ICCA - Worldwide Voice of the Chemical Industry

Reduction ofGreenhouse Gas
Emissions via
Use of Chemical
Products

Case Studies
Exemplifying the Application of the ICCA & WBCSD
Avoided Emissions Guidelines

Table of contents
Foreword

1

Executive summary

2
6
7
7
8
9

Case study reports

18

•
•
•
•
•

•

•
•

•
•

•
•
•
•

Introduction
Aim of project
Review procedure
Guidelines and lessons learnt
Brief description of case studies & review comments

Case 1 - B ASF
External Thermal Insulation Composite System for the
refurbishment of an existing detached house in Germany

19

Case 2 - Braskem
Polypropylene (PP) containers for chocolate drink powder

32

Case 3 - Evonik
Feed additives - DL-Methionine, L-Lysine, L-Threonine
and L-Tryptophan in broiler and pig production

39

Case 4 - India Glycols Ltd (IGL)
Bio-Mono Ethylene Glycol (MEG) from renewable source

50

Case 5 - Japan Carbon Fiber Manufacturers Association (JCMA)
Aircraft materials (CFRP, Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic)
for weight reduction

58

Case 6 - Japan Chemical Industry Association (JCIA)
Materials for fuel efficient tires

62

Case 7 - SABIC
Multilayer Polyethylene packaging films

68

Case 8 - Solvay
Engineering plastics for vehicle light-weighting

76

Case 9 - Sumitomo Chemical
Broiler production by feed additive DL-methionine

85

Appendix: Reference materials

94
95
97
99

Acknowledgements

102

•
•
•

Report template for case study
Comment template
Selection criteria

Foreword
The contribution of the chemicalindustry to GHG emissions reduction
is well established. The reduction isachieved through the use of highefficiency processes and products –such as fuel-saving tires, LED lamps,
insulation materials for buildings andsolar cells.
Reducing GHG emissions during the
manufacturing phase is one part of thecontribution. Reducing the emissions
during the use of the products is anotherand often more important part to realize
the environmental benefit. Accounting
for the reductions can however becomplex and not always straightforward.
Typically, the majority of chemical
products are part of an assembly or
more complex end products.
This leads to challenges whenquantifying the GHG reductions enabled
by chemical components/ingredients.
The amount of the calculated GHG
emissions (avoided emissions) depends
greatly on the system boundaries used
and the choice of the reference
products.
The International Council of Chemical
Associations (ICCA) and the World
Business Council for Sustainable
Development (WBCSD) Chemical Sector
project have recognized the importanceof establishing specific guidelines tohelp quantify and report the contributionof chemical products in reducing GHG
emissions over the product life cycle.
The guidelines’ practical steps for theirapplication were published in 2013.

The goal of the present report is toillustrate, through several examples
offered by ICCA members andassociations, how to apply theguidelines to individual cases. The
second objective is to encourage
chemical companies to apply theguidelines when calculating the avoided
emissions of their products.
The evaluation of the avoided emissions
must be carefully conducted, ensuringconsistency and transparency.
We expect this report will help member
companies and associations develop
robust studies and further enhance thecredibility of the chemical industry as
solution provider for a low carbon
economy.

Shigenori Otsuka

Chair of ICCA E&CC LG

Executive summary
The main purpose of this reportis to exemplify the application of the
ICCA & WBCSD Chemical Sector
guidelines “Addressing the Avoided
Emissions Challenge: Guidelines fromthe chemical industry for accounting
for and reporting greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions avoided along the value chain
based on comparative studies”.

The objective of this technical reportis to:• Raise awareness about the emission reduction
potential of chemical products• Illustrate the application of the ICCA & WBCSD
Chemical Sector guidelines• Motivate other chemical companies to use
the guidelines• Promote full life cycle approach

Review procedure

The studies were adapted from original workby applying the ICCA and WBCSD Chemical
Sector guidelines.

It is expected to motivate otherchemical companies to apply theguidelines and help them generatehigh quality case studies.

To ensure that the case studies comply with the
ICCA & WBCSD guidelines, ICCA commissioned
Ecofys to review the case studies.
Ecofys assessed the overall compliance withthe guidelines. The summary of the review findings
is presented for each case study.

Case studies

The case studies in this report were offeredby seven companies and two associations.
The following companies and associations
contributed to this project.

21:1. BBASF
Therm al Insulation Com posite System for the
ASF :: External
1:
BASF
External Therm al Insulation Com posite System for the
refurbishm
ent
of
an
existing
detachedSystem
house inany
External Thermal
Composite
forGerm
the refurbishment
refurbishm
ent of Insulation
an existing
detached house in
Germ
any

of an existing detached house in Germany
Solutions to com pare
Solutions to com pare

Functional unit
Functional unit
Avoided em issions
Avoided em issions

An existing house insulated using an external
An existing house insulated using an external
thermal insulation composite system (ETICS)
thermal insulation composite system (ETICS)
based on expanded polystyrene (EPS)
based on expanded polystyrene (EPS)! The market-average existing German house! The market-average existing German house
The heating of an existing single family detached house
The heating of an existing single family detached housein Germany at average room temperature of 19°C forin Germany at average room temperature of 19°C for
40 years (from 2011 to 2051)
40 years (from 2011 to 2051)
The avoided emissions resulting from the use of an
The avoided emissions resulting from the use of an
ETICS system based on EPS amount 141 ton CO2e per
ETICS system based on EPS amount 141 ton CO2e perhouse in a 40-year period
house in a 40-year period!
!

2:Braskem : Polypropylene (PP) Containers for Chocolate Drink Powder
2:2. Braskem
Braskem : Polypropylene (PP) Containers for Chocolate Drink Powder

Polypropylene (PP) Containers for Chocolate Drink Powder
Solutions to com pare
Solutions to com pare

Functional unit
Functional unit
Avoided em issions
Avoided em issions

3:

Evonik:PP containers for packaging of chocolate drink
PP containers for packaging of chocolate drink
powder in Brazil in 2010
powder in Brazil in 2010
! Tinplate containers for packaging of chocolate! Tinplate containers for packaging of chocolate
drink powder in Brazil in 2010
drink powder in Brazil in 2010
Packing and preserving with a rigid material, 400g of
Packing and preserving with a rigid material, 400g of
chocolate drink powder
chocolate drink powder
The avoided emissions resulting from the use of PP
The avoided emissions resulting from the use of PP
containers amount 0.12kgCO2 per 400g of chocolate
containers amount 0.12kgCO2 per 400g of chocolate
drink powder
drink powder!
!

Feed additives - DL-M ethionine, L-Lysine, L-Threonine and3. Evonik L-Tryptophan in broiler and pig production

Feed additives - DL-Methionine, L-Lysine, L-Threonine and L-Tryptophan
in broiler and pig production
Solutions to com pare

Functional unit
Avoided em issions

4:

Supplementation of broiler and pig feed with theamino acids DL-methionine, L-Lysine, L-Threonine
and L-Tryptophan! Soybean meal
! Rapeseed meal
1 kg of amino acid mix or the equivalent amount ofamino acids provided by feed raw materials.

!

The emissions savings enabled by the use of
supplemented feed for broiler production are 44 kg
CO2e per 1 kg of amino 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 1 kg of amino acid mix
compared to soybean meal, and 3 kg CO2e per 1 kg ofamino acid mix compared to rapeseed meal.

India Glycols Ltd (IGL)：

Bio-M ono Ethylene Glycol (M EG) fromrenewable source

Solutions to com pare
Functional unit
Avoided em issions

Bio-based Mono-Ethylene Glycol (bio-MEG)
produced by IGL in India! Petrochemical-based MEG (petro-MEG)
1 ton of MEG produced!

Avoided emissions resulting3from using bio-MEG are
407 kg CO2e per MT MEG production

compared to soybean meal, and 3 kg CO2e per 1 kg ofamino acid mix compared to rapeseed meal.

4:

India Glycols Ltd (IGL)：

Bio-M ono Ethylene Glycol (M EG) fromrenewable
4. Indiasource
Glycols Ltd (IGL)

Bio-Mono Ethylene Glycol (MEG) from renewable source
Solutions to com pare
Functional unit

Bio-based Mono-Ethylene Glycol (bio-MEG)
produced by IGL in India! Petrochemical-based MEG (petro-MEG)
1 ton of MEG produced!

Avoided emissions resulting from using bio-MEG are
407 kg CO2e per MT MEG production
5:
The Japan Carbon Fiber M anufacturers Association (JCM A):
5:
The
5:
The Japan
Japan Carbon
Carbon Fiber
Fiber M
M anufacturers
anufacturers Association
Association (JCM
(JCM A):A):
Aircraft ,m aterials (CFRP, Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic)
Aircraft,m
aterials(CFRP,
CarbonFiber
Reinforced
Aircraft ,m aterials (CFRP, Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic)
Plastic)
for weight reduction
weightreductionforfor weight
reduction
5. The Japan
CarbonFiber Manufacturers Association (JCMA)
Avoided em issions

Aircraft materials (CFRP, Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic) for weight reduction
Solutions to com pare
Solutions
Solutions toto comcom parepare
Functional unit
Functional
Functional unit
unit
Avoided em issions
Avoidedem
Avoided em issions
issions

Aircraft that consist for 50 wt.-% of carbon fibre
Aircraft thatthat consist
consist forfor 5050 wt.-%
wt.-% ofof carbon
carbon fibre
fibre
Aircraftreinforced
plastic (CFRP)
reinforced
plastic(CFRP)
reinforced
plastic(CFRP)
Conventional
aircraftthat consist for 3 wt.-% ofConventional aircraft
aircraft thatthat consist
consist forfor 3
3 wt.-%
wt.-% ofof
Conventional
CRFP
CRFP
CRFP
One aircraftOne
One aircraft
aircraft
The avoided emissions are 27 kton CO2e per aircraftThe
avoidedemissionsareTheavoidedemissionsare 2727 ktonkton COCO22ee perper aircraft
aircraftunit in a 10-year
period.
unit
ina10-yearperiod.
unit in a 10-year period.

!
!
!
!
!
!

6:
Japan Chem ical Industry Association (JCIA) : M aterials for fuel
6:
Japan
6:
Japan Chem
Chem ical
ical Industry
Industry Association
Association (JCIA)(JCIA) :: M
M aterials
aterials forfor fuel
fuelefficient
tires
6.
Japan
ChemicalIndustry
Association(JCIA)
efficienttires
efficient tires

Materials for fuel efficient tires
Solutions to com pare
Solutions
Solutions toto comcom parepare
Functional unit
Functional
Functional unit
unit
Avoided em issions
Avoided
Avoided em
em issions
issions! Fuel-efficient tires!
Fuel-efficient tires!
tires! Fuel-efficient
Conventional tires!
! Conventional
Conventional tires
tiresService life of one tire for driving a passenger car
Servicelife ofone tire for driving a passenger car
Service(30.000 lifekm)of one tire for driving a passenger car(30.000km)(30.000
Service km)life of one tire for driving a truck/bus
Servicelife ofServiceof oneone tiretire forfor driving
driving aa truck/bus
truck/bus(120.000lifekm).
(120.000km).
(120.000
The
total km).
avoided emissions per tire：
The
avoided emissions
per
tire：
Thekgtotal
total
emissionspertire：
e for passenger
cars
(228
kg CO2e per car)57
CO2avoidedeforpassenger
cars
(228
kg
57
kg
CO
2
2e per car)eforpassenger
cars
(228
kg CO
CO
per car)57kg
CO2
for 2ae truck/bus).
442.3 kg CO2e for a truck/bus (4423kg
442.3
kg
CO
2e for a truck/bus (4423kg for a truck/bus).
442.3 kg CO2e for a truck/bus (4423kg for a truck/bus).

7:
SABIC: M ultilayer Polyethylene Packaging Film s
7:
SABIC:
7:7. SABICSABIC: M
M ultilayer
ultilayer Polyethylene
Polyethylene Packaging
Packaging Film
Film ss

Multilayer Polyethylene Packaging Films
Solutions to com pare
Solutions
Solutions toto comcom parepare
Functional unit
Functional
Functional unit
unit
Avoided em issions
Avoided
Avoided em
em issions
issions! Five layer polyethylene (PE) packaging film!
Five(PE) packaging
film! Conventional
Five layer
layer polyethylene
polyethylene!
three layer(PE)PE packaging
packaging film
film!
Conventional
three
layer
PE
packaging! Conventional three layer PE packaging film
film
A thousand square meters of multilayer packaging filmA
thousandsquaremetersofmultilayer
packagingA
thousandsquare ameterspackaging film
film
used
for packaging
set of of
sixmultilayer
beverage bottles.
used
used forfor packaging
packaging aa set
set ofof sixsix beverage
beverage bottles.
bottles.
Avoided emissions enabled by the five layer PE
Avoidedemissionsenabled by
the five
layer
PE
Avoidedemissionslayer
PE meter ofper five
1000
squarepackagingfilm are enabled
40 kg COby
2e thepackaging
film
are
40
kg
CO
2e per 1000 square meter ofpackaging film
packagingfilm are 40 kg CO2e per 1000 square meter ofpackagingpackaging film
film

4

8:
Solvay: Engineering plastics for Vehicle light-weighting
8:
Solvay: Engineering plastics for Vehicle light-weighting
8. Solvay

Engineering plastics for Vehicle light-weighting
Solutions to com pare
Solutions to com pare
Functional unit
Functional unit

Avoided em issions
Avoided em issions! A specific, small, car part, an engine mount! A
specific,madesmall,
part, an engine mounthousing,of carTechnylhousing,
made ofTechnyl! An
aluminium
alloy
engine mount housing.
! An aluminium alloy engine mount housing.
Ensuring one attachment point between the
Ensuring
one attachment
betweenthe in aengine/gearbox
set and thepoint
vehiclestructureengine/gearboxsize
set andthe vehicle structure
in alifetime
small-medium
car, throughout
the vehicle’s
small-medium(150
000 km). size car, throughout the vehicle’s lifetime(150 000 km).
The avoided emissions：2.0 kg CO2e per car
The avoided emissions：2.0 kg CO2e per car

9:
SUM ITOM O CHEM ICAL: Broiler production by Feed additive
9:
SUM ITOM O CHEM ICAL: Broiler production by Feed additive
DL-methionine9.
Sumitomo
ChemicalDL-m ethionine

Broiler production by Feed additive DL-methionine
Solutions to com pare
Solutions to com pare
Functional unit
Functional unit
Avoided em issions
Avoided em issions

Broiler feed with DL- Methionine supplementation
Broiler feed
DL-DL-Methionine
Methionine supplementation
Broiler
feed withwithout
Broiler
feed without DL-Methionine
supplementation
supplementation
1 kg of broiler meat1 kg of broiler meat
The avoided emissions：0.114 kg CO2e per kg of
The avoided emissions：0.114
CO2e per kg of
broilerkgmeat
broiler meat!
!
!
!

In addition, there is ongoing discussion on the data
accuracy and allocation for multi-product processes.
The review also highlighted differences in the quality of
the case studies and the approach to LCA by thedifferent companies.

Lessons learnt
There were some elements in the guidelines that were
found to be less clear when applying them to concrete
case studies. More specifically, the project recommendation is to revise these three elements of the guidelines:• Level in the value chain
Clear description on how to select the level in thevalue chain• Solution to compare
Addition of practical type of baseline for the end-use
level• Data quality
More specific guidelines on the data quality
assessment

A main outcome of the project is to use the report as an
educational material to develop robust and moretransparent LCA case studies.
This report will be posted on ICCA internal WEB site
(ICCA Connect) and is expected to be used among
ICCA member companies. This report could also beshared with LCA professionals upon request.

5

Introduction
The 21st session of the Conferenceof the Parties to the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC), or COP21, will takeplace in December 2015 in Paris. The
aim of COP21 is to reach a global
agreement to combat climate change
effectively, and to boost the transition
towards resilient, low-carbon societies
and economies.

The case studies addressing the GHG avoided
emissions (henceforward, case studies), published on
this website were collected from various chemicalcompanies and industry associations worldwide. All
case studies followed the ICCA & WBCSD Chemical
Sector guidelines “Addressing the Avoided Emissions
Challenge: Guidelines from the chemical industry foraccounting for and reporting greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions avoided along the value chain based oncomparative studies” which were developed in 2013*.
The guidelines include requirements, i.e. on how tochoose the baseline (solution to compare) and how todeal with the attribution of avoided emissions along thevalue chain. The use of such sector wide guidelines
increases consistent calculation and communication of
avoided emissions and makes companies’ findings
transparent and more credible.

The chemical industry is a key solutions provider forclimate change mitigation. Many innovative chemical
products enable greenhouse gas (GHG) emission
reductions downstream in the value chain, e.g.
lightweight materials for transportation and insulationmaterials for homes. These emission reductions
outweigh higher GHG emission during the production
phase in most cases. In this way, the chemicalindustry contributes to net greenhouse gas emission
reductions (also referred to as avoided emissions)throughout society.

This technical report provides illustrative examples on
the application of the ICCA & WBCSD guidelines which
may further enhance understanding of the guidelines
and promote their widespread application.
The studies presented on this website focus on the
reduction of GHG emissions only. It is the intention of the
ICCA to broaden the approach and include other environmental impacts, like water and land use, in futurestudies when the respective accounting methodologies
become more mature. It is important to note that most of
the present case studies investigated possible trade-offs
to other environmental impacts when realising GHG
emission reductions.

Through a collection of examples, ICCA showcases
the chemical industry’s contribution to the transition
to a low-carbon society.

* The guidelines can be found at:
http://www.icca-chem.org/en/Home/Newsroom/News-Archive/2013/new-roadmap-explores-technologies-that-improve-chemical-industry-energy-use1/

6

Aim of projectThrough the publication of this technical report andthese case studies, the ICCA would like to achieve thefollowing objectives:

3. Motivate other chemical companies to use theguidelines: The case studies will inspire and motivate
other chemical companies and chemical industry
associations to create and publish similar information.
It is the intention of ICCA to complement the current
case studies with additional ones over time. In thisway, the collection of case studies will grow, andcover a broader range of chemical products fromvarious 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 joint publications on the
ICCA website and elsewhere. The findings from thosestudies could form a basis for estimating the total
potential GHG emissions reductions by the chemicalindustry (and other sectors).

1. Raise awareness about emission reduction
potential of chemical products: Raise theawareness of stakeholders, such as customers,
investors, policy-makers and citizens, about theemission reduction potential enabled by chemical
products when taking a life cycle perspective.
2. Illustrate the application of the guidelines: Thecase studies provide practical examples on how toapply the ICCA & WBCSD guidelines, and illustrate
how to interpret some of the requirements. This mayhelp other companies start using the guidelines andcan help them structure their studies. The lessons
learnt in the case studies will also be used to improve
future versions of the guidelines.

4. Promote full life cycle approach: With the casestudies, the ICCA wants to promote the use ofLife Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle
Thinking (LCT) as comprehensive decision-support tool and concept for the chemical industry
and its stakeholders.

Review procedure
Two feedback loops were included in the review process,i.e. the practitioners revised the case studies twice
based on Ecofys’ review findings. In the third and final
review, Ecofys assessed the overall compliance with theguidelines. A summary of the main review findings ispresented for each case study in chapter 5. For eachcase study it was checked if it meets 12 criteria which
each comprise a subset of the mandatory requirements.
Ecofys then provided recommendations to ICCA on
which case studies to publish. The final decision to
publish the case studies rested with the Energy & Climate
Change (E&CC) Leadership Group of ICCA which took
into account other factors such as coverage of geographical regions and application of chemical products.
Consequently, and while the studies have to meet
minimum requirements, not all the case studies publishedon the website are fully compliant with the guidelines.

To ensure that the case studies presented on the ICCA
website comply with the ICCA & WBCSD guidelines“Addressing the Avoided Emissions Challenge:
Guidelines from the chemical industry for accounting forand reporting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions avoided
along the value chain based on comparative studies”,
ICCA commissioned Ecofys* to review the case studies.
The review period started in December 2014 and wasconcluded in November 2015. Ecofys’ specific role wasto determine if the case studies are in compliance with
the ICCA & WBCSD guidelines with a special focus on
the mandatory (“shall”) requirements. The review process
focused on the case study reports provided by thecompanies and industry associations. A review of thecomplete Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) model and a verification of the used data were not part of this review.
More comprehensive background documents were notreviewed either.

* http://www.ecofys.com

7

Guidelines and lessons learnt
1.1 Development of guidelines

In a few case studies the level in the value chain was
confused with the scope of the LCA study (cradle-to-gate
versus cradle-to-grave). The selection of the level in thevalue chain has consequences for further choices to be
made, e.g. the selection of the baseline and setting systemboundaries. In the current version, the guidelines do not
clearly describe how to select the level in the value chain.

The guidelines were developed with the aim to increase
the consistency and credibility of avoided emissions
estimates communicated by chemical companies about
their products. The guidelines were developed by theInternational Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) andthe chemical sector task force of the World BusinessCouncil for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). They
were published in October 2013. Case examples alongwith the full report Addressing the Avoided Emissions
Challenge: Guidelines from the chemical industry foraccounting for and reporting greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions avoided along the value chain based oncomparative studies can be found on the ICCA website.

Solution to compare
The ICCA & WBCSD guidelines include requirements forselecting the solution to compare as this selection will
largely influence the calculated avoided emissions. The
guidelines prescribe one type of baseline for the end-use
level, namely “weighted average based on shares of all
currently implemented technologies for the same user
benefit (including the studied end-use solution to which thechemical product contributes)” (page 19 of the guidelines).
When using this baseline, the avoided emissions express
the potential of the chemical product to further reduce
GHG emissions in the current market. This requirement
was not always fully implemented in the case studies:• Many case studies were done at the end-use level but
used a different baseline, namely comparing the solutionof the reporting company to an alternative product inthe market with a market share of >20%. Such a
comparison also makes sense, and is in some situations
also easier to apply, but conveys a different perspective.
It shows the emissions that can be reduced when using
a specific low-carbon technology that uses the chemical
product instead of an alternative technology available inthe market. The ICCA & WBCSD guidelines should
include this comparison as an option and provide clear
guidelines on how to make this comparison.
• A limited number of case studies calculated the avoided
emissions at the end-use level for a chemical productthat already had a market share of (nearly) 100% in a
specific market, e.g. in a specific region or application.
In those cases, the chemical product and the solution
to compare are the same and one cannot speak of
avoided emissions. However, such studies could still
illustrate the emission reductions enabled by thechemical product.

1.2 Lessons learnt
In general, the companies and industry associations thatcarried out the case studies perceived the ICCA & WBCSD
guidelines as easy-to-use and helpful in decision-making
with regard to avoided emissions calculations. The
simplified approach was welcomed by the practitioners
as it provides companies the possibility to broaden thescope of their study without increasing the time andresources needed for the study (as long as the solutions
to compare contain identical life cycle elements). However,there were also some elements in the guidelines that were
found to be less clear when applying them in concrete
case studies, especially related to the level in the value
chain and the baseline (solution to compare).
2.2. Level in the Value Chain
The guidelines describe two levels in the value chain at
which a study can be carried out, namely the “chemical
product level” and the “end-use level” (see page 17 of theguidelines). At the chemical product level, the study
compares the environmental impact along the life cycle ofthe chemical product with an alternative product currently
in the market (e.g. polyethylene films for packaging). At
the end-use level, the study focuses on the contribution of
the chemical product to the avoided emissions realised bya low carbon technology (e.g. light-weight automotive
parts) that uses the chemical product instead of currently
implemented technologies.
LCA studies can be conducted at different levels in thevalue chain without changing the scope. For example:• LCA study can be conducted for tires from cradle-tograve at the (chemical) product level. In this case, thefuel savings of fuel efficient tires are not included in the
study.
• LCA study can be conducted for tires from cradleto-grave at the end-use level (car level). In this case,the fuel savings of fuel efficient tires are included in
the study.

Data quality
Data quality is an important aspect when comparing two
solutions. When the data used for one solution is lessrepresentative, it becomes questionable if the comparison
reflects the actual market situation. A number of casestudies did not address data quality or they only addressed
it at a high aggregation level. The ICCA & WBCSD guidelines
require a data quality assessment in line with ISO or the
GHG Protocol, but more specific guidelines on data quality
assessment within the ICCA & WBCSD guidelines could
help companies to address this issue sufficiently in theiravoided emissions studies.

8Brief description of case studies& review comments
Through a collection of examples, ICCA showcases thechemical industry’s contribution to the transition to a
low-carbon society. The case studies below were offeredby the chemical industry, applying the ICCA and WBCSD

guidelines published in 2013. The case studies are asample of chemical products and do therefore notpresent the full range of chemical products and theirapplications.

1. BASF

External Thermal Insulation Composite System for the refurbishment of an existing detached housein Germany
Brief description of case study
Review comments
In this case study an existing house insulated using an
The case study is in general of good quality and fully
external thermal insulation composite system (ETICS)
compliant with the guidelines. The market-average ofbased on expanded polystyrene (EPS) is compared torefurbished and non-refurbished houses is adequately
the (market-)average existing German house (e.g. based
used as the solution to compare to. This case study
on 80% of non-refurbished houses and 20% alreadyreports very transparently about the data sources used
and the assumptions made in the study. Given that
refurbished houses). The functional unit used in the caseheating represents the largest share of energy use in the
study is the heating of an existing single family detachedresidential buildings sector, there is a large potential forhouse in Germany at average room temperature of 19°C
for 40 years (from 2011 to 2051). The comparison takes
avoiding emissions. The case study indeed shows thatplace at the end use level. The avoided emissions
the chemical solution has a high potential to reduce
GHG emissions during the use phase of a house.
resulting from the use of an ETICS system based on EPS
amount 141 ton CO2e per house in a 40-year period
Externaldominated
Thermalby
Insulation
Composite
System (ETICS) for theandBASF:are completely
the reduced
energyrefurbishmentof
anexisting
detached
houseinGermany
demand for heating the house during the use phase.
Nr.

Item

Compliance

1

Assessment of trade-offs

Yes

2

Objective

3
4

Comment

Yes

Selection of level in the value
chain
Selection of solutions tocompare

Yes
Yes

5

Boundary setting

Yes

6

Functional unit and reference
flow

Yes

7

Use of scenarios

Yes

8

Methodology appliedYes

9

Reporting & transparency

Yes

10

Attribution of avoided emissions

Yes

11

Conclusions and limitations

Yes

12

Data sources and data quality

Yes

The case study used the market-average as solution tocompare to as indicated in the guidelines.

The use of scenarios nicely illustrates the impact of theenergy mix on the avoided emissions resulting frominsulation.

The data and assumptions used in this case study arereported transparently.

Braskem – Polypropylene (PP) Containers for Chocolate Drink Powder
Nr.
1
2
3
4

Item
Assessment oftrade-offs

Compliance
Yes

Objective

Yes

Selection of levelin the value chain
Selection ofsolutions tocompareYes

Comment

Yes

Yes

5

Boundary setting

6

Functional unit
and reference
flow

Yes

7

Use of scenarios

NA

8

Methodology
appliedYes

9

Reporting &transparency

Yes

Some parts of the life-cycle, with minor contribution to the overall
GHG emissions, have not been included in the analysis. The casestudy could be improved by adding these parts of the life-cycle.

9

BASF: External Thermal Insulation Composite System (ETICS) for the
refurbishment of an existing detached house in Germany
Nr.

Item

Compliance

1

Assessment of trade-offs

Yes

2
Objective
2. Braskem
Selection of level in the value

Comment

Yes

Yes
chain
Polypropylene(PP) Containers for Chocolate
Drink Powder
3
4

Selection of solutions tocompareYes

The case study used the market-average as solution tocompare to as indicated in the guidelines.

Briefof case study Yes
Review comments
5 description
Boundary setting
In this
case
study
PP
containers
The case study is compliant with the guidelines. The
Functionalunit
andreferenceand tinplate containers
Yes
6
flow
for packagingof chocolate drink powder in Brazil
insolutions to compare and functional unit are adequately
The use of scenarios nicely illustrates the impact of the2010
comparedat the chemical productlevel.
The
chosenas well resulting
as thefrom
level in the value chain. The data
Yesenergymix on the
avoided emissions
7 are
Use
of scenarios
insulation.
functional unit of the study is to pack and preserve,
withsources used in this study are transparently described.
Yes
8
Methodology applieda rigid material, 400g of chocolate drink powder. The
However, the study could be improved by using more
9
Reporting & transparency
Yes
study
indicatesthe
avoidedemissionsrelatedtorecent data sources. This is the case for both solutions
10 Attribution of avoided emissions Yes
replacingtinplatebyPP
containers.
The
study
finds
that
to compare. Moreover, some parts of the life-cycle, withYes
11 Conclusions and limitations
GHG emissions can be reduced by 56.36% when
PPand assumptions
minor contribution
theThe data
used in this casetostudyareoverall GHG emissions, haveYes
12 Data sources and data quality
reported
containers are used instead of tinplate containers.
Totaltransparently.
not been included in the analysis. The case study could
avoided emissions are found to be 10 ktCO2e in thebe improved by adding these parts of the life-cycle.
Brazilian market in 2010.
Braskem – Polypropylene (PP) Containers for Chocolate Drink Powder
Nr.
1
2
3
4

Item
Assessment oftrade-offs

Compliance
Yes

Objective

Yes

Selection of levelin the value chain
Selection ofsolutions tocompare

Yes
Yes

Yes

5

Boundary setting

6

Functional unit
and reference
flow

Yes

7

Use of scenarios

NA

8

Methodology
appliedYes

9

Reporting &transparency

10
11
12

Attribution of
avoidedemissions
Conclusions andlimitations
Data sources anddata quality

Comment

Some parts of the life-cycle, with minor contribution to the overall
GHG emissions, have not been included in the analysis. The casestudy could be improved by adding these parts of the life-cycle.

Yes

Yes

Yes
Yes

The data sources used are transparently described. However, thestudy could be improve by using more recent data sources. This is thecase for both solutions to compare.

103. Evonik

Feed additives - DL-Methionine, L-Lysine, L-Threonine and L-Tryptophan in broiler and pig production
Brief description of case study
Review comments
In this case study supplementation of broiler and pig
The case study is a nice example of how feed additives
feed with the amino acids DL-methionine, L-Lysine,
can reduce GHG emissions compared to feed without
L-Threonine and L-Tryptophan is compared withadditives. The study is largely in line with the ICCA &soybean meal and rapeseed meal with the same
WBCSD guidelines except for a few aspects. The casenutritional value. The functional unit is 1 kg of amino acidstudy reports that the study is conducted at the chemical
mix or the equivalent amount of amino acids provided byproduct level, while it is in fact an end-use level study
feed raw materials. Avoided greenhouse gas emissions(from cradle-to-farm gate). The use phase (consumption
are realised by less use and cultivation of arable land forof feed) of the product (amino acid mix) is included in thecrop production (less CO2 equivalent emissions fromstudy as well as the related avoided emissions. Additionland transformation) and by less production of manure
ally, the study describes some complex issues in a veryby animals (less N2O emissions from manure storage
concise manner, which makes the study sometimes
and from application to the field). The emissions savings
hard to understand for the reader. One example is theenabled by the use of supplemented feed for broiler
used reference flow which is defined as the net difference
production are 44 kg CO2e per functional unit (1 kg of
between the different feeding options. Furthermore, theamino acid mix) compared to soybean meal, and 30 kg
data quality and limitations of the study have not been
CO2e compared to rapeseed meal. The emissions
addressed sufficiently.
savings of supplemented feed for swine production are
20 kg CO2e per functional unit compared to soybean
Evonik:Feed- DL-Methionine,
L-Threonine and Lmeal,and 3 kg
COadditives
unit comparedL-Lysine,to2e per functional
Tryptophan
inbroilerandpig
production
rapeseed meal.
Nr.

Item

Compliance

Comment
It is not explicitly mentioned, but results on otherenvironmental impacts are shown in the annex and do notshow trade-offs (for almost all cases). It is still the question
if all relevant impact categories are included in the study.

1

Assessment of tradeoffs

Yes

2

Objective

Yes

3

Selection of level inthe value chainNo

The level in the value chain is made explicit, but is notcorrect. The scope of the study is cradle-to-farm gate which
includes the feeding of the amino acids to the animals aswell as the reduction in manure compared to the solution tocompare.

4

Selection of solutions
to compareNo

Data quality is not specified for both solutions.

5

Boundary setting

Yes

Boundaries could be made more explicit in the diagram.
Both time and geographical reference could be more clearlyspecified. Reference is made to section 6.1 for more
information on time and geographical reference, but thisinformation is not included in section 6.1.

6Functional unit andreference flowYes

7

Use of scenarios

N/A

8

Methodology appliedYes

The study could benefit from a more extensive explanationof the used methodology.

9

Reporting &transparency

No

Results are not differentiated per life cycle phase. The wayof presenting results is not intuitive (negative impact due toapproach using net differences) and might be difficult tointerpret for the reader.

10
11
12

Attribution of avoided
emissions
Conclusions andlimitations
Data sources and data
quality

Yes
No

Limitations are not addressed. The conclusion does not
summarize the overall findings of the study.

No

Data quality is not sufficiently addressed.

11

4. India Glycols Ltd (IGL)

Bio-Mono Ethylene Glycol (MEG) from renewable 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 of using bio-MEG are 407 kg CO2eper 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 to theuse of fertilizers for sugarcane cultivation.

Review comments
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 ofthe data used to model the GHG emissions frombio-MEG of IGL. A lot of primary data was collected, butthese data have not been included in the study. The
adjustment of Ecoinvent data for the Indian situation are
also not described in detail. Data quality assessment isonly described at a high level. It is therefore questionable if the two solutions are compared on an equal basis(same data quality, same assumptions). The shift frompetro-MEG to bio-MEG leads to a reduction in GHG
emissions, but at the same time increases other impacts
like acidification/eutrophication, ozone depletion andland use. Trade-offs to other impacts are correctly
reported and are therefore in line with the ICCA &guidelines, but it should be considered if
India Glycols Ltd (IGL) – Bio-Mono Ethylene GlycolWBCSD(MEG) from
communication is still desirable in case of trade-offs.
renewable source
Nr.

1

2
3

Item

Assessment oftrade-offs

Objective
Selection oflevel in thevalue chain

Compliance Comment

Yes

Yes
Yes

4

Selection ofsolutions tocompareNo

5

BoundarysettingYes

6Functional unit
and reference
flow

Yes

7
8

Use ofscenarios
Methodology
applied

Trade-offs with other impact categories are reported in the annex. The
results show that the impact of bio-MEG on stratospheric ozone depletion,
eutrophication/acidification and land use are higher than for petro-MEG.
Water depletion has not been addressed. The Eco-indicator 99 has been used
for this analysis, which is an outdated impact assessment method.
The WBCSD & ICCA guidelines mention the following at page 13: "If tradeoffs are identified in the screening LCA, the reporting company shall reporton these environmental impact categories in the same way as it reports on
greenhouse gas emissions and should consider not reporting avoided
emissions at all". Thus, the case study meets this criterion, but IGL should
consider if communication of the results is still desirable.

The study compares the production of bio-MEG in India (mostly based on
primary data) with the production of petro-MEG produced at world level(based on Ecoinvent process which represents the European production
situation). Data quality is only assessed at a very high level. It is therefore
not clear if both solutions have the same data quality and if a faircomparison is made.

The functional unit and reference flow are correctly chosen. However, thereference year and geographic area are not explicitly mentioned. Fromsection 2.3, it appears that the geographic area is the world market. Fromsection 5.3 it becomes clear that the reference period is 2013/2014.

NANo

The description of the calculation of emissions per process step should be
improved.
The primary data used for modelling the bio-MEG are not included in thereport. It is also not clear how generic data have been adjusted for the
Indian situation.
No insight provided in the review findings.

9

Reporting &transparency

No

10

Attribution of
avoidedemissionsYes

11

Conclusions
and limitations

No

Limitations of data availability for the Indian situation are described, but theconsequences for the results and conclusions are not provided.

No

Due to limited data availability for the Indian situation, a lot of primary data
was collected for this study, e.g. for the cultivation of sugar cane, sugar
production and the production of bio-MEG at IGL. It is clear that quite someefforts were made to obtain the data. However, this primary data has notbeen shared in the study, so this data is not traceable. Production of petroMEG in Europe is taken from Ecoinvent to represent the world production of
petro-MEG. Data quality for Bio-MEG and Petro-MEG are addressed at a highlevel.

12

Data sourcesand data
quality12

5. The Japan Carbon Fiber Manufacturers Association (JCMA)
Aircraft materials (CFRP, Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic) for weight reduction
Brief description of case study
This case study compares two aircrafts, one that consist
for 50 wt.-% of carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP)
and one, conventional, that consist for 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.
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.

Review comments
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 isalso not clear from the study how the reduction in fueluse is calculated. The quality of the study could be
improved by reporting more transparently about the
choices made and the used calculation methodology.
The Japan Carbon Fiber Manufacturers Association(JCMA)
Moreover,the–Aircraft
study could be improved by addressing
materials (CFRP, Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastic)forweightthe effect of future changes on the total amount of
reduction
avoided emissions.

Nr.
1
2
3

Item
Assessment of tradeoffs
Objective
Selection of level inthe value chain

Compliance

Yes
Yes

4

Selection of solutions
to compareYes

5

Boundary settingNo

6Functional unit andreference flowYes

7

Use of scenarios

Yes

8

Methodology applied

No

9
10

Reporting &transparency
Attribution of avoided
emissions

Comment

Yes

Yes

The case study mentions that the market share of the CFRP
aircraft is almost zero in 2009. The case study could be
improved by mentioning that the market share for theconventional aircraft is nearly 100% in the same year.
The case study provides one flow diagram for both aircrafts.
The omission of disposal is not adequately justified. It is not
explained if the treatment of the aircraft at the end of its
lifetime has an influence on the avoided emissions.
The life cycle of the aircraft could be described in more detail.

The study could be improved by describing how likely futurechanges may influence the avoided emissions.
The study covers CO2 only, while the guidelines prescribe it toinclude all greenhouse gases.
It is not transparently reported how the reduction in fuel use isdetermined for the CFRP aircraft.
The case study is very brief. Some more explanation would
make the case study more transparent.

Yes

11

Conclusions andlimitations

Yes

12

Data sources and data
qualityNo

Data quality is only described at a high level.

136. Japan Chemical Industry Association (JCIA)
Materials for fuel efficient tires

Brief description of case study
Review comments
The case study of JCIA compares the GHG emissions of
The case study is a good example of how chemical
products can reduce GHG emissions in society while
fuel-efficient tires with the emissions of conventional tires
keeping the same lifestyle. The objective of the study, thein Japan in 2010. The fuel-efficient tire has a lower rolling
solutions to compare, the functional unit and system
resistance, while keeping the same road-gripping
boundaries are well-defined. The results are presented
performance, due to the specific formulation of the tire
per life cycle stage, per tire and per vehicle. Limitations
material, the structure of styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR)of the study are addressed concisely. However, theand the dispersion technology of higher amounts offorecast of avoided emissions in 2020 are not describedsilica in the rubber. The study calculates the GHG
in the objectives of the study and are also not addressed
emissions savings for passenger cars and trucks/buses.
in the functional unit. Future changes in energy-efficiency
The functional unit used in this study is the service life ofof cars is not quantified nor described, while changes
one tire for driving a passenger car (30.000 km) and as
could be expected. The used data are not included in
the service life of one tire for driving a truck/bus (120.000
the study; instead a reference is made to a Japanesekm). The comparison takes place at the end-use level.
The total avoided emissions per tire are 57 kg CO2e forsource. It was not possible for the reviewer to checksome data. The high fuel use of the vehicles could
passenger cars (228 kg CO2e per car), and 442.3 kg
therefore not be checked, while this has a significant
CO2e for a truck/bus (4,423 for a truck/bus). The largest
influence foron thepartJapanof the avoided
emissions
are Association
realised during(JCIA)
the use– Materials
ChemicalIndustry
fueltotal avoided emissions.
efficientphase(drivingtires
the car).
Nr.
1

2

3
4
5

Item
Assessment oftrade-offs

ComplianceObjective

Yes

Selection of level inthe value chain
Selection ofsolutions to compare
Boundary setting

Yes
Yes

Functional unit andreference flowYes

7

Use of scenarios

Yes

8

Methodology applied

Yes

10

Reporting &transparency
Attribution of
avoided emissions

The description of the objective could be improved by clarifyingthat the study will not only compare the GHG emissions of fuelefficient and conventional tires in Japan in 2010, but that the total
avoided emissions potential in Japan in 2020 will also be
calculated.

Yes

6

9

Comment

Yes

The functional unit is defined as one tire (or one vehicle), and theresults reflect this functional unit. However, the results also
include the avoided emissions based on all fuel efficient tires inJapan in 2020. This is an inconsistency in the study.
The study could be improved by addressing how avoided
emissions might change in the future e.g. by an increased
efficiency of cars.
Allocation of emissions and benefits of material recycling andenergy recovery at the tire's end of life is not described in the casestudy. Although this is not an explicit requirement of the ICCA &WBCSD guidelines, the study could be improved considerably
when this aspect is addressed.

Yes
Yes

11

Conclusions andlimitations

Yes

12

Data sources anddata quality

Yes

Conclusions can be more specific, mentioning that the study
results indeed show that fuel-efficient tires reduce GHG emissions
compared to conventional tires. It would also be informative tomention the amount of GHG emissions that can be reduced.
The study could be improved by including the used data in thecase study.
Fuel consumption of the passenger car seems to be high (0.1 litre
of gasoline per km for the conventional tire). A reference isprovided in Japanese language, so it was not possible for thereviewers to check the correctness of this source.
Data quality is described only very concisely.

14

7. SABIC

Multilayer Polyethylene Packaging Films
Brief description of case study
Review comments
In this case study five layer polyethylene (PE) packaging
This case study is largely compliant with the guidelines.
film is compared¬ – at the chemical product level – to
The solutions to compare and the functional unit areconventional three layer PE packaging film. The functional
adequately chosen. The boundaries of the study could
unit is a thousand square meters of multilayer packaging
have been more explicitly set. The main limitation of thisfilm used for packaging a set of six beverage bottles. Bothstudy is the use of secondary data, which are in somesolutions to compare are produced, marketed andcases dated. The case study could be improved byconsumed in Europe and the reference year formodelling the production process in more detail andcomparison is 2012. Five layer film allows a 22% reduction
using more recent datasets.
in film thickness compared to three layer film. The resulting
reduction in material demand and waste are driving theemission savings. Avoided emissions enabled by the fivelayer PE packaging film are 40 kg CO2e per 1000 square
meter of packaging film compared to the conventional
SABIC– packaging
Multilayer
polyethylene packaging films
threelayer PE
film.
Nr.

Item

Reviewcomments
Assessmentof trade1
2
3
4
5

offs
Objective
Selection of level inthe value chain
Selection of solutions
to compare
Boundary setting

7

Functional unit andreference flow
Use of scenarios

8

Methodology applied

6

9
10
11
12

Reporting &transparency
Attribution of
avoided emissions
Conclusions andlimitations
Data sources anddata quality

Compliance

Comment

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No

The case study does not clearly describe the systemboundaries.

Yes
NA
Yes

The case study could be improved by modelling the production
process in more detail.

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

The case study could be improved by using more recent data
and/or primary data.

15

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 car isoutside 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,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 carpart 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 5600 t CO2e over the total production (estimatedto be of 280 000 cars/year during 10 years) of thespecific passenger car under study.

Review comments
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 theweighted average of all solutions bringing the same user
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 good exampleof how light-weight car parts can and does reduce GHG
emissions when driving a car.

Solvay - Engineering plastics for Vehicle light-weighting
Nr.
1

Item
Assessment oftrade-offs

Compliance

Comment

Yes

2

Objective

Yes

3

Selection of levelin the value chain

Yes

4

Selection ofsolutions tocompareNo

5

Boundary settingNo

6Functional unit
and reference flowYes

7

Use of scenarios

Yes

8

Methodology
appliedNo

9Reporting &transparency

Yes

10

Attribution of
avoided emissions

Yes

11

Conclusions andlimitations

Yes

12

Data sources anddata quality

No

This criterion is not met as in end-use level studies the solution tocompare should represent the weighted average based on shares of all
currently implemented technologies for the same user benefit (including
the studied end-use solution to which the chemical productcontributes).
The flow diagram does not show the entire life cycle of the Technyl
Engine Mount Housing and does not clearly show the system boundary.
It is also not shown in the flow diagrams which parts are identical andtherefore omitted from the analysis (simplified approach)

It is stated that allocation was not necessary. However, allocation has
been applied in the end of life treatment of the aluminium and should
be explained.

The statement considering the contribution at the car level is irrelevant
within the scope of this study.
Taking the selected solution to compare into account, the conclusions
are valid. However, the guidelines require that the solution of thereporting company shall be compared to the mix of technologies
currently in the market, which was not the done in this case study.
Data sources are described transparently, however a qualitative
assessment of the data quality assessment is missing.

16

9. Sumitomo Chemical

Broiler production by Feed additive DL-methionine
Brief description of case study
In this case study, two options for broiler feed withdifferent protein contents are compared: a study feed
supplemented with DL-Methionine and a control feed
without DL-Methionine. Since methionine is the firstlimiting amino acid in broiler feed, the supplementation
with DL-Methionine plays a key role to reduce nitrogencontent in broiler feed. Reducing the nitrogen content in
the feed is an effective way to reduce greenhouseemissions during manure management process bydecreasing nitrogen excretion of the animal. The
functional unit in this study is one kilogram of broiler
meat and the geographical and temporal reference isJapan in 2011. The study shows that, while having aslightly higher impact in the raw material production,
supplementing feed with DL-Methionine results inavoided emissions over the life cycle as a result of
reduced nitrogen excretion. The estimated contributionof the study feed to GHG emission reduction was 0.114
kg CO2e per kg of broiler meat, based on the differencein life-cycle GHG emissions between the two feed
options.

Review comments
The chemical product under study, DL-Methionine, hasa nearly 100% market share in Japan. The ICCA &WBCSD guidelines define the solution to compare at
end-use level as follows (page 19 of the guidelines): theweighted average based on shares of all currently
implemented technologies for the same user benefit(including the studied end-use solution to which thechemical product contributes). This implies that DL-Methionine is also the solution to compare, and one cannot
speak of avoided emissions. However, the chemical
product provides the opportunity to avoid emissions inother markets (outside Japan) where DL-Methionine hasa lower percentage of the feed additive market share.
Furthermore, the function of feed supplemented with
DL-Methionine and unsupplemented feed as defined in
the case study is as follows: produce the same amountof broiler meat in the same rearing period of 48 days.
This function is reflected in the functional unit which isdefined as one kg of broiler meat. Instead of usingreferences or measurements, the case study assumes
that this functional unit is fulfilled with the same amountof the two selected feed options which is not a strong
SUMITOMO CHEMICAL – Broiler production by feed additive DL-Methionine
basis for comparison.
Nr.

Item

Compliance

1

Assessment oftrade-offs

Yes

2

Objective

Yes

3

Selection of level inthe value chain

Yes

4

Selection ofsolutions to compareNo

5

Boundary setting

Yes

Comment
The case study mentions that no trade-offs were found with otherenvironmental impacts in the screening LCA. The results of thescreening LCA are however not provided in the report.

If the study is conducted at the end-use level, the weighted
average based on shares of all currently implemented
technologies for the same user benefit (including the studied enduse solution to which the chemical product contributes) shall be
used. The chemical product under study (DL-Methionine) alreadyhas nearly 100% market share in Japan, and therefore one cannot
speak of avoided emissions. Therefore, the case study is notcompliant with the guidelines in respect of this criterion.

6

Functional unit andreference flowYes

The study uses a functional unit of one kg of broiler meat which iswell-chosen. The case study however assumes that both feed
options fulfil this functional unit with the same amount of feed.
This is not a strong basis for comparison. The study can be
improved by using actual measurements or literature references,instead of assumptions, to underpin the required amount of feed
for both feed options to arrive at one kg of broiler meat.

7

Use of scenariosNA

The scenario analysis is only needed when a product has a long
lifetime. Feed for broilers has no long lifetime, so a future scenario
analysis is not necessary.
The case study uses the simplified approach and omits someprocesses that are identical in the life cycle of both feed options.
There is no information about the significance of the omitted
processes on the total GHG emissions.
The omission of certain GHGs in the calculation is not justified andis not in line with the guidelines.
The report could be improved by making the used data sourcesand data quality more transparent (criterion 12). The functional
unit and reference flows could also be described in a moretransparent way (criterion 6). Other aspects are clearly describedin the case study.

8

Methodology appliedNo

9

Reporting &transparency

Yes

10

Attribution of
avoided emissions

Yes

11

Conclusions andlimitations

No

Conclusions and limitations are largely in compliance with the
ICCA & WBCSD guidelines, but since DL-Methionine has a nearly
100% market share in Japan, one cannot speak of avoided
emissions. Limitations as a result of data quality are notaddressed.

12

Data sources anddata quality

No

Used data sources are mentioned, but a reference is not provided.
Use of data for specific processes or ingredients are notmentioned. Data quality is not addressed.

17

Case study reports
Case 1 - B
 ASF

19

Case 2 - Braskem

32

Case 3 - Evonik

39

Case 4 - India Glycols Ltd (IGL)

50

Case 5 - The Japan Carbon Fiber
Manufacturers Association (JCMA)

58

Case 6 - Japan Chemical Industry Association (JCIA)

62

Case 7 - SABIC

68

Case 8 - Solvay

76

External Thermal Insulation Composite System for the
refurbishment of an existing detached house in Germany

Polypropylene (PP) containers for chocolate drink powder

Feed additives - DL-Methionine, L-Lysine, L-Threonine
and L-Tryptophan in broiler and pig production

Bio-Mono Ethylene Glycol (MEG) from renewable source

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

Materials for fuel efficient tires

Multilayer Polyethylene packaging films

Engineering plastics for vehicle light-weighting

Case 9 - Sumitomo Chemical

85

Broiler production by feed additive DL-methionine

18

Thermal Insulation Composite
Case 1 External
System (ETICS) for the Refurbishment of an
Existing Detached House in Germany

BASF

COMMISSIONER AND PERFORMER OF THE STUDY
The study was commissioned by BASF SE andperformed 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.

19

3. F
 unctional unit and reference
flow

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.

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.

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]20• 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).

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).

• 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]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]• 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

21

SystemboundaryAND
andprocessfor house
left
SYSTEM BOUNDARYPROCESS
MAPmap
FOR HOUSELEFT ASIS as is5. Calculation methodology and data

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]5.1. 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].

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 some22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

Reporting company’s

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 emissions0= P2 – P1 = 141,225

Table 2 - representing the results of scenario 1 in kg CO2e per user
23
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

Solution toto compare
compareSolutionto [kg[kg CO
CO22e]
toe]

Reporting
Reporting company’s
company’s
solution [kg[kg CO
CO22e]e]solution
41,781 (P1)(P1)
41,78175,313 (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

Solution toto compare
compareSolution
e]
to
[kg
CO
2
to [kg CO2e]107,273
107,273 (P1)(P1)

211,782 (P2)(P2)
211,782= P2-P1
P2-P1 =
= 104,509
104,509=

7. Significance of contribution

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.

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.

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.

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.

24

11. References[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.

[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

25

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

4/10
4/10

4/10

26

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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.

27

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:

28

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

29
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

43,085*
Solution tocompareto [kg CO2e]0solution 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

0
43,085*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

INCLUDINGDISPOSALOF THE
HOUSE
Figure A1 -CONSTRUCTION
Graph showing theAND
resultsof the study
includingconstruction 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.

30

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.

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.

31

Case 2Polypropylene (PP) containers
for chocolate drink powder
COMMISSIONER AND PERFORMER OF THE STUDY

Braskem

The study was commissioned by Braskem
and executed by ACV Brasil.

1. Purpose of the study

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.

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.

3. F
 unctional unit and reference
flowThis 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.

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.

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].

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.

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,

32

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

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

Storage and use
Residue

Sanitary landfill

33

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*
34 based on
Ecoinvent v2.2
[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

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 Life

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

35

6. Results

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.

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

Kg CO2 eq“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.

36

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%

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.

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%

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.

Global Warming(kg CO2 eq); 56%

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

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

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.

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.

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%.

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.

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.

37

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.

38

Case 3

Feed additives - DL-Methionine, L-Lysine,
L-Threonine and L-Tryptophan in broiler
and pig production

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

All three options ensure functional equivalence since
they are offering the same nutritional value to theanimals meal.

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.

FIGURE 1 - ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS FOR BROILER FEEDING

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).

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

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).

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. 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

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

39

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.

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.

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 one.

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.

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.

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. 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

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.

40

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 feed phase 1, 30 % grower feed phase 2, 60 % finisher feed phase)(10 % GROWER FEED PHASE 1, 30 % GROWER FEED PHASE 2, 60 % FINISHER FEED PHASE)

2/15

3/15

41

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 of
ecological 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
feeding42

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.

of 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. Calculation methodology and data

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 o• 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”

43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.
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).

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.

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.

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.
TABLE 3 - ORIGIN OF PROCESS DATA FOR BROILER PRODUCTION

44

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 produc[1]

2

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

45

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 13 - GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL GWP100 [CML 2001] OF
FIGURE 11 - GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL GWP100 [CML 2001] OF

Emissions

SWINE PRODUCTION BROKEN DOWN BY INDIVIDUAL

BROILER PRODUCTION BROKEN DOWN BY CONTRIBUTIONS OF
INDIVIDUAL FACTORS

Option 1(Evonik’ssolution)
Option 1
4(Evonik’s

Emissions

Option 1

CONTRIBUTIONS OF FACTORS
Option 2
Option 3(Evonik’s(Solution to(Solution tosolution)compare)compare)Emissions GWP100
OptionOption 2
Option3
Globalwarming potential
5 1
34(Evonik’s(Solution 48
to(Solution
to[1]

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

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

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

solution)
4compare)48

in kg CO2eq/functional unit
compare)Global warming potential GWP100
34[1]
in kg CO2eq/functional unit

9/15

solution)
5

Option 2
Option 3(Solution to(Solution tocompare)compare)Option 2 25 Option 3
8(Solution tocompare)25(Solution tocompare)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 production
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 andigure 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
ine 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
OFvoided Emissions
AvoidedEmissions
AvoidedSwinePRODUCTION
production
SWINE(Option 2 – Option 1) (Option 3 – Option 1)
obal warming potential GWP100
20
3
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
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 productionure 11 - Global warming potential GWP100 [CML 2001] of swine production

46

9. S
 tudy limitations and future
recommendations

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)

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 and47

12. Appendices

FIGURE 17 - RESOURCE CONSUMPTION OF BROILER PRODUCTION

Report of the main results other than GHG emissions

Appendices

Broiler production

Appendicesortof the main results other than GHG emissions

FIGURE 14 - ACIDIFICATION POTENTIAL AP [CML 2001] OF BROILERPRODUCTION
rt ofproduction
the mainresults other than GHG emissions
Appendicesler

er
production
rt ofthe main results other than GHG emissions
Figure 16 - Figure
Resource
consumption of broiler production
16 - Resource consumption of broiler production

ler 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
crude oil equi./functional
unit
PRODUCTION
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 14 - Eutrophication potential EP [CML 2001] of broiler production
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

48

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

15/15

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

49

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
COMMISSIONER AND PERFORMER OF THE STUDY

India Glycols Limited (IGL)

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].

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.

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].

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 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.

The use of the MEG produced through both Petro routeand Bio route is same.

Bio-MEG is slowly catching up with many PET bottle
manufacturing and is marketed as environmentallyfriendly less carbon footprint products.

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.

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”.

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.

50

4. Boundary setting

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.

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.

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].

FIGURE 1 - MEG PROCESS STEPS OF BIO-MEG (BIO ROUTE) V/S
Molecular formula of MEG:♣♣

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.

Molecular Structure 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

Ethylene
Ethanol Production
Bio Glycols through bio
route
Sugarcane Cultivation! Bio -RouteThe 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].

MEG, DEG, TEG & Higher
Glycols production

Molasses

Bio Glycols through bio
route
Sugarcane Cultivation

The 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).

Ethylene Oxide

Petro-Route Crude Oil

Ethylene

Molasses

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).

Petro-Glycols throughpetro route

Petro-Route Crude Oil

Ethanol Production

End-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.

Boundry of MEG production

MEG, DEG, TEG & Higher
Glycols production
Ethylene Oxide

Petro-Glycols throughpetro route3.1. 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 routeC 2H 6O 2

Molecular Structure of MEG :Boundry of MEG production

3. F unctional unit and reference
flow

Molecular formula of MEG:

C 2H 6O 2

CONVENTIONAL PETRO-MEG (PETRO ROUTE)! Bio -Route

Figure 1 - MEG process Steps of Bio-MEG

51-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 PRODUCTION

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

PROCESS

BOUNDARY LIMIT BIO-MEG

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.

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.

2/16

52

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.

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).

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.

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

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

Collection Method
MethodCollection

Eco invent
invent44-- Eco

4/16
4/16

53

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.

Bio- MEG<A1>

Unit
Kg. CO2 eq.

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
1000

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.

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.

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.

FIGURE 5 - CO2eq EMISSIONS WHILE MANUFACTURING OF BIO-MEG(CRADLE TO GATE)

5/16

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,

IPCC GWP 100a

Bio- MEG<A1>

Unit
Kg. CO2 eq.

1500

1628

1628
1221

500
Bio- Mono Ethylene Glycol ProducPon

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

37

1.0
Other

Total

Spentwash generated in the process of distillery (Ethanol
Plant). Spent wash is partially used for bio-gas generationand partially concentrated as slop (concentrated spentwash). 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 6/16
by electricity generation.

1000
0

29

Transport Chemicals

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

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

OxygenliquidliquidPetro-MEG
<A2>

1221

Electricity Fossil Fuel Bio-Gas
(RFO)

2

BIO-MEG AND PETRO-MEGS AS PER IPCC 2013 V1.00 /Impact Category

Steam

76

The total CO2 generated is 1221 kg CO2 equivalents per
MT of Bio-MEG production. Process wise details
emission of Bio-MEG production is shown in Figure 5. It
shows thatmajor GHG load comes from Bio-Ethanol
Emission in kg CO eq per MT of ConvenSonal-MEG (Petro route)
ProducSon followedfromproduction
by electricity
1800 molasses
1628
1600
consumed, steam production and heat produced from1400
residual
fuel oil (RFO). GHG impacts of Bio-Ethanol
1200
production
from molasses, spent wash treatment,
1000
850
800 production and electricity are main contributors
Steam
600
to GHGload of335Bio-Ethanol. Residual fuel oil and Bio-gas
400
154
138
126
are 200
burnt in the process
heateras fuelfor superheating
26
1
0
steam. Ethylene Electricity Fossil Fuel Oxygen Transport Chemicals Other Total

TABLE 1 - COMPARATIVE CHARACTERIZATION RESULTS FOR

IPCC 2013 V1.00 / Characterization

Bio-Ethanol

18

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

The GHG emission for 1 MT of MEG production (bioroute and conventional petro route) process are shownin Table 1;

Table 1 - Comparative characterization results for Bio-MEG and Petro-MEGs as per
CHARACTERIZATION

147

137

200

54

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)

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

<A1>

<A2>

P2-P1=(<A2>)– (<A1>)

1628-1221
407

Avoided Emission

55* Manufacture: From raw
material extraction to
manufacture of per MT of
MEG production from
cradle to gate

9. S
 tudy limitations and future
recommendations

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.

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.

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

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 from Petro-MEG
production.

56

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.
*

57

Case 5

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

Japan Carbon Fiber
Manufacturers
Association (JCMA)COMMISSIONER AND PERFORMER OF THE STUDY

1. Purpose of the study

3. F unctional unit and reference
flow

The Study was commissioned and performedby the Japan Carbon Fiber Manufacturers
Association (JCMA).

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].

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].

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

Material

Others (ton)Total (ton)Conventional aircraft

Total (ton)

24.5
9.5
4.5
7.0
2.5

60.0

48.0

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

32 ton/unit

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

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

32 ton/unit

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.

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

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

Above two alternatives are considered in the study so as
to fulfil the same strength and safety.

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

2.5

48.0

of conventional aircraft and CFRP aircraft in flight
AIRCRAFT IN FLIGHT

CFRP aircraft

2.5
46.0
8.0
3.5
0

0

60.0

AIRCRAFT
USAGE OF CONVENTIONAL AIRCRAFT AND CFRP
Table 2 – Composition weight ratio during the stage of aircraft usage

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 OF

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).

58

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

(*)
(**)

Material of
Other parts

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](**)

Other parts
manufacturing

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 aircraft59

[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

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

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

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

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

TABLE 5 - THE AVOIDED CO2 EMISSIONS PER AIRCRAFT UNIT (KT-CO2/
UNIT)

Table 3 - USAGE
Preconditions applied to this study in the stage of aircraft usage
AIRCRAFT

Weight of Body
structure
Jet fuel consumption*
Lifetime flight mileage

Amount of jet fuelused
CO2 emissions for jet
fuel

CFRP aircraft
48tons/unit(Proportion of CFRP used:
50%)
110 km/L of jet fuel2.5kg-CO2/L

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

500 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

Table 5 - The avoided CO2 emissions per aircraft unit (kt-CO2/unit)

CFRP aircraft Conventional
aircraft

TABLE 3 - PRECONDITIONS APPLIED TO THIS STUDY IN THE STAGE OF

Conventional aircraft
60tons/unit(Proportion of CFRP used:3%)
103 km/L of jet fuel20tons/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.

Maintenance[B](**)

Other parts
manufacturing

900 tons in Japan

145,500kL/unit[5]

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
guidelineofthecalculationofalmostallamongother 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

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 body

6.1. Avoided emissions
The avoided emission in this study is shown in Table 560

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.

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.

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.

12. Appendices
None

61

Case 6

Materials for fuelefficient tires

Japan Chemical Industry
Association (JCIA)COMMISSIONER AND PERFORMER OF THE STUDY

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).

The study was commissioned and performed
by Japan Chemical Industry Association (JCIA).

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

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
ion 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
ventional
fuel efficient
Conventional fuel efficient
tire
tire
tire
tirephysical properties of the tire andrubber, transforms the
00.0
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
50.6

62.0

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]

47.0

Passenger cars
Conventional
fuel efficient
tire
tire

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

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.

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

62

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].

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.

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

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.

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).

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 tireDisposal of tire

Driving

ExtrusionrollingNaturalrubber

Disposal/Recyclingof automobile

RetreadAssembly
Molding
Vulcanization
Finishing

Recycling
Energyrecovery

Rolling
cutting

Incineration

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.

63

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.

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 type5.3. 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].

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)*

Conventionaltire

0.09750.25

0.1

Number of tires fitted
Service life of tire(km)
Amount of fuel used(l)

TBR
fuel efficienttire

fuel efficient
tire

10

30,000120,000

3,000

2,925

6. Results

0.2375430,00028,500CO2e emissions
coefficient for fuelVolatile oil (gasoline); 2.81
Diesel; 2.89
[2]
Table
(kg-CO2e/l) 2 - Automobiles’ operating conditions in the use phase

6.1. 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%

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

10

16%

30,000120,000

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,

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.

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

TBR
18%

3/5

25%

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

64
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
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
65 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.

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

8. Review of results

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 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.

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.

9. S
 tudy limitations and future
recommendations

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

Nevertheless, the GHG emissions avoidance efforts andeffect calculated at the end-use level of automobiles are66

1. 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.

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-1,000

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

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

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

11.6

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

67

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 performedby Rajesh Mehta, SABIC.

1. Purpose of the study

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

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.

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.

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.

1/7

Over 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.

68

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.

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.

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
packaging film

FIGURE 2 - CONVENTIONAL THREE LAYER PACKAGING FILM (45 μM)

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]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)

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.

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

16.1

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 FilmThree 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.

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.

2

Polyolefin Type

LDPE

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

69

4. Boundary setting

The functional unit has been selected taking into accountthe fact that the intended use and performance of boththe multilayer films are identical.

Figure 4 shows the entire life cycle of multilayer PE
packaging film. The system boundary consists offollowing four elements -Quality Requirements
The two alternative solutions considered in the study
have different film thicknesses, 45 microns and
35 microns thickness respectively, yet both fulfil thesame function, 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.

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.

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.

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

70

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
32%

33%
Incineration

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 forEurope 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.

5.1. 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.

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.

All the background data were selected from the Ecoinvent
version 2 dataset available in SimaPro version
7.3.3.[83/7

14,16]

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

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

71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.

reported 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.

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.

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.

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 process

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

72

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

73

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
kg N eq/ World
ReCiPeH new enhanced resins. The substances are
STUDIED Marine eutrophication
ratherthan
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

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

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

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)74

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.

[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”.

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-performance75

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 a

1 - view of the Engine Mount Housing, a connecting part between theand the vehicle structure, in its application surrounding
76 (from [6])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,

3. F unctional unit and referenceflow

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,

3.1. 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)77

4. Boundary setting

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.

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
Process Aids
Cyclohexane

Cyclohexanol/
Cyclohexanne

Adipic Acid

Nitric Acid
Glass Fibers

Emissions78

Technyl®
A 218 V50

ure 3 - Schematic manufacturing flowchart for Solvay’s Technyl® A 218 V5Black 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

79

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

application
the present
study CARS, APPLICATION TO THE
RELATION BETWEEN WEIGHT GAIN
AND FUEL to
CONSUMPTION
INcasePASSENGERPRESENT 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]400 g

0,041% of total vehicle mass

280 g

0,029% of total vehicle mass

120 g0,012% of total vehicle massreference [2]reference [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
Greenhouse Table
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
engine mount mass8.0.3.14.
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

80
3/5

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%

• 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.
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.

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.

81

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
none
SAE computation + Ecoinvent v2.3

- Ecoinvent for landfilling- Direct computation of CO2 emission forend of life

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

82

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 cycle of the Engine Mount

RECOMMENDATIONSTHE RELATIONSHIPBETWEEN
CARrelationship
Housing (according toFOR
reference[2] recommendations
for thebetween car weight reduction and car fuel consumption

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.

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.

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 5600 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.

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.

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.

83

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.

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

8. Review of results[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/

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.

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 to84

Case 9

Broiler production by feed
additive DL-Methionine

Sumitomo Chemical

COMMISSIONER AND PERFORMER OF THE STUDY
The study was commissioned and performedby Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd.

1. Purpose of the study

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.

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].

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

85

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

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.

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.

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)86

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.

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].

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.
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

Control 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

87

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
0.044 880.034

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).
Although 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.

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.

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%).

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].

89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 ingredien
0.074
0.079
0.054
0
0.205
0.205
0.628
0.603
0.054
0
Unit: kg CO2e/kg of broiler
0.628IngredientsTotal

GHG emissions from waste management

Study feed
0.603

Control feed

Methods of livestock manure management
0.126 include sun

Corn

TableGHG
7 - N2emissions
O emission
coefficientsby manure processing
methoddrying,thermal[1]drying, composting, piling, incineration
frommanure management
were
Soybean meal

0.168

and methane fermentation. The percentages of thecalculated under the following conditions. CO2 andCorn glutenmethods
meal
used[1]in Japan are shown in0.000
Figure 4, and N2O
fromorganic materials
in the manure
Tablemethane
7 - N2Oemissions
emissioncoefficientsby manureprocessing method
were not included in the calculation in accordancewith oilemission coefficients by manure processing
Soybean
0.074 method are
the cLCA offset guideline
because these emissions wereshown in Table 7. GHG emissions from broiler manure
Sun drying
0.02 and minerals
Vitamins
0.205
likely to be similar for both feed options.
management were calculated based on the manure
Thermal drying
0.02
DL-Methionine
0.064 8 and GHG
nitrogen contents as shown in TableSun
drying0.02
Composting
0.0016
The percentage reduction in manure nitrogen was Total
emissions per kg of broiler meat are 0.628
shown in Table 9.
[6]
Thermaldrying0.02
calculated by the following
equation:
Piling
0.02% Reduction in manure
nitrogen = 0.64 + 7.25 ×0.0016%
FIGURE 4 - PERCENTAGES OF MANURE MANAGEMENT METHODS
Composting
Incineration
0.001
USED IN JAPAN[1]Reduction in feed CP
PilingMethane fermentation

0.09

0.19

0.02

0.07

0.20

0.60

0.02
0.02

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 Jap
90O 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

Sun drying

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

1.73
16.84
Table 8 - Manure
nitrogen contents and
GHG emissions from3.14
manureTABLE 8 - MANURE NITROGEN 0.76
CONTENTS AND GHG EMISSIONS
Thermal drying
7.41FROM MANURE
1/2

Composting

13.34

Piling25.37

Incineration

Method

1.38

13.48

10.4

24.27

18.92

247.15Control feed

449.67

46.15

Manure nitrogen

GHG emission

Manure nitrogeng/bird/48 days

g CO2e/bird/48 days

g/bird/48 days

MethaneSun drying
fermentation
Other

Study feed

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

30.63

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

0.009
0.213

Contribution to GHG emission reduction per kg of broiler
meat.

Life-cycle GHG emissions
Life-cycle GHG emissions for both of the study andcontrol feed are shown in Table 10 and Figure 5.

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.

It was estimated that the life-cycle GHG emissions were0.798 kg CO2e and 0.912 kg CO2e per kg of broiler meat
2/2
produced by the study and control feed, respectively.

6/8

91

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

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
Figure 5 - GHG
emissionsandcontribution
to GHGemission
The contribution
to GHGemission
reductionin 2020Basedon thereduction
life-cycle GHG emission per kg of broiler
was estimated as follows and summarizedin Table meat
11.
meat with DL-Methionine (0.798 kg CO2e), the total
per kg of broiler
1. Poultry meat production in the study feed group:
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)▲161.7792

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.

11. References

8. Review of results[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

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.

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.

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.

93

Appendix: Reference materials
Report template for case study

95

Comment template97

Selection criteria

99

94

Report template for case study
TITLE of Case Study

4. Boundary setting

Commissioner and performer of the study[Describe the boundaries of the case study:• Describe the value chain steps of all solutions tocompare, making explicit which processes areincluded and excluded from the case study.
• Include a flow diagram for each of the solutions tocompare, indicating which parts are identical in thecalculation of life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of
the alternative solutions.
• Describe the cut off threshold and how the threshold
was determined.]

1. Purpose of the study
2. Solutions to compare
2.1. Description of the solutions to compare[Describe what solutions are being compared andprovide relevant information about each solution.]

5. Calculation methodology anddata

2.2. Level in the Value Chain[Describe the level in the value chain at which the study
is performed, including the reason why this level has
been chosen. If the case study is conducted at theend-use level the usage of chemical product as part ofthe end-use application shall be included.][Report any relevant general information related to thecalculation methodology, including the following
sections. Each section should explicitly describe
assumptions made with justification.]

2.3. Definition of the boundaries of the market
and the application

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



3. Functional unit and referenceflow
3.1. Functional unit
[Including:• Description of function of the solutions to compare• Functional unit
• Quality requirements: Indicate any quality criteria thatare taken into consideration to ensure comparedproducts are exchangeable for the typical customer
in the selected market.
• Service life: Indicate service life of product taken into
consideration and explain how the service life isdetermined.
• Time and geographical reference.]

5.2. Allocation
5.3. Data sources and data quality[Specify which databases are used and report the data
quality, including most important data in a Table.]

6. Results
6.1. Avoided emissions[Avoided emissions shall be presented as the difference
between the two emission profiles, and differentiated bylife cycle phase.
• Clearly state that the credit for the avoided emissions
belongs to the complete value chain.
• Report the full cradle-to-grave emissions of thereporting company’s solution and the full cradle-tograve emissions of the solution(s) to compare.
• Present the results in a Table (see Figure 1 andTable 1) .]3.2. Reference flow
[i.e. the amount of the chemical product on which theresult of the study is based.]95

Please do not change the page layout

FIGURE 1 - GRAPH SHOWING THE RESULTS OF THE CASE STUDY

Figure 1 - Graph showing the results of the case study

Table 1 - representing the results of the case study
TABLE 1 - REPRESENTING THE RESULTS OF THE CASE STUDY

Figureper
1 -life
Graph showing
results of Solution
the caseto
study
Emissions
Reportingthe
company’s
cycle phase (CO2e)
solutioncompare to
Raw material
Table 1 - representing the results of the case study
extraction
Manufacturing/processing
Distribution
Emissions per life
Reporting company’s Solution to
Use phase
cycle phase (CO2e)
solutioncompare to
End of Life
Raw
material
Total
emissionsP1
P2
extraction
Avoided emissions= P1 – P2

Manufacturing/processing
6.2.
Scenario analysis
Distribution[Describe used scenarios, e.g. to take into account future
Use phasechanges, describe the results from scenario analysis]
End of Life
Total emissions



9. Study limitations and future
recommendations[Describe any limitations of the study or improvements/
recommendations
for future revisions of the study]
P2

P1

7.Avoided
Significanceof contribution
emissions= P1 – P2

10. Conclusions[Describe the significance of the contribution of thestudied chemical product to overall value chain
avoided emissions (see Table 2 in Section 4.1 of theguidelines).
Describe the specific role of the product so that the reader
understands how it is related to the greenhouse gas
emission avoiding function of the end-use solution.
Describe attribution methods, if they are used1/1in the study.][Describe the main conclusions obtained from the study.]

11. References[List any relevant references (i.e. including a critique,especially if the conclusions of other studies are notconsistent with the present case).]

8. Review of results

12. Appendices[Describe any review of the results (i.e., critical peer review)that were undertaken and which standard was followed][Optional:• Additional information on sources used
• Use of data from reporting company and databases• Results from the critical review• A glossary]

1/1

96

Comment template
Comment Template

SectionChecklist
Indicate compliance with guidelines(Yes/No/NA). To be filled by main
reviewer.

Principles
1 Purpose of the study

2 Solutions toCompare2.1 Description of thesolutions to compare

Reviewer‘s comments
In case of multiple reviewers: indicate
reviewer for each comment.

Case study

Case study title:
Name of company/organisation:
Practitioner:

Reviewer(s)Main reviewer: Ecofys
Other reviewer(s):Suggestions for improvement

Practitioners response

Relevance, completeness,consistency, transparency,
accuracy, feasibility
Commissioner and practitioner
clearly statedObjective clearly stated
Chemical product under study
specified
ICCA/WBCSD-Chemical
Sector Guidelines foraccounting and reporting
avoided emissions

Solutions to compare:
Are at same level in value
chain
Deliver the same function
to the user
Are used in the same
application
Are used on the market inreference time period andgeographical region[chemical product level]
any alternative with highComment Template (>20%) market share[end-use level] weighted
average based on sharesof currently implemented
technologies
Are of exchangeable
quality
SectionChecklist
Are consistent with the
Indicatecompliancewith guidelines
solutionof the reporting(Yes/No/NA).
be quality,
filled by main
company To(datareviewer.
methodology,
assumptions)
Are described in similar
detailAll aspects which have amaterial impact on theemissions during the life-cycle
described
2.2 Level in the Value
Level in value chain specified
Chain(chemical product level or enduse level)[end-use level] use of chemical
product as part of end-use
application described
2.3 Definition of theBoundaries clearly describedboundaries of the market
and the application
3 Functional unit andreference flow
3.1 Functional unit
All inputs and outputs can be
related to the functional unit
Functional unit establishes
equivalency between
products/applications under
study
Functionality, technicalqualities and additional
benefits are exchangeable
Service life specified in thefunctional unit
Service life in line withstandards used in the market
Basis and justification for theservice life selected reported
Reference period specified

Reviewer‘s comments
In case of multiple reviewers: indicate
reviewer for each comment.

Case study

Case study title:
Name of company/organisation:
Practitioner:

Reviewer(s)Main reviewer: Ecofys
Other reviewer(s):Suggestions for improvement

Practitioners response

page 1 of 4

Reference period is recent
historic period
Geographic region specified
page 2 of 497

Comment Template

SectionChecklist
Indicate compliance with guidelines(Yes/No/NA). To be filled by main
reviewer.

3.2 Reference flow(including production and use)
Reference flow described

4 Boundary setting

Flow diagram provided

Reviewer‘s comments
In case of multiple reviewers: indicate
reviewer for each comment.

Case study

Case study title:
Name of company/organisation:
Practitioner:

Reviewer(s)Main reviewer: Ecofys
Other reviewer(s):Suggestions for improvement

Practitioners response

Written description provided

5 Calculation
methodology and data

5.1 Methods/formulas
used

Identical parts of the value
chains of the alternative
solutions indicatedSystem boundaries explicitly
mentioned
Choice of methodology andstandards explained
Emissions calculated in thesame way for all solutions
Emissions shall be converted
to CO2 equivalents according
to IPCC (2007), 100 year time
horizon.
Methods and formulas usedexplained[Simplified approach applied]
Specified and justified
which parts are omitted
Significance of omitted
Comment Template emissions indicated(preferably quantitative)
Data sources/assumptions
used to estimate omitted
emissions reported
Limitations described
5.2 Allocation
SectionChecklist
5.3 Data sources andIndicate compliance with guidelines
data quality(Yes/No/NA). To be filled by main
reviewer.
6 Results
6.1 Avoided emissions

6.2 Scenario analysis
7 Significance ofcontribution

8 Review of results

Reviewer‘s comments
In case of multiple reviewers: indicate
reviewer for each comment.

Case study

Case study title:
Name of company/organisation:
Practitioner:

Reviewer(s)Main reviewer: Ecofys
Other reviewer(s):Suggestions for improvement

Practitioners response

Base case results reported
page 3 of 4

Total avoided emissions along
the value chain reported[Simplified approach applied]No reduction percentage
reported
Activities and parameterswhich drive generation of GHG
emissions specified
Scenario takes into accountthe most probable futurechanges
Contribution classified
according to Table 2 (p. 27 of
the guidelines)[end-use level] Specific role ofproduct and relation to GHG
emission avoiding function
described[end-use level] Avoided
emissions attributed to theentire value chain
Attribution methodology clearly
described

9 Study limitations andfuturerecommendations
10 Conclusions
11 References
12 Appendicespage 4 of 4

98

Selection criteria
In addition to the more detailed case study review
template (see Section 7.2), an overview of thecompliance with the ICCA & WBCSD guidelines wasmade by using a matrix (see below). The 12 criteria

1comprise a subset of the mandatory requirements in theguidelines. Each case study was reviewed to determine
whether it complies with each of the 12 criteria.

Category

Requirements (“shall” requirements)

Assessment oftrade-offs

The reporting company shall check if trade-offs exist by doing a screening LCA.
If trade-offs with other environmental impacts occur, the reporting company shall report onthese environmental impact categories in the same way as it reports on GHG emissions andshould consider not reporting avoided emissions at all.

2

Objective

The name and description of the organization(s) commissioning the study and that performingit (“the practitioner”) shall be clearly stated.
The objectives of the study shall be clearly stated.
The reporting company shall specify what chemical product the study focuses on.

3

Selection of level in de The reporting company shall specify what level in the value chain has been selected for thevalue chain
definition of the functional unit of the study, including the reason why this level has been chosen.
If the study is conducted at the end-use level, the description shall detail how the chemical
product is used as part of the end-use application4

Selection of solutions
to compare

Solutions to compare shall be at the same level in the value chain
Solutions to compare shall deliver the same function to the user
Solutions to compare shall be used in the same application
Solutions to compare shall be distributed/used on the market, and not in the process of being
banned, in the reference time period and geographic region. (If the study is conducted at thechemical product level any alternative established product(s) with a high (combined) market
share, based on sales volume in the reference year, shall be used. A sufficiently high market
share is normally considered to be 20% and above. If the study is conducted at the end-use
level, the weighted average based on shares of all currently implemented technologies for thesame user benefit (including the studied end-use solution to which the chemical productcontributes) shall be used.
Solutions to compare shall be exchangeable for the typical customer in the selected market interms of quality criteria
Solutions to compare shall be as consistent as possible with the solution of the reporting
company in terms of data quality, methodology, assumptions etc.
Both the solution of the reporting company and the solution it is compared to shall be
described in similar levels of detail5

Boundary setting

The reporting company shall clearly describe how the boundaries of the market and theapplication have been defined
A flow diagram shall be provided to show the value chains for each of the solutions being
compared.
A written description of the value chain shall be provided for clarification.
The diagram shall indicate which parts of the value chain were assumed to be identical in thecalculation of life cycle GHG emissions of the alternative solutions.
All system boundaries shall be explicitly mentioned in order to clarify what processes are
excluded or included.

99

6

Category

Requirements (“shall” requirements)

Functional unit andreference flow

As in ISO 14040/44, a functional unit shall be defined to which all inputs and outputs of the
product system can be related and which establishes equivalency between the products/
applications under study.
The functional unit shall be consistent with the goal and scope of the study.
The reporting company shall specify the service life of the product or service in the functionalunit
The defined service life shall be in line with standards used in the market
The reporting company shall clearly report the basis and justification for using the selected
service life of the product or service
The description shall include the reference flow, i.e. the amount of the chemical product onwhich the result of the study is based
Companies shall specify the reference period chosen for the study.
The reference period shall be a recent historic period.
Companies shall specify the geographic region chosen for the study. This includes thegeographic region where the product is produced as well as where it is used.

7

Use of scenarios

If a company wants to study avoided emissions in a future year, it shall first calculate andreport avoided emissions in a recent historic period.
The reporting company shall explain the scenarios used to project the future8

Methodology applied

The reporting company shall describe the method used to account for emissions at each step.
For both solutions the life cycle GHG emissions shall be calculated in the same way according
to existing standards.
The reporting company shall explain its choices of methodology and standards used
The reporting company shall explain methods/formulas used to calculate the cradle-to-grave
inventories
When a simplified calculation is used the report shall say what parts are omitted and why
When a simplified calculation is used the report shall indicate the significance of the emissions
being omitted relative to total emissions of the reference case preferably in a quantitative
manner but at least in a qualitative manner.
The reporting company shall specify which activities and parameters drive generation of GHG
emissions.
When a simplified calculation is used data sources or assumptions used to estimate omitted
emissions shall be reported.

9

Reporting &transparency

Companies shall report the main results of the study of its own solution and of the comparative
solution (the “solution to compare to”).
The avoided emissions shall be presented as the difference between the two emission profiles,and differentiated by life cycle phase.
When a simplified calculation is used reduction percentage, i.e. x% GHG emissions avoided incomparison to the reference solution, shall not be reported.
Companies shall report the results of the base case and should report the scenario taking into
account the most probable future changes.
The reporting company shall describe the specific role of its product in such a way that thereader understands how it is related to the GHG emission avoiding function of the end-use
solution.
If the reporting company chooses to report the emissions associated with its activities (suchas Scope 1 and Scope 2), then the reporting company shall clearly state that the reporting
boundaries for activity emissions are different from those of avoided emissions.
The description shall discuss all aspects of all compared solutions which have a material
impact on the emissions generated during the life cycle
Misplaced information
Unclear information
Missing/insufficient information

100

10

Category

Requirements (“shall” requirements)

Attribution of avoided
emissions

Avoided emissions calculated at the end-use level shall always be attributed to the complete
value chain.
The reporting company shall report total emissions avoided along the complete value chain
and shall report the significance of the contribution of its product to the end-use solution
according to the functionality approach as presented in Table 2.
Companies shall clearly state that the credit for the avoided emissions belongs to thecomplete value chain.

11

Conclusions andlimitations

The reporting company shall finalize the report with an overview of conclusions andimplications from the study
The reporting company shall finalize the report with an overview of additional steps/updates
that might be planned to improve the results of its study
When a simplified calculation is used the report shall clearly and noticeably describe thelimitations of the study arising from omitting identical processes.

12

Data sources anddata quality

Quality of data sources addressed in the text
Data sources clearly references
Traceability of data sources101

Acknowledgements
ICCA would like to thank the people thathave been involved in the avoided GHG
emissions case studies project.

Practitioners of avoided GHG emissions casestudies:Nicola Paczkowski (BASF SE); Braskem S.A.; theEvonik Business Unit Health & Nutrition and theEvonik Life Cycle Management Group; India Glycols
Limited (IGL); Rajesh Mehta (Saudi Basic Industries
Corporation: SABIC); Solvay Engineering Plastics andSolvay Research & Innovation (Jean-François VIOT);
Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd.; the Japan Carbon
Fiber Manufacturers Association; Japan Chemical
Industry Association

ICCA Energy and Climate Change LeadershipGroup / cLCA Task Force (2nd phase) Co-chairs:
Michel Bande (Solvay)Motozo Yoshikiyo (Japan Chemical Industry
Association)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 Coers (Solvay); Hiroyuki Kamata (Toray
Industries, Inc.); Kiyoshi Kasai and Reiko Nonaka(Japan Chemical Industry Association)

Ecofys has reviewed the cLCA case studies that were
published at the ICCA website in December 2015 tocheck if they are in compliance with the ICCA &WBCSD guidelines of 2013 “Guidelines from thechemical industry for accounting for and reporting
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions avoided along thevalue chain based on comparative studies”. ICCA
would like to thank Annemarie Kerkhof and Karlien
Wouters of Ecofys for their review of the case studies
and advice on the quality of the case studies.

102

103

104

February 2016
This publication and its content are subject to the copyright of ICCA. Reproduction is authorized, 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. Nothing in this document shall be construed as conferring any license or
right to any copyright of any third party material contained in this document. Photography © Shutterstock. Design: www.landmarks.be105About ICCA
The International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) is the worldwide
voice of the chemical industry, an industry with a 2012 turnover of more than
€3,000 billion (including observers & Responsible Care members). More than
20 million people around the globe are employed directly or indirectly by thechemical industry. ICCA members account for more than 90 percent of global
chemical sales. ICCA focuses on key issues for the chemical industry such as
the promotion and coordination of Responsible Care® and other voluntary
initiatives. Learn more about the ICCA at www.icca-chem.org.

Contact Information
Press
Ryan Baldwin: ryan_baldwin@americanchemistry.com
Franco Bisegna: fbi@cefic.be
ICCA Extended Secretariat
Rachelina Baio: rba@cefic.be
Sachiko Kohno: skohno@jcia-net.or.jp
Greg Skelton: greg_skelton@americanchemistry.com