the manufacturing
process (e.g. energy) contribute about 10% to thecradle-to-gate GHG emissions associated with eachconcrete mixture.

FIGURE 2 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS OF CONCRETE MIX ALTERNATIVES

The avoided emissions along the value chain are thus
73 kg CO2-eq/m3 concrete (Table 3).
TABLE 3 - AVOIDED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS OF CONCRETE MIX ALTERNATIVES

Emissions per step (kg CO2-eq/m3 concrete)
Raw material: binders
Raw material: sands
Raw material: aggregates (gravel)
raw materials: admixtures
Raw materials: waterTransportation
Manufacturing process

Average concrete mix
283
2
4
1
0.04
8
12

Green Sense® Concrete mix
211
2
4
1
0.03
7
12

Total

309

236

Avoided emission

73

103

6.2 Scenario analysis
No scenarios were calculated.
6.3 Other environmental impact category
results
Figure 3 shows the relative performance of the two
concrete mixtures in all impact categories assessed. The
alternative with the highest environmental impact isnormalized to a value of one, whereas the concrete
mixture with the lower burden thus lies somewhere
between zero and one. The environmental impact in all
categories – photochemical ozone formation, ozone
depletion, acidification, eutrophication (marine), eutrophication (freshwater), resource depletion, human toxicity
as well as climate change – are lower for the Green
Sense® Concrete mixture. Therefore, there is no trade-off
associated with the avoided GHG emissions. Detailed
diagrams of the results for all these impact categories
are shown in the appendix.
FIGURE 3 - OVERVIEW OF ALL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ASSESSED

8. Review of results
A critical review of the Green Sense ® Concrete
calculation tool was completed by NSF International in
2016. The tool was validated according to NSF Protocol
P352 Validation and Verification of Eco-Efficiency
Analyses (8).

9. S
 tudy limitations and future
recommendations
This study is based on approximately 500 concrete
mixture compositions as used in specific construction
projects in the US. The results may not be applicable tospecific construction projects in the US and the concrete
mixture compositions may differ from other regions.
For the study it was assumed that both average concrete
mixtures and Green Sense® Concrete mixtures show
similar maintenance requirements during building use.
Lab tests indicate that Green Sense ® Concrete may
have advantages during use due to higher durability andreduced maintenance costs. Taking into account thesedifferences during building life cycles would result in
additional avoided greenhouse gas emissions.

10. Conclusions
This study compares average concrete mixtures with
optimized concrete mixtures, known as Green Sense®
Concrete. Green Sense® Concrete is a BASF concrete
optimization solution that incorporates advanced
admixture solutions that allow for partial substitution of
cement with other cementitious materials having lower
greenhouse gas emissions.

7. Significance of contribution
Certain BASF admixtures allow for the partial substitution of the concrete component cement in Green Sense®
Concrete mixtures with other materials having a lower
carbon footprint. The admixtures thus support the use of
supplementary cementitious materials to enablereductions of greenhouse gas emissions, so bothproducer and user of the admixture contribute to the
avoided emissions. In addition, producers of alternative
cementitious binders such as the slag provide thematerial to replace cement content. Therefore, various
players along the value chain contribute to GHG
emission reduction.

104

The average concrete mixture product in this study is
associated with GHG emissions of 309 kg CO2-eq/m3,
while the Green Sense® Concrete mixture in this study
results in 236 kg CO 2-eq/m 3. Avoided emissions of
73 kg CO2-eq/m3 concrete were thus possible with theGreen Sense® Concrete mixture relative to the average
concrete mixture, including raw materials and manufacturing process needed to produce wet concrete. The
placement, use and end-of-life stages were not includedin the study because they were assumed to be identical.
Cement is the single largest contributor to the cradle-togate greenhouse gas emissions. Transport of raw
materials and manufacturing process needed for
concrete mixing have a minor effect, while othermaterials have a negligible contribution to the carbon
footprint in this study.

11. References[1] BASF Construction Solutions GmbH (2015) Green
Sense® Concrete: The Concrete Technology for
Sustainable Construction[2] h t t p : / / w w w. w b c s d c e m e n t . o r g / i n d e x . p h p /about-cement/benefits-of-concrete, retrieved 14
December 2016[3] Meyer C (2004) Concrete Materials and Sustainable
Development in the United States. StructuralEngineering International 14(3):203-207[4] European Commission (2014) Environmental
Footprint Pilot guidance document. Guidance forthe implementation of the EU Product Environmental Footprint during the Environmental Footprint
pilot phase v. 4.0[5] IPCC (2013) Climate Change 2013: The PhysicalScience Basis. Working GroupI Contribution to theFifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change.
[6] Uhlman B, Saling P (2010) Measuring and Communicating Sustainability through Eco-Efficiency
Analysis. Chemical Engineering Progress 16:17-26[7] Landsiedel R, Saling P (2002) Assessment of Toxicological Risks for Lifecycle Assessment and Eco-Efficiency Analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7(5):261-268[8] Uhlman B, Laginess T, Green D, Steinmetz D, Saling
P, Grosse-Sommer A, Paczkowski N, van Gelder R(2015) NSF Protocol 352, Validation and Verificationof Eco-Efficiency Analysis, Part A, BASF´s Eco-Efficiency Analysis Methodology, USA
http://www.nsf.org/newsroom_pdf/BASF_EEA_
Methodology_Validation_Submission_PartAP352_
Jan_2016.pdf retrieved 21 December 2016

12. Appendix
The following figures show the results of the other environmental impact categories.
FIGURE 4 - PHOTOCHEMICAL OZONE FORMATIONFIGURE 5 - OZONE DEPLETION

105FIGURE 6 - ACIDIFICATIONFIGURE 7 - EUTROPHICATION (MARINE)FIGURE 8 - EUTROPHICATION (FRESHWATER)

106

FIGURE 9 - RESOURCE DEPLETION

FIGURE 10 - HUMAN TOXICITY

107

Case 12 Polypropylene (PP) containers
for water-based paints

Braskem

COMMISSIONER AND PERFORMER OF THE STUDY
The study was commissioned by Braskem, executed by ACV Brasil and reviewed
by Quantis.

1. Purpose of the study
The objective of this study is to determine the reductionof GHG emissions by the use of Polypropylene (PP)resins for the manufacturing of rigid containers forwater-based paints, when compared to tinplatecontainers.
This study has been prepared using the “Guidelines fromthe Chemical Industry for accounting and reporting GHG
emissions avoided along the value chain based oncomparative studies (guidelines)” developed by ICCA
and the Chemical Sector Group of the WBCSD.

2. Solutions to compare
2.1. Description of the solutions to compare
PP containers and the lids are injected, both using virgin
only resin. Tinplate containers are welded and a layer ofvarnish is applied. The filling process of the packages isassumed as being equal for both alternative solutions.
The use (and eventual re-use) of the packages is also
considered as being equivalent. The alternative solutions
considered in this study fulfil the same function and meetthe minimum requirements accepted by the market.
2.2. Level in the Value Chain
The study focuses on the use of PP resin for rigid
container. The study is based on the chemical productlevel to show the contribution of this chemical productfor GHG emission reduction as a packaging solution.
2.3 Definition of the boundaries of the market
and the application
994 million liters of water-based paints were sold in Brazil
in 2016 (Abrafati, 2017). The market for water-based
paint containers in Brazil is dominated by the tinplate
alternative, with 92%, followed by the analyzed fossil PP
alternative, with 8% 1.

3. F
 unctional unit and reference flow
3.1 Functional unit
The function has been defined as “to pack water-based
paint for storage and transportation”. The functional unit
has been set as to pack for storage and transportation
1,800 L of water-based paint.

Both alternatives considered in the study fulfil the samefunction. The market considers that both alternatives
provide the same shelf-life for the paints, therefore thetechnical performance of the systems are equivalent.
All data are representative of the Brazilian market in year2016.
3.2. Reference flow
The table below shows the reference flows for eachalternative.
PP

Tinplate

Mass of each 18 L container

740 g

980 g

Reference flow (100 containers)

74 kg

98 kg

4. Boundary settingThis study covers the following life cycle stages:• Extraction of raw Materials and intermediate manufacturing, for both product systems;• Manufacturing of the containers;• Decoration of the containers• Distribution;• End-of-life of the containers.
Both containers are filled in the same way. Therefore thefilling process has been disregarded in this comparative
analysis. This was due mainly to lack of data, but thisprocess has a relatively small contribution to the overall
environmental impact. The main environmental aspect in
the filling process is the use of electricity in the filling
process, but given the characteristics of the Brazilian
electricity matrix (over 85% hydro-powered) the related
impacts in GHG emissions are low.
Infrastructure has not been considered for either productsystem due to the high level of uncertainty in thesedatasets and because usually these processes have low
contribution to the final results.
All alternatives considered in this study fulfill the samefunction and meet the minimum requirements regarding
mechanical properties and technical performance. It isalso assumed that they have no differentiation during theuse phase.

1 There are two alternatives in the market for water-based paints: 3.6 L gallons and 18 L containers. However, the smallest avoided emission is found for the 18 L
alternative. Therefore, for simplification, only this alternative will be considered.

108

Figures 1 and 2 shows flow diagrams for both product systems.
FIGURE 1 - PRODUCT SYSTEM FOR TINPLATE CONTAINERS

109

FIGURE 2 - PRODUCT SYSTEM FOR POLYPROPYLENE (PP) CONTAINERS110

5. Calculation methodology anddata
5.1 Methods and formulas used
Avoided GHG emissions were calculated as thedifference between the life cycle emissions of PP
containers and tinplate containers.
Modeling and calculations were made using SimaPro®
software version 8.0.5. The impact method used was
IPCC 2007 GWP, with characterization factors for a
timeframe of 100 years [IPCC 2007]. The 2007 versionof the IPCC report was used since the most current data
(IPCC 2013) had not been implemented in the LCA
software when the full LCA was performed.
5.2 Allocation
Allocation points are mainly upstream in the crude oil
refining process and steam cracking units to manufacture
propene. In both cases economic allocation was used.
End of life allocation was done using a 50/50 allocation
approach in which environmental credits and burdens
related to the raw material production and the end of life
phase are equally divided between the main productsystem and the new product system created by therecycled product. A sensitivity analysis on this allocation
factor has been performed and is shown in Annex 1
together with the full LCA study that supports thisavoided emissions study.
The average shares of waste disposal for the geographic
scope of this study come from [ABRELPE 2011] (disposal
to sanitary landfill: 58.1%, disposal to controlled landfill:24.2% disposal to dump: 17.7%).
Component

The full LCA report (in Portuguese) is provided for further
understanding of the trade-offs involved and therefore,
the original data are presented here for consistency.
The Ecoinvent database is the largest LCI database in
the world and also the most up to date source of publicdata. Table 1 shows the data sources used in this study.
Road transport in Brazil is based on the process‘transport, lorry> 32t, EURO3/RER U’, considering themost recent statistical data on the types of engines in
Brazilian truck fleet, which refers to 2009 [ILOS 2011].
According to this reference, in 2009 there were no EURO
4 trucks in the Brazilian fleet. Moreover, a higher loadfactor is assumed (70%) [Barreto 2007], which is 56.25%
in Europe [Spielmann et al 2007]. The type of diesel isalso adapted by choosing the conventional diesel insteadof the low sulfur diesel, considering data from sulfur indiesel fuel sold in 2012 [CNT 2012].
The Brazilian energy matrix is updated based on data ofdomestic electricity supply by source in 2011 from the
National Energy Balance [EPE 2012].
Recycling rates of 10.8% for polypropylene [Plastivida
2010], 47% for tinplate [ABEAÇO, 2010] and 13.2% for
the low density polyethylene [Plastivida 2010] are assumed.
TABLE 1 - DATA SOURCES

Material or process

Data Source

Reference Year

Polypropylene, at PP5 plant of
Braskem/BR U mix

Braskem/ACV Brasil

2011-2012

Injection moulding/RER U

Ecoinvent v3 based on [Habersatter et al 1998]
and [Boustead 1997]

1997-1998

Steel, converter, low-alloyed, atplant/BR U

Ecoinvent v3 based on basic oxygen furnaces in
Europe and [IPCC 2001]

2001

Hot rolling, steel/BR U

Ecoinvent v3 based on [IPCC 2001]

2001

Tin plating, pieces/BR U

Ecoinvent v3 based on data from an establishedgalvanizing company in central Europe

2001-2005

Sheet rolling, steel/RER U

Ecoinvent v3 based on [IPCC 2001]

2001

Steel product manufacturing,
average metal working/RER U

Ecoinvent v3 based on eight environmental
reports of companies in the engineeringbusiness

2002-2005

PP Container

Tin Plate Container

5.3 Data sources and data quality
Data for the PP container product system are mainly
primary data collected from Braskem operations in
Brazil. However, there are no primary data for oil
extraction and refining in Brazil so these data wereadapted from Ecoinvent database v3.

6. Results
6.1 Avoided emissions
The life cycle of each alternative has been divided in:• Raw materials extraction and processing;• Container manufacturing;• Container decoration;• Distribution;• End-of-Life111

No emissions were assigned for the use phase.
The detailed results are shown in Table 2.
TABLE 2 – THE RESULTS OF THE CASE STUDYLife cycle stage

PP containers(kgCO2e/Functionalunit)

Raw material

135

Manufacturing/
Processing

114

Decoration

36

Tinplate containers(kgCO2e/Functional
unit)
370
14

Transport

927

End of life/Disposal

6

-41

Total

300

370

Avoided Emissions

70 kgCO2e/FU“Raw material” life cycle stage refers to oil extraction, oil
refining, naphtha cracking, production of the PP resin
and to the manufacturing of steel plates and zincextraction. This stage, for the tinplate container, isdominated by the extraction of iron ore, the productionof pig iron in blast furnace and the production of low
alloyed steel from pig iron and iron scrap, and presents
the highest emission in this products life cycle. The highimpact is mainly related to the energy and chemicals
used for the production of pig iron and steel, and to theemissions from these processes. As for the PP resin, thisstage is dominated by the oil extraction and the
production of PP.
The end of life of the tinplate containers has a positive
influence due to the credits coming from the highrecycling rate of steel, avoiding the production of pig
iron. As for the PP container, the transport stage alsopresents a minor influence on this product’s life cycle.
However, this alternative shows lower emissions
regarding its reduced weight comparing to the tinplatecontainers.
Considering 2016 market data, 994 million liters ofwater-based paints were sold in Brazil, 914.5 million
litters in tinplate containers. If all that market share were
to be replaced by PP containers it would mean a potential
avoided emission of 35’756 tCO2e.

7. Significance of contribution
The resins produced by the commissioner play a vitalrole in the value chain and make possible the reductionof GHG emissions through it. The contribution of PP
resin to the final Avoided Emissions can be qualified as“extensive”, as the product is part of the key component
and its properties and functions are essential for enabling
the GHG emission avoiding effect of the solution.
However, the calculated avoided emissions are to be
attributed to the complete value chain, and not only tothe chemical company.

112

8. Review of results
Both the avoided emissions study and the full LCA that
supports it have been reviewed by KPMG and theirconsiderations were incorporated in the original report.
All comments have been incorporated to the text of thefull LCA study in annex.

9. S
 tudy limitations and future
recommendations
Lack of consistent and up to date data for LCA studies
in Brazil is a major obstacle to the advancement of life
cycle management in Brazil. This lack of data has been
partially dealt with the use and adaptation of international databases, such as Ecoinvent v3.
Data coming from the Ecoinvent database, despitesome adjustments for Brazilian circumstances, have
limited quality and can be improved in future assessments.
Furthermore, for processes without a direct correspondence with the database, similar processes were used,such as for the processing of tinplate containers fromrolled steel. Here also more accurate data can be addedin future studies.
The differences in representativeness of the data used
for the PP alternative (based on primary data anddatabases) and the tinplate alternative (based on
databases adapted to Brazilian conditions) represent alimitation of the study. Nevertheless, the datasets used inthis study belong to the foremost database in the worldand utmost care to adjust the datasets to the Brazilian
conditions has been taken. Therefore both the commissioner and the executors of the study feel confident they
represent the average market conditions in Brazil.

10. Conclusions
The results of this LCA study provide reasons to prefer
the PP container over the established tinplate containers
when choosing a packaging solution for water-based
paints in the Brazilian market. The reduction in GHG
emissions by the use of rigid PP containers instead of
tinplate containers is estimated at about 20%.
Furthermore, an increase in the recycling rates isbeneficial to all the packaging systems, therefore it isrecommended to develop solutions to reduce the final
disposal rate – and thus to increase the amount ofmaterials that are recycled. This would also be in linewith requirements of the National Policy on Solid Waste[PNRS 2010], which establishes the following order ofpriority: no generation, reduction, reuse, recycling, solid
waste treatment and environmentally suitable disposal ofwaste

11. References[1] ABEAÇO. Associação Brasileira de Embalagens deAço, 2012. www.abeaco.org.br.
[2] ABRELPE 2011 Panorama dos resíduos sólidos no
Brasil 2011. http://www.abrelpe.org.br.
[3] JCIA. Japan Chemical Industry Association
Guideline for Calculating the Avoided CO2
Emissions. Tokyo : [s.n.], 2012.
ICCA & WBCSD. International Council of Chemical
Associations and World Business Council for
Sustainable Development. Guidance on Accounting
and Reporting Avoided Emissions in the Chemical
Industry. Utrecht : [s.n.], 2013[4] IPCC. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Contribution of Working group 1 to IPCC Fourth
Assessment Report, Technical Summary Report,
May 2007. http://www.ipcc.ch.
[5] Plastivida. Monitoramento dos Índices de
Reciclagem Mecânica de Plástico no Brasil (IRmP)[Monitoring Indexes of Mechanical Recycling of
Plastics in Brazil]. Instituto Sócio-Ambiental dos
Plásticos, 2010. www.plastivida.org.br.
[6] EPE. Empresa de Pesquisa Energética. Balanço
Energético Nacional 2012: Ano base 2011 [National
Energy Balance 2012: Base year 2011.]. Rio deJaneiro : EPE, 2012.
[7] ILOS. Cenário da infraestrutura rodoviária no Brasil[Brazil’s Road Infrastructure Scenario]. http://www.
ilos.com.br, 2011.
[8] Spielmann et al. Spielmann M., Dones R., Bauer C.
& Tuchschmid, M. Life Cycle Inventories of Transport
Services. Final report ecoinvent v2.0 No. 14. Swiss
Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. Dübendorf, 2007.
[9] CNT. CNT, SEST, SENAT. Os impactos da máqualidade do óleo diesel brasileiro [The impacts ofthe poor quality of Brazilian diesel]. Brasília, 2012.
[10] Barreto. Barreto, R. J. Incorporação da Avaliação
do Ciclo de Vida ao projeto do produto [Life Cycle
Assessment Incorporation to Product Design],
2007. www.ppgem.ct.utfpr.edu.br[11] PNRS. LEI Nº 12.305, DE 2 DE AGOSTO DE 2010.
Institui a Política Nacional de Resíduos Sólidos;
altera a Lei no 9.605, de 12 de fevereiro de 1998; edá outras providências. August, 2010. http://www.
planalto.gov.br.
[12] Habersatter et al. Habersatter K., Fecker I.,
Dall`Acqua S., Fawer M., Fallscheer F., Förster R.,
Maillefer C., Ménard M., Reusser L. and Som C.,Ökoinventare für Verpackungen No. 250, 2.
korrigierte und aktualisierte Auflage [Eco-inventories
for Packages No. 250, 2. corrected and updated
edition]. Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald undLandschaft. Bern, Schweiz, 1998.
[13] Boustead 1997. Bousted, C. M. Eco-Profiles of theEuropean Polymer Industry. Brussels, September
1997.

[14] IPCC 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., Y. Ding, D.J.
Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K.
Maskell, and C.A. Johnson (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and
New York, NY, USA, 2001.

12. Appendices
None

113

Case 13

Alternative productdistribution logistics

EastmanChemicalCompany

COMMISSIONER AND PERFORMER OF THE STUDY
The study was performed by Eastman and reviewed by Quantis.

1. Purpose of the study
The goal of this study is to characterize the avoided
emissions associated with an innovative mode ofchemical product distribution logistics between Eastman
and other chemical company partners, which is termed“Alternate Methods of Supply” (AMS). This study was
initiated and performed by Eastman Chemical Company
to better understand the life cycle impacts of theEastman supply chain. The ICCA-WBCSD “Addressing
the Avoided Emissions Challenge” guidelines version 2
were used to prepare the study.

difference between scenarios can be known without
knowledge of the partner company’s business. The true
difference in the two scenarios is the maritime shipping
leg plus any difference in overland shipping.
In Figure 1 below, the conventional system is shown as
the solution to compare to. In this scenario, eachcompany fulfills orders to its customers directly nomatter where they are located as though it is the only
actor in the world.
FIGURE 1 - TRANSPORT OF GOODS UNDER THE BUSINESS AS USUALSCENARIO WITHOUT UTILIZING BILATERAL AGREEMENTS: THE
SOLUTION TO COMPARE TO.

AMS can be used when two chemical companies
produce a practically identical and mutually interchangeable chemical product in two separate geographic
regions. If both companies are willing to engage in AMS
then a specific quantity of chemical product can beswapped in order to reduce the amount of inter-continental transportation required to distribute that productto customers. Such a swap is done under a bilateralagreement and it represents an alternative method ofshipping as compared with standard shipping methods
where each company distributes its own products
globally.
The names of Eastman’s AMS partners and the identity of
the chemical products being distributed are confidential.

2. Solutions to compare to
2.1. Description of the solution to compare to
AMS is compared against the baseline conventional
product distribution in which each company transports
its own products to its own distribution centers in othercontinents. In either case, Eastman and its partner
chemical companies produce a certain amount offungible chemical products and distribute the products
to distribution centers & customers. AMS is purely analternative method of logistics that can be used if
mutually agreeable between two chemical companies.
2.2. Definition of the boundaries of the market
and application
The following figures graphically represent the systems
being compared in this study. In general, the resulting
savings correspond to the final figure, because only the114

In contrast, Figure 2 shows the solution of the reporting
company. Each company is aware of the other’s
production and when customer demand could besatisfied with a simplified, shorter supply route, thechemical ownership is exchanged between the twocompanies. The net effect is shown in Figure 3.
FIGURE 2 - TRANSPORT OF GOODS UNDER THE TERMS OF A
BILATERAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN COMPANY A AND COMPANY B.

FIGURE 3 - THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BILATERAL AGREEMENTS
AND CONVENTIONAL SHIPPING. THE TRANSOCEANIC TRIP IS
UNNECESSARY UNDER A BILATERAL AGREEMENT. SOMEDIFFERENCES IN LOCAL SHIPPING ARE ALSO OBSERVED.

3.3. Quality requirements
The material must be functionally the same whether itcomes from Eastman’s facility or that of anothercompany. Delivery of material can be accomplished via
either conventional shipping or AMS. Having the samefunctionality, technical qualities and benefits from use
and end-of-life ensures exchangeability between
solutions.
3.4. Service life of the solution
The “service life” of the solution is simply the duration of
the transportation of the chemical products.

AMS bilateral agreements are typically two sided. Notethat these agreements are not necessarily symmetricaland sometimes there is a time delay that doesn’t show
up on the agreement right away. In theory, it would be a
1:1 swap, but any number of factors could influence theactual amount involved. Eastman calls the receiving andsending of the chemical “purchasing” and “sales”
respectively. In a purchasing agreement, Eastman
purchases the chemical from a local manufacturer to sell
to our overseas customers in that region thus eliminating
costly and resource intensive shipping steps. For
example, if Eastman has a purchasing agreement with
Company B in Europe, Eastman buys from Company B
and sells to its customers in Europe from the European
facility rather than having to ship from US locations.
It is crucial to understand that sales and purchasing
agreements frequently refer to the same material. Thus
to avoid double counting, this study calculates ONLY
savings from the “sales” part of the agreement. The
study compares only the differences in shipping
between the conventional shipping solution and thatwhich involves AMS bilateral agreements. Thus thestudy uses the simplified avoided emission calculation
methodology.

3.5. Time and geographic reference
The temporal scope covers all AMS bilateral agreementsfor 2015. This temporal scope provides recent data, andthe best description of practices. The data represents all
bilateral agreements for a representative year, 2015. The
supply chain for these products spans the globe and so
the geographic reference is the entire world.

4. Boundary setting

The scope of this study is gate-to-gate including only
shipment of chemical products. Tradeoffs exist between
different overland shipping scenarios. It is not necessarily
more efficient to ship overland to customers whenmaritime shipping is more efficient per tonne-kilometer.
As will be discussed in section 7, the difference between
scenarios was reduced to the maritime shipping due tolack of knowledge of the location of customers in what
would be the solution to compare to.
FIGURE 4 - BOUNDARY FOR THE STUDY - THE RED DOTTED LINE
DENOTES THE LEVEL IN THE VALUE CHAIN WHICH IS UNDERCONSIDERATION IN THIS STUDY

3. F
 unctional unit and referenceflow
3.1. Description of the function and thefunctional unit
The functional unit for this study is the delivery of interchangeable material from a manufacturing site to its
intended distribution location for an entire year under an
AMS bilateral agreement.
3.2. Reference flow
The study is based on a reference flow whichcorresponds to the total amount of product shipped in2015 via the bilateral agreements which were included in
the study.

5. Calculation methodology anddata
5.1. Methods and formulas used
The simplified assessment has been used since thesame chemical is being produced regardless of transportation scenarios. The omitted cradle-to-gate global

115

warming potential (GWP) results represent the majorityof the emissions for the products being manufactured.
The confidential identity of the chemicals does not
impact the study since their production is within theomitted portion of the life cycle.
Quantities of chemicals shipped via alternative methodsof supply are known and recorded. The traditional
supply routes and methods are also known, so it ispossible to compare a conventional route to thedestination distribution center with an alternative route toa domestic distribution center.
Transportation models are used to find the incremental
carbon intensity of shipping per tonne-kilometer. Alltransportation models are published industry averages
for their ship/truck type in GaBi (see section 5.3 below).
It is assumed that the ships’ percentage load does notdepend on the chemicals being shipped and also that
there is no wait time in a port.
5.2. Allocation
Most of the background datasets do use some sort ofallocation and the default thinkstep allocation for impactsof fuels etc is used and not altered for this study. For
transoceanic and overland shipping, the amounts are
based on mass, not volume. Shipping of liquids or bulk
packaged goods could be measured in m3-km insteadof t-km but since the materials are relatively dense, thisstudy uses mass based transportation. No additional
allocation was performed since all processes considered
are single output systems for transportation. None of thesystems are coupled and all of the calculated avoided
emissions are associated with the relevant flows.
5.3. Data, data sources and data quality
The life cycle assessment (LCA) was initiated by
Eastman with the input of LCA experts and supply chain
representatives.
The LCA software GaBi version 6 service pack 27 wasused to model the system, and the results presented use
the 2015 GaBi database 6.110. The study complies with
the WBCSD guidance Addressing the Avoided Emissions
Challenge, though it was not 3rd party verified. More detailon the use of LCA at Eastman can be found at:
http://eastman.com/Literature_Center/E/EMNST118.pdf.
a. Simplified calculation methodology:
Since the solutions to compare differ only in the transportation phase of the life cycle of each product, a
simplified avoided emissions calculation method is
employed to reduce the complexity of the study.
Manufacture, processing, and refining of all chemicalremains unchanged whether or not AMS is used versus
direct to customer conventional shipping. By omitting

1

116

these life cycle stages, no claim can be made about
how the total impact will change under the two solutions
compared. No distinction is made between chemicals
produced by Eastman Chemical Company or by any of
its partners because the assumption is that thesechemicals will be manufactured regardless of whether
a bilateral agreement is in place. As mentioned in
section 4. above, the functionality of the two solutions
must be taken to be identical. The magnitude of the
avoided emissions is compared to typical global
warming potential for the products studied but thereport does not attempt to report a reduction
percentage in comparison to the reference solution.
b. The following LCA standards and references wereused to guide this study. This report is not fullycompliant with all of these standards. In particular, it
has not been critically reviewed by external parties.
An effort has been made to follow the standards asmuch as possible so that the extra work to fullycomply could be efficiently done if Eastman decides
to do so in the future.
i.	Addressing the Avoided Emissions Challengeversion 2 (World Business Council for Sustainable
Development.)ii.
ISO 14040:2006
iii. ISO 14044:2006
iv.	ILCD Handbook – General Guide for Life Cycle
Assessment – Detailed Guidance (2010)v.	
GHG Protocol Product Lifecycle Accounting
and Reporting Standardvi.	Life Cycle Metrics for Chemical Products: A
guideline by the Chemical Sector to assess andreport product footprint. (World BusinessCouncil for Sustainable Development.)

6. Results
6.1. Avoided emissions
The major finding of this study is that AMS does prevent
significant and measurable greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. For the yearlong period studied, an estimated2,450 tonnes of CO2 equivalent 1 were prevented frombeing emitted. As mentioned above, the simplified
assessment has been used to calculate the difference
between solutions.

“CO2-equivalent” GHG emissions are based on 2013 IPCC over a 100 year time horizon

FIGURE 5 - CARBON FOOTPRINT RESULTS FOR BILATERALAGREEMENT – THE SOLUTION OF THE REPORTING COMPANY AVOIDS
THE MARITIME SHIPPING LEG

The results in Figure 5 and Table 1 below show the impactof eliminating the maritime shipping leg of transportation.
TABLE 1 - AVOIDED EMISSION RESULTS

Emissions per stage (metric tons of CO2e)

Reporting company’s solution

Solution to compare to

Raw material extraction--

Manufacturing / processing--

Distribution--

Maritime transportation

0

2453

Use stage--

End of life--

Total emissions

0

2453

Avoided emissions

2453

TABLE 2 - WBCSD RECOMMENDED IMPACT INDICATORS FOR DIFFERENT MARINE SHIPPING MODES (PER T∙KM)

Impact categories

Container ship

Transoceanic tanker

IPCC global warming, excl biogenic carbon [kg CO2-Equiv.]

0.01430.00562

IPCC global warming, incl biogenic carbon [kg CO2-Equiv.]

0.01430.00562

Acidification, accumulated exceedance [Mole of H+ eq.]

5.36E-04

1.59E-04

CML2001 2013, Abiotic Depletion (ADP elements) [kg Sb-Equiv.]

3.86E-10

8.09E-10

CML2001 2013, Abiotic Depletion (ADP fossil) [MJ]

0.175

0.0760

CML2002 Resource Depletion, fossil, reserve Based [kg Sb-Equiv.]

1.36E-09

0

CML2002 Resource Depletion, mineral, reserve Based [kg Sb-Equiv.]

1.05E-09

2.02E-08

Ecotoxicity for aquatic fresh water, USEtox (recommended) [CTUe]

8.34E-04

0.00928

Freshwater eutrophication, EUTREND model, ReCiPe [kg P eq]

2.73E-09

1.06E-06

Human toxicity cancer effects, USEtox (recommended) [CTUh]

3.74E-12

2.26E-10

Human toxicity non-canc. effects, USEtox (recommended) [CTUh]

2.84E-10

5.33E-10

Marine eutrophication, EUTREND model, ReCiPe [kg N-Equiv.]

1.32E-05

1.75E-06

Ozone depletion, WMO model, ReCiPe [kg CFC-11 eq]

5.42E-14

6.38E-10

Particulate matter/Respiratory inorganics, [kg PM2,5-Equiv.]

2.53E-05

1.03E-05

Photochemical ozone formation, ReCiPe [kg NMVOC]

3.68E-04

4.89E-05

All impacts per t∙km (tonne∙kilometer)

117

From marine shipping for yearlong period, Eastman
would have shipped just under 24 thousand tonnes ofchemicals overseas (the functional unit). The avoided
emissions from the bilateral agreements totaled 2,453
tonnes of greenhouse gases.
6.2. Scenario Analysis
One scenario was examined to evaluate the impact ofoverland shipping. Model selection represents thebiggest source of uncertainty, especially in overland
shipping. The range for the “best case,” “most-likely,”and “worst case” scenarios for these models arepresented in Table 3 and Table 4 below. Note that
although only the global warming potential (GWP) islisted, other environmental impact indicators tend to
track closely with GWP. Difference = sea + land – AMS.
Conventional = sea + land.

This example also includes only one bilateral agreement
though model selection would affect all bilateralagreements the same way. The worst case scenario
assumes that trucks account for overland shippingwhereas the likely scenario and best case scenarios
both assume that overland shipping is via rail. According
to the AMS division, about 90% of the overland shipping
is via rail. Trucks are also more frequently used totransport goods from the Longview site to distribution
centers or for urgent orders.

TABLE 3 - SCENARIOS COMPARING EASTMAN SHIPPING TO CUSTOMERS IN ITALY VERSUS A EUROPEAN COMPANY SHIPPING TO CUSTOMERSIN ITALY VIA DISTRIBUTION CENTER IN ROTTERDAM NL. SCENARIOS HIGHLIGHT THE IMPORTANCE OF SELECTING THE APPROPRIATE IMPACT
FACTORS FOR TRANSPORTATION.

Mass (t)

1,557

1,557

1,557

Best

LikelyWorst

kg/tkm

Impact Factor sea

0.0013

0.014

0.019

kg/tkm

Impact Factor land

0.022

0.074

0.093
10398

km

Distance sea

10398

10398

km

Rotterdam – partner company (AMS)

494

494

494

km

Kingsport – Houston (Conventional)

1703

1703

1703

t CO2e/t

Impact AMS

0.01090.036510.0459t CO2e/t

Impact Conventional

0.0506

0.275

0.351

t CO2e/t

Sea0.0131

0.149

0.192

t CO2e/t

Land

0.0375

0.126

0.158

0.040

0.24

0.30

Difference t CO2e saved/t product shipped

TABLE 4 - THEORETICAL CASE IN WHICH EASTMAN SHIPS PRODUCT FROM KINGSPORT TO HOUSTON INSTEAD OF A EUROPEAN COMPANYSHIPPING TO HOUSTON FROM PARTNER COMPANY’S LOCATION. SCENARIOS HIGHLIGHT THE IMPORTANCE OF SELECTING THE APPROPRIATE
IMPACT FACTORS FOR TRANSPORTATION.

Mass (t)

1,557

1,557

1,557

Best

LikelyWorst

kg/tkm

Impact Factor sea

0.0013

0.014

0.019

kg/tkm

Impact Factor land

0.022

0.074

0.093
10398

km

Distance sea

10398

10398

km

Kingsport – Houston (AMS)

494

494

494

km

Rotterdam – partner company (Conventional)

1703

1703

1703

t CO2e/t

Impact AMS

0.0375

0.126

0.158

t CO2e/t

Impact Conventional

0.0240

0.185

0.238

t CO2e/t

Sea0.0131

0.149

0.192

t CO2e/t

Land0.01090.03650.0459(0.014)

0.059

0.080

Difference t CO2e saved/t product shipped 2

2 This calculation is the difference between the conventional impact and the impact with AMS agreements. The net savings from AMS usually reduce thefootprint of transportation, however model selection has a large impact on the amount of savings and as can be seen in the most efficient shipping scenario,
the ship appears so much more efficient that its impact is less than the overland shipping method.

118

These tables show that there are substantially more
avoided emissions from AMS activities when the modesof transportation are assumed to be relatively inefficient.
When comparing different solutions, appropriate model
choice is a major driver of results.
Using the two examples above, it is easy to see thedifferences in the solutions to compare in the bar graphs
below in Figure 4. Since Eastman is free to choose AMS
or conventional shipping only, Eastman’s role isfundamental for claiming the avoided emissions forthese products. The simplified calculation method wasused here which shows only the differences in footprint
and only accounts for the transportation stage of the life
cycle of each product being compared; therefore, in thetables above and in the major results of the study, only
the difference is reported. Figure 4 demonstrates thatdifferent models could drastically change the magnitudeof the avoided emissions.

The results of the scenario analysis presented in section
6.2 in Table 3 and Table 4 suggest that additional
benefits associated with AMS bilateral agreements arecaused by avoided overland shipping. That scenario ismeant to serve as an illustration showing the potential
impact of assumptions for overland shipping for a single
agreement.
FIGURE 6 - SOLUTIONS TO COMPARE: CONVENTIONAL VS AMSBILATERAL AGREEMENTS UNDER DIFFERENT MODELING
ASSUMPTIONS

Comparing the solutions of conventional shipping vsalternate methods of supply, the study showed that
Eastman can have a fundamental role in the value chain
reducing emissions by employing bilateral agreements
through alternative methods of supply. The avoided
emissions can be significant, but the magnitude of thebenefits are highly dependent on model selection within
GaBi. The resulting large range of possible transportation scenarios still consistently show a benefit frombilateral agreements, even though uncertainties limit thedefinitiveness of any claim made.
Overland shipping is involved in these agreements
because it is necessary to transport goods to and fromthe major ports to which they are shipped. Overland
shipping emissions can be significant but are notconsidered in this study for the reasons stated below:
1. Without AMS agreements, overland shipping is stillnecessary, just to and from different locations.
2. The relative impact of the AMS agreement on
overland shipping depends on the locations of final
customers compared to manufacturing locations.
These vary significantly on a case by case basis, sowhile it may be valuable to add the overland shipping
for a single bilateral agreement, no general
conclusions can be drawn.
3. Even over an entire year, relatively few agreements
are made. Without more data to develop an average,
it would be difficult to make any reliable generalizations about the net positive or negative impact ofbilateral agreements with respect to overland
shipping.

7. Significance of contribution
The choice to use AMS bilaterial agreements is offundamental significance to the avoided emissions forthis solution. Bilateral agreements offer benefits to bothcompanies involved in the deal, but for this analysis only
the material produced by Eastman facilities is credited.
Thus a similar fundamental avoided emission credit could
be claimed by Eastman’s partner companies’ facilities ina way that would avoid double counting. Each agreement
is different and so any allocation or attribution of avoided
emissions should be stated explicitly for each case.

119Treating this like a process improvement for production,
all of the GHG savings remain with the chemical
producer: either Eastman or the partner company. Thus
Eastman’s bilateral agreements (service) is fundamental
to the avoided emissions seen in the supply chain.

8. Review of results

The study complies with the WBCSD guidance
Addressing the Avoided Emissions Challenge, though it
was not 3rd party verified. 3rd party verification could besought if specific claims are being made about productsin the marketplace or if greater accuracy is desired. This
study’s purpose is merely to show the major trend andprobable impact of AMS activity. The study uses thesimplified calculation method in the avoided emissions
guidance.

9. S
 tudy limitations and future
recommendations
Overland shipping is not included in these aggregatedresults due to the large possible range of results.
Eastman would either ship via container or chemicalparcel tanker, but the magnitude of the impact fromshipping is directly dependent on the model chosen.
Some of the choices with respect to data set selection is
discussed in detail in section 6 above.
For communication to potential partners, it is important
to make clear that there is an environmental benefit
associated with bilateral agreements in addition to thefinancial benefit which may provide additional incentive
to participate in these agreements. It is also important tonote that when engaging with a specific customer, thespecific logistics involved with the bilateral agreement
play a large part in the environmental benefit; thus thiss t u d y s h o u l d b e u s e d o n l y a s a n a g g re g a t e dassessment, and detailed work should be performed ona case-by-case basis.
Future work should be focused on narrowing thepossible transportation models and validating the resultsof the models with other published empirical data.

10. Conclusions
Comparing the solutions of conventional shipping vsalternate methods of supply, the study showed that
Eastman can have a fundamental role in the value chain
reducing emissions by employing bilateral agreements
through alternative methods of supply. The avoided
emissions can be significant, but the magnitude of thebenefits are highly dependent on model selection within
GaBi. The resulting large range of possible transportation scenarios still consistently show a benefit frombilateral agreements even though uncertainties limit thedefinitiveness of any claim made.
This study is intended to reveal a novel way in which
partners at the same level in the value chain can work
together to save cost and reduce emissions at the sametime. Each transaction is unique and the magnitude of
avoided emissions varies on a case by case basis, but insome circumstances, significant savings can be realized.

11. References
Addressing the Avoided Emissions Challenge. WBCSD
Chemicals. International Council of Chemical Associations. October 2013
American Chemistry Council. “Guide to the Business ofChemistry - 2015.” Table 5.1 – Global Chemical
Shipments by Country/Region. http://www.americanchemistry.com/Jobs/EconomicStatistics/Industry-Profile/Global-Business-of-Chemistry
Curran, Mary Ann. “Life Cycle Assessment: A System
Approach to Environmental Management and Sustainability” CEP Magazine. AIChE. Oct 2015.
Greenhouse Gas Equivalency Calculator. USEPA.
Energy and the Environment. http://www.epa.gov/
energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator
I S O 1 4 0 4 0 : 2 0 0 6 ( E ) s t a n d a rd s . E n v i ro n m e n t a lManagement – Life cycle assessment – Principles andframework. 2007-10-12
I S O 1 4 0 4 4 : 2 0 0 6 ( E ) s t a n d a rd s . E n v i ro n m e n t a lManagement – Life cycle assessment – Requirements
and guidelines. 2007-10-12
Key Trends in International Merchandise Trade. UNCTAD
United Nations. (Advance unedited copy) New York andGeneva 2013. http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/
ditctab20131_en.pdf Page 14 UNCTAD/DITC/
TAB/2013/1
http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/
ditctab2015d1_en.pdf

120https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/its2015_e/
its2015_e.pdf
Life Cycle Metrics for Chemical Products. WBCSD
Chemicals. European Chemical Industry Council(CEFIC). 2014
Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships. Marine
Environment Protection Committee. International
Maritime Organization. April 2009. http://www.imo.org/
blast/blastDataHelper.asp?data_id=26047&filename=INF-10.pdf
http://www.imo.org/blast/mainframe.asp?topic_
id=1823
thinkstep. GaBi 6 databases. Transportation models
from ecoinvent, USLCI, and PE. 2015
Walsh C, Bows A. Size matters: Exploring the importanceof vessel characteristics to inform estimates of shipping
emissions. Appl Energy (2012), http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.03.015

121

Case 14Feed additives - DL-Methionine, L-Lysine,
L-Threonine, L-Tryptophan and L-Valine inbroiler and pig production

EvonikCOMMISSIONER AND PERFORMER OF THE STUDY
The study has been commissioned by the Evonik Segment Nutrition & Care GmbH, wasconducted by the Evonik Life Cycle Management Group of Evonik Technology &Infrastructure GmbH and reviewed by the TÜV Rheinland LGA Product GmbH as anindependent third party. The primary data for the study represents the situation in 2013.

1. Purpose of the study
This study assesses the reduction potential on environmental impacts (global warming including and excluding
biogenic carbon, eutrophication and acidification) of theuse of the 5 first limiting amino acids (DL-Methionine,
L-Lysine, L-Threonine, L-Tryptophan and L-Valine) in
typical conventional broiler and pig meat production,
based on current data from practical production. The
study intends to be a comparative life cycle assessment
in line with the requirements defined under ISO
14040/44. As the study will be published, it will beaccompanied by an independent critical review. The
target groups are predominantly representatives of environmental movements and of agriculture.
This study has been conducted to provide a case study
on “Amino acids in animal feed” in alignment with therequirements of the document “Guidelines from the
Chemical Industry for accounting and reporting GHG
emissions avoided along the value chain based oncomparative studies,” developed by ICCA and theChemical Sector Group of the WBCSD(http://www.icca-chem.org/ICCADocs/E%20CC%
20LG%20guidance_FINAL_07-10-2013.pdf).

A former version of the study has been part of thefollowing document: “Innovations for Greenhouse Gas
Reductions, A life cycle quantification of carbon
abatement solutions enabled by the chemical industry”,
ICCA (2009).

2. Solutions to Compare
2.1. Description of the solutions to compare
For broiler feeding, four options were compared:• F our amino acids: Supplementation of a definedpremix consisting of the amino acids DL-Methionine,
L-Lysine, L-Threonine and L-Valine• Rapeseed: Supply of the respective amounts of aminoacids by increasing the content of basic feed
ingredients high in amino acids using rapeseed meal,
which covers the European industrial practice on theuse of locally produced oilseeds• SBM: A second unsupplemented option using imported
Soybean Meal (SBM) as protein rich feed ingredient• S BM incl. MetAMINO: Feed mix based on SBM(Soybean Meal) but using DL-Methionine as the only
amino acid supplementation
All four options ensure functional equivalence since
they are offering the same nutritional value to theanimals’ meal.
FIGURE 1 - ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS FOR BROILER FEEDING

For swine feeding, three options were compared:• F ive amino acids: Supplementation of a definedpremix consisting of the amino acids DL-Methionine,
L-Lysine, L-Threonine, L-Tryptophan and L-Valine• SBM: Supply of the respective amounts of aminoacids by increasing the content of basic feed
ingredients high in amino acids using soybean meal
• R apeseed: A second unsupplemented option
covering the European industrial practice by using
rapeseed meal as locally produced feed ingredient122

All three options ensure functional equivalencesince they are offering the same nutritional value tothe animals’ meal.
FIGURE 2 - ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS FOR SWINE FEEDING

2.2. Level in the Value Chain
This study focuses on the performance of amino acids,
produced by chemical industry and applied in animal
nutrition. Thus, the focus of this study is at the chemical
product level.
2.3. Definition of the boundaries of the market
and the application
Animal feed is specifically formulated to meet the physiological nutrition needs of animals, particularly thenecessary shares of essential amino acids. Lack of
certain amino acids in animal feed can be compensatedeither by adding a higher percentage of protein-rich feed
components such as oil seed, or by fortifying the feedwith essential amino acids produced by Evonik for thispurpose.
The study compares in general three, respectively four
options for livestock production to cover the nutritional
demand of the target animal species. One is the additionof supplemental amino acids to compound feed for pigs
and poultry, the others are comparable compound feedwith increased amounts of oilseeds such like soybean
meal or rapeseed meal.
In 2014 the overall compound feed market for all species
was published at 980,000 Kmt. Provided a proper
application of DL-Methionine, supplemented option 1
re f l e c t s 3 5 0 , 0 0 0 K m t ( a ro u n d 3 5 % ) a g a i n s t
630,000 Kmt (65 %) non supplemented feed in option 2,
for Biolys (L-Lysine) option 1 reflects 420,000 Kmt(around 43 %) against 560,000 (57 %) non supplemented feed in option 2 and finally for Threonine
option 1 reflects 400,000 Kmt (around 43%) against
580,000 Kmt (around 57 %) non supplemented feed in
option 2. The worldwide market volume of compound
feed is dominated by broiler and pig production, otheranimal species play a less important role. Also the use of
supplemental amino acids in compound feed productionis the most used technology in pig and broiler
production. Therefore the above set system boundaries
for the feed market seems the most conclusive one.
Supplementing animal feed with essential amino acids
can save significant amounts of feed raw materials,
resulting in minimized use and cultivation of arable landfor crop production and thus, fewer CO2eq emissions
due to avoided land use change emissions during soy
bean production in Brazil and Argentina. Furthermore,
feed supplementation with these essential amino acids
reduces both nitrogen and greenhouse gas emissions
resulting from feeding (less N2O emissions from manurestorage and from application to the field). Moreover,greenhouse gas emissions from transportation of soy
bean from South America to Germany by ship and roadtransport decrease.

3. F unctional unit and referenceflow
3.1. Functional Unit
Methionine, lysine, threonine, tryptophan and valine are
the five first limiting essential amino acids in animal
production. Methionine, as the first limiting amino acid intypical compound feed for poultry, has a particularimportance. Lysine is the first limiting amino acid inswine nutrition and plays a particularly important role
here. Threonine, Tryptophan and also Valine are further
limiting amino acids for both species. It is of utmost
importance that the respective daily amino acidrequirement for each species is fully covered in order toguarantee a healthy and well balanced nutrition.
Otherwise a distinct drop in performance and a
detrimental effect on the animal’s health will occur. Alternatively, the supply of the respective amounts of aminoacids has to be ensured by increasing the content ofbasic feed ingredients high in amino acids, e. g. oilseeds(quality requirement “functionality”). Eight to ten
so-called essential amino acids cannot be producedby humans or animals itself. They must be consumed
regularly with the food since amino acids can be poorly
stored in the body and are converted easily into fat if thediet is not well balanced. The body requires a well-balanced amino acid supply daily in order to remain healthy
and effective. A deficiency of essential amino acids willcause impaired protein synthesis and life-threatening
deficiency symptoms in humans or animals. In
commercial agricultural animal production amino acids
are important supplements to proteins from agriculturally produced feed ingredients. They provide the option
to reduce the protein content in animal feed.

123

The functional unit (FU), common to all compared
solutions to make them comparable in terms of GHG
emissions, was defined as 1 kg of an amino acid mix
consisting of DL-Methionine, L-Lysine, L-Threonine,
L-Tryptophan and L-Valine which is supplemented to
the feed or the equivalent amount of amino acids
provided by feed raw materials rich in these aminoacids such as oilseed meals.
The quality criteria “functionality” has been taken into
consideration. The supply of the respective amounts ofamino acids has to be ensured either by an amino acidmix consisting of DL-Methionine, L-Lysine, L-Threonine,
L-Tryptophan and L-Valine which is supplemented to thefeed or by increasing the content of basic feed
ingredients high in amino acids, e. g. oilseeds. Thisrequirement results in a functional unit of 1 kg aminoacids either provided by supplementation or byincreasing the content of basic feed ingredients, e. g.
oilseeds.
Animal feed is determined for immediate consumption
and thus does not have a “service life”.

The primary data for the production of the four aminoacids represent the situation in 2013. The modeling of
the life cycle assessment was done with the GaBi
software [7] of PE International. The data set for thefollowing sites were used: Belgium for DL-Methionine,
United States for L-Lysine, Hungary for L-Threonine,
Slovakia for L-Tryptophan and L-Valine (based onassumptions made with pilot productions for thetechnical evaluation), and Germany for the other life
cycle phases (see chapter 6.1 for additional information
on time and geographic reference).
3.2. Reference flow
The functional unit was defined as 1 kg of an amino acidmix consisting of DL-Methionine, L-Lysine, L-Threonine,
L-Tryptophan and L-Valine which is supplemented to thefeed or the equivalent amount of amino acids provided
by feed raw materials rich in these amino acids such as
oilseed meals. The reference flows were calculated bygenerating net differences between the feeding options.
The reference flows for broiler and swine feeding areeach indicated in the following tables.
FIGURE 3 - LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY FOR BROILER PRODUCTION

124FIGURE 4 - LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY FOR SWINE PRODUCTIONTABLE 1 - CALCULATED FEED MIXES FOR BROILER PRODUCTION

125

TABLE 2 - DIET OPTIONS GROWER PHASE 1 FOR SWINE PRODUCTIONTABLE 3 - DIET OPTIONS GROWER PHASE 2 OF SWINE PRODUCTION

126

TABLE 4 - DIET OPTIONS GROWER PHASE 3 OF SWINE PRODUCTION

4. Boundary setting
The system boundaries for all scenarios equivalent
to the 3, resp. 4 compound feed options follow the
principle “from cradle to farm-gate”, i. e. they startfrom providing the raw materials used for production of
the supplemental amino acids, the cultivation of thebasic feed ingredients, the manufacturing of the mineral
fertilizer for agricultural production, the harvest andprocessing of the agricultural raw materials as well as alltransport of all feed ingredients, raw materials and intermediates including all emissions relating to animal
production and distribution of manure. Figure 1-6
provide insight into all levels of the life cycle analysis. The
compound feed processing was not considered within
the system boundaries, because the authors of thestudy considered the same ecological burden of eachtype of compound feed through the feed mill processing.
In the final comparison, this would be neutralized
anyway.
FIGURE 5 - SYSTEM BOUNDARIES FOR THE OPTIONS ANALYZED IN
BROILER AND SWINE FEEDING

127FIGURE 6 - RELEVANT MATERIAL FLOW AND RAW MATERIALS FOR
THE RESPECTIVE TYPE OF MANUFACTURING

Compound Feed Production
Animal feed is usually processed in a feed mill before
being fed to the animal. This is predominantly done toideally mix the feed ingredients. Feed milling can takeplace on the farms or more often at special feed mills
which provide the farms with ready mixed feed. For thisstudy the compound feed processing was notconsidered within the system boundaries, because theauthors of the study considered the same ecologicalburden of each type of compound feed through the feedmill processing. In the final comparison, this would beneutralized anyway.
Manure Management
Manure management includes manure storage andmanure field application. The excretions by animals canbe stored under the animal either as liquid slurry or as
litter and is pumped to external tanks or removed
manually with wheel loaders or tractors. The excretions
from animals lead to nitrogen and carbon based
emissions to air (CH 4 , N 2 O, N 2 and NH 3 ) and –depending on the way of storage – potentially NO3- andPO 4 - emissions to water. The magnitude of theseemissions depends among other things on thehusbandry and storage technology, on the development
stage, manure composition and the climate conditions.
The manure composition is directly dependent on
animal performance (feed conversion ratio) and feed
composition (concentration of crude protein and total
phosphorus (Rigolot et al. 2010)). Subsequent to the
housing and temporal storage the manure has to be
stored until application on agricultural land. Manure may
be stored for several days to several months, mainly
depending on the weather, legal regulations and crop
nutrient demand. There are several different storage
technologies available. Manure application to agricultural land is on most farms an indispensable part of the
manure management system. It closes the internal
nutrient cycling system of the farm, when sufficient land128

is available on the animal production farm. For thisprocess step several technologies (broad cast, injectionetc.) are available and associated with various emission
profiles depending also on climatic conditions andregional quality of the soil. Besides emissions manuregenerates a benefit to the system by providing essential
nutrients for cash- and feed crops. Both, emissions andcredits can have a significant impact on the LCA.

5. Calculation methodology anddata
5.1. Methods and formulas used
The current study focuses on a few, but important environmental impact categories for the specific applicationof amino acids in animal nutrition:• Global warming potential, including biogenic carbon(GWP100) [kg CO2eq according to IPCC 2007]• Global warming potential, excluding biogenic carbon(GWP100) [kg CO2eq]• Acidification potential (AP) [kg SO2eq]• Eutrophication potential (EP) [kg PO4eq]• Primary energy demand (PED) [MJ]
• Consumption of resources [kg Crude oil-eq]
The environmental impact categories GWP, AP and EP
have been evaluated using the CML-methodology[1] with
updated characterization factors of April 2013 (IPCC
2007). In quantification of the global warming potential
the inclusion of land use change (LUC) for soya
production in South America has a very strong influenceon the results. That’s why a sensitivity analysis has been
conducted. It was assumed for the evaluation that about
52.9%[5] of soya in South America is grown on land thatoriginally was rain forest. No land use change wasconsidered for the 3 % of soy bean meal (SBM) imported
from the US and for the 33% of soy bean oil (SBO)imported from Russia. The primary energy demand is
calculated based on the lower heat value of all energy
sources used in the model including the energy used forintermediates. All kinds of energy are considered
including fossil and renewable energy. The consumptionof resources was calculated using the methodology of
the UBA (UBA 1995, Ökobilanzen für Getränkeverpackungen, Teil A: Methode zur Berechnung und Bewertungvon Ökobilanzen für Verpackungen, Berlin). This isrestricted on the consumption of fossil energies such as
crude oil, hard coal, soft coal and natural gas.
Broiler production - Sensitivity analysis of “Land
Use Change soya”
In line with the earlier study from 2010, the aspect of
LUC was evaluated again in the current study. This topic
has gained increasing popularity and importance in thediscussion on renewable raw materials for biofuels andbio based products during the last years. This was thereason why this aspect was again integrated in the LCA
study. Additionally, there is reliable scientific data on LUC
available. The base scenario assumed as a reference
situation for soya production in South America included
a certain extent of LUC and the value was set at 52.9 %(share of land impacted by the land use change). In thesensitivity analysis a varying percentage of soya grown in
the respective regions was studied. Indirect LUC was
not considered as the methodology and mode ofcalculation is still the subject of scientific discussions.
In this study an average LUC for soybean cultivationfrom Brazil and Argentina has been assumed. As thearea where LUC occurs is individually different, asensitivity analysis was performed to outline theindividual impact LUC emissions might have on overall
GWP results. In the sensitivity analysis “LUC soya” theportion of soya from land which had undergone LUC
was set to 0% (minimum) in case no LUC occurred, andto maximum values of 58.6 % for Brazil and 70.4 % forArgentina. This value has been calculated based on dataof soybean cultivation in Brazil and Argentina from
FAOStat [5] . This model affects the two data sets
“soybean meal” and “soybean oil”. The import split i. e.
the portion of SBM from the USA, Brazil, and Argentina
remained unchanged.

FIGURE 7 - GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL, INCLUDING BIOGENICCARBON[CML 2001] FROM BROILER PRODUCTION – SENSITIVITYANALYSIS FOR “LAND USE CHANGE SOYA”

The range assumed for soya does not have an impact
on the scenario “amino acids” as no SBM is included in
the FU for this option. The GWP for option 1 remains
unchanged accordingly at a level of 3 kg CO2e/FU.
Assuming no direct LUC emissions at all in option 2, theGWP reduces by approx. 56 kg CO2e to a level of – 3 kg
CO2e/FU while increasing the area of LUC brings GWP
to a level as high as 68 kg CO2e/FU. The corresponding
values for option 3 vary between 14 kg and 129 kg
CO2e/FU, and for option 4 between 11 kg and 67 kg
CO2e/FU respectively.
Assuming no LUC for soybean cultivation can refer to abetter performance in GWP for option 2. This seems to
be reasonable as biotechnological production of aminoacids is an energy intensive process compared to crop
production. Including biogenic carbon the backgrounddataset for rapeseed meal shows a lower carbon
footprint than for soybean meal even without any
emissions from LUC. Thus, using rapeseed instead of
SBM leads to a reduced overall GWP result.
FIGURE 8 - GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL, EXCLUDING BIOGENICCARBON[CML 2001] FROM BROILER PRODUCTION – SENSITIVITYANALYSIS FOR “LAND USE CHANGE SOYA”

The land use change primarily affects emissions relevant
for the climate factors which then has an impact on
GWP (see Figures 7 and 8). The major effect is causedby the degradation of biomass stored in the soil releasing
the CO2 fixed in the soil. Additional information can befound in the documentation of PE Int. and the sources
cited in there[12].

Biogenic carbon is usually part of the natural carbon
circle as it is taken up by crops and plants during growthand emitted during further production processes or
end-of-life of products and biomass. Emissions from129

LUC are assumed to be not part of that circle anymore
in which they are emitted additionally when compared tothe biological amount of carbon needed for plant
growth. LUC emissions resulting from conversion ofcarbon rich vegetation areas to cropland with lower
carbon stock are often much higher than the amountthat can be taken within a short time period (Figure 8).
Thus, LUC emissions are in the atmosphere andcontribute to the greenhouse effect. That is why
emissions from LUC are treated as fossil carbon dioxide
and the results therefore show similar characteristics to
GWP results including biogenic carbon.
Swine production - Sensitivity analysis “land usechange soya”
The same approach of land use change calculation andthe variation of parameters for broiler production werealso applied for swine production. The LUC primarily
affects emissions relevant for the climate factors which
in turn has an impact on GWP (see Figure 9 and 10). The
major effect is caused by the degradation of biomass
stored in soil releasing the CO 2 fixed in the soil.
Additional information can be found in the documentation of PE International and the sources cited in there.
FIGURE 9 - GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL, INCLUDING BIOGENICCARBON [CML 2001] FOR SWINE PRODUCTION – SENSITIVITYANALYSIS “LAND USE CHANGE SOYA”

The range assumed for soya does not have an impact on
the scenario of option 1 as no SBM is included in the FU
for this option. The GWP for option 1 remains unchanged
at a level of 4 kg CO2e/FU. Assuming no direct LUC in
South America at all, option 2 reduces GWP by approx.
61 kg CO2e to a level of 18 kg CO2e/FU while increasing
the amount of LUC brings GWP to a level as high as
93 kg CO2e/FU. The corresponding values for option 3vary between 20 kg and 76 kg CO2e/FU.

130

FIGURE 10 - GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL, EXCLUDING BIOGENICCARBON [CML 2001] FOR SWINE PRODUCTION – SENSITIVITYANALYSIS “LAND USE CHANGE SOYA”

As explained before, carbon dioxide emissions from
LUC are considered as fossil CO2 emissions. Therefore,
the results show similar characteristics to GWP results
including biogenic carbon again (Figure 10).
5.2. Allocation
Allocation of by-products was made by value (= mass •price) in internally modeled processes. This is the casefor those amino acids with by-products which are sold toexter nal customers such like MetAMINO ® and
ThreAMINO®.
For those by-products that cannot be sold to externals
no allocation was made and all environmental impacts
were ascribed to the main product. As many datasets for
agricultural raw materials from PE International also
include allocations on an economic basis, the modelingprocedure is consistent for the amino acids production,
as well. Some database processes use different forms ofallocation, e. g. based on mass, energy content or stoichiometric ratios. Reference is made to the corresponding dataset documentations (PE International
2014, Ecolnvent 2008). In a few cases energy is
produced within separate production steps. In thesecases credits were given for the appropriate energy typebecause this energy is used in other production process
on integrated sites.
5.3. Data sources and data quality
The primary data for the production of the five aminoacids represent the situation in 2013. They were
provided by the respective production unit. The
secondary data for the background systems such asenergy supply, agricultural raw materials and minerals,
transport and disposal originate from the database of
GaBi[7] from PE International. Some of the processes- incontrast – were estimated on the basis of literature data.
Ecolnvent-Data[6] were used for those few cases forwhich no set of GaBi data was available.

TABLE 5 - ORIGIN OF PROCESS DATA FOR BROILER PRODUCTIONTABLE 6 - ORIGIN OF PROCESS DATA FOR SWINE PRODUCTION

131

The following figure indicates the system boundaries
and the availability of primary data for modeling theindividual scenarios for the functional unit (FU). The fields
with grey background are not within the share of
influence of Evonik. There is a need to use data fromsecondary sources for this. The darker coloured
segments highlight a close proximity of factors to thebusiness of the sponsor. The darker the colour the larger
the influence. More primary data are available here.

FIGURE 13 - GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL, EXCLUDING BIOGENICCARBON GWP100 [CML 2001] FOR BROILER PRODUCTION BROKEN
DOWN BY CONTRIBUTIONS OF INDIVIDUAL FACTORSFIGURE 11 - SYSTEM BOUNDARIES - AVAILABILITY OF PRIMARYDATA FOR MODELING

6. Results
6.1. Avoided emissions
The avoided emissions are indicated in the below table.
Broiler production
FIGURE 12 - GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL, EXCLUDING BIOGENICCARBON GWP100 [CML 2001] FOR BROILER PRODUCTION

132

Calculating the reference flows by generating net
differences between the feeding options generally leads
to negative credits for avoided ingredients and positive
contributions by those ingredients included in theindividual diet.
The key parameters for the greenhouse gas reduction
compared to option 2 are winter wheat and soybean oil.
The supplemented feed mix in option 1 uses less winterwheat compared to option 2 and therefore results in alower GWP excluding biogenic carbon. In contrast, thesupplemented feed mix in option 1 uses more corncompared to option 2 and therefore results in a negative
GWP value of avoided corn for option 2. In total, theeffect of avoided wheat and soybean oil of option1 leads
to a lower GWP of the supplemented feed mix in
option 1 compared to option 2, 3 and 4.

Swine production
FIGURE 14 - GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL GWP100 [CML 2001] FOR
SWINE PRODUCTION

6.2. Scenario analysis
No scenario analysis on future developments has been
performed in this study.

7. Significance of Contribution
The credit for the avoided emissions belongs to thewhole value chain. Amino acids produced by Evonik
have a fundamental contribution, as defined by the
ICCA/WBCSD guidance, to the avoided greenhouse gas
emissions.

8. Review of results

FIGURE 15 - GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL, EXCLUDING BIOGENICCARBON GWP100 [CML 2001] FOR SWINE PRODUCTION BROKEN
DOWN BY INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF FACTORSThe study has been reviewed by the German TÜV
Rheinland in 2015 and recertified in 2017. Further
information on the review can be found at https://www.
certipedia.com/ under the certificate number“0000027153”.

9. S
 tudy limitations and future
recommendations
The current study focuses on a few, but important environmental categories for the specific application ofamino acids in animal nutrition:• Global warming potential, including biogenic carbon(GWP100) [kg CO2eq according to IPCC 2007]• Global warming potential, excluding biogenic carbon(GWP100) [kg CO2eq]• Acidification potential (AP) [kg SO2- equiv.]• Eutrophication potential (EP) [kg PO4-equiv.]• Primary energy demand (PED) [MJ]
• Consumption of resources [kg Crude oil-equiv.]
The functional unit has been chosen in the respective
way, because the influence of the amino acids and not
the influence of animal keeping and growth should be
evaluated.
Calculating the reference flows by generating net
differences between the feeding options generally leads
to negative credits for avoided ingredients and positive
contributions by those ingredients included in theindividual diet.
The key parameter for the greenhouse gas reduction
compared to option 2 is soybean meal. The supplemented feed mix in option 1 uses more sping barley andsoybean oil compared to option 2 represented in thenegative credits of option 2.In contrast, the supplemented feed mix in option 1 uses less soybean meal
compared to option 2 and therefore results in a higher
GWP due to less uptake of CO2 during soybean growth.
In total, the effect of substituting soybean meal leads toa lower GWP of the supplemented feed mix in option 1.

The study shows the environmental impacts for certain
feed options, but neither evaluates the livestock keeping
nor the manure storage and spreading. It is therefore notpossible to derive recommendations for best practice
livestock keeping on the farm.

10. Conclusions
The current study was able to identify a further
improvement for the major environmental categories.
One of the reasons is the further development of the
production technology in chemical synthesis and inbiotechnological fermentation since 2008. On the other
hand, the modelling process was further developed andmore transparent data sets are available from environ-133

mental databases. Additionally the study outlines alsothat the advanced inclusion level of crystalline aminoacids to animal diets further leads to environmental
savings.

11. References[1] CML 2001
Institute of Environmental Sciences at the Universityof Leiden
http://cml.leiden.edu/research/industrialecology/
researchprojects/finished/new_dutch_lca_guide.
html[2] Coufal 2006
Coufal et al., Nitrogen Emissions from Broilers
Measured by Mass Balance Over Eighteen
Consecutive Flocks, Poultry Science, 2006
[3] De Boer 2000
De Boer et al., Nutrient Flows for Poultry Productionin The Netherlands, Poultry Science 79:172 – 179,
2000
[4] EC 2003
European Commission, Integrated Pollution
Prevention and Control (IPPC), Reference
Document on Best Available Techniques for
Intensive Rearing of Poultry and Pigs, July 2003
[5] FAOStat 2014
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, http://faostat.fao.org[6] Ecoinvent 2008
Ecoinvent Zentrum, www.ecoinvent.ch[7] GaBi 2014
PE,: GaBi SoftwareSystem and Databases for Life
Cycle Engineering. Copyright, TM. Stuttgart,
Echterdingen 1992 – 2014.
[8] IFEU 2002Ökobilanz für DL-Methionin in der Geflügelmast,
Endbericht, Dezember 2002
[9] IFEU 2004Ökobilanz für den Einsatz von DL-Methionin,
L-Lysin und L-Threonin in der Geflügel- und
Schweinemast, Endbericht, Juli 2004[10] IMPRO 2007
Environmental improvement of Meat and Dairy
Products, European Commission, Joint ResearchCentre/ IPTS, October 2007[[11] International Standard (ISO), Europäisches Komitee
für Normung (CEN)
Umweltmanagement-Ökobilanz – Grundsätze undRahmenbedingungen (DIN EN ISO 14040/44:2006)[12] IPCC 2008
Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use
Change and Forestry. In National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories Programme, Volume 4 Agriculture,
Forestry and Other Land Use, chapter 10

134[13] ISO 2006
International Organization for Standardization:
Normen ISO 14040 ff. “Environmental management– Life cycle assessment – Principles and framework”
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_
tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=37456[14] KTBL 2006
KTBL, Emissionen der Tierhaltung Messung,
Beurteilung und Minderung von Gasen, Stauben
und Keimen, KTBL-Schrift 229, 2006[15] Lemme 2002
Lemme, A., Hoehler, D., Brennan, J. J., Mannion, P.
F. (2002). “Relative Effectiveness of Methionine
Hydroxy Analog Compared to DL-Methionine in
Broiler Chickens”. Poultry Science(81): 838-845.
[16] Mack 1999
Mack, S., Bercovici, G. (1999). “Ideal amino acidprofile and dietary lysine specification for broiler
chickens of 20 to 40 days of age”. Brit. Poultry
Science(40): 257-265.
[17] MUGV 2008
Ministerium für Umwelt, Gesundheit und Verbraucherschutz, Ammoniakemissionsfaktoren Tierhaltungsanlagen, Stand 2008[18] STMELF 2003
Bayerische Staatsministerien für Landwirtschaft
und Forsten sowie Landesentwicklung und
U m w e l t f r a g e n , M e r k b l a t t “ Ve r m i n d e r u n ggasförmiger Emissionen in der Tierhaltung”, 2003[19] Toepfer 2010
Alfred C. Toepfer International GmbH, Marktbericht
Februar 2010, http://www.acti.de/media/MB_
dt_02-10.pdf[20] WWF 2007
WWF Deutschland, Methan und Lachgas - Dievergessenen Klimagase, 2007 “Mitran et al.,Determining the Nitrogen Budget and Total
Ammoniacal Nitrogen Emissions from Commercial
Broilers Grown in Environmental Chambers, 2008[21] Rigolot 2010
Rigolot, C., with S. Espagnol, P. Robin, M.
Hassouna, F. Béline, J.M. Paillat, and J.-Y.
Dourmad; 2010. “Modelling of manure production
by pigs and NH3, N2O and CH4 emissions. Part II:
Effect of animal housing, manure storage andtreatment practices” Animal, 4:8, pp 1413-1424.
[22] ALLTECH 2014
ALLTECH 2014 Global Feed Survey Summary.
ALLTECH, 3031 Catnip Hill Pike, Nicholasville,
Kentucky 40356, USA (Alltech.com)

12. AppendicesSwine production

Report of the main results other than GHG emissions
Broiler production

FIGURE 20 - ACIDIFICATION POTENTIAL AP [CML 2001] OF SWINEPRODUCTION

FIGURE 16 - ACIDIFICATION POTENTIAL AP [CML 2001] OF BROILERPRODUCTION

FIGURE 21 - EUTROPHICATION POTENTIAL EP [CML 2001] OF SWINEPRODUCTION
FIGURE 17 - EUTROPHICATION POTENTIAL EP [CML 2001] OF
BROILER PRODUCTION

FIGURE 18 - PRIMARY ENERGY DEMAND (PED) OF BROILERPRODUCTION

FIGURE 19 - RESOURCE CONSUMPTION OF BROILER PRODUCTION

FIGURE 22 - PRIMARY ENERGY DEMAND (PED) OF SWINEPRODUCTION

FIGURE 23 - RESOURCE CONSUMPTION OF SWINE PRODUCTION

135

Avoided emissions
The credit for the avoided emissions belongs to thewhole value chain. The avoided emissions are indicatedin the below tables.
Broiler production

Swine production136

Case 15

Renewable Polyethylene based on Hydro
treated Vegetable Oil (HVO) diesel – avoided
emissions perspective

SABIC

COMMISSIONER AND PERFORMER OF THE STUDY
The study was commissioned by SABIC, performed by SABIC and reviewed by Quantis.

1. Purpose of the study
The objective of the study is to quantify, from life cycle
perspective, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of polyethylene produced using hydro treated vegetable oil (HVO)
diesel as a feedstock for steam cracking. HVO is produced
from hydro treating of vegetable oils and animal fats.
Waste animal fats represent the non-edible by-productfrom meat processing and hence does not interfere withhuman food chain. Likewise, palm oil fatty acid is aby-product produced during refining of crude palm oil.
1.1. Methodology used
This study has been aligned with requirements of the
document “Guidelines from the Chemical Industry foraccounting and reporting GHG emissions avoided along
the value chain based on comparative studies,”
developed by ICCA and the Chemical Sector Group of
the WBCSD.
Since this study involves feedstocks of biogenic origin,rigorous and consistent carbon accounting for this study
was considered to be essential. Biogenic carbon
accounting for the renewable routes were made basedon PAS 2050 specification [11].
1.2. Other relevant high-level information
The coverage of emissions related to carbon footprint for
all three product systems is believed to be at a goodlevel for reliable quantification. Carbon balance was
performed for each process step and all unaccounted
carbon from the carbon balance was assumed to be
emitted as carbon dioxide to ensure closure of thebalance. This is a realistic approach for the chemical
process industry as all hydrocarbon emissions (with the
exception of process leaks and purges) are typicallyconverted to carbon dioxide prior to their release to theatmosphere.

b. HVO diesel using palm oil fatty acids, by-product frompalm oil production
c. Fossil naphtha derived from refining of crude oil.
As defined in this guideline revision, avoided emission
comparisons fall into the following three categories:
Category 1, where the reference product is the non-use
of a product or technology;
Category 2, where the reference product or technology
is from another sector (for a chemical product thereference product is a non-chemical product ortechnology);
Category 3, that compares products or technologies
within the same sector (for chemical industry thereference product is another chemical product).
This assessment based on comparison of polyethylene
produced from renewable and conventional fossil routes
falls in Category 3.
2.1. Description of the solutions to compare
It is assumed that all three routes will produce same
grade of polyethylene resin with very comparable
functional properties. Hence polyethylene produced
from all three routes are expected to demonstrateequivalent performance in use stage, including
comparable service lives. Ethylene (feedstock for polyethylene production) of comparable purity and quality is
assumed to be produced from all three routes undercomparison.

2. Solutions to compare to

2.2. Definition of the boundaries of the market
and the application
The study is based on generic polyethylene resin (thusintended for any application) and the end-of-life
assumptions are based on average statistics for waste
plastics in European region. Hence it is assumed that theend products made using SABIC Renewable Polyethylene will be produced and consumed within theEuropean region.

This LCA study capture the flow of material and energy
corresponding to the production of polyethylene resin
from polymerization of ethylene. Ethylene feedstock is
produced using three different precursors:
a. HVO diesel using animal fats, by-product from meat
processing facility

2.3. All aspects of the emissions generated
during the life cycle
This study quantifies carbon removals and emissions
throughout the life cycle. In the case of animal fats route,
this includes emissions during life of the livestock besides
emissions that occur during meat processing, conversion

137

of animal fat to HVO diesel, cracking of HVO diesel toproduce ethylene and subsequent polymerization of
ethylene to polyethylene. In the case of palm oil route,changes in carbon stocks due to land use changes is
included as a sensitivity case.

3.2. Reference flow
The reference flow is based on 1 kilogram of 100%
generic polyethylene resin with no inclusion of any
additives or fillers as the study is not restrictive to any
product application.

2.4. Description of the usage of chemical
product as part of the end-use application (ifthe case study is conducted at end-use level)
As described in previous sections of this report, thisstudy is based on production of generic polyethylene
resin and not intended for any specific productapplication. Since polyethylene resin of equivalentfunctional attributes is produced from all three routes,
plastic processing (conversion of resin into finishedproducts, of defined properties, form and shape) anduse stage of the end-use application are omitted fromthis assessment. Since the polymer resin produced is
expected to be highly comparable or of identicalproperties and purities for all three routes, this omission
is consistent with ICCA/WBCSD Guidelines (2013).

3.3. Quality requirements
The assessment assumes generic polyethylene resin ofequivalent functional attributes for all three routes undercomparison. Product quality characteristics are out ofcontext, as end-use of product is not modelled in thisstudy for all three alternatives under comparison.

3. F unctional unit and referenceflow
3.1. Description of the function and thefunctional unit
3.1.1. Description of the function and functional unit
Since polyethylene resin does not deliver any one specificfunction (typically used for varied applications such as
rigid and flexible packaging, pipes, etc.,) this is notapplicable for this study. Product use stage is notmodelled in this study.
3.1.2. Functional unit of the productChoice of functional unit is critical as it represents areference flow of the product system that delivers thesame function as other product alternatives used in thecomparison. In this assessment, one kilogram of polyethylene has been selected as the functional unit for thisassessment. This approach ensures modularity for future
extensions of the study for several specific productapplications.

138

3.4. Service life
Since end-use of products are not considered andcomparison of the three alternative routes for making
polyethylene is made only at resin level, service life isassumed to be zero. Carbon storage in durable products
is also out of context.
3.5. Time and geographic referencePrimary data related to steam cracking of HVO diesel isbased on SABIC internal data from 2012. Data for
upstream processes are based on the most updated
datasets from Biograce [15] and Ecoinvent v2.2 available
at the time of the study.
This study models production and consumption of polyethylene in Europe. All upstream processes and functions
related to product systems under evaluation, with the
exception of palm oil fatty acids (that are assumed to besourced from Malaysia) are assumed to be carried out
within Europe. End-of-life scenarios of post-consumer
polyethylene are also based on statistics for European
Union. Hence the results of this study are expected to be
fairly representative of Europe.

4. Boundary setting
As described earlier in the report, three different routes
for production of polyethylene are being compared inthis assessment. Life cycle schematic for each of thethree systems under comparison are presented below
separately (Figures 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3).

FIGURE 4.1. - PRODUCT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC – VIA HVO DIESEL (ANIMAL FATS) ROUTE

FIGURE 4.2. - PRODUCT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC – VIA HVO DIESEL (PALM OIL) ROUTE

FIGURE 4.3. - PRODUCT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC – VIA FOSSIL NAPHTHA ROUTE

139

5. Calculation methodology
5.1. Methods/formulas used
Based on PAS 2050 Specification for biogenic carbon
accounting the following rules apply (as was consideredin this study):
Emissions associated with incineration of wastematerials, wherein such systems are equipped for energy
recovery is considered to be zero for the product system.
Whenever energy is produced from such systems, allemissions and removals (biogenic carbon sequestration)arising as a result of the activity are attributable to theenergy generating system. Along the same lines, allbiogenic carbon emissions and removals linked to themass fraction of plastics that are recycled at end-of-life
are attributable to the second life of the waste plastic.
5.2. Allocation
Table below captures the choices made in this study on
allocation for various multi-output processes:
TABLE 6.1. - ALLOCATION CHOICES FOR VARIOUS MULTI-OUTPUT
PROCESSES

5.3. Data sources and data quality
Primary data related to steam cracking of HVO diesel are
based on SABIC internal data from 2012. Inventory data
related to HVO diesel production and upstream
processes for palm oil cultivation and processing are
based on Biograce database. Data for upstream(livestock rearing) and meat processing facilities is basedon report published by Hans Blonk (2009). End-of-lifescenarios assumed by the base case are based on
statistics for European Union in 2008 as published by
Bio Intelligence Services report for European Commission(2009. The inventory data used by the study is believed
to be at a good level for assessment of impacts related
to carbon footprint.

140

5.4. Key parameters of the study
For palm oil based route to renewable polyethylene,
capture of methane emissions that arise during palm oilprocessing (as a result of anaerobic digestion of palm oilmull effluent) is a critical parameter that can significantly
influence the results of the study. For other routes, there
are no such critical parameters.
5.5. Scenarios used (if applicable)
Key scenarios being explored in this study are related
to carbon footprint for palm oil based route to polyethylene: base scenario assumes only 5% methane
capture in palm oil mills (based on reported average
statistics published in 2014). Alternative scenario
assumes 100% methane capture as a best-casescenario. Also, the impacts due to Direct Land usechange induced by new palm oil cultivation is also
explored as a sensitivity case.

6. Results
6.1. Report of the main results
TABLE 6.1. - CRADLE TO GRAVE RESULTSTABLE 6.2 - CRADLE TO GATE RESULTS

141

6.2. Avoided Emissions
The avoided emissions are calculated as the difference
between “Cradle to Grave” carbon footprint for
production of 1 kg generic polyethylene produced via
conventional petroleum naphtha route and each of therenewable based routes.

FIGURE 6.1. - SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS – IMPACTS DUE TO METHANECAPTURE DURING PALM OIL PROCESSING

It is key to note that the “Cradle to Grave” carbon
footprint for animal fats route is negative overall implying
net sequestration of biogenic carbon from atmosphere.
This would imply that a calculated difference of carbon
footprint between petroleum naphtha route animal fat
route will result in a difference that includes both
avoidance of fossil based emissions plus removals due
to biogenic feedstock.
Calculations are presented below for avoided emissions
calculations based on animal fats route and palm oilroute with 100% methane capture. Since “Cradle toGrave” carbon footprint of palm oil with 5% methane
capture is higher than that of conventional route, thesame is not included below (as such a route is notbelieved to enable any avoided CO2 emissions):
Animal fats route:
Avoided CO2e emissions per(1.62-(- 1.00)) = 2.62 kgCO2 eq.

kgpolyethylene:

Palm oil route (with 100% methane capture):
Avoided CO2e emissions per kg polyethylene: (1.62-0.08)= 1.54 kgCO2 eq.
The new SABIC product of Renewable Polyethylene isbased on animal fats based HVO diesel as a feedstock.
Animal fats is a non-edible by-product from meat
processing and hence does not interfere with humanfood chain. Calculations based on projected avoided
emissions are presented below for every 1000 tonnes ofRenewable Polyethylene:
Avoided CO2e emissions per tonne of Renewable
Polyethylene based on animal fats:= (1.62-(-1.00)) = 2.62 tonnes CO2 eq.

Although the base case study assumes no impacts due
to Land use change as the HVO diesel is assumed touse palm oil fatty acid feedstock from palm plantations
that are associated with sustainable practices, asensitivity analysis is included here in an assumed
scenario of impacts due to land use change.
Based on statistics reported by Malaysia Palm oilboard [16], about 2.9 million hectares of additional area ofland has been planted for palm oil cultivation during theperiod between 1990-2010. This would imply that about
59% of the total area planted for palm oil cultivation islinked to Direct land use change (D-LUC). Also, basedon analysis of historical statistics of land use changes in
Malaysia as well as projections of future land usechanges by Birka et. al. (2011) [12], it may be a combinationof land used for other permanent crops and forest as
well as degraded lands that may undergo the highest
conversions to land for oil palm cultivation. As a conservative case, this scenario analysis explores impacts on
GHG emissions due to Direct land use change. These
calculations are performed based on PAS2050
guidelines [11, 14].
FIGURE 6.2 - SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS – IMPACTS DUE TO DIRECTLAND USE CHANGES CAUSED BY NEW PALM OIL CULTIVATION

Avoided CO2e emissions per 1000 tonnes ofRenewable Polyethylene based on animal fats:(1.62-(-1.00))*1000 = 2620 tonnes CO2 eq.
6.3. Scenario analysis
Carbon footprint results based on extended scenario of
100% methane capture by palm oil mills conclude that
palm oil based route to renewable polyethylene can beassociated with lesser GHG emissions when comparedto petroleum naphtha route. This emphasizes on key
areas for improvement for policy development in the
future.

142

Note: 59% of the land used for Palm oil cultivation is assumed to be linked to
D-LUC (Direct land use change)

7. Significance of contribution

11. References

Polyethylene produced via animal fats route, the productof interest assessed in this study, makes extensive
contribution to reduction of GHG emissions since this isenabled within the SABIC operations by switching of
naphtha with HVO diesel as feedstock for production of
ethylene via steam cracking.

[1]	Tao Ren, Martin Patel, Kornelis Blok, Olefins fromconventional and heavy feedstocks: Energy use insteam cracking and alternative processes, Energy
31 (2006) 425-451[2]	Eric Johnson, Polyethylene’s Carbon footprint:
Global variations and comparisons, SRI PEP report(2009)[3]	Hans Blonk, Milieueffecten van dierlijke bijproducten, Blonk Consultants (2009) http://www.
blonkmilieuadvies.nl/nl/pdf/pbl_bijproducten_
eindrapport.pdf[4]	Life cycle inventory of 100% Post consumer HDPE
and PET recycled resin from post-consumer
containers and packaging, Franklin Associates(2010)[5]	 h t t p : / / w w w. f 3 c e n t r e . s e / r e n e w a b l e - f u e l s /fact-sheets/eu-sustainability-criteria-biofuels[6]	Cracker Rule Book, Association of Petrochemicals
producers in Europe (APPE) and the European
Chemistry Industry Council (CEFIC), (2010)[7]	Plastics Europe Eco-Profiles for Ethylene, Propylene,
Butadiene, Pyrolysis Gasoline, Ethylene oxide andEthylene glycols (2012)[8]	Plastics – the Facts 2013: An analysis of European
latest plastics production, demand and waste data,
PlasticsEurope report (2013)[9]	Plastic waste in the Environment, Final report by Bio
Intelligence Service for European Commission DG
ENV, (2011)[10]	
Philip. G. Taylor, Teresa M. Bilinski, Hana R. F.
Fancher, Cory C. Cleveland, Diana R. Nemergut,
Samantha R. Weintraub, William R. Wieder andAlan R. Townsend, Palm oil wastewater methane
emissions and bioenergy potential, NATURE
CLIMATE CHANGE, 4, (2014)[11]	PAS2050: The Guide to PAS 2050:2011 How tocarbon footprint your products, identify hotspots
and reduce emissions in your supply chain[12]	Birka Wicke*, Richard Sikkema, Veronika Dornburg,
André Faaij, Exploring land use changes and therole of palm oil production in Indonesia and Malaysia,
Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 193–20613. http://www.
palmoilworld.org/about_malaysian-industry.html[14]	
PAS 2050:2011 PUBLICLY AVAILABLE SPECIFICATION Specification for the assessment of the life
cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods andservices[15]	Biograce Spreadsheet tool (version 4c), Institute forEnergy and Environmental Research (IFEU),
Co-funded by the Intelligent Energy Europe
Programme of the European Union
http://www.biograce.net/home[16]	
Malaysian Palm Oil Board statistics on palm oil
cultivation
http://www.palmoilworld.org/about_malaysian-industry.html

8. Review of results
The detailed LCA study (based on which this abridged
case study was developed) underwent external criticalreview by Dr. Adisa Azapagic and team (University ofManchester). However detailed results of the main study
are outside the scope of this report.

9. S
 tudy limitations and future
recommendations
The authors target to improve the coverage of otherenvironmental impacts in a future extension of this work
as more complete emissions data related to steam
cracking and polyethylene production becomes available
for the product systems under consideration. However,at this point of time, this is not expected to be restrictive
for carbon footprint.

10. Conclusions
Based on the above results for the study, it is quite
evident that polyethylene production based on waste
animal fats can lead to substantial avoided emissions.
Palm oil based route may have avoided emissions
potential but only in the case of 100% or near 100%
methane capture. However, significant trade-offs doexist for palm oil route (in terms of water depletion, fresh
water eutrophication and land occupation). The significance of contribution of the chemical product (polyethylene in this case) to value chain avoided emissions is
assessed to be “extensive”. Use of renewable feedstocks
towards production of polymers that are recyclable at
end-of-life is a good example of circular economy
concept and it can provide important advantages interms of GHG mitigation. Attribution of this avoided
emission benefit to value chain partners was not carriedout for this assessment since certain life cycle stages
were not modelled for this generic study, but authors
believe that this is a key topic in need of industry
consensus that can enable wider adoption as well as
bring in transparency and consistency in reporting of
avoided emissions.

143

Case 16 Double-glazed windows in buildings

and contribution of sodium carbonate
in avoiding greenhouse gas emissions

SolvayCOMMISSIONER AND PERFORMER OF THE STUDY
The study has been commissioned by Solvay Soda Ash business, performed by Solvay
Research & Innovation (Jean-François VIOT*), with the contribution of AGC Glass Europe(Guy Van Marcke de Lummen** & Tiago David da Cruz**), and reviewed by Quantis.

1. Purpose of the study
The objective of this study is to quantify the reduction ingreenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from the useof double glazing in replacement of existing singleglazing for windows, in Europe.
In particular, the study aims at highlighting the contribution of Solvay’s synthetic sodium carbonate (also called
soda ash), a key chemical in glass manufacturing, in the
reduction of energy consumption, and the subsequent
reduction of GHG emissions from houses. Indeed,
nowadays, quantities of synthetic sodium carbonate areproduced in order to face the demand from the glassindustry for producing high performance double-glazing
to replace existing single-glazing in windows in therenovation market in Europe. That demand is driven by
the mega-trend of energy saving that has taken place inbuilding management for some years.
This study is conducted in alignment with the requirements of the document: “Guidelines from the Chemical
Industry for accounting and reporting GHG emissions
avoided along the value chain based on comparative
studies (2013, revised 2017) developed by the Chemical
Sector Group of the WBCSD and with ICCA.

2. Solutions to compare
2.1. Description of the solutions to compare
The study compares a double-glazing with a singleglazing element, both fulfilling the same functions, butwith different thermal conductivity. The study
encompasses the full life cycle of the two versions of thatelement.

Such replacement ensures better thermal insulation ofhouses through a lower thermal conductivity, thanks to
the layered system glass-gas-glass constituting the
double-glazing element.
The present study focusses on the glazing alone. The
impact of the frame and its connection to the building is
not taken into account as it is independent from thereplacement of the glazing.
Air conditioning excluded
Only heating and the resulting GHG emissions are
considered: cooling by air conditioning devices, and theresulting energy consumption and GHG emissions areoutside the scope of this study. Such an assumption ispertinent since air conditioning is not common in most
European houses. Note that a more complex modelling
would have been necessary for energy consumption
due to air-conditioning if commercial buildings would
have been included in the scope of the study (see § 2.2
for precise definition of the market boundaries).
Accordingly, the two versions of window glazing to becompared are defined as follows:
Version 1 (solution to compare to): single glass window
glazing
1 m² of a single glass, 4 mm thick, providing a thermaltransmission (U-value) of 5.7 W/(m2.K) (figure 1).
FIGURE 1 - STRUCTURE OF A SINGLE GLARING UNIT

Focus on thermal conductivity
The replacement of single-glazing by double-glazing inwindows is aiming at reducing the energy needed tokeep the houses warm. This replacement may takeplace either upon entire renovation of the houses, oron-purpose when the renovation is limited to replacing
the glazing or the window(s).

(*) Solvay Research and Innovation, RIC Paris, 52 rue de la Haie Coq, F-93308 Aubervilliers Cedex, France(**) AGC Glass Europe SA, Avenue Jean Monnet 4, B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.

144

Version 2 (solution of the reporting company): double
glass window glazing
1 m² of a double-glazing, 4 mm of glass with low-e 1
coating, 16 mm of sealed inert gas (Argon : 90%) anddry air (10%), 4 mm of glass (4-16-4), providing a U-valueof 1.1 W/(m2.K) (figure 2).
FIGURE 2 - STRUCTURE OF A TYPICAL DOUBLE GLAZING UNIT WITHA U VALUE OF 1.1 W/M².K.

(It is considered that the same quantity of light enters thehouse with the 2 solutions to compare. In other words,
the same window surface is needed in order to ensure
the same quantity of light entering the house).
3.2. Reference flow
The “reference flow” is the mass of products that arenecessary to manufacture 1 m² of glazing (corresponding
to the selected functional unit). This mass will determine
the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the
manufacturing of the 2 solutions to be compared.
Calculation of the reference flow
Glass density: 2.5 kg/dm3
Glass composition (simplified, according to EN 572-1)(Table 1)
TABLE 1 - COMPOSITION RANGE OF THE TYPICAL SODA LIMESILICATE FLOAT GLASS USED IN BUILDING, ACCORDING TO EN 572-1

from

to

69%

74%

Calcium oxide (CaO)

5%

12%

Sodium oxide (Na20)

12%

16%

Magnesium oxide (MgO)

0%

6%

Aluminium oxide (Al203)

0%3%Silicon dioxide (Si02)

2.2. Boundaries of the market and application
The considered market in this study is the replacementof single-glazing by high performance double-glazing in
housing buildings in Europe (see 3.5 - Time andgeographic reference of the study - for details), within theframe of building renovation. The considered effect is the
reduction of thermal losses through the window glazing
obtained by substituting single-glazing by double-glazingin windows on the energy consumption necessary toheat the houses, and the consequent reduction of GHG
emissions.
The emission savings are calculated for a 30 years
period, typical reference service life (RSL) of doubleglazing, (see prEN 17074).

3. F unctional unit and referenceflow
3.1. Functional unit
The “functional unit” (the considered “service”) of both
solutions must be the same for the 2 solutions to becompared. Therefore, calculations are based on thesame functional unit: 1 m² of glazing (prEN 17074), withthe following constraints: (1) allowing similar lighting
entering the house and (2) ensuring a 20°C insidetemperature.

In order to reach the right composition, the raw materials• synthetic sodium carbonate (Na2CO3)• Sand (SiO2)• Carbonates (dolomite, limestone)• Etc.
are mixed in the following average weight ratio, in thisstudy e.g.:
Sand

62%

Synthetic sodium carbonate

19%

Dolomite

16%

Limestone

3%

They are then introduced in a high temperature furnace(> 1,500°C) in the adequate ratios; they are melted andtransformed in an amorphous transparent solid while
CO2 is emitted as a by-product of the chemical reactionthat takes place.
Version 1 (solution to compare to):Weight for 1 m² of one glass plate with a thickness of
4 mm:
1 (m²) x 0.004 (m) x 2.5 (kg/dm3) x 1,000 (dm3/m3) =10 kg of glass

1 Low-e = low emissivity.

145

Losses due to glass handling and cutting being at about
10% (estimation based AGC Glass Europe’s experience),a total of

3.4. Service life of the solution
The new solution: double-glazing is considered to havea reference service life (RSL) of 30 years as per prEN
17074.

11 kg of glassis necessary to be produced to manufacture 1 m² ofsingle-glazed surface with a thickness of 4 mm.
Remark: The overall yield at glass manufacture step isvery high. Losses of raw materials at that step areincluded in the 10% above mentioned
On this basis, the consumption of raw materials for the
manufacture of 1 m² of glass plate, 4 mm thick is:
Sand

6.82 kg

Synthetic sodium carbonate

2.09 kg

Dolomite

1.76 kg

Limestone

0.33 kg

Version 2 (reporting company solution):
Weight for 1 m² of 2 glass plates with a thickness of 4mm:
2 x 1 (m²) x 0.004 (m) x 2.5 (kg/dm3) x 1000 (dm3/m3) =20 kg of glass
For the same reasons as above, a total of
22 kg of glassis necessary to be produced to manufacture 1 m² of
double-glazed surface (4-16-4), requiring the following
raw materials:
Sand13.64 kg

Synthetic sodium carbonate

4.18 kg

Dolomite

3.52 kg

Limestone

0.66 kg

3.3. Quality requirements of the solutions tocompareBoth types of glazing offer the performance in terms ofbringing daylight into the house and of quality. They are
thus, as required in such a study, fully exchangeable,
except for the level of thermal insulation. All otherfunctions are identical and fulfilled with at least the samelevel of performance for the double-glazed window as
for the single-glazed window.

146

3.5. Time and geographic reference of the study
The geographic reference of the study is glazing
replacement in Europe, considering 7 different climate
zones / conditions.
The time reference is the period 2015-2045, (30 years ofreference service life for the new double-glazing, installedin Europe in year 2015).

4. Boundary setting
Life cycle steps
For both solutions, the considered life cycle steps are
the following in accordance with EN 15804:
1. production of glass ingredients;
2. processing of glass (in accordance with the functional
unit, with the window frame and casing outside thesystem boundaries) into the double glazing unit;
3. use stage: contribution of the glazing to heat loss
(through their specific thermal conduction).
End of life is not considered due to a very low contribution to GHG emissions over the entire life cycle of bothtypes of glazing (When not landfilled, glass is either
grinded and mixed with other construction anddemolition wa ste to be used as common construction material or recycled into glass, mostly for packaging
and fibres).
The installation of the glazing in houses are notconsidered neither since it is supposed to generate very
low GHG emissions and that it can be considered assimilar for the 2 solutions to compare.
Geographical scopeThis study considers the potential for glazing replacementin Europe. For every zone, distinct climate conditions(determining the energy losses via the glazing) andenergy mixes (determining the GHG emissions due tohouse heating) are considered, and then aggregated(weight average).
Europe is divided into 6 zones (figure 3):
1. North (Helsinki)
2. Central Maritime (Brussels)
3. Central Continental (Frankfurt)
4. Central (Prague)
5. South Central (Sofia)
6. South (Roma)FIGURE 3 - SITUATION OF THE SIX CLIMATIC ZONES ACROSSEUROPE AS CONSIDERED IN THIS STUDY

Energy consumptions are calculated for a typical housein each climate zone.
5.2. Allocation
No allocation to by-products has been applied inmodelling the foreground data and particularly inmodelling sodium carbonate production: All greenhousegas emissions of the synthetic sodium carbonate manufacturing plants are attributed to this manufactured
product.

5. Calculation methodology anddata
5.1. Methods and formulas• Production stage: production of ingredients andof glass
See 5.3• Use stage
GHG emissions that are attributable to heat losses via
the glass surfaces during the use stage of their life cycle
result from the heat generation necessary to compensate
these losses.
Heat losses are due to the thermal transmission throughthe glazing. It is considered that between the “solution tocompare to” and the “reporting company solution”, only
the glazing varies. All other elements of the buildings andmeans of heating are considered identical as regards
energy dispersion or conservation.
The computation of energy consumption for househeating (and the consequent GHG emissions) is basedon hypotheses representative of each of the 7 zones
presented above and then aggregated. It takes into
account:- Distribution for the outside temperatures (meteorological data),- Energy mix for the heating devices for housingbuildings.

5.3. Data sources and data quality
Synthetic sodium carbonate
Representative data have been used, based on ESAPA(European Soda Ash Producer Association) andEuropean Commission documents. Indeed, the sodium
carbonate process operated by European producers(synthetic process) is described by ESAPA in a specificBest Practice Reference Document (BREF) [1]. The
European Commission issued a Reference Document
on Best Available Technologies for the manufacture of
Large Volume Inorganic Chemicals [2], with a section
dedicated to sodium carbonate manufacturing essentiallybased on the ESAPA document. These two reference
documents are used in the present study to describe theprocess for synthetic sodium carbonate in Europe. The
process descriptions are sufficiently detailed to provide
relevant CO2 emissions.
From those data, the following CO2 footprint (cradle-togate) can readily be calculated for the production of 1 kgof dense synthetic sodium carbonate:
From fossil fuels:	
1.06 +/- 0.23 kg CO2 eq. / kg
synthetic sodium carbonate
From electricity:	
0.04 +/- 0.02 kg CO2 eq. / kg
synthetic sodium carbonate
From raw materials:	
0.06 +/- 0.02 kg CO2 eq. / kg
synthetic sodium carbonate
Total:	
1.16 +/- 0.27 kg CO2 eq. / kg
synthetic sodium carbonate
Remark on Solvay’s operations:
Solvay’s operations represent a significant part of the
manufacturing of sodium carbonate in Europe. Therefore
the references used are also representative of Solvay’s
process. To be noted that a more detailed analysis,
internal to Solvay, based on data of Solvay’s operations
in Europe and stemming from an exhaustive inventory of
inputs and outputs of actual processes leads to a similarvalue for carbon footprint.

147

Glass manufacture
The production of glass has been thoroughly analysed
by AGC Glass Europe, based on internal primary datafrom the company’s operations. From that analysis, thecarbon footprint (from cradle-to-gate) was calculated forthe production of two types of glazing:• Single glazing, uncoated, 4 mm thick• Double glazing, low-e, 4 – 16 – 4 (4 mm glass, 16 mm
space containing 90% Argon + 10% dry air, 4 mm
glass).
The data calculated by AGC Glass Europe and usedhere have been calculated in conformity with EN 15804
and submitted to critical reviews (See AGC Glass Europe
EPD’s for float glass (Planibel) and for double glazing
units (Thermobel)).
Glazing use stage
Energy consumptions: to determine energy consumptionin each considered European zone (figure 3), thecomputation tool CAPSOL (http://www.physibel.be/)
was used (source: AGC Glass Europe [3]).
This software allows a precise and complex computationof the overall energy exchanges between the inside andthe outside of the considered model house, considering
an entire set of characteristics. It is based on specificdata for outside temperature distribution as well as
energy mix for residential building heating in each zone.
Remark on conversion of energy consumptions to
GHG emissions: Due to the use of public data such as
the ESAPA study and the CAPSOL software, it was notpossible to strictly use the latest IPCC 2013 100y set of
GWP, as recommended. The results presented here arethus based on IPCC 2007 100y set of GWP. However,
because the small difference between those two sets
and the fact that CO2 itself is by far the most important
contributor to the carbon footprints reported here, it canbe assumed that IPCC 2007 100y gives a consistentand relevant set of GWP.
Summary of data sources
The above-table (Table 2) gives a summary of the data
sources used.
TABLE 2 - SUMMARY OF THE SOURCES OF DATA USED IN THIS STUDY148

Quality of sources
Data for both synthetic sodium carbonate production
and glass production present high levels of relevanceand completeness. They describe, based on primarydata collected by the industrial companies concerned(alone for glass or in a consortium for synthetic sodium
carbonate), large processes, which have been operated
for a long time with a slow kinetics for changes, as they
have been optimized all along their lifetime. Even thoughdata for synthetic sodium carbonate are older than 10
years, they are still representative of the present situation,and can in any case be considered as conservative.
Data for synthetic sodium carbonate relate to European
manufacturing operations, in line with the scope of thestudy. Synthetic sodium carbonate used for glass forglazing in Europe mainly comes from European manufacturing sites because of transportation costs.
Consistency between the two compared solutions is nota question since the same material is used in both
solutions, only the involved quantity changes.
Data have been subject to critical reviews conducted on
both the ESAPA’s study for synthetic sodium carbonate
and the AGC Glass Europe’s study on glass.
Accuracy for those data for material production cancertainly be improved; however, considering the very low
contribution of those steps of the glass life cycle, it is fully
consistent with the purpose of the present study.
Concerning the use stage, the CAPSOL software
provides a high level of quality and completeness, withmodelling of the entire buildings. So, only a small part ofits outputs are used within the boundaries of the present
study (heat loss through a surface of glazing for which
the coefficient of heat transfer is accurately known). The
use of differentiated data for 7 different climate andgeographic zones in Europe also improves the level ofaccuracy and relevance for outside temperature profiles
and energy mixes.

5.4. Calculations of avoided emissions
Glazing production
Based on the hypotheses and methodological choicespresented above, the results for carbon footprint ofglazing production are given in table 3.
TABLE 3 - CARBON FOOTPRINT OF GLAZING ELEMENT MANUFACTURE

Single Glazing
4 mm

For 1 m² of glazing
Carbon footprint (fromcradle-to-gate)
O/w contribution ofsynthetic sodium
carbonate production

Double Glazing
4mm - 16mm (90%
Argon) - 4mm

12 kg CO2 eq.

32 kg CO2 eq.

2,4 kg CO2 eq.

4,8 kg CO2 eq.

20%

15%

Energy losses via glazing
Based on the temperature profile in each zone, CAPSOL
computation returns the following energy losses during
1 year through 1 m² of glazing in each European zone(see table 4) for:- Single glazing, uncoated, 4 mm thick (SGU U-value= 5.7 W/(m2.K)- Double glazing, low -e coated, 4 – 16 – 4 (4 mmglass, 16 mm space containing 90% Argon + 10%
dry air, 4 mm glass) (DGU U-value = 1.1 W/(m2.K)
TABLE 4 - ENERGY LOSSES DURING 1 YEAR THROUGH 1 M² OF
GLAZING (SGU = SINGLE GLAZING / DGU = DOUBLE GLAZING)

kWh/m².year

Model

City

SGU
U-value =5,7

DGU
U-value =1,1

CENTRALMARITIME

average

Brussels

432

93

SOUTH
CENTRAL

average

Sofia

419

76

NORTH

average

Helsinki648

149

CENTRAL

average

Praha

490

102

SOUTH

average

Rome

164

15

CENTRALCONTINENTAL

averageFrankfurt

409

84

Energy mix
The energy mix for residential building heating differs
between zones, as well as the electricity mix (howelectricity is generated in each zone). Those differences
result in different carbon footprints (see table 5) for 1
kWh consumed in order to compensate for energy
losses through the glazing.

TABLE 5 - GHG EMISSIONS PER KWH. CO2 EMISSION FACTORCALCULATED FROM THE ENERGY MIX FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGHEATING. SOURCES: EUROSTAT AND EUROPEAN LIFE CYCLEDATABASE

Climate Zone

CO2 emission factor(kg CO2 / kWh)CENTRAL MARITIME

0.303

SOUTH CENTRAL

0.378

NORTH

0.298

CENTRAL

0.347

SOUTH

0.345

CENTRAL CONTINENTAL

0.369

GHG emissions
Combining table 3 and table 4, GHG emissions due toenergy losses through 1 m² of glazing during 1 year canbe computed (table 5) in each zone for the two types ofglazing.
TABLE 6 - GHG EMISSIONS TO COMPENSATE ENERGY LOSSES
THROUGH 1 M² OF GLAZING DURING 1 YEAR

Kg CO2 /m².year

SGU
U-value = 5,7

DGU
U-value = 1,1

CENTRAL MARITIME

131

28

SOUTH CENTRAL

158

29

NORTH

193

45

CENTRAL

170

35

SOUTH

57

5

CENTRAL CONTINENTAL

151

31

Avoided emissions in the considered European
zones
Considering the market distribution (confidential data),
for future / potential renovation (replacement of single
glazing by double glazing, coated or uncoated) in theconsidered European climate zones, the average value
for avoided emissions enabled by such replacement canbe calculated over the zones per m² of replaced glazing:- Per year
- For the 30 years of the reference service life of the
new double glazing- Taking into account the emissions for the considered
functional unit at the manufacturing stage (11 and
22 kg of glass respectively, see 5.4).

149

TABLE 7 - AVOIDED EMISSIONS ENABLED BY REPLACING SINGLE
GLAZING BY DOUBLE GLAZING, PER M² OF GLAZING (EUROPE –AVERAGE FOR 7 ZONES) DURING ONE YEAR AND DURING THE
ENTIRE SERVICE LIFE (RSL = 30 YEARS) – ROUNDED FIGURES

European
average

Unit

SGU
U-value =5,7

DGU
coatedU-value =1,1

Avoidedemissionskg CO2 /m².year

143

29

114

kg CO2 /m².RSL

4,296

863

3,434

6. Results
6.1. Avoided emissions
GHG emissions during the entire life cycle of both typesof glazing are summarized in figure 4 and table 7, for
1 m² of glazing.
FIGURE 4 - COMPARISON OF THE GHG EMISSIONS FOR THE FABRICATION OF THE GLAZING UNITS WITH THAT LINKED TO THE HEATING OF THE
HOUSES DURING THE ENTIRE LIFE CYCLE OF BOTH SOLUTIONS FOR GLAZING. THE FIGURE HIGHLIGHTS THE EMISSIONS AVOIDED DURING
30 YEARS WHEN SUBSTITUTING 1 M² OF SINGLE-GLAZED WINDOWS BY 1 M² OF LOW-E COATED DOUBLE-GLAZED WINDOWS IN EUROPEAN
HOUSES.

DGU

SGU

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000 4,500

GHG Emissions for 1m2 of double glazing (kg CO2 eq./m2.RSL)
Production of soda ash

Fabrication of the glazing unit

CO2 resulting from the heating of the house during use phase

CO2 avoided

TABLE 8 - GHG EMISSIONS (KG CO2 EQ.) FOR 1 M2 OF GLAZING (ROUNDED FIGURES) OVER THE LIFE CYCLE

GHG emissions for 1 m² of glazing (kg CO2 /m²)
Solution to compare to: single glazing

Reporting company solution: double glazing

Synthetic sodium carbonate production

2.4

4.8

Glazing production (excluding synthetic sodium
carbonate production)

9.6

27.2

Use stage (reference service lifetime of 30 years)

4 296

863

TOTAL (over the entire life cycle)

4308

895

Avoided emissions (difference)

150

3414

The GHG emissions for 1 m² of glazing are thus:- 4,308 kg CO2 eq. for a single glazing (4 mm thick; Uvalue = 5.7 W/(m-².K))- 895 kg CO2 eq. for a low e double glazing (4 mmglass, 16 mm space containing 90% Argon + 10%
dry air, 4 mm glass; U value = 1.1 W/(m-².K)),
leading to a difference in GHG emissions of 3,414 kg
CO2 eq. per m² of glazing over the reference service lifeof 30 years.

Quantified contribution
According to the WBCSD guidance, the avoided
emissions should not be attributed in the first place toindividual value chain partners, because they result fromthe combined contribution of all value chain actors. The
overall avoided emissions are the key element to beconsidered. They represent in total, for 1 m² of glazing,
3,414 kg CO2 eq. (a reduction from 4,308 kg CO2 eq. to
895 kg CO2 eq.).

The CO2 emitted for the heating of the house during theuse stage is much larger than the CO2 emitted during
the entire life cycle of glazing: Glass production and – asa part of it - synthetic sodium carbonate production
contributions to emissions are hardly visible on the bar
graph.

However, estimating to what extent the different materials
contribute to the avoided emissions can be done,
according to the guidance, following 3 possible
approaches (c.f. guidance recommendations):- According to the respective mass involved in manufacturing the glazing,- According to the respective costs of the materials,- According to their functional contribution to thermal
conductivity reduction.

Extrapolation to European market
With a consumption of 105 million square metres of new
DGU in Europe (EU 28, Eurostat, 2015) (and the resulting
production of 439,000 tonnes of synthetic sodium
carbonate) for the European market of glazing
replacement (replacement of single glazing by double
glazing), the avoided emissions – attributable to the
production of this year as an example, amount to 360
million tonnes of CO2 eq. (over the 30 years of their
expected lifetime).
6.2. Scenario analysis: Energy generation
hypothesis
The emissions for the 2 compared solutions, and theresulting calculated avoided depend on the technology
mix prevailing to generate the energy needed to heat thehouses. Avoided emissions may decrease if for example
a significant move takes place towards renewable energy
for building heating in the future.
It is difficult to propose a sensitivity analysis based onsuch hypotheses since the mix that is presently used by
the CAPSOL software is not readily available and that
hypotheses for an alternative scenario would becomplex, due to the fact that several climate zones (withspecific policies for evolution towards renewable energy)
are considered.

Excluding the low-e coating
In order to exclude the contribution of the low-e coating,this contributions needs to be evaluated. Indeed, thiscoating in the double glazing significantly contributes tothe total energy saving due to the double glazing. Low-e
glass is specially treated with a microscopically thin,virtually invisible transparent coating on one surface. The
coating reflects heat back into the building, thereby
reducing the heat loss through the window. It also
reduces the heat transfer from the warm (inner) pane ofglass to the cooler (outer) pane, thus further lowering theamount of heat that escapes from the window. The
coating allows large amounts of solar energy to enter thebuilding, thereby heating it [4]. The properties of Low-E
coating enable the insulating glazing to reach a U-valueof 1.1 where in the absence of low-e coating a double
glazing unit will only reach a U-value of 2.5. This contribution depends on the meteorological conditions in theconsidered climate zone. From the table below (table 9),
it can be concluded that on average the CO2 avoided
thanks to the coating amounts to 32% of the total(Average at European level).
FIGURE 5 - DOUBLE GLAZING UNIT WITH ONE LOW-E COATING(SOURCE: GLASS FOR EUROPE)

7. Contribution of sodium carbonate
to the avoided emissions
Significance of contribution: “extensive”
It is important to qualify whether sodium carbonate plays
a key role in the avoidance of GHG emissions. As an
indispensable and key ingredient in the composition ofglass, the contribution of sodium carbonate can bequalified as “extensive” (according to the definitions of
the WBCSD Guidance: “The chemical product is part of
the key component and its properties and functions are
essential for enabling the GHG emission avoiding effectof the solution”)

151TABLE 9 - ENERGY SAVING EFFECT OF THE COATING (SOURCE:

emissions per kg of sodium carbonate.

ASAHI GLASS EUROPE)

Energy Reduction
due to the coating

Model

kWh/m².year

Proportion of
total savings

CENTRALMARITIME

average

113

33%

SOUTH CENTRAL

average

111

32%

NORTH

average

165

33%

CENTRAL

average

126

32%

SOUTH

average

37

25%

CENTRALCONTINENTAL

average107

33%

8. Review of results

Avoided emissions excluding the effect of the coating:Thus, the avoided CO2 emissions that can be attributed
to the other elements of the double glazing, excluding
the effect of the coating, amounts to 3,414 x (1-0.32) =2,322 kg CO2 eq.
Quantified contribution of sodium carbonate after
excluding the role of the low-e coating: The mass
allocation has been selected for this study. A calculation
based on cost contribution was not possible due to theconfidentiality issues related to costs. On the other hand,assessing the functional contribution to thermal conductivity of every of the other materials of the glazing is notachievable: the thermal conductivity results from theoverall window systems, with no possibility to quantify
the individual contribution of the various materials, which
only together determine the conductivity. Moreover, theraw materials of the glass itself, for the same kind of
reason, cannot be considered separately.
Table 9 presents a very simplified bill of materials(excluding the spacers) for one element of each type.
TABLE 10 - SIMPLIFIED BILL OF MATERIAL (EXCLUDING THE
SPACERS AND CONSIDERING ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE OF PURE
ARGON BETWEEN THE TWO GLASS PLATES OF THE DOUBLEGLAZED ELEMENT)

for 1 m² of glazing (kg)single glazing

double glazing

synthetic sodium
carbonate

2.09

19%

4.18

19%

sand

6.82

62%

13.64

62%

other

2.09

19%

4.18

19%

argon

0.0

0

0.03

0.14%

total

11.0

100%

22.03

100%

Assuming a calculation based on mass contribution,
synthetic sodium carbonate can be estimated tocontribute to close to 19%.
Thus, with a contribution taken at 19% of the above
calculated 2,322 kg CO2 eq. avoided emissions, 441 kg
CO2 eq. can be attributed to the 4.18 kg of sodium
carbonate needed to produce 1 m² of double
glazing 4-16-4. This represents 106 kg CO2 eq. avoided

152

This also means that for every kg of CO2 emitted during
the manufacturing stage of sodium carbonate (1.16 kg
CO2 eq. / kg of sodium carbonate), 90 kg CO2 eq
avoided on the overall life cycle can be attributed to thisraw material.

ESAPA’s study for synthetic sodium carbonate
production is a reference document, approved andvalidated by CEFIC; and AGC Glass Europe’s study forglass production has been peer-reviewed. Quantis has
reviewed the compliance of the study with the WBCSD/ICCA guidance on avoided emissions).

9. S
 tudy limitations and future
recommendations

The study focusses on renovation in Europe. A limitation
stands in the evolution of energy mix for residentialbuilding heating. The potential growing contribution ofrenewable energy may affect the estimated avoided
emissions.

10. Conclusions
Overall avoided emissions
This study quantifies the GHG emissions that may befurther avoided thanks to the replacement of existing
single glazing with double glazing windows (and theresulting energy savings), in residential buildings in
Europe.
Although actual renovation in fact consists in thereplacement of single glazing by coated (metallic oxides)
double glazing, this study however focusses on the roleof glass and of sodium carbonate in avoided emissions,and the final results excludes the benefit of the coatingfrom the scope.
The insulating effect of double glazing as compared tosingle glazing stems from a drastic reduction of thethermal losses through windows. Estimated avoided
emissions, considering the entire life cycle of double
glazing compared to single glazing, amount to 3,400 kg
CO2 eq. per m² of double glazing over a 30 year reference
service lifetime. Extrapolation to the considered European
market gives a figure of 360 million tonnes CO2 avoided
emissions for a single year of replacement of windows(Based on DGU consumed in EU28 in 2015. Eurostat).

Because these avoided emissions result from the
combined contribution of all value chain actors (rawmaterials manufacturers, glass manufacturers, window
manufacturers… down to the house inhabitants
themselves), they belong to all value chain actors.

Environmental Product Declaration. Thermobel, therange of insulating glass units. AGC Glass Europe, 2013.
Environmental Product Declaration. Planibel, the rangeof float glasses. AGC Glass Europe, 2015.

Estimate of the contribution of sodium carbonate
The contribution of sodium carbonate is “extensive”
according to the WBCSD guidance and it is possible toestimate it, assuming a mass allocation, at 19% of the2,322 kg avoided emissions directly due to the double
glazing system (excluding the effect of the low-e coating).
This represents 90 kg CO2 eq. avoided for every kg of
CO2 eq emitted during sodium carbonate manufacture
for the window renovation market in Europe. To be notedthat possible variations between different sodium
carbonate manufacturing sites in terms of CO2 efficiency
would not impact the overall avoided emissions
estimation, as the use stage of windows represents by
far the highest contribution, and the relative contributions of glass manufacturing and – as a part of it –synthetic sodium carbonate production are very small.
Sensitivity to renewable energy ratio
Overall calculated avoided emissions would of course beaffected if the ratio of renewable (low carbon) energy inthe European mix for residential building heating would
significantly increase in the coming 30 years.

11. References[1]	
CEFIC-ESAPA (2004). “IPPC BAT Reference
Document Large Volume Solid Inorganic Chemicals
Family, Process BREF for Soda Ash”, Issue No: 3.
[2]	Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control,
Reference Document on Best Available Techniques
for the Manufacture of Large Volume Inorganic
Chemicals - Solids and Others – Industry; August
2007 issued by the European Commission ;chapter 2 : SODA ASH[3]	CAPSOL, computer program to calculate multizonaltransient heat transfer version 5.0w – 2014PHYSIBEL (http://www.physibel.be/)[4]	Low-E Insulating Glass for Energy Efficient Buildings.
Glass for Europe, 2009.
EN 572-1:2012 — Glass in building. Basic soda-limesilicate glass products. Definitions and general physicaland mechanical properties
EN 15804:2012+A1:2013 — Sustainability of construction works. Environmental product declarations. Core
rules for the product category of construction products
prEN 17074:2017 — Glass in building — Environmental
product declaration — Product category rules for flatglass products

153

Case 17

100% Bio Based Polyethylene
Terephthalate (PET)

Toray
Industries,
Inc.

COMMISSIONER AND PERFORMER OF THE STUDY
The study was commissioned by Toray Industries, Inc., performed by Toshiro Senba,
Iida Women’s Junior College and Dr. Atsushi Inaba, Kogakuin University and reviewed
by Quantis.

1. Purpose of the study
The objective of the study is to calculate the GHG
emission of the 100% bio based PET which is thematerial of polyester textile products, in comparison withthe alternative, petroleum based PET.
PET is made from two materials which are chemical
products previously from petroleum refinery.
100% bio based PET, the chemical product the study
focuses on, is a newly developed material made from
TPA and ethylene glycols (EG), both of which are derived
from bio based raw materials instead of petroleum based
ones. Material-derived carbon emissions by incinerationof 100% bio based PET on disposal stage are considered
to be zero since the resource plants absorb the same
quantity of carbon from air for photosynthesis whengrowing.
Polyester filaments and fibers from the resin are applicableto various products and applications, and life cycle
carbon emissions of each product vary separately by thefinished product and application. The reason we do notselect a kind of textile product but its material to assess
is to apply broadly the study result of the environmental
impact to variety of textile products which are based on
this PET resin.

polyester which is manufactured by polymerization withTPA (C8H6O4) and EG (C2H6O2). Conventionally TPA
and EG are chemical products from petroleum refinery.
The bio derived TPA as a material of the 100% bio based
PET is produced in Japan from the raw material paraxylene (PX, C8H10) by Toray Industries, Inc. The PX in
the study is assumed to be manufactured from ethanol,
80% of which is made from United States corn and 20%
is from Brazil sugarcane by Virent Inc. technology. The
bio derived EG as a material of the 100% bio based PET
is produced in India from waste sugarcane molasses by
India Glycols Ltd. Polymerization process with TPA and
EG is in Japan.
The 100% bio based PET and the petroleum based PET
can be manufactured by the same process facility of
Toray. They have the identical physical properties andcan be used for the same application, style and designof textile products.
The factor to affect the emissions through full life cycle isonly the raw materials manufacturing stage, which isdifferent between the alternatives.
CHART 1 - REPORTING COMPANY’S SOLUTION

The category of comparison is the category 3 (Product/
technology comparison within the same sector.)

2. Solutions to compare
2.1. Description of the solutions to compare
The study compared two alternative kinds of the PET
resin which are the material of polyester textile products.
The global mill consumption as demand of fibers in 2015
was about 88 million tonnes and 61% of it were synthetic
fibers including the polyester. The fiber demand around2020 is expected to be 100 million tonnes and morethan 50% of it seems to be polyester fibers (reference(1)). The reporting company’s solution can be applied tothe material of these polyester fibers.
The reporting company’s solution is the 100% bio based
PET. PET (chemical formula is (C10H8O4)n) is a kind of

154

3. F
 unctional unit and referenceflow
3.1. The function and the functional unit
The function of the solutions compares is to provide theplastic physical properties needed as a material of textile

products by 100% of polyester. The functional unit has
been set as to produce and to incinerate the 1 kg of PET.

5. Calculation methodology anddata

3.2. Reference flow
The reference flow of both solutions is 1 kg of PET resin.

5.1. Methods and formulas used
Avoided GHG emissions were calculated as thedifference between the life cycle emissions of the 100%
bio based PET and the petroleum based PET.

3.3. Quality requirements
The studied solutions provide the same function as thekind of resin because the physical properties of both are
the identical, and thus textile products made from them
have the identical performance such as processability
and durability. The consumers of finished products do
not distinguish between both.
3.4. Service life of the solution
The service life of textile finished products was not set inthis study because the form and application of finishedproducts vary so broadly. The length of service life of
textile finished products does not affect the calculationand its results of GHG emissions.
3.5. Time and geographic reference of the study
The time related coverage of the data is from 2011
through 2016. The primary data of TPA production and
PET polymerization were based on the most recent data
available from 2015 to 2016, and references as
secondary data were based on 2011 and 2013.
The geographical coverage is the United States, Brazil,
India and Japan. The material production of the reported
solution is based on the United States, Brazil, India andJapan, and polymerization is based on Japan (Chart 1.)

The characterization factors of the GHG were the global
warming potential 100 years by IPCC 2007. The reason
not to use the most recent version of IPCC but to employ
IPCC 2007 is consistency with the existing study(reference (2)) on which the study based. Both of thebase case and the future scenario were assessed by thesame GWP factors.
5.2. Allocation
Mass allocation method between the product andcoproducts was employed in the bio based PX processthat the primary data was used.
In the calculation of the bio based EG production(reference (2)), the allocation based on the economic
value was employed.
In the TPA production from PX, the steam as a utility is
generated by heat from the oxidation, as well as the TPA.
We did not employ the allocation but subtracted theimpacts of the steam from the total process emissions.

4. Boundary setting
The value chain of the finished product with the solutions
is shown in Chart 2.
The study does not cover the following life cycle stages,
and these are identical between both solutions; manufacturing of the finished textile products, distribution anduse stage.
CHART 2 - PRODUCT SYSTEMS

155

5.3. Data, data sources and data quality
Data sources of each process are as in Chart 3. Virent
Inc. and Toray Industries, Inc. provided primary data forthe process of each.

emissions from general steam generation, which can bealternate the generated steam, were subtracted from theprocess emissions.
TABLE 1 - AVOIDED EMISSIONS PER 1 KG OF PET (KGCO2E/KG-PET)As the life cycle inventory data, the inventory database
IDEA (Inventory Database for Lifecycle Analysis
developed by AIST and JEMAI) is prioritized and supplemented with the information in the references.
CHART 3 - DATA SOURCES - REPORTING COMPANY’S SOLUTION

a. Reporting
company’s
solutionb. Solution tocompare to

Resource through TPA
production

2.39

1.04

Resource through EG
production

0.37

0.50

Polymerization

0.67

0.67

End products, distribution
and use stage--

Disposal

0

2.29

Total

3.42

4.50

Avoided emissions (b-a)

1.08

CHART 3 - GHG EMISSIONS OF REPORTING COMPANY’S SOLUTION
AND SOLUTION TO COMPARE BY PROCESS (KGCO2E/KG-PET)

5.4. Cut off
The catalyst used in the polymerization process, outputof the bromomethane from the TPA production and thewaste polymer out of the polymerization process are cut
off as they are less than 0.5% by weight of the process
output.
CHART 4 - GHG EMISSIONS FROM ENERGY/UTILITY IN EACH PROCESS

6. Results
6.1. Avoided emissions
The result of GHG emissions in each process of both
solutions is shown in Table 1 and Chart 3.
In comparison to the solution to compare to, thereporting company’s solution has higher emissions
during the Resource through the TPA production, but it
has 1.08 kgCO2e/kg-PET of avoided emission as carbon
emission from incineration at the Disposal stage isneutralized by carbon uptake in the material plants.
In the scope of the study, the Resource through TPA
production process contributes more highly than others
to GHG emissions, therefore the efficiency in the process
is the key parameter. Primary factors in each process are
the electricity and the steam inputted as the energy(Chart 4).
In the TPA production from PX, as shown in the second
graph of Graph 2, the emissions from the steam was anegative quantity. This represents that the steam isgenerated by heat from the PX oxidation, and the156

Assuming that 10% of the polyester fiber demand in
2020, i.e. 5 million tonnes of polyester fibers, are replaced
into 100% bio based PET in the base case instead of
petroleum based PET, 5.4 million tonnes of GHG
emissions can be avoided. If a half of the demand,
25 million tonnes of polyester fibers by 100% bio based
PET are used, the avoided emissions can be estimatedat 27 million tonnes.

6.2. Scenario analysis
The base case evaluates the bio derived PX, the raw
material of the 100% bio based PET, manufactured fromethanol, which is consisted 80% of US corn ethanol and
20% of Brazil sugarcane ethanol. As the future scenario,
we assumed the case of 100% bio based PET from bio
PX by 100% sugarcane ethanol.
TABLE 2 - AVOIDED EMISSIONS PER 1 KG OF PET IN FUTURESCENARIO (KGCO2E/KG-PET)

a2. Futurescenario (PX fromethanol 100% bysugarcane)b. Solution tocompare to

Resource through TPA
production

0.85

1.04

Resource through EG
production

0.37

0.50

Polymerization

0.67

0.67

Finished products,
distribution and use
stage

-

-

Disposal

0.00

2.29

Total

1.88

4.50

Avoided emissions (b-a)

2.62

CHART 5 - GHG EMISSIONS OF SOLUTION IN FUTURE SCENARIO ANDSOLUTION TO COMPARE BY PROCESS (KGCO2E/KG-PET)

The prospect of the industry is as follows. The global millconsumption as demand of major fibers was about
88 million tonnes in 2015. The expected demand around2020 is 100 million tonnes and the majority of it seems
to be the polyester fibers (reference (1)).

6.3. Simplified assessment
Manufacturing of the finished textile products, distribution and use stage were not covered in the study as thelife cycle stages are identical between both alternatives.
The main reasons to employ the simplified calculation in
the study are as follows:
1) polyester fiber/filament has large variety of products
and application, and the variety changes theemissions through full life cycle, and2) the study results can be applied to variety of value
chain of our textile products as a basic study of the
PET as a material.
The analysis limitation by omitting these identical stages
is described below in [9. Study limitations and future
recommendations]. The omitting emission does notchange the overall conclusion of the study.
As some examples of the estimation of omitted
emissions, the following references can be found.
According to these references and the result of thisstudy, the total GHG emissions during the spinning,fabric making (weaving/knitting), dyeing & finishing andmanufacturing of textile finished products (sewing, etc.)
can be estimated to be around 13 or 14 kg-CO2e/
kg-PET, and the emissions during use stage (cleaning or
washing by consumers, etc.) can be estimated to be 10
to 30 kg-CO2e /kg-PET.
• According to the detailed information of “Training
shirt, jam up® jacket” registered in the CFP program(reference (7)), the cradle-to-gate carbon foot print of
one jacket by 100% polyester (541 g) is calculated as
10.0 kg-CO2e (8.1 kg-CO2e in material stage and1.9 kg-CO2e in manufacturing stage), which can be
18.48 kg-CO2e for 1 kg of polyester jacket. The
emissions during use stage is 2.4 kg-CO2e per jacket
by 100 times of home cleaning (without ironing),
which can be 4.4 kg-CO2e for 1 kg of jacket.
• In the “Life Cycle Assessment Report of Textile
products (clothing)” (reference (8)), the cradle-to-gate
CO2 emissions of one tonne of polyester blouse (total
143 g/item; polyester fabric 121 g and other parts
22 g) is calculated as 5’507 kg-C. When allocating
the environmental impacts between the polyester
fabric and other parts, the emissions are 17.1 kg-CO2/
kg-PET fabric.
• According to the reference “An Investigation into
Differences in Method of Drying Domestic Laundry
Based on Area Survey” (reference (9)), the GHG

157

emissions by one time of washing one dress shirt(250 g) is calculated to be around 0.098 through
0.169 kg-CO2e/shirt by household washing (washing,ironing and machine drying) and to be 0.296
kg-CO2e/shirt by laundry washing by commercial
cleaning service (washing by drum type washingmachine with hot water and press).

7. Significance of contribution
The 100% bio based PET as the reporting company’ssolution is main material of the polyester textile products
and contributes fundamentally to the reduction of the
textile finished products.
The plant derived solution and the petroleum derived
solution to compare have the identical physical properties
as the material. Therefore employing the bio based raw
materials leads the avoided emissions through full life
cycle of the finished products without changing any
quality and functionality.
With carbon absorption by the material plants, thereporting company’s solution neutralizes the carbon
emissions during the disposal stage. Toray as a chemical
supplier contributes the avoided emissions by providing
the textile products made of the bio based PET, and theeffort of the avoidance is attributed not only to thechemical industry but the value chain partners of full life
cycle of the finished products.

8. Review of results
Any critical review was not carried out for the study. The
experts in the Japan Chemical Industry Association andthe ICCA had reviewed the study report in accordancewith the requirements of the new ICCA guidelines. The
major review comments were on the absence ofviewpoints to be added to the scenario analysis and thestudy limitations.

9. S
 tudy limitations and future
recommendations
The results of the study show the avoided emission of
the polyester resin which is a material of textile finishedproducts. The finished products from the solutions areout of scope in the study and their properties (e.g.
application, product type, design etc.) change emissions
through the full life cycle. Following examples are thevariation of emissions through the full life cycle by finishedproducts application/type/design.
• During the production stage of the finished textile
products, selection of fuels for the heat sources,
selection and quantity of dyestuff and agents to be
used, existence of finishing for functionality and158

efficiency of each process are change the emissions
through the full life cycle.
• During the use stage of the finished textile products,
the service life of the finished products (the length oftime the products are used), the existence of cleaning,
the frequency of cleaning and the way of cleaning
affect the emissions through the full life cycle.
When the new production technology of bio basedmaterials (TPA and EG) is further developed and also theprocesses and energy efficiencies are further improved,
the GHG emissions can differ from the result of the study.
In such cases, the result of this study may not beapplicable.
Land use change
Concerning the possible impact from the land usechange, we additionally estimated the land area of agricultural use for sugarcane and corn, which can be used
for the bio based materials, because the trade-off
between GHG emissions and land use may occur in thecomparison between the bio based materials and thepetro based materials.
The land area used for TPA production can be calculated
from the sugarcane and corn yield per year per unit area.
The sugarcane yield per year per hectare in Brazil is
75 tonnes and the ethanol yield per kg of sugarcane is
0.072kg (reference (3)). The corn yield per year per
hectare in USA is 9.92 tonnes, and the ethanol yield per
kg of corn is 0.33kg (reference (3)).
As for EG, the sugarcane molasses yield per year per
hectare in India is assumed to be 2.22 tonnes (reference(10)). Since the information of sugarcane cultivation inIndia is not available in the reference (2), the land use ofsugarcane production for EG is assumed based on otherreference available (reference 10).
Based on the estimations mentioned above, 15.1 m2 ofcrop land would be used in a year to product bio based
feedstocks per kg of PET in the base case, and 13.2 m2
of crop land would be used in the future scenario.
It is also recognized that other trade-off such as biodiversity and water consumption may also occur in the
production of the feedstock for bio based materials,
though such trade-offs were not assessed in this study
due to lack of relevant information.
The reporting company’s solution may have more
impacts due to the potential trade-offs mentioned above
than the solution to compare.

10. Conclusions
The reporting company’s solution has 1.08 kgCO2/
kg-PET of avoided emissions, and the carbon uptake bymaterial plants contributes the avoided emissions. Since
the carbon in the TPA composes 80% of carbon in the
PET, the effort to reduce emissions during the productionof TPA and its raw materials provides the major influence.
There is great variety of products and application of
textile made from the reporting company’s solution, andapplication and usage of the finished products varies
emissions during out of scope of the study and during
full life cycle as well.

[10] Statistics by Indian Sugar Mills Association (ISMA)
http://www.indiansugar.com/Statics.aspx

11. References[1] PCI Wood Mackenzie (2015) World Synthetic Fibres
Supply/Demand Report 2015[2] Yagihashi et al. (2012) LCA of polyethylene terephthalate from biomass. Proceedings of the 7th
Meeting of The Institute of Life Cycle Assessment,Japanh t t p s : / / w w w. j s t a g e . j s t . g o . j p / a r t i c l e /ilcaj/2011/0/2011_0_22/_pdf[3] U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science (2013).
GREET (The Greenhouse gases, Regulated
Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation)_1_2013
https://greet.es.anl.gov/[4] Suding, P. (2013). Chemical Plant GHG Emissions.
Interamerican Developmental Bank Technical Note
No. IDB-TN-618
https://publications.iadb.org/bitstream/
handle/11319/6028/Chemical%20Plants%20
GHG%20Emissions%3A%20A%20Guidance%20
Note%20to%20Reconciling%20the%20
Financing%20of%20Chemical%20Plants%20
with%20Climate%20Change%20Objectives%20.
pdf?sequence=1[5] U.S. Life Cycle Inventory Database. (2012). National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2012.
[6] Plastics Europe (2013) Benzene, Toluene, andXylene (Automatics, BTX) Eco-profile
http://gabi-documentation-2014.gabi-software.
com/xml-data/external_docs/PlasticsEurope%20
Eco-profile%20BTX%202013-02.pdf[7] ASICS, School wear “Training Shirt” Jam up®
Jacket, Registration Number: CR-AO04-13001,
JEMAI CFP Program,h t t p s : / / w w w. c f p - j a p a n . j p / c o m m o n / p d f _permission/000841/CR-AO04-13001.pdf[8] Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (2009) “Life
Cycle Assessment Report of Textile products(clothing)”
http://www.meti.go.jp/policy/fiber/downloadfiles/
LCA-hontai.pdf[9] Yamaguchi et al. (2010). Estimation of the CO2Emission for the Clothing Cleaning Process. Journalof Life Cycle Assessment, Japan, vol.6 no.3,
209-216
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/lca/6/3/6_209/_
pdf

159

WBCSD& ICCA
guidanceversion 1
and 2
The guidelines (Guidelines from the chemical industry for accounting for and reporting greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions avoided along the value chain based on comparative studies) were developed with the aim of increasing
the consistency and credibility of avoided emissions estimates communicated by chemical companies about theirproducts. The guidelines were developed by the chemical sector task force of World Business Council for Sustainable
Development (WBCSD) and the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA). A first version was publishedin October 2013. Following a first series of case studies, the guidelines have been slightly improved to better meet thepractitionners needs. Published in 2017, Version 2 encompassed a number of improvements, including:-	The concept of value chain level is no longer limited to only chemical product or end-use level. The comparison
can be made at the chemical product level, at the end use level or at any level in between- The criteria to select the solution to compare to has been made less rigid than in version 1- The concept of functionality has been added in the attribution approach

Version 2 is robust and stabilized
The ICCA/WBCSD guidance, after its 2017 revision, demonstrates that it is robust and stabilized. In general, thecompanies and industry associations that carried out the case studies perceived the ICCA & WBCSD guidelines aseasy-to-use and helpful in decision-making with regard to avoided emissions calculations. For example, the “simplified
approach” was welcomed by the practitioners as it provides companies the possibility to broaden the scope of theirstudy without increasing the time and resources needed for the study (as long as the solutions to compare containidentical life cycle elements).

Data quality
Data quality is an important aspect when comparing two solutions. For example, when the data used for one of
the compared solution are less representative, it reduces the confidence in the final results. The ICCA & WBCSD
guidelines require a data quality assessment in line with ISO or the GHG Protocol, but more specific guidelines ondata quality assessment within the ICCA & WBCSD guidelines could help companies to address this issue sufficiently
in their avoided emissions studies. A number of case studies supplied by companies did not sufficiently address data
quality or only addressed it at a high aggregation level.

160

Acknowledgements
The case studies in this report were offered by ten companies and two associations. ICCA would like tothank the people that have been involved in the avoided GHG emissions case studies project, in particular
the ICCA Energy and Climate Change Leadership Group / cLCA Task Force Co-chairs: Michel Bande(Solvay), Motozo Yoshikiyo (Japan Chemical Industry Association) (2nd phase), and the cLCA Task Force
Participants: Yuki Hamilton O. Kabe (Braskem S.A.); Michael H. Mazor (The Dow Chemical Company);
Barclay Satterfield, Jason Pierce and Lauren Johnson (Eastman Chemical Company); Abdelhadi
Sahnoune (ExxonMobil Chemical Company); Rob van der Heijden (Shell Global Solutions International
B.V.); Pierre Coërs (Solvay); Hiroyuki Kamata (Toray Industries, Inc.); Kiyoshi Kasai and Reiko Nonaka(Japan Chemical Industry Association).
ICCA would also like to thank the other people who have been involved in the development of thecase studies, and in particular: Klas Hallberg (Akzo Nobel), Nicola Paczkowski (BASF), Yuki Hamilton
Onda Kabe (Braskem), Christina Merz (Evonik), Randy Waymire and Jason Pierce (Eastman Chemical
Company), Rakesh Bhartia (India Glycols), Makoto Terauch (Japan Chemical Industry Association),
Rajesh Mehta and Ananda Sekar (SABIC), Jean-François Viot (Solvay) and Guy Van Marcke (AGC Glass
Europe), Jiro Mori (Sumitomo Chemical).
Ecofys has reviewed the first series of cLCA case studies that were published on the ICCA website in
December 2015, while Quantis has reviewed a second series of case studies in 2016, to check if they arein compliance with the ICCA & WBCSD guidelines “Guidelines from the chemical industry for accounting
for and reporting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions avoided along the value chain based on comparative
studies”. ICCA would like to thank Annemarie Kerkhof and Karlien Wouters of Ecofys and Sebastien
Humbert from Quantis for their review of the case studies and advice on their quality.
We would also like to thank Pierre Coërs (Solvay) in his role as Chair of the cLCA Task Force (3rd phase)for coordinating the case study project, and Nonaka Reiko for her active support.

161

162

Disclaimer for Case Studies
These case studies illustrate how the reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions can be enabled by chemical products:
Chemical industry members offered life cycle assessment [LCA] case studies for the purpose of showing illustrative
examples on how to calculate avoided greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The avoided emission calculations werebased on the guidelines developed by ICCA and WBSCD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development) –Chemical Sector, with the support of Arthur D. Little and Ecofys. Other life cycle environmental impacts such as waterand land use change were outside the scope and usually not considered.

163

About the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA)
The International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) is the worldwide voice of the chemical industry, representing
chemical manufacturers and producers all over the world. Responding to the need for a global presence, ICCA was createdin 1989 to coordinate the work of chemical companies and associations on issues and programs of international interest.
It comprises trade associations representing companies involved in all aspects of the chemical industry.
ICCA is a chemical industry sector with a turnover of more than 3,600 billion euros. ICCA members (incl. observers &Responsible Care members) account for more than 90 percent of global chemical sales.
ICCA promotes and co-ordinates Responsible Care® and other voluntary chemical industry initiatives. ICCA has a central rolein the exchange of information within the international industry, and in the development of position statements on mattersof policy. It is also the main channel of communication between the industry and various international organizations that areconcerned with health, environment and trade-related issues, including the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),
the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development (OECD).
ICCA operates by coordinating the work of member associations and their member companies, through the exchange of
information and the development of common positions on policy issues of international significance. Three main issues
focused on by ICCA are: Chemicals Policy & Health, Climate Change & Energy, Responsible Care®.
ICCA also serves as the main channel of communication between the industry and various international entities, such as
inter-governmental organizations (IGOs) and NGOs that are concerned with these global issues.

For more information, please contact the ICCA Extended Secretariat:
Rachelina Baio: rba@cefic.be
Servet Gören: sgo@cefic.be
Sachiko Kohno: skohno@jcia-net.or.jp

This publication and its content, where applicable, are subject to the copyright of ICCA AISBL. Reproduction
is authorised, except for commercial purposes, provided that the source is mentioned and acknowledged.
ICCA claims no copyright on any official document or in the public domain. Copyright, if any, or third party
material found must also be respected.

Photography © Shutterstock. Design: www.landmarks.be

www.icca-chem.org