Life Cycle Assessment of Canada’s Polymer Bank Notes andCotton-Paper Bank Notes
Final report_____________________________________________________
Submitted: May 27, 2011

Prepared by:

Prepared for:

234 Wellington Street, 8th Floor West
Ottawa, ON K1A 0G9

Coppelia Marincovic
Kathy Pritchard
Marc Binder
Nuno da Silva

PE Americas
344 Boylston Street
Boston, MA 02116
USA
Phone
Fax

Contact Information+1 [617] 247-4477+1 [617] 236-2033

c.marincovic@pe-international.com
kathy.pritchard@tryskele.ca
m.binder@pe-international.com
n.dasilva@pe-international.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................... 3
List of Figures .......................................................................................................................................... 4
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................... 6
Abbreviations .......................................................................................................................................... 8
Glossary (ISO 14040/44:2006) ................................................................................................................. 9
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 11
1

Goal of the study ........................................................................................................................... 12

2

Scope of the study ......................................................................................................................... 13

3

Data collection and quality check ................................................................................................... 25

4Life cycle modeling ........................................................................................................................ 295Life Cycle Inventory ....................................................................................................................... 40

6Life Cycle Impact Assessment......................................................................................................... 41

7Interpretation ................................................................................................................................ 55

8

Due diligence evaluation................................................................................................................ 63

Appendix A. Polymer vs. paper bank notes lifetimes in other countries ................................................. 64
Appendix B. Impact Assessment with CML indicators ............................................................................ 66
Appendix C. LCIA Descriptions ............................................................................................................... 67
Appendix D. Cradle-to-grave Life Cycle Inventory .................................................................................. 78
Appendix E. LCIA Characterization factors............................................................................................ 106
Acceptance letter from the Critical Review Panel................................................................................. 117

Page 3 of 117

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1. System boundaries .............................................................................................................. 13
Figure 4-1. Life Cycle Model................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 4-2. Schematic view of Holographic foil for the $20 denomination .............................................. 30
Figure 4-3. Schematic view of Thread for the $20 denomination ........................................................... 30
Figure 4-4. Schematic view of Lithography printing (offset) for the $20 denomination........................... 30
Figure 4-5. Schematic view of Intaglio printing for the $20 denomination .............................................. 31
Figure 4-6. Schematic view of final $20 denomination bank note (front and back) ................................. 31
Figure 4-7. Bank notes materials manufacturing phase model ............................................................... 32
Figure 4-8. Bank notes printing phase model ......................................................................................... 33
Figure 4-9. Distribution logistics model .................................................................................................. 35
Figure 6-1. High level comparison (relative) of the two types of bank notes – 100 bank notes over 7.5
years ..................................................................................................................................................... 41
Figure 6-2. Comparison and break down of impacts for the two designs (relative) – reference: 100% life
cycle impact of current design ............................................................................................................... 44
Figure 6-3. Detailed impact for the manufacturing phase of the cotton paper bank notes (relative) ...... 46
Figure 6-4. Cotton paper manufacturing (relative) – 100 bank notes, 2.5 manufacturing cycles ............. 47
Figure 6-5. Thread manufacturing for the cotton paper bank note (relative) .......................................... 48
Figure 6-6. Foil manufacturing for the cotton paper bank note (relative) ............................................... 49
Figure 6-7. Cotton substrate printing (relative) – 100 bank notes, 2.5 manufacturing cycles .................. 51
Figure 6-8. Polymer substrate bank notes manufacturing (relative) – 100 bank notes, 1 manufacturing
cycle ...................................................................................................................................................... 52
Figure 6-9. Polymer substrate printing (relative) – 100 bank notes, 1 manufacturing cycle .................... 54
Figure 7-1. Sensitivity analysis on the life time of the new design – Manufacturing + Distribution + End oflife only (not use) .................................................................................................................................. 57
Figure 7-2. Results for non-linear approach ........................................................................................... 59

Page 4 of 117

Figure 7-3. Sensitivity analysis of the energy usage at the printing phase - printing phase ONLY ............ 60
Figure 7-4. Sensitivity analysis of the energy usage at the printing phase – Overall life cycle.................. 61
Figure C-1. Greenhouse Effect ............................................................................................................... 68
Figure C-2: Acidification Potential .......................................................................................................... 70
Figure C-3: Eutrophication Potential ...................................................................................................... 72
Figure C-4: Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential ............................................................................. 74

Page 5 of 117

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1. Overview of technological coverage ...................................................................................... 15
Table 2-2. Summary of bank notes weight, lifetime and reference flow ................................................. 17
Table 2-3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment categories, indicators of contribution to environmental issues,
units of measure, & brief descriptions ................................................................................................... 18
Table 2-4. Primary Energy Demand description ..................................................................................... 19
Table 2-5. Electricity grid mixes for different Canadian provinces .......................................................... 20
Table 3-1. Summary of data collected for the study ............................................................................... 26
Table 4-1. Average transportation distance by mode, weighted by mass ............................................... 36
Table 4-2. Average distance from RDP to branches ................................................................................ 36
Table 4-3. Parameters for use phase calculations................................................................................... 37
Table 6-1. High level comparison (absolute values) of the two types of bank notes – 100 bank notes over
7.5 years................................................................................................................................................ 41
Table 6-2. Results for main phases of the life cycle for the current design (absolute values) – 100 banknotes over 7.5 years .............................................................................................................................. 42
Table 6-3. Results for main phases of the life cycle for the new design (absolute values) – 100 bank notes
over 7.5 years ........................................................................................................................................ 42
Table 6-4. Detailed impact for the manufacturing phase of the cotton paper bank notes (absolute values).............................................................................................................................................................. 45
Table 6-5. Cotton paper manufacturing (absolute values) – 100 bank notes, 2.5 manufacturing cycles .. 46
Table 6-6. Cotton substrate printing (absolute values) – 100 bank notes, 2.5 manufacturing cycles ....... 50
Table 6-7. Polymer substrate bank notes manufacturing (absolute values) – 100 bank notes, 1
manufacturing cycle .............................................................................................................................. 51
Table 6-8. Polymer substrate printing (absolute values) – 100 bank notes, 1 manufacturing cycle ......... 53
Table 7-1. Sensitivity analysis on the lifetime of the new design – Manufacturing + Distribution + End oflife only (not use) .................................................................................................................................. 56
Table 7-2. Assumptions for non-linear model ........................................................................................ 58

Page 6 of 117

Table A-1. Ratio of polymer vs. paper bank notes lifetimes in countries currently using polymer banknotes ..................................................................................................................................................... 64
Table A-2. Ratio of polymer vs. paper bank notes lifetimes in New Zealand for all denominations ......... 65
Table A-3. Paper bank notes lifetimes in Canada for all denominations.................................................. 65
Table B-1. Results with CML LCIA methodology for the current design (7.5 years) ................................. 66
Table B-2. Results with CML LCIA methodology for the new design (7.5 years) ...................................... 66

Page 7 of 117

ABBREVIATIONS
ATM
AP
BOPP
CAD
CFC-11
CH4
CO
CO2
CTU
EP
EPA
GaBi
GHG
GWP
H+
IEA
IPCC
ISO
Kg
LCA
LCIA
MJ
N
NO
NO2
NOx
O3
P
PED
PET
POCP
SO2
SOx
TRACI
VOC

Automated Teller Machine
Acidification Potential
Bi-axially oriented polypropylene
Canadian dollar
Trichlorofluoromethane
MethaneCarbon monoxide
Carbon dioxide
Comparative Toxic Unit
Eutrophication Potential
Environmental Protection Agency
Ganzheitlichen Bilanzierung (German meaning holistic Balancing)
Greenhouse gases
Global Warming Potential
Hydrogen ion
International Energy Agency
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeInternational Organization of Standardization
kilogram
Life Cycle Assessment
Life Cycle Impact Assessment
Megajoule
Nitrogen
Nitric monoxide
Nitrogen dioxide
Oxides of nitrogen
Ozone
Phosphorous
Primary Energy Demand
Polyethylene terephthalate
Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential
Sulfur dioxide
Sulfur oxides
Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other Environmental Impacts
Volatile organic compound

Page 8 of 117

GLOSSARY (ISO 14040/44:2006)
The following terms are adapted from: ISO 14040:2006, Environmental management - Life cycle
assessment - Principles and framework, International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva.
Allocation
Partitioning the input or output flows of a process or a product system between the product system
under study and one or more other product systems
Functional Unit
Quantified performance of a product system for use as a reference unit
Closed-loop & open loop
A closed-loop allocation procedure applies to closed-loop product systems. It also applies to open-loop
product systems where no changes occur in the inherent properties of the recycled material. In suchcases, the need for allocation is avoided since the use of secondary material displaces the use of virgin(primary) materials.
An open-loop allocation procedure applies to open-loop product systems where the material is recycled
into other product systems and the material undergoes a change to its inherent properties.
Cradle-to-grave
Addresses the environmental aspects and potential environmental impacts (e.g. use of resources andenvironmental consequences of releases) throughout a product's life cycle from raw material acquisition
until the end of life.
Cradle-to-gate
Addresses the environmental aspects and potential environmental impacts (e.g. use of resources andenvironmental consequences of releases) throughout a product's life cycle from raw material acquisition
until the end of the production process (“gate of the factory”). It may also include transportation until
use phase.
Life cycle
A unit operations view of consecutive and interlinked stages of a product system, from raw material
acquisition or generation from natural resources to final disposal. This includes all materials and energy
input as well as waste generated to air, land and water.

Page 9 of 117

Life Cycle Assessment - LCA
Compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs and the potential environmental impacts of a productsystem throughout its life cycle
Life Cycle Inventory - LCI
Phase of Life Cycle Assessment involving the compilation and quantification of inputs and outputs for a
product throughout its life cycle.
Life Cycle Impact assessment - LCIA
Phase of life cycle assessment aimed at understanding and evaluating the magnitude and significance ofthe potential environmental impacts for a product system throughout the life cycle of the product.
Life Cycle Interpretation
Phase of life cycle assessment in which the findings of either the inventory analysis or the impact
assessment, or both, are evaluated in relation to the defined goal and scope in order to reachconclusions and recommendations.
SurplusBank notes in excess in the branches; replenishments: combination of new bank notes and reusablebank notes
Unfit
Bank notes that are returned to the financial institutions branches and cannot be re-circulated

Page 10 of 117

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Bank of Canada will be changing the substrate material of bank notes from cotton paper to polymer,
and is interested in evaluating the environmental impacts of producing and distributing Canadian banknotes based on those two different substrates. This was done by identifying substances of concern,
whether in the form of bank note components or emissions arising from bank note production,
revealing those aspects of bank note production and distribution that could be targeted to further
reduce environmental impact and ensuring that Canada’s new polymer bank notes are in line withestablished or prospective Canadian health, safety and environmental legislation and any related
treaties to which Canada is a signatory.
Therefore, The Bank of Canada commissioned PE Americas and Tryskele to undergo a “Cradle-to-Grave”
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of the current ”Canadian Journey Series” cotton paper bank notes and thenew polymer bank note design configuration to evaluate the environmental impacts of the two types ofbank notes (current and new design). This analysis is intended to support external communication, andto be shared with the public. It is compliant with the ISO 14040 standards for Life Cycle Assessment(LCA), and has been critically reviewed by a Critical Review Panel as indicated in the ISO 14044
guidelines.
The functional unit for this study is a “Provision of $2,000 (CDN) of cash value over a time span of 7.5
years.” Accordingly, the reference flows are chosen to be multiples of a $20 (CDN) bank note. The cotton
paper substrate bank note has been considered to have a lifetime of 3 years, and the impact associatedwith manufacturing and End of Life has been adjusted accordingly. The polymer substrate bank note has
been considered to have a lifetime of 7.5 years, which has been considered conservative according toother countries’ statistics.
For all indicators under study (Primary Energy Demand, Global Warming Potential, Eutrophication
Potential, Acidification Potential, Smog Potential, human and ecosystem toxicity ), most of the impacts
are associated with the distribution and use phase. The polymer substrate shows benefits over cotton
for all main phases of the life cycle: 1. for the manufacturing phase, since it has to be produced 2.5
fewer times than the cotton paper bank note; 2. for the distribution, since it has to be distributed 2.5
less times and its weight is lighter; 3. for end-of-life, since the contained carbon in cotton paper banknotes is released as GHG in the landfill.

Page 11 of 117

1 GOAL OF THE STUDY
The Bank of Canada is interested in:•

Evaluating the environmental impacts of producing and distributing Canadian bank notes basedon two different substrates – cotton-based paper vs. polymer•

Identifying substances of concern whether in the form of bank note components or emissions
arising from bank note production•

Revealing those aspects of bank note production and distribution that could be targeted tofurther reduce environmental impact•

Ensuring that Canada’s new polymer bank notes are consistent with established or prospective
Canadian health, safety and environmental legislation and any related treaties to which Canada
is a signatory.

In order to achieve these outcomes, the goals of this study are to:•

Calculate the environmental impacts, using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), of the current”Canadian Journey Series” paper bank notes and the new polymer bank note design
configuration•

Assess the LCA results of the two types of bank notes (current and new design)•

Report the Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) for each step of the life cycle, which compiles all resource
consumption and emissions•

Identify the emissions and components of concern from that LCI•

Indicate whether the emissions and components are consistent with current and prospective
Canadian regulations and treaties on Health & Safety and the Environment.

The primary audience for this study is the internal and external stakeholders of the Bank of Canada. This
analysis is also intended to support external communication, and to be shared with the public.
Therefore, PE Americas developed an ISO 14040 compliant Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) report, which
has been critically reviewed by a Critical Review Panel as indicated in the ISO 14044 guidelines. The Duediligence Assessment is out of the scope of the LCA study, and therefore has not been criticallyreviewed.

Page 12 of 117

2 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The following section describes the general scope of the project to achieve the stated goals. This
includes the identification of specific products to be assessed, the supporting product systems (e.g.
printing, distribution, etc.), and the boundary of the study, allocation procedures and cut-off criteria.

2.1 SYSTEM BOUNDARIESThe system boundaries are presented in the figure below. This study is a “cradle-to-grave” life cycle
assessment. Therefore, all steps of the life cycle are included in the assessment.

Figure 2-1. System boundaries1 2

1

The red boxes represent the main raw material for each bank note, orange boxes are secondary materials, andthe purple boxes are “assembly” processes to make the bank notes. Printing is similar and Use/Distribution/ End ofLife are common for both bank notes2
The resources and emissions are used in the calculation of the Impact Assessment

Page 13 of 117

The Cradle-to-Grave assessment includes:--

Production of raw materials
Transport of raw materials from production site to intermediate manufacturing facility
Manufacturing of intermediate products (cotton paper and polymer substrate), including
packaging
Printing of bank notes
Overhead (heating, lighting) of manufacturing facilities3
Packaging of materials related to the final productOn-site waste disposal at the suppliers’ facilities
Distribution:
 Transport of finished bank notes from the printing facilities to the Bank of
Canada Sorting, internal transportation on conveyer belts, and storage of bank notes at
the Bank’s facilities
 Transport of bank notes from Bank of Canada to financial institutions
 Transport of bank notes from financial institutions to their branches Transport of bank notes back to the Bank of Canada
Use phase: Distribution of bank notes (through ATMs)
End of Life of non-reusable bank notes (shredding and landfilling)4

The Cradle-to-Grave assessment excludes:-

Construction of capital equipment

2.1.1 TIME COVERAGE
Primary data were collected on bank note production and distribution for the year 2009. These data
were based on annual average data for the year 2009. The representative background data (mainly raw
materials, energies, fuels, and ancillary materials) were obtained from the GaBi 4 database 2006 and are
representative of the years 2005-2010, in the absence of primary data and based on data availability.
Future polymer note production volumes were based on 2009 manufacturing data with projections forvolumes taking into consideration factors such as extended substrate life discussed in Section 2.2.

2.1.2 TECHNOLOGY COVERAGE
The table below shows an overview of the technology used at each step of the life cycle. The technology
is representative of the current technology in use for the production of Canadian cotton paper banknotes, as well as the projected technology for the polymer bank notes.
3
4

Data have been collected on “overhead”. It has been included in the final assessment for both products.
See section 4.5 for end-of-life assumptions

Page 14 of 117

Table 2-1. Overview of technological coverageLife Cycle step

Specifications on technology

Cotton production

Agricultural production of cotton

Polymer production

Bubble PP production process

Cotton paper production

Cotton paper manufacture includes the production of the paper itself withaddition of thread, foil and UV active fibers

Thread manufacturing

Coating process with metalized polymer (PET)

Foil production

Metalized polymer (PET)Polymer conversion

Substrate production with biaxially oriented polypropylene (BOPP) andaluminum foil and opacification (gravure printing)

Bank note printing

Litho, Intaglio, and associated pre and post press activities and materials,
bindery

Inks

Ink for Litho and Intaglio

PlatesPlates for Litho and Intaglio, overcoating plates for polymer

Distribution

Sorting and storage at the Bank’s facilities, Armored carsUse
End of Life

ATM machines
Shredding and then landfill

2.1.3 GEOGRAPHICAL COVERAGE
The geographical coverage for distribution and use is Canada. The raw materials are produced in various
areas of the world, and the geographical coverage varies depending of the location of the manufacturing
plants.

Page 15 of 117

2.2 FUNCTIONAL UNIT
The functional unit for this study is set to be:“Provision of $2,000 (CDN) of cash value over a time span of 7.5 years”5
Accordingly, the reference flows are chosen to be multiples of a $20 (CDN) bank note since it is the mostcommonly used in Canada, and the predominant denomination (approximately 95%) distributed
through ATMs. Inflation has been disregarded in the context of this study.
To be able to do a comparative study of two products with similar performances, this study takes into
account the fact that the two types of bank notes have different lifetimes.
1. The cotton paper substrate bank note has been considered to have a lifetime of 3 years6, andthe impact associated with manufacturing and End of Life have been adjusted accordingly7. Its
weight is 0.102 kg per 100 bank notes.
2. The polymer substrate bank note has been considered to have a lifetime of 7.5 years8.
Its weight is 0.093 kg per 100 bank notes.
The distribution and use phase over 7.5 years are the same for both. The polymer substrate has one
production phase and one end of life phase over the course of 7.5 years, whereas the cotton paper
substrate bank notes have 2.5 production cycles and 2.5 end-of-life cycles in an equivalent amount oftime.9 10 The two types of bank notes have the same dimensions, but their density and thickness aredifferent, as indicated in the table below. These differences are assumed to have no impact on the usephase, since the energy consumption is related to one bank note.

52009 dollars (reference year)
http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/bank notes/facts.html
7
The impacts of the production, distribution and end of life phases have been multiplied by 7.5/3 = 2.5
8
One manufacture, distribution cycle and End of Life phase
9
The lifetime of the polymer bank note is projected to be 2.5 times longer than the paper bank note, based on
statistical data on currently used polymer bank notes in other countries. The authors are aware that this number
can influence the outcome of the study and a sensitivity analysis has been done on this factor, within a reasonable
range, provided by statistical data from other countries. The statistical numbers have been provided in appendix.
10
Since it could also be considered that over 7.5 years there are 3 production cycles of the paper bank note, asensitivity analysis has been carried out on lifetime and years of operations
6

Page 16 of 117

Table 2-2. Summary of bank notes weight, lifetime and reference flow

Weight (kg/100
bank notes)

Lifetime(years)Thickness

Reference flow

Cotton paper bank
note

0.102

3

115 μm

250 pieces = (2000/20 *7.5/3) of 20 CAD
with a lifetime of 3 years.

Polymer bank note

0.093

7.5

91 μm

100 pieces (2000/20 *7.5/7.5) of 20 CAD
with a lifetime of 7.5 years.

2.3 SELECTION OF LCIA METHODOLOGY AND TYPES OF IMPACTS
A comprehensive set of environmental impact categories was investigated. Within the standard state-ofthe-practice of life cycle impact assessment this includes the following inventory flows andenvironmental categories: primary energy demand11 (from non-renewable and from renewable
resources), global warming potential, eutrophication potential, acidification potential, photochemical
oxidant potential (smog formation potential), and toxicity. The details of each impact category are
shown in Table 2-3. Additional information on these impact categories is provided in Appendix C. LCIA
Descriptions.
The calculation methodology selected is TRACI (Tool for Reduction and Assessment Chemicals and otherenvironmental Impacts)12. The TRACI impact categories were selected because they are specific to the
US and therefore more largely used in North America. However, since a large portion of Bank of
Canada’s suppliers are located in Europe, the CML methodology (largely used in Europe) results areprovided in Appendix B. The IPCC methodology has been used for the calculation of the Global Warming
Potential. Finally, USEtoxTM will be used for toxicity.
All selected indicators are based on scientific measurements of the effects on emissions on theenvironment. There is more uncertainty on the toxicity indicators, but the USEtoxTM indicator has gained
recognition among LCA practitioners, and is used in this study.

11

Primary Energy Demand is not an impact but is included in this section as it is also a sum value indicating thetotal amount of energy extracted from earth or based on renewable resources.
12
EPA http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/sab/traci/

Page 17 of 117

Table 2-3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment categories, indicators of contribution toenvironmental issues, units of measure, & brief descriptions

Impact Category(issue)Characterization
Model

Description

Indicator
Result Unit

Reference

Climate Change

Global Warming
Potential (GWP)

A measure of greenhouse gas
emissions, such as CO2 andmethane. These emissions are
causing an increase in theabsorption of radiation emitted by
the earth, magnifying the natural
greenhouse effect.

kg CO2equivalentIntergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC). 2006
IPCC Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories.
2006. Updated version of 2009.

Eutrophication

TRACI,
Eutrophication
Potential (EP)A measure of emissions that cause
eutrophying effects to theenvironment. The eutrophication
potential is a stoichiometric
procedure, which identifies theequivalence between N and P for
both terrestrial and aquatic
systems.

kg Nitrogenequivalent

Bare et al., TRACI: the Tool for
the Reduction and Assessmentof Chemical and Other
Environmental Impacts JIE, MIT
Press, 2002.

Acidification

TRACI,
Acidification
Potential (AP)mol H
equivalent+

Bare et al., TRACI: the Tool for
the Reduction and Assessmentof Chemical and Other
Environmental Impacts JIE, MIT
Press, 2002.

Smog formation

TRACI,
Photochemical
Oxidant Creation
Potential (POCP)/
Smog

kg NOxequivalent

Bare et al., TRACI: the Tool for
the Reduction and Assessmentof Chemical and Other
Environmental Impacts JIE, MIT
Press, 2002.

Human and Ecotoxicity

USEtox ™

A measure of emissions that cause
acidifying effects to theenvironment. The acidification
potential is assigned by relating
the existing S-, N-, and halogen
atoms to the molecular weight.
A measure of emissions ofprecursors that contribute to lowlevel smog, produced by thereaction of nitrogen oxides and
VOCs under the influence of UV
light.
Characterization of human andecotoxic impacts in Life Cycle
Impact Assessment and ranking ofchemicals according to theirinherent hazard characteristics.

CTU 13equivalent

Rosenbaum et al., Int J Life
Cycle Assess, USEtox—theUNEP-SETAC toxicity model:
recommended
characterization factors forhuman toxicity and freshwater
ecotoxicity in life cycle impact
assessment, 2008.

Ozone depletion

TRACI, Ozone
Depletion
Potential (ODP)

A measure of air emissions that
contribute to the depletion of thestratospheric ozone layer.
Depletion of the ozone leads tohigher levels of UVB ultravioletrays.

kg CFC-11
equivalent

Bare et al., TRACI: the Tool for
the Reduction and Assessmentof Chemical and Other
Environmental Impacts JIE, MIT
Press, 2002.

13

Comparative Toxic Unit

Page 18 of 117

In addition to Impact categories, Primary Energy Demand (inventory category) is included in this section
as it is a sum value indicating the total amount of energy extracted from earth or based on renewable
resources.
Table 2-4. Primary Energy Demand description

Inventory category

Description

Unit

ReferencePrimary Energy Demand(PED)

A measure of the total amount ofprimary energy extracted from theearth. PED is expressed in energy
demand from non-renewable
resources (e.g. petroleum, naturalgas, etc.) and energy demand fromrenewable resources (e.g.
hydropower, wind energy, solar,etc.). Efficiencies in energy
conversion (e.g. power, heat,steam, etc.) are taken into
account.

MJ (Lower
Heating
Value)

An operational guide to the ISO-standards(Guinée et al.)

2.4 SOURCES OF DATA
The sources of data are a mix of primary data and use of GaBi database14. PE Americas and Tryskele
contacted all the suppliers of the Bank of Canada, and whenever possible, the suppliers of those
suppliers to get access to primary data. PE Americas collected as much data as possible on:
1. Production of the bank notes and its components (raw materials use, energy consumption,
emissions to air and water), and printing (ink and plate manufacturing and usage, energy
consumption, emissions to air and water). Suppliers’ company names and locations are
confidential.
2. Processing at facilities (energy consumption at the Bank’s facilities, and raw materials use for
packaging)
3. Distribution and Use: transport (distances, modes of transport, trucks fuel economy/types ofengines/emissions), ATM (electricity use)
4. End-of-Life (shredding energy, landfill properties)
All data were collected in a consistent way: the data collection sheets enabled the suppliers to report
the same type of data, with the same level of aggregation, and all data went through the same quality
check procedure.

14

http://www.gabi-software.com

Page 19 of 117

2.4.1 FUELS AND ENERGY – BACKGROUND DATA
National averages for fuel inputs and electricity grid mixes were obtained from the GaBi 4 database200615. Country-specific datasets are used depending on the raw materials manufacturing plant
location, and the specific grid mixes composition has been shared with the Critical Review Panel for
validation. Moreover, if specific grid mixes are used (e.g. the supplier purchases renewable energy fromlocal wind farms), a specific grid mix has been created.
In addition, region-specific datasets for electricity grid mixes in Canada were used, based on the energy
mixes in the table below16:
Table 2-5. Electricity grid mixes for different Canadian provinces

Province

Hydro

Nuclear

Coal

Natural gas

Petroleum

Wind

Quebec

96.2%

2.5%

0%

0.2%

0.6%

0.6%

Ontario

22.3%

49.1%

19.3%

7.9%

0.8%

0.6%

2.4.2 RAW AND PROCESS MATERIALS – BACKGROUND DATA
Data for upstream raw materials were obtained from the GaBi 4 database.

2.4.3 ALLOCATION
When an allocation was necessary (if there was co- or by-product) during the data collection phase, theallocation rule most suitable for the respective product was applied. For most suppliers, no allocation
was necessary. For the cotton paper production and printing, mass allocation was applied, since theproducts and co-products are similar.
Allocation of upstream data (energy and materials):•

For all refinery products, allocation by mass and net calorific value is applied. The manufacturing
route of every refinery product is modeled and so the effort of the production of these products
is calculated specifically. Two allocation rules are applied: 1. the raw material (crude oil)consumption of the respective stages, which is necessary for the production of a product or anintermediate product, is allocated by energy (mass of the product * calorific value of the
product); and 2. the energy consumption (thermal energy, steam, electricity) of a process, e.g.
atmospheric distillation, being required by a product or an intermediate product, are charged on
the product according to the share of the throughput of the stage (mass allocation).

15

http://www.gabi-software.com/support/gabi/gabi-lci-documentation/data-sets-by-databasemodules/professional-database/
16

Government of Canada 2008: Economic Scan of Canada's Energy Sector Produced for Energy Sector Sustainability Table;
Chapter 4 Electricity, 4.3. Generation, Table 4.1- Net Electricity Generation by Source, by Province and Territory, 2005 (GWh).

Page 20 of 117

•Materials and chemicals needed during manufacturing are modeled using the allocation rulemost suitable for the respective product. For further information on a specific product see
www.documentation.gabi-software.com.

2.4.4 EMISSIONS TO AIR, WATER AND SOIL
All emissions reported by suppliers for the manufacturing phase are taken into account in the study(data used for official reporting). If there was missing data, PE Americas engaged with the companies toobtain the data. All gate-to-gate emissions data were obtained from the suppliers, except in some cases
greenhouse gas emissions (from natural gas burning), which were calculated based on emissions factors
obtained in the EP-42 document17. Those emissions are only for the combustion of the fuel on-site,
consequently there is no double-counting with the upstream greenhouse gas emissions (production offuel or combustion of fuel to produce electricity for the grid mix). The energy supply emissions areprovided by the GaBi LCI database.
Data for all upstream materials, electricity, and energy carriers were obtained from the GaBi 4 database2006. The emissions (CO2, etc.) due to the use of electricity are accounted for with the use of thedatabase processes.
Emissions associated with transportation were determined by capturing the logistical operations ofinvolved companies (data collected from the companies for the reference year). Energy use and theassociated emissions were calculated using pre-configured transportation models from the GaBi 4
database 2006, adapted with transportation supplier data (specific fuel economy, specific emissions,etc.).

2.4.5 CUT-OFF CRITERIA
The cut-off criteria for including or excluding materials, energy and emissions data of the study are as
follows:

17•

Mass – If a flow is less than 1% of the cumulative mass of the model it may be excluded,
providing its environmental relevance is not a concern.

•

Energy – If a flow is less than 1% of the cumulative energy of the model it may be excluded,
providing its environmental relevance is not a concern.

•

Environmental relevance – If a flow meets the above criteria for exclusion, yet is thought topotentially have a significant environmental impact, it was included. Material flows which leave
the system (emissions) and whose environmental impact is greater than 2% of the whole impactof an impact category that has been considered in the assessment must be covered. This
judgment was made based on experience and documented as necessary.

http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/

Page 21 of 117

The sum of the excluded material flows must not exceed 5% of mass, energy or environmental
relevance.

2.4.6 EXCEPTIONS
No exceptions to the scope of this study are reported.

2.5 SOFTWARE AND DATABASE
The LCA model was created using the GaBi 4 Software system for life cycle engineering, developed by
PE INTERNATIONAL AG. The GaBi LCI database provides the life cycle inventory data for several of the
raw and process materials obtained from the background system.

2.6 CRITICAL REVIEW
Because the study is intended to comply with ISO standards and support external communications of acomparative assessment, a critical review has been performed.
A bio of these reviewers can be found below, and the critical review report can be found in appendix.
Wayne Trusty (Chairman) – LCA expert, President, Athena InstituteLindita Bushi – LCA expert, Athena Institute
Nick Pearson – Paper bank note expert, Senior technical expert Notes Division – Quality and Research,
Bank of England
Neil Burnham – Polymer bank note expert, Independent technical consultant, Smiths Gully, Australia

Wayne Trusty (Panel Chair)
With a master’s degree in economics and almost 40 years of experience in such diverse fields as
resource industry economics and policy, water resources, transportation, energy policy and markets,and regional development, Wayne Trusty now serves as President of the ATHENA Sustainable Materials
Institute and its U.S. affiliate, Athena Institute International. He is also an Adjunct Associate Professor on
the University of Calgary’s Faculty of Environmental Design, a member of the board of the Green
Building Initiative, and Chair of the Technical Committee established in the U.S. to take the Green
Globes rating system through a full American National Standards Institute process.
He serves on the Metrics and Life Cycle Assessment task force for CaGBC and, until recently, on the LEED
Resources and Materials Technical Advisory Group in the United States. Wayne is a member of several
other standards setting organizations, is past chairman of an international technical committee
examining the use of LCA with regard to building materials and products, and was a member of the U.S.
National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Materials Flow Accounting.

Page 22 of 117

Dr. Lindita Bushi, PhD Eng
Lindita Bushi, holds a doctoral engineering degree in Life Cycle Assessment from the University ofErlangen-Nürnberg, Germany. In 2004, she joined the Athena Sustainable Materials Institute, Canada asa Senior Research Associate. With over twelve years of international LCA experience, including economic
evaluations, Dr. Bushi has conducted numerous LCAs in an effort to drive and determine sustainability
benefits of industrial processes, products and services. Her LCA experience also extends to a large
number of sectors (metals, construction materials, consumer products, energy, transport, recycling, andagriculture). She has extensive multi-national experience working with industrial clients, academia, andjoint government-industry programs and taskforces.
Dr. Bushi also serves as peer reviewer for “The International Journal of LCA”, “Journal of Cleaner
Production” and other interested organizations. Dr. Bushi has conducted and co-authored numerous
carbon footprint projects over the last 7 years according to ISO 14064:2006-Part 1, WRI GHG Protocol:
2004, CDM 2010 Guide, British PAS 2050:2008 and the Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) TEAM Officemethodology, System for Measurement and Reporting of Technology (SMART). She is a member of the
ACLCA (American Center for LCA) committee for Product Category Rules (PCRs) in LCA. Dr. Bushi is
proficient on the most widely used LCA software platforms such as SimaPro and Umberto. She hasdeveloped professional training courses in Life Cycle Assessment, Environmental Management Systems(ISO 14001, EMAS II), Risk Assessment, and environmental policy and economics, organizedinternational conferences, and published a number of academic papers and journal articles.
Nick Pearson
Since 2006, Nick has been a Senior Technical Expert in the Notes Division - Quality & Research of the
Bank of England. His current responsibilities include:•£5 note durability - currently conducting an external circulation trial examining the potential for
improving the durability of cotton paper notes•

Durability test method development•

Advise the bank on all paper related issues including Watermark development, QC defects etc.

•

Assist with the selection of Bank note features and substrate as part of the R&D group

He previously worked on:•'Comet' - specification and production of a Polymer test note•

Analysis of previous Circulation trial

Prior to his current position, he was a Senior Project Scientist at the Overton Technology Centre with De
La Rue Currency involved in various R&D projects at De La Rue's currency paper mill concentrating on
Page 23 of 117

paper manufacture improvements, new paper features and durability improvements. From 1992 to
2000, Nick worked as a Senior Scientist with Pira International on various paper making R&D projects(non-currency) in the areas of paper recycling, coating, refining and non-wood fibres. Nick holds a BSc(Hons) Chemistry Degree from Sussex University.
Neil Burnham
From 1971 to 1976, Neil was an Architectural Design Draftsman with Note Printing Australia (then Note
Issue Department, Reserve Bank of Australia) in Fitzroy, Melbourne. He was responsible for the
preparation of drawings for new production equipment, building modifications, and layouts for a new
production facility. From 1977 to 1978, Neil worked on a building and agriculture project near Rabaul in
Papua New Guinea, as part of the AVA (Australian Volunteers Abroad) program.
Between 1979 and 1981, he was employed by NPA as a design draftsman, working with the Departmentof Housing & Construction on detailed layouts for the new bank note plant in Craigieburn. He held theposition of Premises officer with NPA from 1982 to 1986. In 1986 Neil commenced part time studies inmechanical engineering, and transferred to NPA's R&D section, which was charged with thedevelopment of the polymer note. The main focus of his work was the design of production processes
for substrate and DOVD manufacture. The release of the $10 commemorative in 1988 was a defining
moment for the company.
From 1989 to 1994, he held the position of Engineering Maintenance Group Manager, responsible forthe maintenance and installation of production and utilities plant plus a number of engineeringdevelopment projects on prepress and printing equipment. From 1995 to 2000, he established andmanaged the Product Development section, preparing product and process specifications for the
Operations Department. He also managed Prepress, Design and Trade Waste areas and in the late 90’s,
acted as Production Manager. During this period he became involved with NPA’s first technology
transfer program and built the Design group capability in order to support the growing export market.
From 2001 to 2005, Neil worked for PolyTeQ Services, transferring polymer bank note technology to anumber of overseas security printers, both private and State owned. Finally, from 2005 to 2010, Neilwas appointed Senior Technical Advisor to Sales and Marketing, working directly with NPA’s customers.
This role included assistance with specification and design development and press proofing for new noteseries for a number of countries in South America, South East Asia and the Pacific. He retired in July2010 from NPA and commenced work as a Technical Consultant to the bank note industry.
Background on NPA
Note Printing Australia Limited (NPA) is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Reserve Bank of Australia andbecame a corporate entity on July 1, 1998. NPA prints bank notes and other security products forAustralia and a rapidly growing export market. It is recognized as the world leader in polymer bank note
printing and a centre for bank note innovation.

Page 24 of 117

3 DATA COLLECTION AND QUALITY CHECK
Data used for this project represents a mix of primary data collected from the Bank of Canada and its
suppliers for the life cycle of the bank note (gate-to-gate), and data from the GaBi databases. Overall,the quality of the data used in this study is considered to be high and representative of the describedsystems by the authors of this study. All appropriate means were employed to guarantee the data
quality and representativeness as described below.
•

Gate-to-gate
Data on materials, energy use and emissions were collected in a consistent manner and level ofdetail for Bank of Canada’s suppliers for both products to ensure high quality data. All submitted
data were checked for quality multiple times, both on plausibility of inputs and outputs as wellas comparison against similar processes and other data collected from other companies. Allquestions regarding data were resolved with individual companies. All calculations procedures
have been applied consistently throughout this study.

•

Upstream Data
All data from the most updated version of the GaBi database were created with consistentsystem boundaries and upstream data. Expert judgment and advice was used in selecting
appropriate datasets to model the materials and energy for this study and has been noted in thepreceding sections. Detailed database documentation for GaBi datasets can be accessed at
http://documentation.gabi-software.com/.

3.1 DATA COLLECTION PROCESS DESCRIPTION
The participating companies were sent data collection questionnaires, which were specific to their rolein the life cycle, and they had to provide it completed to Tryskele and PE Americas. The data are
confidential and were transmitted to Tryskele and PE Americas under a Non-Disclosure Agreement(NDA).
Each batch of data went through a data quality check process (described below), which includes
benchmarking of the data, comparison to reference documents and expert knowledge. Each company
was contacted individually to double check their data and/or provide more detailed data, and to ensure
the best quality for the study.

3.2 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE DATA COLLECTED
The table below is a summary of the sources of data collected for this study. The number of suppliers foreach phase of the life cycle is less than three.

Page 25 of 117

Table 3-1. Summary of data collected for the study

Bank note life
cycle step

Cotton paper
production

Representativeness ofdata collected

Data source

Description of data collected100%

Supplier(primary data)

Raw materials (including packaging, operating materials),energy, emissions, water usage, waste, waste waterTransportation of raw materials and final product (modeand distance)

Polymer
substrate
production

100%

Supplier(primary data)

Raw materials (including packaging, operating materials),energy, emissions, water usage, waste, waste waterTransportation of raw materials and final product (modeand distance)

Foil production

100%

Supplier(primary data)

Raw materials (including packaging, operating materials),energy, emissions, water usage, waste, waste waterTransportation of raw materials and final product (modeand distance)

Threadproduction

100%

Supplier(primary data)

Raw materials (including packaging, operating materials),energy, emissions, water usage, waste, waste waterTransportation of raw materials and final product (modeand distance)

Threadconversion

100%

Supplier(primary data)

Raw materials (including packaging, operating materials),energy, emissions, water usage, waste, waste waterTransportation of raw materials and final product (modeand distance)

Printing

100%

Supplier(primary data)

Raw materials (inks, plates, wiping solution, packaging,
operating materials, etc.), energy, emissions, water
usage, waste, waste waterTransportation of raw materials and final product (modeand distance)

Ink production

100%

Supplier(primary data)

Raw materials (including packaging, operating materials),energy, emissions, water usage, waste, waste waterTransportation of raw materials and final product (modeand distance)

Page 26 of 117

Distribution
logistics

100%

Bank of Canada(primary data)

Logistics and transportation (mode and distances)
Energy usage at the facilities (for heating, sorting, etc.)

Armored cars

100%

Contractor(primary data)

Vehicles specifications (fuel type, fuel economy, engine
type, average age of vehicle, emissions standards,
payload, utilization ratio)

Use phasen/aBank notes
equipment
manufacturers(primary data)

Energy used and internal data on bank notes circulation.

End of Life landfills

57%

Contractor(primary data)

The energy use is the one of an average ATM cash
machine.

Landfill specification (landfill area, permitted capacity of
waste, operating life height of landfill, density of waste,recirculation of leachate, surface seal and base seal,
thickness of drainage layer, thickness of plastic film,
reclamation layer and clay, share of the gas that isflared/goes to electricity generation)

3.3 DATA QUALITY REQUIREMENTS
Data quality is judged by its precision (measured, calculated or estimated), completeness (e.g. are there
unreported emissions?), consistency (degree of uniformity of the methodology applied on a study
serving as a data source) and representativeness (geographical, time period, technology). To cover theserequirements and to ensure reliable results, first-hand industry data in combination with consistent,
background LCA information from the GaBi LCI database are used. This background information fromthe GaBi LCI database is widely distributed and used with the GaBi 4 Software. The datasets have beenused in LCA models worldwide for several years in industrial and scientific applications for internal aswell as in many critically reviewed studies. In the process of providing these datasets they are crosschecked with other databases and values from industry and science.
Precision and completeness•

Precision: As the relevant foreground data is primary data or modeled based on primary
information sources of the owner of the technology, no better precision is reachable withinthese projects. All background data is GaBi professional data with the documented (high)precision.

•

Completeness: All relevant, specific processes for the different options are considered andmodeled to represent each specific situation. Any background processes are taken from theGaBi databases (see GaBi 4 documentation).

Page 27 of 117

Consistency and reproducibility•

Consistency: To ensure consistency only primary data of the same level of detail and the samebackground data from the GaBi databases are used. While building up the model cross-checks
concerning the plausibility of mass and energy flows are continuously conducted.

•

Reproducibility: The reproducibility is given for internal use since the owners of the technology
provided the data and the models are stored and available in a database. Sub-systems aremodeled by ´state of art´ technology using data from publicly available and internationallyaccepted databases. For the external audience it is possible that no full reproducibility in any
degree of detail will be available for confidentiality reasons.

Representativeness•Time related coverage:-

Bank note primary data: 2009-

Background data: 2005 to 2007•

Geographical coverage: The geographical coverage is Canada, and specific suppliers’ countries•

Technological coverage: The technology is the one used at the manufacturing plants during thereference year for data collection.

Data were collected and modeled to ensure that:-All materials are modeled according to the same boundary conditions,-

The analysis does not compare different background systems,-

The results represent current technology

Page 28 of 117

4 LIFE CYCLE MODELINGThis section describes the Life Cycle model and assumptions.

4.1 OVERVIEW OF LIFE CYCLE
The model has been created following the Life Cycle of the Bank note, as described below.

Figure 4-1. Life Cycle Model

4.2 PRODUCTION
The base material (cotton paper or polymer substrate) is produced, and security features are added: theholographic foil (for both the polymer and cotton paper substrates), and the thread (for cotton paper
substrate only). The foil has a different width for the new design, compared to the current design, andthis difference has been taken into account in the model by using the exact amount of foil for each
design.

Page 29 of 117

Figure 4-2. Schematic view of Holographic foil for the $20 denomination

Figure 4-3. Schematic view of Thread for the $20 denomination

The bank note is then printed with several different printing processes, including Intaglio and
Lithography. The final steps are numbering and varnish application to make the final bank note.

Figure 4-4. Schematic view of Lithography printing (offset) for the $20 denomination

Page 30 of 117

Figure 4-5. Schematic view of Intaglio printing for the $20 denomination

Figure 4-6. Schematic view of final $20 denomination bank note (front and back)4.2.1 BANK NOTE MATERIALS MANUFACTURING
The cotton paper and polymer substrates have been modeled as presented in the figure below.

Page 31 of 117

Figure 4-7. Bank notes materials manufacturing phase model

The foil is made out of a mix of aluminum and PET, to which some adhesives are added. The raw
materials are transported from different places in the world, and the logistics have been modeledaccordingly. The final foil is then sent to the substrate manufacturers.
The thread manufacturing is an energy-intensive vacuum deposition process, when silica blocks arevaporized and deposited onto a metallic alloy. The thread rolls are shipped by airplane from North
America to Europe where they are converted by a different supplier into the final thread, by adding
coatings and adhesives. The final thread is then sent to the cotton paper manufacturer.
The cotton paper production has been modeled according to the suppliers’ data. The raw materials
mainly consist of cotton (sourced from Europe and the US), and cotton linters (sourced from the US)
which is a by-product of the cotton textile industry. The cotton paper is bleached with lye (a sodiumhydroxide solution) and hydrogen peroxide. A white pigment is added, as well as some additional
chemicals like glue. The foil and the thread are added to the cotton paper, and the quantities used in themodel include waste. All the logistics between suppliers have been modeled to reflect the current stateof the supply chain. The raw materials usage is specific to the cotton paper production, but the energy(electricity and fuel) has been allocated by mass of output of the manufacturing plant.
The polymer substrate is made out of a biaxially-oriented polypropylene film (BOPP) film. The main raw
materials for the conversion step include an opacifier, solvents and resin. Those materials and thesolvents used emit VOCs that are then combusted in a thermal oxidizer. The polymer substrate goes
through a printing process, which includes the use of copper cylinders, and that are chromed with achrome bath. The specific amount of chrome solution and cylinders has been collected per year. The foil
is added (the foil usage is higher than the amount on the bank note because it includes productionwaste). The energy use (electricity and natural gas) has been collected by the supplier, as well as
emissions to air and water. Finally, the final polymer substrate sheets are sent to the printers in wooden
boxes.

Page 32 of 117

4.2.2 PRINTING
The model follows the flow chart presented below, the arrows represent shipping:

Figure 4-8. Bank notes printing phase model

The inks have been modeled specifically for each type of bank note (different compositions for cotton
paper and polymer substrates inks) based on ink supplier data. The inks are a mixture of varnishes,
pigments and additives. The polymer substrate also requires a specific protective varnish, for which
specific data have been collected.
The printing process for Canadian bank notes involves a wide variety and combination of pre-press,
printing and post printing operations, some unique to the security printing industry. Primary data foreach stage of the process was collected from the printers and suppliers.
Pre-press involves the generation of plates and cylinders/rollers for the printing operations and includes
the electroforming and electroplating processes for intaglio, wet and dry plates for lithographic andimage/ink transfer plates (including development chemicals where applicable). Press cylinders androllers that are coated or etched with surfaces that are unique to the job and are replaced asworn/damaged (for example PVC coated or etched cylinders) are included. Rollers and cylinders notincluded are those that are part of the press equipment (for example ink transfer rollers). The number ofplates/cylinders used to produce the Canadian bank note series in 2009 was obtained and values ofconsumable materials such as nickel, chromium and developers were calculated based on production
times (for example amp hours and thicknesses for intaglio plates) and prorated chemical consumption(based on the percentage of business the Bank of Canada represents for the process over 2009). Airemissions for the chromium process were based on amp hour, surface areas and pollution control
equipment emission factors.
The printing process involves the transfer of inks onto a substrate and wash-up solutions for the inks.
The printing ink consumption includes the total amount used for each process to print the bank notes,
specific to the $20 denomination, and the ink used in the set-up of presses and used on overs(generated to replace notes not released as part of the normal quality control system). An alkaline
Page 33 of 117

aqueous wiping solution is used to remove inks from one of the printing processes and the flow rates
per hour to the press and chemical composition of the wiping solution was used to generate data forthis operation. Solvents used as press-washes or fountain solutions were calculated based on thepercentage of business the Bank of Canada represents for the process over 2009. These materials arecommon aliphatic/aromatic solutions used in the printing industry and individual components werereviewed. Substrate for the cotton based-substrate processes include the bank note paper as well aswood pulp-based paper (used for the set-up of the presses). Substrate for the polymer printing
processes is necessarily polymer-based substrate for both final product and set-up.
Bindery materials are those used to package the notes for shipping and include plastic wrap, strapping,skids wrap and skids in the evaluation.
Wastes generated include printing waste, chemicals waste and effluent treatment wastes from thewater wiping solution used in the print operation. Secure wastes are shredded and transferred to landfill
in bins. Primary data on substrate volumes destroyed were used in the process as well as informationfrom landfills. Volumes of waste water treatment chemicals were used in the calculation of volumes tolandfill as well as information on the number of bin collections. Cloth wipers are used to reduce
flammable/combustible wastes generated and wipers are returned to the supplier for laundering andsolvent recycling/blending. The Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment (CCME) recognized afactor of approximately 30% of solvent used is retained on the wipers and this value was used in the LCA
calculation process.
Energy consumption was measured for printing, cutting, bindery, waste treatment and destruction
equipment (shredder) and used in the calculation of electricity consumption. Ontario specific data forthe grid mix were used for this electricity source. Natural gas values were based on a prorated value forpercent of production the Bank of Canada represents, and therefore captures both the production andoverhead consumption.
Since it has been assumed that the energy use by the equipment is allocated to the job, the energy
consumption for the polymer substrate has been assumed to be the same as for the cotton substrate.
Based on previous experience with a similar polymer substrate material, however, production rates may
be different for the polymer substrate. It has been estimated that the speed of polymer printing, cutting,and shredding is approximately 70%, 60%, and 75% that of the cotton substrate, respectively. A
sensitivity analysis has been added in section 7.1 to measure the effect of an additional energy use of
0% to 50% for polymer substrate printing.

4.3 DISTRIBUTION
The distribution model is described in the following sections for the logistics and secured transportmodels.

Page 34 of 117

4.3.1 LOGISTICS MODELINGThe Bank of Canada provided logistical information on the distribution portion of the Life Cycle. The
model for distribution is displayed in the figure below.
The Agency Operations Centers (AOCs) are the major distribution centers. They centralize andcoordinate the replenishments and the disposal of old bank notes. The AOCs receive new bank notesfrom the printers through the Central Bank and unfit/surplus from the branches through Regional
Distribution Points (RDPs). The unfit/surplus bank notes are sorted at the AOCs, and the combination of
reusable bank notes and new bank notes are sent to circulation (replenishments); whereas the unusablebank notes are shredded and sent to landfill.

Figure 4-9. Distribution logistics model18

1. Printed Bank notes are transported to 2 “Agency Operation Centers” (AOC) in Montreal andToronto by armored cars. The Bank provided primary data on transportation distances(confidential), electricity and fuel usage at the facilities.
2. Bank notes are then transported by airplane and/or armored cars to 10 “Regional Distribution
Points” (RDP). The Bank provided primary data on transportation distances (confidential). Even
if the distances are the same from and back to the AOC, the mass transported vary significantly.
Consequently, the weighted average distance are different from and back to the AOCs.
The average distances, weighted by volumes distributed are displayed in the table below:

18

New: fresh bank notes from printers; Unfit: bank notes that are returned to the financial institutions branches
and cannot be re-circulated; surplus: bank notes in excess in the branches; replenishments: combination of newbank notes and reusable bank notes

Page 35 of 117

Table 4-1. Average transportation distance by mode, weighted by mass19

3. Then, the bank notes are transported to the branches by armored cars. The Bank did not haveaccess to the information on the average distance between the RDPs and branches, since thenumber of branches is large, and the transport is operated by a contractor. An estimation of thisaverage distance was calculated, based on a “worst-case” scenario. The distance in the model isthe average of half-distances between two closest RDPs. In other words, the model considers
that the average distance between a RDP and branches is within a circular perimeter of half ofthe distance to the next RDP.

The calculated distance is:Table 4-2. Average distance from RDP to branches

4.3.2 SECURED TRANSPORT MODEL
The datasets for trucks, ocean freight and airplane20, as well as the fuels are from the GaBi 4 database.
The trucks in the GaBi database are based on the US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) data.
Primary data was collected on the armored cars (e.g. type of fuel, fuel efficiency, average age of thevehicles, emissions standards, engine type) from the Bank’s transportation contractor, to ensure best
representativeness.

19
20

Values in the table are calculated with the following formula: distance 1 *% mass 1 + distance 2 * % mass 2 +…
Link to documentation: http://gabi-dataset-documentation.gabi-software.com/

Page 36 of 117

4.4 USE PHASE MODEL
The use phase has been modeled according to the following assumptions:•

The only impact is coming from the ATM energy usage over 7.5 years•

All notes withdrawn are $20 bank notes21•

All energy use at the ATM is allocated to withdrawals over 7.5 years•

All of the ATMs are cash dispensing machines

This is a simple but sufficient view of the Use phase, as this will be identical for cotton paper andpolymer bank notes. A more detailed view of this phase could be done, however the complexity of thesystem would likely require a separate study unto itself.
Based on the data provided by the bank, the model runs the calculations presented below:
1. Energy used by a bank note during its use phase per year:

Energy used by a banknote at ATM per year =(Energy used by one ATM per year ) × (Total No. of ATMs in CAN )(Total No. of banknotes in circulation per year in CAN )2. Energy used by one ATM per year:

Energy used by one ATM per year = power consumption × hours in year
The result of this calculation is 0.152 MJ/bank note/year.
Table 4-3. Parameters for use phase calculations

Parameter

Description

Unit

Data source

Energy used by bank noteat ATM per year

The energy (electricity)used ATMs by a bank notein order to be incirculation for 1 year

kWh

Calculated (see equation)

Energy used by one ATM
per year

The energy (electricity)
consumed by one ATM
over the course of 1 year

kWh

Calculated (see equation)

21

This assumption is considered conservative and constitutes ~90-95% of ATMs available. According to the Bank, in2009 (year of the study) only 1 financial institution plus casinos and airports dispense anything but $20s.

Page 37 of 117

Total No. of ATMs in
CanadaNumber of total ATMs in
Canada[-]Bank of Canada

Power consumption

Power consumption of acash dispensing machinekW

ATM supplier

Hours in year

Numbers of hours in a
year

hours

Calculated (see equation)

Total No. of bank notes incirculation

Number of $20 bank notes
in circulation[-]

Bank of Canada

4.5 END-OF-LIFE MODEL
At the time of this study, the Bank of Canada had not chosen a specific end-of-life scenario for polymer
bank notes. For the purposes of this model, in the absence of a specific scenario for polymer banknotes, landfill was assigned as the end-of-life scenario for both cotton paper and polymer waste.
Landfill specific data have been collected at the landfill site. The GaBi model for landfill has been
adapted based on this information and also customized based on the composition of the two types ofbank notes. A difference has been made between the “inactive” carbon and “active” carbon that
degrades into landfill gas; those have been calculated based on the composition of the bank note (11%22
inactive for cotton paper, 100% inactive for polymer, considering that biogenic carbon – cotton – isactive and non-biogenic carbon – plastics – is inactive). The landfill gas composition depends on thecomposition of the material and its degradation in the landfill. The landfill site reports an average landfill
gas composition of about 50% CO2 and 50% methane. An estimated 75% of the landfill gas is captured;
the exact percentage is not tracked. According to the landfill site, 21% of the captured landfill gas isflared and 79% is used for energy recovery with an efficiency of 97%. This energy recovery has beenaccounted for in the model.
The site includes landfill gas treatment, leachate treatment, and sludge treatment and deposition. The
landfill has a height of 50 meters, landfill area of 53.9 hectares and a 25-year lifespan. The annual
permitted capacity of waste is 850,000 tons/year over 20-25 years. The density of the waste in thelandfill is about 1 ton/m3.
The landfill does not have circulation of the leachate. Average yearly data from the area gives annual
precipitation rate of 834mm/a. A rate of 60% transpiration/runoff is assumed.
The effort for sealing materials (clay, mineral coating, and polyethylene film) and diesel for thecompactor is included in the data set. The landfill is designed based on Ontario regulation: 232/98
Double Generic Liner Design. The primary drainage layer for leachate collection is 300-550 mm thick and22This is calculated based on the composition of the bank note (the inactive carbon portion of the paper banknotes comes from the use of glues and polyglycol)

Page 38 of 117

520 mm thick for the secondary layer. The plastic film is a HDPE liner, for which the primary liner is 60
mm thick and the secondary liner is 80 mm thick. The leveling soil layer is at a minimum of 1 meter of
the attenuation layer. Finally the primary clay liner is 750 mm thick and the secondary clay liner is 750
mm thick.
The leachate and landfill body are assumed to be homogeneous. The landfill body is assumed to besaturated. Leachate treatment includes active carbon and flocculation/precipitation processing, as well
as sludge treatment and deposition.

Page 39 of 117

5 LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY
The cradle-to-grave Life Cycle Inventory is provided in Appendix D. Cradle-to-grave Life Cycle Inventory.
The gate-to-gate Life Cycle Inventory of the manufacturing phase for the cotton paper bank notes is not
displayed for confidentiality reasons. Since the number of suppliers for each step is less than three, theconfidentiality of the data provided would be not respected.

Page 40 of 117

6 LIFE CYCLE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
6.1 HIGH LEVEL COMPARISON OF THE TWO TYPES OF BANK NOTESThe table and graph below show the comparison of the two bank notes, for the overall life cycle (cradleto-grave). The results are displayed for the functional unit and reference flows detailed in the scope: 100
bank notes, over 7.5 years (1 manufacturing/ distribution/ end of life cycle for the new design, and 2.5
manufacturing/ distribution/ end of life cycles for the current design).
Table 6-1. High level comparison (absolute values) of the two types of bank notes – 100 bank notes over 7.5 years

The graph below shows the relative comparison (in percentage) of the two types of bank notes overtheir life cycle.

Figure 6-1. High level comparison (relative) of the two types of bank notes – 100 bank notes over 7.5 years

Page 41 of 117

The results indicate that the new design (polymer bank note) shows benefit over the current design(cotton paper bank note) for the environment, for all indicators under study, for the chosen functional
unit. More details on the breakdown of those impacts are given in the next sections.

6.2 DETAILED ANALYSIS OF MAIN PHASES OF THE LIFE CYCLE
The tables and graphs below show the breakdown of the environmental impacts for the main phases ofthe life cycle (1.Manufacturing; 2.Distribution; 3. Use; 4.End-of-life).
Table 6-2. Results for main phases of the life cycle for the current design (absolute values) – 100 bank notes over 7.5 years

Table 6-3. Results for main phases of the life cycle for the new design (absolute values) – 100 bank notes over 7.5 years

Note: the color coding indicates the lowest to highest impact phase for each indicator.
LowestHighestPage 42 of 117

Manufacturing
The manufacturing phase has a similar or slightly higher impact for the cotton paper bank note than forthe polymer bank note for all indicators under study. This is mainly due to the fact that over the courseof 7.5 years there are 2.5 manufacturing cycles of the cotton paper notes and only one production cycle
for the polymer note. For Eutrophication the impact is significantly higher for the cotton paper banknotes, since Eutrophication is influenced by cotton cultivation, which requires the use of fertilizers(phosphates and nitrates release). For Global Warming Potential the impact is almost identical for bothsubstrates.
Distribution
The life cycle impacts of the two bank note options differ significantly in the distribution stage. Although
the logistics of distribution are the same for both cotton paper and polymer notes, the cotton paper
notes have a shorter life expectancy and need to be distributed more frequently (specifically, by a factorof 2.5). Additionally, shipments of bank notes are limited by the monetary value, not mass, of theshipment; because polymer notes are slightly lighter (i.e. they have a lower ratio of mass to monetary
value), the environmental impact of a single shipment of polymer notes will be slightly less than theimpact of a single shipment of cotton paper notes.
Use
The use phase is the same for both substrates. The analysis shows that the use phase (ATMs) is the
major source of impact for the whole life cycle for the polymer bank notes. It represents more than halfof the impact of the life cycle. This is due to the fact that ATMs are running all day long, over the courseof 7.5 years.
End of LifeThe end of life phase does not drive the environmental profile, but is higher for the cotton paper banknotes. This is due to the fact that the cotton paper decomposes at a faster rate than the polymer, andtherefore emits greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere (active vs. inactive carbon).

Page 43 of 117

Figure 6-2. Comparison and break down of impacts for the two designs (relative) – reference: 100% life cycle impact of
current design

Page 44 of 117

6.3 DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE MANUFACTURING PHASE
This section presents the results for the cotton paper substrate manufacturing and the polymer
substrate manufacturing.

6.3.1 PRODUCTION OF THE CURRENT DESIGN (COTTON PAPER BANK NOTE)
The results below are shown for the functional unit: 100 bank notes, over 2.5 manufacturing cycles.
Table 6-4. Detailed impact for the manufacturing phase of the cotton paper bank notes (absolute values)

Note: the color coding indicates the lowest to highest impact phase for each indicator.
LowestHighestThe environmental impacts are driven by different phases of manufacturing.
The cotton cultivation dominates the Eutrophication Potential because of the use of fertilizers (releaseof nitrogen and phosphorous into the soil and water). It also dominates the Primary Energy Demand
from renewable resources because the cultivation requires renewable energy resources like solar
energy.
The cotton paper manufacturing carries an important share of the impact for most of the indicators
under study. It significantly impacts Global Warming Potential because, as shown in the next section, of
the materials used and energy. The significant contribution to ozone depletion is due to the use ofelectricity for the manufacturing, as explained in the next section.
The foil and thread manufacturing do not drive the impact. However, their overall impact is not
insignificant given the small quantities used on bank notes. This is due to the fact that the mainmaterials are metals, and that the energy required for the manufacturing is significant on a per kilogrambasis.
Finally, printing carries the highest impact for toxicity (USEToxTM), especially human toxicity. This is dueto the manufacturing of solvents and inks, especially the varnishes used in intaglio ink. It plays asignificant role on Global Warming Potential as well.
Page 45 of 117

Figure 6-3. Detailed impact for the manufacturing phase of the cotton paper bank notes (relative)

6.3.1.1

Cotton paper manufacturing

The table and graph below show the impact of the cotton paper manufacturing step (it does not include
the cotton cultivation, the foil and the thread). It is only representative of the operations at the cotton
paper manufacturer’s facility. The raw materials are typically bleaching materials and glue. The energy iselectricity and fuel oil. The plant operations’ impacts are typically the emissions to air and water at thefacility and the transport of materials include inbound and outbound transport, by containership andtruck.
Table 6-5. Cotton paper manufacturing (absolute values) – 100 bank notes, 2.5 manufacturing cycles

Page 46 of 117

Note: the color coding indicates the lowest to highest impact phase for each indicator.
LowestHighestFor Global Warming Potential and toxicity, most of the impact comes from the materials, especially theglues. For Ozone Depletion, the energy carries the highest contribution because of power being thelargest source of energy for the plant; the nuclear portion of the grid mix is the source of impact in thiscase.

Figure 6-4. Cotton paper manufacturing (relative) – 100 bank notes, 2.5 manufacturing cycles

6.3.1.2

Thread manufacturing

The results for thread are displayed for the relative values only. The absolute contribution of thread is
given specifically for each design in section 6.3.1. This graph is aggregated for the thread production andconversion steps.

Page 47 of 117

Figure 6-5. Thread manufacturing for the cotton paper bank note (relative)

The impact for thread manufacturing is mostly driven by energy use. The thread manufacturing is a very
energy intensive process, which involves vaporizing the raw materials (notably silica blocks) to deposit
onto a metal alloy. The contribution to Ecotoxicity from the raw materials is due to the use of glues andde-metalized carrier rolls.
6.3.1.3

Foil manufacturing

The results for foil are displayed for the relative values only since it is applicable to both cotton paper
substrate and polymer substrate. The absolute contribution of foil is given specifically for each design insection 6.3.1.

Page 48 of 117

Figure 6-6. Foil manufacturing for the cotton paper bank note (relative)

The transport of materials contributes significantly to the overall foil environmental impacts. This is due
to transport by plane between continents.
The impact on human toxicity coming from the raw materials is mainly due to the use of acrylates.
6.3.1.4

Printing

The table and graph below show the results for the cotton paper printing process. The inks are specificto the cotton paper substrate, the set-up substrate used for testing is paper, and bindery refers to the
packaging materials. The solvent reflects the exact solvent mixture used in the printing process, as wellas the wiping solution and ink preparation materials. Those are not detailed more specifically for
confidentiality reasons.

Page 49 of 117

Table 6-6. Cotton substrate printing (absolute values) – 100 bank notes, 2.5 manufacturing cycles

Note: the color coding indicates the lowest to highest impact phase for each indicator.
LowestHighestThe energy use (electricity and thermal energy) drives the environmental profile for most indicators
under study. The equipment requires electricity, but the most significant contribution is thermal energy
necessary to heat the facility in Canada. Electricity use dominates Ozone Depletion, and this is due tothe large portion of nuclear power in the Ontario grid mix (almost 50%).
Inks dominate USEToxTM (toxicity) because of the varnishes in the intaglio ink.
The set-up substrate contributes to Primary Energy Demand from renewable materials to eutrophication
because it is paper (made out of a renewable resource).
The ink preparation and wiping solution have overall a low impact, except for eutrophication (waterpollution), since emissions to water occur at this step (nitrogen, phosphorous, BOD, etc.).
The pre-press materials have a negligible impact for all indicators under study, except for Ecotoxicity. A
detailed analysis shows that the impact comes from the chablons (intaglio dry plates) and thelithography dry offset plates.

Page 50 of 117

Figure 6-7. Cotton substrate printing (relative) – 100 bank notes, 2.5 manufacturing cycles

6.3.2 PRODUCTION OF THE NEW DESIGN (POLYMER BANK NOTE)
The results below are shown for the functional unit under study.
6.3.2.1

Polymer substrate manufacturing

The table and graph below show the results for the polymer manufacturing.
Table 6-7. Polymer substrate bank notes manufacturing (absolute values) – 100 bank notes, 1 manufacturing cycle

Note: the color coding indicates the lowest to highest impact phase for each indicator.
Page 51 of 117

LowestHighestThe BOPP film production dominates the environmental profile for most indicators under study.
However Ozone Depletion is dominated by printing and this is due to the use of electricity from nuclear
power (approximately 50% of the Ontario grid mix)23.

Figure 6-8. Polymer substrate bank notes manufacturing (relative) – 100 bank notes, 1 manufacturing cycle

6.3.2.2

Foil manufacturing

The foil usage is different for the two types of bank notes, so the absolute contribution is different andshown in section 6.3.2.1. However, since the underlying data are the same, the environmental profile
for foil manufacturing (in percentage) is the same as for the current design. See section 6.3.1.3.
6.3.2.3

Printing

The printing process has been considered to be similar to the cotton paper bank notes. The maindifferences are the types of ink used, and a specific protective vanish for the polymer. The set-up
substrate is different as well, being BOPP instead of paper.
23

Nuclear power production is a source of dichlorotetrafluoroethane, which contributes significantly to Ozone
Depletion

Page 52 of 117

Table 6-8. Polymer substrate printing (absolute values) – 100 bank notes, 1 manufacturing cycle

Note: the color coding indicates the lowest to highest impact phase for each indicator.
LowestHighest

The results are similar to cotton paper printing, see section 6.3.1.4. However some differences are listed
below:The set-up substrate (polymer instead of paper) impacts very different environmental categories. It
appears in Global Warming Potential (where it contributes for more than 10%), whereas the paper setup substrate was “up-taking CO2”. It has a very small contribution to Primary Energy Demand fromrenewable resources, and it contributes to toxicity indicators, which was not the case for paper.
The second difference is the ink types and usage. The amounts of inks are similar for both substrates,
except that the polymer substrate printing uses more varnish.

Page 53 of 117

Figure 6-9. Polymer substrate printing (relative) – 100 bank notes, 1 manufacturing cycle

Page 54 of 117

7 INTERPRETATIONThis section shows the sensitivity analyses carried out and the overall conclusions of the study.

7.1 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
Analyses have been carried out to understand the influence of the lifetime of the new design bank note.
Furthermore, a sensitivity analysis has been carried out on printing energy use since there is someuncertainty around the difference in energy use during the printing process for the polymer bank noteand the cotton paper bank note.

7.1.1 INFLUENCE OF LIFETIME OF NEW BANK NOTES ON MANUFACTURING, DISTRIBUTION AND END OF
LIFE

The lifetime of the new polymer bank notes has been documented in other countries, where those banknotes have been in use for years. Because the lifetime can differ from one country to another (e.g.
different environmental, behavioral, weather conditions), a sensitivity analysis has been carried out on
the influence of the lifetime of the new bank note on the comparison.
For this analysis, the use phase has been ignored. Only the manufacturing, distribution and end of life
(landfill) have been accounted for. The graph below shows the relative impacts of the current design,
which has a known lifetime of 3 years, and the new design for several lifetime scenarios.
Summary of scenarios in graph:•Base scenario (100%) – Current design: 3-year lifetime•

New design: 3-year lifetime•

New design: 4-year lifetime•

New design: 5-year lifetime•

New design: 6-year lifetime•

New design: 7-year lifetime•

New design: 8-year lifetime•

New design: 9-year lifetime•

New design: 10-year lifetime

Page 55 of 117

Table 7-1. Sensitivity analysis on the lifetime of the new design – Manufacturing + Distribution + End of life only (not use)

Note: the color coding indicates the lowest to highest impact phase for each indicator.
LowestHighestPage 56 of 117

Figure 7-1. Sensitivity analysis on the life time of the new design – Manufacturing + Distribution + End of life only (not use)

Page 57 of 117

The graphs and tables show that the “break-even” point, when the polymer substrate shows benefit
for all environmental indicators under study is around 4 years of lifetime.
The polymer bank note would have a higher impact on the environment for some indicators, if it had
the same lifetime as the cotton paper one. However, because of its extended lifetime, it showsenvironmental benefits in the long run.

7.1.2 INFLUENCE OF A NON-LINEAR APPROACH FOR FACTOR INCREASE
The concern has been raised that a “linear approach” to this problem may misrepresent reality (it is not
physically possible to produce 2.5 bank notes). Therefore, this scenario analysis undertakes thefollowing assumptions:
Table 7-2. Assumptions for non-linear model

Bank note type

Number ofcyclesYears of operations
1 year

2 years

3 years

4 years

5 years

6 years

7 years

Cotton paperbank note

1

0

0

1

0

0

1

Polymer bank
note

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

This means that the 1st year, the polymer and cotton paper bank notes are manufactured, then the
cotton paper bank notes have to be manufactured again after 3 years of operation, whereas thepolymer bank notes do not need to be manufactured again, etc.
Consequently, after 7.5 years, there have been 3 cycles for the cotton paper bank note, and only one forthe polymer bank note in this approach.
The graph below shows the results for the 3 cycles (non-linear approach) for the current design, the 2.5
cycles (base scenario in the report) for the current design and 1 cycle (base scenario in the report) for
the new design.

Page 58 of 117

Figure 7-2. Results for non-linear approach

Because the non-linear approach increases the numbers of manufacturing/distribution/end-of-life
cycles from 2.5 to 3, it actually increases the gap between the two substrates over the 7.5 years ofoperation.

7.1.3 POLYMER ENERGY COEFFICIENT FOR PRINTING
Since the polymer bank notes printing was still in trials at the time of this study, there is someuncertainty around the difference in energy use during the printing process for the polymer bank noteand the cotton paper bank note, therefore a sensitivity analysis has been carried out. The base scenarioof this analysis is that there is no difference between the energy use for printing between the two
substrates. Additional scenarios have been calculated for a range of 0% to 50% more energy needed forthe printing of the polymer bank note.
The scenarios take into account the differences in lifetime for the two designs, and therefore the factthat the cotton paper substrate is going through 2.5 manufacturing cycles. The base scenario is thecurrent design (cotton paper substrate), printing phase only (figure 7-3), and entire life cycle (figure 7-4).
The graphs below show that this difference in energy usage influences the impact of printing on thepolymer substrate. However, it does not inverse the trend regarding the benefits of polymer substrateversus cotton paper. The impact on the overall life cycle has been studied as well, and the results showthat it does not influence at all the high level results.
Page 59 of 117

Figure 7-3. Sensitivity analysis of the energy usage at the printing phase - printing phase ONLY

Page 60 of 117

Figure 7-4. Sensitivity analysis of the energy usage at the printing phase – Overall life cycle

Page 61 of 117

7.2 CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS
7.2.1 CONCLUSIONS
According to the assumptions in this report, the new design (based on a polymer substrate) shows
benefits over the current design (based on a cotton paper substrate) because of:
1. Manufacturing: an increased lifetime compared to the cotton paper bank note contributes to alower overall impact; even if the manufacturing of one polymer bank note has a higher
environmental impact, the fact that it lasts longer offsets this effect
2. Distribution: the polymer bank note has to be transported 2.5 less times than the cotton paperbank notes. Because of its extended lifetime, it requires less transport of fresh notes to thesystem, and fewer unfit bank notes sent back to the banking system. Additionally, the weightof the polymer bank note is lighter; because shipments are limited by value and not weight, alighter weight shows environmental benefit over time
3. End-of-life: the polymer is mostly made of inactive carbon, which in contrary to cotton paper,
does not contribute to GHG emissions in landfill.
The results of the sensitivity analysis also show that the gap between the new design and the current
design increases with the lifetime of the polymer bank note. The longer the polymer bank note is incirculation, the greater the advantage of polymer compared to the cotton paper bank note.
An interesting insight is that most of the impacts over the life cycle come from the distribution and use
phase. Consequently, even if the manufacturing and design are important, improving the supply chain
and ATMs energy usage would have the most significant benefit in reducing the environmental impactof bank notes.

7.2.2 LIMITATIONS
Most of the data have been collected from the suppliers and are considered to be of high quality, but
the model contains a few assumptions, which could be refined in future studies. For instance, someassumptions have been made about ATMs (see section 4.4). Since the impact of ATMs is significant, theanalysis could be refined, but would still be the same for both types of bank notes. Furthermore thisstudy did not collect information on if ATM machines consume less energy per unit of polymer vs.
cotton paper bank notes. This would be an interesting point to investigate for future projects.
In addition, all the designs and supply chain data represent the Canadian bank notes specific situation.
The conclusions and recommendations are directed to the Bank of Canada. The environmental profile ofthe bank notes and the conclusions may differ in another country.

Page 62 of 117

8 DUE DILIGENCE EVALUATIONThis section is beyond the scope of the Life Cycle Assessment study (as defined by ISO 14040) and assuch is not subject to review by the LCA Critical Review Panel.
The due diligence report is based on a review of:
1. the primary data provided by suppliers and database data available and contained within the LCA
2. environmental and product safety legislation in Canada.
Where components are identified by Canadian legislation as substances of concern, a summary
evaluation is provided. The main focus concerns substances contained within the finished bank note.
The purpose of this due diligence evaluation is to provide information where materials of potential
concern are identified, and does not represent either a legal, toxicological or detailed risk assessment,
nor does it represent a due diligence audit. The evaluation may, in certain circumstances, identify areas
for further investigation at some future point.
No samples were obtained or analyzed by PE Americas or Tryskele during the project.
The full due diligence evaluation is contained in a separate report.

Page 63 of 117

APPENDIX A. POLYMER VS. PAPER BANK NOTES LIFETIMES IN OTHER COUNTRIESCentral banks are responsible for tracking the performance of bank notes within their country. All of thedata in this appendix were collected by the respective central banks and are publically available.
Each country has a unique circulation environment that contributes to bank note lifetimes. Influences
on bank note lifetimes include weather, cultural habits, and distribution patterns within that country. In
addition, central banks define the “fit-for-use” criteria depending on their specific circulation
environment. The bank notes are assessed for criteria such as soiling, tears and ink wear. Eachdenomination within one country will have a different circulation lifetime; the highest denominations
last considerably longer than the lowest denominations.
As there are a multitude of influential factors, it is very difficult to compare bank note lifetime results indifferent countries. However, it is important to give some context to the lifetimes assumed in thisreport.
The table below displays the lifetime of paper vs. polymer bank notes in countries where the polymer
bank notes have been implemented. This table shows a wide range of countries, denominations, banknote designs and circulation environments. The paper bank note data were drawn prior to polymer
introduction in that country.
Table A-1. Ratio of polymer vs. paper bank notes lifetimes in countries currently using polymer bank notes24

Factor increase (ratio polymer
lifetime/paper lifetime)

Australia

New Zealand

MexicoPapua New Guinea

$1025

$2026

20 Peso27

2 Kina28

3.8

4.9

3.5

4.8

New Zealand converted from paper to polymer notes in 1999. The table below gives data for all paper
and polymer denominations in their circulation environment. The $20 denomination is the ATM
denomination, similar to the Canadian environment. The lifetime factor increase was calculated using
the change in bank note destruction rates relative to the total volume of notes in circulation for paper
and polymer.

24

Source: data collected by the respective Central Banks
http://www.noteprinting.com/banknotes_durability.html
26
http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/research/bulletin/2007_2011/Mar10_73_1Langwasser.pdf
27
http://www.banxico.org.mx/billetes-y-monedas/informacion-general/fabricacion-de-billetes-y-acunacion-demoneda/material-educativo/%7BEC6DF766-7FF3-AAAF-FE2E-12D5D7831EFB%7D.pdf
28
http://www.noteprinting.com/banknotes_durability.html
25Page 64 of 117

Table A-2. Ratio of polymer vs. paper bank notes lifetimes in New Zealand for all denominations

Denomination

$5

$10

$20

$50

$100

Factor increase (ratio polymer
lifetime/paper lifetime)

4.7

4.5

4.9

5.5

7.3

In New Zealand, the lifetime factor increase ranged from 4.5 to 7.3, depending on the denomination,
when they switched from paper to polymer bank notes. Consequently, the Bank of Canada’s
assumption of 2.5 as a lifetime factor increase is conservative.
The Bank of Canada paper bank notes have lifetimes given by the data in the table below (as publishedon the Bank of Canada website29).
Table A-3. Paper bank notes lifetimes in Canada for all denominations

Denomination

$5

$10

$20

$50

$100

Paper note lifetime (months)

12-24

12-24

24-48

48-72

72-10829

http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/banknotes/facts.html

Page 65 of 117

APPENDIX B. IMPACT ASSESSMENT WITH CML INDICATORSThe results are displayed below for the CML methodology.
Table B-1. Results with CML LCIA methodology for the current design (7.5 years)

Table B-2. Results with CML LCIA methodology for the new design (7.5 years)

Page 66 of 117

APPENDIX C. LCIA DESCRIPTIONSLife Cycle Impact categories included in this report were based on Impact categories and methods
appropriate for use in the US. The current state of the science of life cycle impact methodology consistsof the US EPA TRACI (Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other Environmental
Impacts) impact assessment methodology. The following is a summary description of the methods andapplicable references.
•••

TRACI Impact Categories referenced in this report:o Acidificationo Eutrophicationo Photo-Oxidant Formationo Stratospheric Ozone Depletion
IPCC
o Climate Change
USEToxTM

Primary Energy Demand is not an impact but is included in this section as it is also a sum value indicating
the total amount of energy extracted from earth or based on renewable and fossil resources; it is notincluded in the TRACI methodology. Primary energy demand is a direct measure of the energy (bothrenewable and nonrenewable) required to perform an activity or operate a process. It is typicallymeasured in units of megajoules (MJ).
A detailed description of the TRACI impact categories used in this report are described below.

GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL/CLIMATE CHANGE
Global climate change refers to the potential change in the earth’s climate caused by the build-up ofchemicals (i.e. “greenhouse gases”) that trap heat from the reflected sunlight that would have otherwise
passed out of the earth’s atmosphere. Since pre-industrial times atmospheric concentrations of CO2,
CH4, and N20 have climbed by over 30%, 145% and 15%, respectively. While “sinks” exist for greenhousegases (e.g. oceans and land vegetation absorb carbon dioxide), the rate of emissions in the industrial age
has been exceeding the rate of absorption.
Simulations by researchers within the research community of global warming are currently being
conducted to try to quantify the potential endpoint effects of these exceedences, including increased
droughts, floods, loss of polar ice caps, sea level rise, soil moisture loss, forest loss, change in wind andocean patterns, changes in agricultural production, decreased biodiversity and increasing occurrences ofextreme weather events.
TRACI uses Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) - a midpoint metric. The global warming potentials(GWPs) are based on recommendations contained within the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Page 67 of 117

Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR) (IPCC 2001) to adhere to the international agreement by
parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (FCCC 1996) (EPA
2004):
The 100-year time horizons are recommended by the IPCC and are used by the U.S. for policy making
and reporting, (EPA 2004) and are adopted within TRACI. The final sum, known as the Global Warming
Index (GWI), indicates the potential contribution to global warming.
Units of Global Warming Potential Results: CO2 equivalents/kg emission

Figure C-1. Greenhouse Effect

References
Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC). 1996. Report to the Conference of the Parties at its
second session, held at Geneva from 8 to 19 July 1996: Addendum Part Two: Action taken by the
Conference of the Parties at its second session. Document FCCC/CP/1996/15/Add.1. United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change, Bonn, Germany.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2001. Climate change 2000: The science of climatechange. Edited by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: J. T. Houghton, L. G. Meira Filho, B. A.
Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg, and K. Maskell. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions andSinks:1990 – 2002, Annex 6 Additional Information. Document EPA 430-R-04-003. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

ACIDIFICATION
Acidification refers literally to processes that increase the acidity (hydrogen ion concentration) of waterand soil systems. The common mechanism for acidification is deposition of negatively charged ions(anions) that are then removed via leaching, or biochemical processes, leaving excess (positive)hydrogen ion concentrations (H+) in the system. The major acidifying emissions are oxides of nitrogen
Page 68 of 117

(NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2), as well as ammonia emissions that lead to ammonium deposition. Acidrain generally reduces the alkalinity of lakes; changes in the alkalinity of lakes, related to their acidneutralizing capacity (ANC) are used as a diagnostic for freshwater systems analogous to the use of H+
budgets in terrestrial watersheds (Schlesinger 1997). Acid deposition also has deleterious (corrosive)
effects on buildings, monuments, and historical artifacts.
The stressor-effects for acidification has three stages. Emissions lead to deposition (via a complex set of
atmospheric transport and chemistry processes), which in turn can lead to a variety of site-dependent
ecosystem impacts – damages to plant and animal populations (via a complex set of chemical andecological processes). Deposition occurs through three routes: wet (rain, snow, sleet, etc.), dry (direct
deposition of particles and gasses onto leaves, soil, surface water, etc.) and cloud water deposition(from cloud and fog droplets onto leaves, soil, etc.).
As described in Norris (2002), the acidification model in TRACI makes use of the results of an empiricallycalibrated atmospheric chemistry and transport model to estimate total North American terrestrial
deposition of expected H+ equivalents due to atmospheric emissions of NOx and SO2, as a function of
the emissions location.
The resulting acidification characterization factors are expressed in H+ mole equivalent deposition per
kg emission. Characterization factors take account of expected differences in total deposition as a resultof the pollutant release location. Factors for acidification are available for each U.S. state. In many LCIA
applications the location of the emission source will be known with less precision than the state level forprocesses within the life cycle inventory. Therefore, additional characterization factors were developedfor each of four U.S. regions, for two larger regional divisions (either east or west of the Mississippi
river), and for the U.S. as a whole. For each of these larger regions, the composite factor was createdusing an annual emissions-weighted average of its constituent states.
As reported in (Norris 2002), regional characterization factors range from roughly 20% of the U.S.
average to 160% of the U.S. average, and deviation from the U.S. average is variable between SO2 andNOx; that is, the effect of source region upon a characterization factors’ deviation from the national
average values varies somewhat between SO2 and NOx. Although the majority of acidic deposition in
North America stems from emissions of NOx (NO and NO2) and SO2 (including SOx as SO2), significant
amounts are also due to emissions of ammonia, and trace amounts from emissions of HCl, and HF.
TRACI adopts U.S. average characterization factors for these trace emissions, based on their H+
formation potentials per kg emitted in relation to SO2.
The benefits of the new TRACI method for characterization of acidifying emissions, relative to prior nonregionalized method like Heijungs et al. (1992), are the increased ability for LCIA results to take into
account location-based differences in expected impact. These benefits stem from the fact that the
TRACI acidification factors pertain to a focused midpoint within the impact chain – total terrestrial
deposition -- for which there is considerable, well-understood, and quantifiable variability among source
regions.
Page 69 of 117

There are at least two ways in which the regional variability in deposition potential can have an impact
on the acidification potential. In the event that the alternatives have their processes (and thus theiremissions) clustered in different regions, the overall deposition potentials for both SO2 and NOx canvary by as much as a factor of 5 or more (see Norris 2002). Another possibility is that the alternatives
have their processes predominantly clustered in the same regions. If this is the case, then the relative
deposition potentials of a kg of NOx versus SO2 emissions can vary by nearly a factor of two from one
region to another. In this instance, using the region-appropriate characterization factors may be
important to the overall study outcome.
The modeling stops at the midpoint in the cause-effect chain (deposition) because in the U.S. there is noregional database of receiving environment sensitivities (as is available in Europe). Thus, the source
region-based variability in total terrestrial deposition has been captured, but not the receiving regionbased variability in sensitivity or ultimate damage. Future advances of the TRACI acidification method
may address regionalized transport and deposition of ammonia emissions, and investigate the potential
to account for regional differentiation of receiving environment sensitivities.
Units of Acidification Results: H+ moles equivalent deposition/kg emission

Figure C-2: Acidification Potential

References
Heijungs, R., J. Guinée, G. Huppes, R. Lankreijer, H. Udo de Haes, A. Wegener Sleeswijk, A. Ansems, P.
Eggels, R. van Duin, and H. de Goede. 1992. Environmental life cycle assessment of products. Vol. 1,
Guide, Vol. 2, Backgrounds. Leiden, The Netherlands: Centre of Environmental Science, Leiden
University.
Norris, G. 2002. Impact characterization in the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical andother environmental impacts: Methods for acidification, eutrophication, and ozone formation. Journalof Industrial Ecology 6(3-4): 83–105.
Schlesinger, W. 1997. Biogeochemistry: An analysis of global change. Boston: Academic Press.
Page 70 of 117

EUTROPHICATION POTENTIAL“The most common impairment of surface waters in the U.S. is eutrophication caused by excessive
inputs of phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N). Impaired waters are defined as those that are not suitable fordesignated uses such as drinking, irrigation, by industry, recreation, or fishing. Eutrophication is
responsible for about half of the impaired lake area, 60% of the impaired rivers in the U.S., and is also
the most widespread pollution problem of U.S. estuaries” (Carpenter et al, 1998).
Eutrophication means fertilization of surface waters by nutrients that were previously scarce. When apreviously scarce (limiting) nutrient is added, it leads to proliferation of algae. This may lead to a chainof further consequences, potentially including foul odors or taste, death or poisoning of fish or shellfish,
reduced biodiversity, or production of chemical compounds toxic to humans, marine mammals, or
livestock. The limiting nutrient issue is key to characterization analysis of P and N releases within LCIA.
If equal quantities of N and P are released to a freshwater system that is strictly P-limited, then thecharacterization factors for these two nutrients should account for this fact (e.g., the characterization
factor for N should approach zero in this instance).
Prior to utilization of TRACI, it is important to determine the actual emissions that will be transported
into water. As an example, fertilizers are applied to provide nutrition to the vegetation that covers thesoil and therefore, only the run-off of fertilizer makes it into the waterways. The over-application rate ishighly variable and may depend on soil type, vegetation, topography, and even the timing of theapplication relative to weather events. The TRACI characterization factors for eutrophication are theproduct of a nutrient factor and a transport factor. The nutrient factor captures the relative strength of
influence on algae growth in the photic zone of aquatic ecosystems of 1 kg of N versus 1 kg of P, wheneach is the limiting nutrient. The location or context-based “transport factors” vary between 1 and zero,and take account of the probability that the release arrives in an aquatic environment (either initially or
via air or water transport) to which it is a limiting nutrient. The TRACI characterization method foreutrophication is described in more detail in the companion paper (Norris 2002).
The characterization factors estimate the eutrophication potential of a release of chemicals containing N
or P to air or water, per kg, relative to 1 kg N discharged directly to surface freshwater. The regionalvariability in the resulting eutrophication factors shows that the source location will influence not only
the relative strength of influence for a unit emission of a given pollutant, but it will also influence therelative strength of influence among pollutants. The benefits of the new TRACI method forcharacterization of eutrophying emissions, relative to a prior non-regionalized method like Heijungs etal. (1992) are increased ability for life cycle impact assessment results to take into account the expected
influence of location on both atmospheric and hydrologic nutrient transport, and thus the expected
influence of release location upon expected nutrient impact. The combined influence of atmospherictransport and deposition along with hydrologic transport can lead to total transport factors differing bya factor of 100 or more (Norris 2002).
Page 71 of 117

As with both acidification and photochemical oxidant formation, TRACI provides characterization factors
for nine different groups of U.S. states which are known as Census Regions, (see, for example,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/reps/maps/us_census.html) for eastern and western regions, and for the
U.S. as a whole, for use when the location of the release is not more precisely known. For each of theselarger regions, the composite factor was created using an average of those for its constituent states.
Units of Eutrophication Results: Nitrogen equivalents/kg emission

Figure C-3: Eutrophication Potential

References
Carpenter, S., N. Caraco, D. Correll, R. Howarth, A. Sharpley, and V. Smith. 1998. Nonpoint pollution of
surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecological Applications 8(3): 559–568.
Heijungs, R., J. Guinée, G. Huppes, R. Lankreijer, H. Udo de Haes, A. Wegener Sleeswijk, A. Ansems, P.
Eggels, R. van Duin, and H. de Goede. 1992. Environmental life cycle assessment of products. Vol. 1,
Guide, Vol. 2, Backgrounds. Leiden, The Netherlands: Centre of Environmental Science, Leiden
University.
Norris, G. 2002. Impact characterization in the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical andother environmental impacts: Methods for acidification, eutrophication, and ozone formation. Journalof Industrial Ecology 6(3-4): 83–105.

PHOTOCHEMICAL OZONE CREATION POTENTIAL (SMOG)
Ozone (O3) is a reactive oxidant gas produced naturally in trace amounts in the earth’s atmosphere.
Rates of ozone formation in the troposphere are governed by complex chemical reactions, which are
influenced by ambient concentrations of oxides of nitrogen (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
the mix of OCs, temperature, sunlight, and convective flows. In addition, recent research in theSouthern Oxidants Study (e.g., Chameides and Cowling 1995) indicates that carbon monoxide (CO) andmethane (CH4) can play a role in ozone formation.

Page 72 of 117

There are over 100 different types of VOC emitted to the atmosphere, and they can differ by more thanan order of magnitude in terms of their estimated influence on photochemical oxidant formation (e.g.,[Carter 1994]). Further complicating the issue is the fact that in most regions of the U.S., ambient VOC
concentrations are due largely to biological sources (trees). For example, in urban and suburban regionsof the U.S. at midday, biogenic VOCs can account for a significant fraction (e.g., 10-40%) of the total
ambient VOC reactivity (NRC 1991). In rural areas of the eastern U.S., biogenic VOCs contribute morethan 90% of the total ambient VOC reactivity in near-surface air.
Ozone in the troposphere leads to detrimental impacts on human health and ecosystems. The midpoint associated with photochemical oxidant formation is the formation of ozone molecules (O3) in the
troposphere.
Conventional smog characterization factors for LCIA have been based on European modeling of therelative reactivities among VOCs, and have neglected NOx entirely. This neglect of NOx is a highly
significant omission: throughout the past decade, numerous U.S. studies have found spatial andtemporal observations of near-surface ozone concentrations to be strongly correlated with ambient NOx
concentrations, and more weakly correlated with anthropogenic VOC emissions (see, for example, NRC
1991, Cardelino and Chameides 1995). Another omission in all existing smog characterization factors
has been the potential influence of emission location.
The approach to smog characterization analysis for VOCs and NOx in TRACI has the following
components: (1) relative influence of individual VOCs on smog formation; (2) relative influence of NOx
concentrations versus average VOC mixture on smog formation; (3) impact of emissions (by releaselocation) upon concentration by state; and (4) optional methods for aggregation of effects among
receiving states – either by area or population-weighted area.
To characterize the relative influence on O3 formation among the individual VOCs, Carter’s latest
maximum incremental reactivity calculations are used (Carter 2000). These reflect the estimatedrelative influence for conditions under which NOx availability is moderately high and VOCs are at theirmost influential upon O3 formation. For the relative influence of NOx emissions in comparison to thebase reactive organic gas mixture a mid-range factor of 2 is used, which is in agreement with empiricalstudies on regional impacts for the eastern U.S. (e.g., Cardelino and Chameides 1995), and is at the
middle of a range of model-based studies (Rabl and Eyre 1997, Seppälä 1997).
The influence of NOx emissions upon regional ambient levels has been modeled using source/receptor
matrices that relate the quantity of seasonal NOx emissions in a given source region to changes inambient NOx concentrations in each receiving region across North America. These source/receptor
matrices were obtained from simulations of the Advanced Statistical Trajectory Regional Air Pollution(ASTRAP) model (Shannon 1991, 1992, 1996). Source and receptor regions are the contiguous U.S.
states, plus Washington, D.C., plus the 10 Canadian Provinces, plus northern Mexico. Recent empiricalresearch (e.g., St. John et al. 1998, Kasibhatla et al. 1998) shows that average O3 concentrations exhibit
strong and stable correlations with regional ambient NOx concentrations.
Page 73 of 117

The assumption was made that VOC emission impacts on regional O3 concentrations have the same
spatial distribution as the ambient NOx concentration impacts (i.e., similar regional transport for VOCs
and NOx). Finally, the outcome of the source/transport modeling is proportional to estimated O3
concentration impacts (g/m2) per state, given an assumed linear relationship between the change inconcentration in NOx (with VOC-concentrations converted to NOx equivalents).
Finally there is the question of how to aggregate the effects of estimated changes in smog concentration
by state. Exposures leading to human health impacts will be related to the product of state level
ambient concentrations times state populations, assuming uniform population density within a state,assuming linear relationship between dose and risk of impact. Damages from impacts on forest andagricultural productivity are related in part to the scale of sensitive agricultural and forest output per
state. In the present version of TRACI, human health impacts are addressed, scaling the state level
concentration outcomes by state population before aggregating across states. The TRACI method forphotochemical oxidant formation is described in more detail in the companion paper (Norris 2002).
Units of Smog Formation Results: kg NOx equivalents/kg emission

Figure C-4: Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential

References
Cardelino, C. A. and W. L. Chameides. 1995. An observation-based model for analyzing ozone precursor
relationships in the urban atmosphere. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association 45: 161–
180.
Carter, W. 1994. Development of ozone reactivity scales for volatile organic compounds. Journal of the
Air and Waste Management Association 44:881–899.
Carter, W. 2000. Updated maximum incremental reactivity scale for regulatory applications.
Sacramento, CA: California Air Resources Board.
Chameides, W. L. and E. B. Cowling, eds. 1995. The state of the southern oxidants study: Policyrelevant
findings in ozone pollution research 1988 to 1994. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University.
Page 74 of 117

Kasibhatala, P., W. L. Chameides, R. D. Saylor, and D.Olerud. 1998. Relationships between regionalozone pollution and emissions of nitrogen oxides in the eastern United States. Journal of GeophysicalResearch 103(D17): 22663–22669.
Norris, G. 2002. Impact characterization in the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical andother environmental impacts: Methods for acidification, eutrophication, and ozone formation. Journalof Industrial Ecology 6(3-4): 83–105.
NRC (National Research Council). 1991. Rethinking the ozone problem in urban and regional air
pollution. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Rabl, A. and N. Eyre. 1997. An estimate of regional and global O3 damage from precursor NOx and VOCemissions. Unpublished manuscript. Paris: Ecole des Mines.
Seppälä, J. 1997. Decision analysis as a tool for life cycle impact assessment. Helsinki: Finnish
Environment Institute.
Shannon, J. D. 1991. Modeled sulfur deposition trends since 1900 in North America. In Air pollution
modeling and its application, Vol. 8, edited by H. van Dop and G. Kallos. New York: Plenum.
Shannon, J. D. 1992. Regional analysis of S emission deposition trends in North America from 1979
through 1988. In Air pollution modeling and its application, Vol. 9, edited by H. van Dop and G. Kallos.
New York: Plenum.
Shannon, J. D. 1996. Atmospheric pathways module. In Tracking and analysis framework (TAF) model
documentation and user’s guide: An interactive model for integrated assessment of Title IV of the Clean
Air Act Amendments. ANL/DIS/TM-36. Argonne, IL: Argonne National Laboratory.
St. John, J. C.,W. Chameides, and R. Saylor. 1998. The role of anthropogenic NOx and VOC as ozone
precursors: A case study from the SOS Nashville/Middle Tennessee ozone study. Journal of GeophysicalResearch 103(D17): 22415–22423.

OZONE DEPLETION POTENTIAL
Most ozone resides in the upper part of the atmosphere. This region, called the stratosphere, is morethan 10 kilometers (6 miles) above Earth’s surface. There, about 90% of atmospheric ozone is containedin the “ozone layer,” which shields us from harmful ultraviolet radiation from the Sun. However, it was
discovered in the mid-1970s that some human-produced chemicals could destroy ozone and deplete theozone layer. The resulting increase in ultraviolet radiation at Earth’s surface may increase the incidencesof skin cancer and eye cataracts.
Human activities cause the emission of halogen source gases that contain chlorine and bromine atoms.
These emissions into the atmosphere ultimately lead to stratospheric ozone depletion. The source gasesthat contain only carbon, chlorine, and fluorine are called “chlorofluorocarbons,” usually abbreviated asPage 75 of 117

CFCs. CFCs, along with carbon tetrachloride (CCl4) and methyl chloroform (CH3CCl3), historically havebeen the most important chlorine-containing gases that are emitted by human activities and destroy
stratospheric ozone. These and other chlorine-containing gases have been used in many applications,
including refrigeration, air conditioning, foam blowing, aerosol propellants, and cleaning of metals andelectronic components.
In Life Cycle Assessments, Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP) is referred to in CFC-11-equivalents. Since
most ozone depleting compounds were phased out by the Montreal Protocol in 1987, the stratosphericozone layer has been recovering and there are very few ozone depleting emissions.

USETOXTMThe USEtoxTM model is an environmental model for characterization of human and ecotoxic impacts inLife Cycle Impact Assessment and for comparative assessment and ranking of chemicals according totheir inherent hazard characteristics. The USEtoxTM model has been developed under by a team ofresearchers from the Task Force on Toxic Impacts under the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative.
The mission of the USEtox Team is to improve understanding and management of chemicals in the
global environment by further developing, evaluating, applying and disseminating the model USEtox
that describes the fate, exposure and effects of chemicals.
USEtox provides a parsimonious and transparent tool for human health and ecosystem characterization
factor (CF) estimates. It has been carefully constructed as well as evaluated via comparison with othermodels and falls within the range of their results whilst being less complex. It may thus serve as aninterface between the more sophisticated state-of-the-art expert models (such as those compared inthis study and which frequently change due to latest scientific developments being included) and theneed of practitioners for transparency, broad stakeholder acceptance and stability of factors andmethods applied in LCA. Based on a referenced database, USEtox has been used to calculate CFs forseveral thousand substances and forms the basis of the recommendations from UNEP–SETAC’s Life
Cycle Initiative regarding characterization of toxic impacts in life cycle assessment. USEtox therefore
provides the largest substance coverage presently available in term of numbers of chemicals covered.
Furthermore, model uncertainty has partly been quantified. USEtox thus represents a significantly
improved basis for a wider application of human health and ecotoxicity characterization factors in LCA.
References
Ralph K. Rosenbaum et al., USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterization
factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment, Int J Life Cycle
Assess DOI 10.1007/s11367-008-0038-4
Michael Hauschild et al, International consensus model for comparative assessment of chemical
emissions in LCA

Page 76 of 117

Michael Hauschild et al, Building a Model Based on Scientific Consensus for Life Cycle Impact
Assessment of Chemicals: The Search for Harmony and Parsimony, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 7032–
7037
http://www.usetox.org

PRIMARY ENERGY CONSUMPTION
Primary energy demand is the quantity of energy directly withdrawn from the hydrosphere,
atmosphere, geosphere, or energy source without any anthropogenic changes. It is a measure of thelevel resource used across the life cycle of a product.
For fossil fuels and uranium, this would be the amount of resource withdrawn expressed in its energy
equivalent (i.e. the energy content of the raw material). For renewable resources, the energycharacterized amount of biomass consumed would be described. For hydropower, it would be based on
the amount of energy that is gained from the change in the potential energy of the water (i.e. from theheight difference). As aggregated values, the following primary energies are designated:
The total “Primary energy consumption non-renewable”, given in MJ, essentially characterizes the gainfrom the energy sources natural gas, crude oil, lignite, coal and uranium. Natural gas and crude oil wereused both for energy production and as material constituents e.g. in plastics. Coal was primarily used forenergy production. Uranium was only used for electricity production in nuclear power stations.
The total “Primary energy consumption renewable”, given in MJ, is generally accounted separately andcomprises hydropower, wind power, solar energy, and biomass. It is important that the end energy (e.g.
1 kWh of electricity) and the primary energy used are not miscalculated with each other; otherwise theefficiency for production or supply of the end energy has not been accounted for.
The energy content of the manufactured products is considered as feedstock energy content. It wascharacterized by the net calorific value of the product. It represents the still usable energy content.

Page 77 of 117

APPENDIX D. CRADLE-TO-GRAVE LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY
Paper Bank note (current design)
INPUTS
Flow categories

Flows

Energy resources
Non renewableenergy resources
Crude oil (resource)

1.32E+02

MJ

Hard coal (resource)
Lignite (resource)
Natural gas (resource)
Uranium (resource)

1.33E+02
7.13E+01
1.28E+02
3.27E+02

MJ
MJ
MJ
MJ

Primary energy from hydro powerPrimary energy from solar energy

2.79E+02
1.60E+01

MJ
MJ

Primary energy from waves
Primary energy from wind power
Renewable fuels
Wood

2.70E-06
2.41E+00
3.94E-06
3.27E-03

MJ
MJ
MJ
MJ

Chromium

8.00E-15

kg

Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Nickel

5.02E-14
6.71E-04
9.20E-10
3.41E-29
3.03E-09
4.28E-13

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Phosphorus
Rhodium

3.57E-12
4.92E-14kg
kg

SiliconSulphur

2.54E-09
2.28E-06

kg
kg

Zinc

5.33E-11kg

Antimony - gold - ore (0.09%)
Barium sulphate
Basalt

1.36E-05
1.35E-13
2.08E+00

kg
kg
kg

Renewable energy
resources

Material
resources
Non renewableelements

Non renewable
resources

Page 78 of 117

Bauxite

1.88E-03

kg

Bentonite
Calcium chloride

2.46E-02
1.38E-11kg
kg

Chalk (Calciumcarbonate)
Chromium ore (39%)

1.34E-36
1.29E-03

kg
kg

Clay
Colemanite ore

6.28E-02
3.08E-05

kg
kg

Copper - Gold - Ore (1,07% Cu; 0,54 g/t
Au)
Copper - Gold - Silver - ore (0,51% Cu; 0,6
g/t Au; 1,5 g/t Ag)

1.41E-05kg

4.08E-05

kg

Copper - Gold - Silver - ore (1,0% Cu; 0,4
g/t Au; 66 g/t Ag)

3.00E-03

kg

Copper - Gold - Silver - ore (1,1% Cu; 0,01
g/t Au; 2,86 g/t Ag)

4.02E-03

kg

Copper - Gold - Silver - ore (1,13% Cu;
1,05 g/t Au; 3,72 g/t Ag)

4.39E-04

kg

Copper - Gold - Silver - ore (1,16% Cu;
0,002 g/t Au; 1,06 g/t Ag)

2.27E-03

kg

Copper - Gold - Silver - ore (1,7% Cu; 0,7
g/t Au; 3,5 g/t Ag)

3.31E-05

kg

Copper - Molybdenum - Gold - Silver ore (1,13% Cu; 0,02% Mo; 0,01 g/t Au;
2,86 g/t Ag)
Copper - Silver - ore (3,3% Cu; 5,5 g/t Ag)

2.50E-03

kg

Copper ore (0.14%)
Copper ore (1.2%)

2.29E-05
1.49E-03
3.11E-04

kg
kg
kg

Copper ore (4%)
Copper ore (sulphidic, 1.1%)

6.50E-13
7.71E-10kg
kg

Dolomite
Feldspar (aluminum silicates)
Ferro manganese
Fluorspar (calcium fluoride; fluorite)
GraniteGraphite

6.07E-07
3.74E-04
1.15E-10
2.57E-04
8.21E-18
8.25E-06

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Gypsum (natural gypsum)
Heavy spar (BaSO4)
Ilmenite (titanium ore)
Inert rock

5.38E-03
5.90E-02
2.38E-06
1.10E+02

kg
kg
kg
kg

Iron ore (56,86%)
Iron ore (65%)

3.08E-02
1.62E-05

kg
kg

Kaolin ore

1.15E-05

kg

Page 79 of 117

Lead - Zinc - Silver - ore (5,49% Pb;
12,15% Zn; 57,4 gpt Ag)

1.58E-06

kg

Lead - zinc ore (4.6%-0.6%)

4.94E-03kg

Limestone (calcium carbonate)
Magnesit (Magnesium carbonate)

5.14E-01
8.07E-03

kg
kg

Magnesium chloride leach (40%)
Manganese ore

2.82E-03
6.94E-05

kg
kg

Manganese ore (R.O.M.)
Molybdenite (Mo 0,24%)

1.24E-03
1.53E-03

kg
kg

Natural Aggregate
Nickel ore (1,5%)

9.13E-01
1.36E-02

kg
kg

Nickel ore (1.6%)
OlivinePeat
Perlite (Rhyolithe)
Phosphate ore
Phosphorus minerals
Phosphorus ore (29% P2O5)
Potashsalt, crude (hard salt, 10% K2O)
Potassium chloride
Precious metal ore (R.O.M)
Quartz sand (silica sand; silicon dioxide)

3.93E-03
1.19E-09
1.46E-04
5.48E-03
1.14E-01
1.22E-06
2.87E-04
1.08E-01
2.10E-03
1.60E-04
6.72E-02

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Raw pumice
Rutile (titanium ore)
sand
Slate
Sodium chloride (rock salt)
Sodium nitrate
Sodium sulphate
Soil
Sulphur (bonded)

1.11E-06
1.92E-36
1.29E-07
9.06E-12
5.28E-02
1.02E-28
8.43E-08
3.77E-01
3.11E-09

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Talc
Tin oreTitanium ore
Zinc - copper ore (4.07%-2.59%)
Zinc - lead - copper ore (12%-3%-2%)
Zinc - Lead - Silver - ore (8,54% Zn; 5,48%
Pb; 94 g/t Ag)

1.92E-06
1.17E-14
1.66E-02
1.66E-03
9.04E-04
1.24E-05

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Zinc - lead ore (4.21%-4.96%)

2.22E-13

kg

Zinc ore (sulphidic, 4%)5.85E-13

kg

Water

3.24E+02

kg

Renewable resources

Page 80 of 117

Air

1.62E+02

kg

Carbon dioxide

1.58E+00

kg

Organic emissions to air (group VOC)Group NMVOC to air

1.05E-14
1.05E-14kg
kg

Halogenated organic emissions to air

1.05E-14kg

Chromium (unspecified)
Copper (+II)
Lead (+II)
Nickel (+II)
Zinc (+II)

1.27E-07
1.53E-06
2.25E-08
7.55E-08
1.15E-05

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Water
Nitrogen
Oxygen1.82E+02
7.62E-03
8.19E-01

kg
kg
kg

Antimony
Arsenic (+V)
Arsenic trioxide
Cadmium (+II)
Chromium (+III)
Chromium (+VI)
Chromium (unspecified)
CobaltCopper (+II)
Heavy metals to air (unspecified)Hydrogen arsenic (arsine)
Iron
Lanthanides

4.25E-07
1.35E-06
3.37E-12
1.43E-07
6.20E-09
6.42E-10
7.84E-07
3.11E-07
1.36E-06
2.57E-09
2.80E-10
2.43E-07
2.57E-11

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Lead (+II)
Manganese (+II)

3.24E-06
2.83E-06

kg
kg

Mercury (+II)
Molybdenum

5.55E-07
1.64E-08

kg
kg

Emissions to air

Emissions toagricultural soil

OUTPUTS
Flow categories

Flows

Material
resources
Renewable resources

Emissions to air
Heavy metals to air

Page 81 of 117

Nickel (+II)

1.70E-06

kg

Palladium
Rhodium

3.82E-16
3.69E-16

kg
kg

Selenium
Silver

4.99E-06
1.21E-14kg
kg

Tellurium
Thallium

5.57E-10
8.61E-09kg
kg

Tin (+IV)
Titanium

8.42E-07
1.64E-09

kg
kg

Vanadium (+III)
Zinc (+II)

1.23E-05
1.12E-05

kg
kg

Ammonia
Ammonium

4.13E-04
1.16E-06

kg
kg

Ammonium nitrate
Argon

1.83E-11
1.77E-11kg
kg

BariumBeryllium

5.10E-05
3.58E-08

kg
kg

Boron
Boron compounds (unspecified)

3.13E-14
7.45E-05

kg
kg

BromineCarbon dioxide

2.38E-05
3.78E+01

kg
kg

Carbon dioxide (biotic)
Carbon dioxide (biotic)
Carbon disulphide
Carbon monoxide

4.76E-04
1.82E-02
3.44E-10
4.81E-02

kg
kg
kg
kg

Chloride (unspecified)
Chlorine

4.05E-06
1.59E-05

kg
kg

Cyanide (unspecified)Fluoride
Fluorides
Fluorine

1.22E-07
1.59E-05
6.56E-07
1.27E-09

kg
kg
kg
kg

HeliumHydrazine (H2N4)

1.06E-07
3.67E-13

kg
kg

HydrogenHydrogen bromine (hydrobromic acid)
Hydrogen chloride
Hydrogen cyanide (prussic acid)
Hydrogen fluoride
Hydrogen iodide
Hydrogen phosphorous

1.16E-04
4.64E-09
1.95E-03
3.81E-09
2.99E-04
4.12E-12
9.75E-11

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Inorganic emissions
to airPage 82 of 117

Hydrogen sulphide

5.59E-05

kg

Lead dioxide
Magnesium

1.27E-10
5.17E-08

kg
kg

Nitrogen (atmospheric nitrogen)Nitrogen dioxide

5.71E-03
5.27E-06

kg
kg

Nitrogen monoxide
Nitrogen oxides

7.97E-05
1.01E-01

kg
kg

Nitrous oxide (laughing gas)
Oxygen9.33E-04
2.67E-02

kg
kg

ScandiumSteam

1.21E-11
9.54E+01

kg
kg

Strontium
Sulphur dioxide
Sulphur hexafluoride
Sulphuric acidTin oxide
Zinc oxide
Zinc sulphate

4.88E-10
1.24E-01
8.67E-09
2.53E-08
1.10E-11
2.21E-11
7.01E-09

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Anthracene

9.53E-10kg

Benzo{a}anthracene
Benzo{a}pyrene

4.79E-10
3.01E-09

kg
kg

Benzo{ghi}perylene
Benzofluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a)anthracene

4.27E-10
8.55E-10
1.18E-09
2.66E-10

kg
kg
kg
kg

Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene
Naphthalene

3.18E-10
1.01E-07

kg
kg

Phenanthrene
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)

3.14E-08
1.45E-06kgkg

1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,2-Dibromoethane
bromoform (US LCI)
Carbon tetrachloride (tetrachloromethane)
Chlorobenzene
Chloromethane (methyl chloride)
Chlorotoluene (Benzylchloride)

1.88E-11
2.59E-15
8.41E-14
2.64E-12
4.74E-14
1.14E-12
1.51E-12

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Dichloroethane (1,2-Dichloroethane)
Dichloroethane (ethylene dichloride)

8.63E-14
4.73E-14

kg
kg

Organic emissions toair (group VOC)

Halogenated organic
emissions to air

Page 83 of 117

Dichloromethane (methylene chloride)

4.39E-09kg

Dioxins (unspec.)
Ethyl chloride

2.58E-14
9.06E-14kg
kg

Halogenated hydrocarbons (unspecified)
Methyl bromide

6.83E-12
3.45E-13

kg
kg

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB unspecified)
Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (2,3,7,8 TCDD)

6.22E-10
3.92E-12

kg
kg

R 11 (trichlorofluoromethane)

4.30E-06

kg

R 113 (trichlorofluoroethane)
R 114 (dichlorotetrafluoroethane)

8.71E-15
4.40E-06

kg
kg

R 116 (hexafluoroethane)
R 12 (dichlorodifluoromethane)
R 13 (chlorotrifluoromethane)
R 22 (chlorodifluoromethane)
Tetrachloroethene (perchloroethylene)
Tetrafluoromethane
Trichloroethene (isomers)
Trichloromethane (chloroform)
Vinyl chloride (VCM; chloroethene)

1.43E-09
9.24E-07
5.80E-07
1.01E-06
2.47E-10
3.72E-08
1.87E-13
1.27E-13
2.02E-08

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

2,4-Dinitrotoluene

6.04E-16kg

Acentaphthene
Acetaldehyde (Ethanal)
Acetic acid
Acetone (dimethylcetone)

2.40E-12
5.94E-06
2.54E-05
5.73E-06

kg
kg
kg
kg

Acrolein
Acrylonitrile

8.29E-09
4.06E-06

kg
kg

Aldehyde (unspecified)
Alkane (unspecified)
Alkene (unspecified)Aromatic hydrocarbons (unspecified)

1.15E-05
1.10E-04
9.31E-05
1.74E-06

kg
kg
kg
kg

BenzeneBiphenyl

2.79E-05
7.99E-12kg
kg

Butadiene
ButaneButane (n-butane)
Butanone (methyl ethyl ketone)
Cumene (isopropylbenzene)
Cyclohexane (hexahydro benzene)
Diethylamine

4.06E-06
3.21E-04
6.99E-05
5.21E-08
1.59E-12
7.88E-09
1.32E-11

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Other organic
emissionsPage 84 of 117

Dioctylphthalate (DOP)

1.57E-13kg

EthaneEthanol

1.02E-03
1.15E-05

kg
kg

Ethene (ethylene)
Ethyl benzene

4.41E-07
9.25E-05

kg
kg

Fluoranthene
Fluorene

3.10E-09
9.84E-09

kg
kg

Formaldehyde (methanal)
Furan

9.45E-05
2.14E-14kg
kg

Heptane (isomers)
Hexamethylene diamine (HMDA)

6.42E-06
8.96E-12kg
kg

Hexane (isomers)
Isoprene
Mercaptan (unspecified)
Methacrylate
Methacrylic acid
Methanol
Methyl methacrylate (MMA)
NMVOC (unspecified)Octaneortho-Cresol
para-Cresol
Pentane (n-pentane)
Phenol (hydroxy benzene)
PropanePropene (propylene)
Propionaldehyde
Propionic acid (propane acid)
StyreneToluene (methyl benzene)
Trimethylbenzene
Vinyl acetat
Xylene (dimethyl benzene)
Hydrocarbons (unspecified)
MethaneOrganic chlorine compounds
Polycyclic hydrocarbons
tert-butyl methyl ether (US LCI)VOC (unspecified)

1.09E-05
1.20E-05
2.17E-07
2.31E-08
4.31E-14
8.68E-06
3.39E-06
3.99E-03
3.53E-06
2.15E-08
2.32E-08
2.72E-04
9.61E-09
1.50E-03
8.39E-06
8.20E-13
9.08E-11
8.12E-06
4.26E-05
1.08E-10
1.64E-14
3.86E-04
1.09E-06
4.71E-02
6.75E-11
4.26E-26
7.55E-14
8.05E-04

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Exhaust

1.34E+02

kg

Other emissions to
airPage 85 of 117

Used air

5.87E-01

kg

Dust (> PM10)

2.79E-03kg

Dust (PM10)
Dust (PM2,5 - PM10)

1.66E-03
1.34E-05

kg
kg

Dust (PM2.5)
Dust (unspecified)

4.28E-03
4.02E-03

kg
kg

Metals (unspecified)
Tar

3.04E-09
4.11E-13kg
kg

Wood (dust)
Radioactive
emissions to air

4.07E-09

kg

Uranium (total)

5.03E-06

kg

Adsorbable organic halogen compounds (AOX)

2.43E-06

kg

Biological oxygen demand (BOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Solids (dissolved)
Total dissolved organic bounded carbon
Total organic bounded carbon

9.57E-03
1.15E-02
3.41E-02
7.70E-08
2.87E-04

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Antimony
Arsenic (+V)
Cadmium (+II)
Chromium (+III)
Chromium (+VI)
Chromium (unspecified)
CobaltCopper (+II)

4.03E-08
1.15E-06
2.23E-06
3.27E-06
4.88E-08
2.46E-06
7.02E-09
5.34E-06

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Heavy metals to water (unspecified)
Iron
Lead (+II)
Manganese (+II)
Mercury (+II)
Molybdenum
Nickel (+II)
Selenium
Silver

1.58E-08
8.90E-03
1.64E-05
4.57E-05
5.41E-08
1.15E-05
6.55E-06
1.97E-06
1.60E-06

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Particles to air

Emissions tofresh water
Analytical measures
to fresh water

Heavy metals to fresh
waterPage 86 of 117

Strontium

7.97E-05

kg

ThalliumTin (+IV)

8.61E-09
1.83E-07

kg
kg

Titanium
Vanadium (+III)

1.93E-06
3.84E-06

kg
kg

Zinc (+II)

6.67E-06kg

Acid (calculated as H+)
Aluminum (+III)
Ammonia
Ammonium / ammonia
BariumBeryllium
Boron

1.09E-06
4.51E-04
1.59E-05
2.44E-04
8.87E-04
2.65E-08
3.70E-05

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

BromateBromine

4.18E-12
1.60E-04

kg
kg

Calcium (+II)
Carbonate

1.03E-02
8.26E-04

kg
kg

Chlorate
Chloride

4.39E-07
1.11E-01

kg
kg

Chlorine (dissolved)
Cyanide

5.38E-04
7.74E-08

kg
kg

Fluoride
Fluorine
Hydrogen chloride
Hydrogen cyanide (prussic acid)

1.51E-02
5.54E-08
2.57E-03
1.93E-10

kg
kg
kg
kg

Hydrogen fluoride (hydrofluoric acid)
Hydroxide

1.05E-09
8.70E-07

kg
kg

Inorganic salts and acids (unspecified)
Lithium
Magnesium (+III)
Magnesium chloride

3.28E-14
3.83E-05
1.11E-03
4.22E-07

kg
kg
kg
kg

Magnesium ion (+II)
Metal ions (unspecific)

4.69E-04
3.17E-06

kg
kg

Metals (unspecified)
Neutral salts
NitrateNitric acid
Nitrogen
Nitrogen (as total N)
Nitrogen organic bounded

6.07E-29
2.92E-08
6.58E-03
2.33E-10
1.51E-05
4.81E-08
1.34E-03

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Inorganic emissions
to fresh water

Page 87 of 117

Phosphate

3.97E-04kg

Phosphorus
Potassium

2.82E-06
9.06E-04

kg
kg

Silicate particles
Sodium (+I)

2.03E-10
2.21E-02kg
kg

Sodium chloride (rock salt)
Sodium hypochlorite

2.71E-04
4.46E-07kg
kg

Sodium sulphate
Sulphate

5.13E-05
4.96E-02

kg
kg

Sulphide
Sulphite

2.29E-05
1.01E-05

kg
kg

Sulphur
Sulphuric acid

2.44E-06
7.20E-07

kgkg

1,2-Dibromoethane
Chlorinated hydrocarbons (unspecified)

1.85E-12
1.53E-14kg
kg

Chloromethane (methyl chloride)
Dichloroethane (ethylene dichloride)

4.81E-09
9.10E-16

kg
kg

Dichloropropane
Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (2,3,7,8 TCDD)

7.19E-15
3.84E-17kg
kg

Vinyl chloride (VCM; chloroethene)

2.61E-10kg

Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Acetic acid
Acrylonitrile

4.19E-10
1.71E-10
2.15E-07
2.03E-06

kg
kg
kg
kg

Anthracene
Aromatic hydrocarbons (unspecified)

4.98E-10
7.80E-07

kg
kg

BenzeneBenzo{a}anthracene
Benzo{a}pyrene
Benzofluoranthene

2.07E-06
6.75E-11
3.28E-10
4.77E-11

kg
kg
kg
kg

Chrysene
Cresol (methyl phenol)

3.27E-10
1.18E-08kg
kg

Ethyl benzene
Fluoranthene
Formaldehyde (methanal)
Hexane (isomers)
Hydrocarbons (unspecified)
Methanol
Oil (unspecified)

1.10E-07
7.86E-11
3.42E-10
1.30E-09
7.27E-06
3.67E-05
6.71E-04

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Organic emissions tofresh water

Page 88 of 117

Phenanthrene

2.08E-10kg

Phenol (hydroxy benzene)
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH,
unspec.)

1.13E-06
3.46E-05

kg
kg

Toluene (methyl benzene)

1.71E-06

kg

VOC (unspecified)
Xylene (isomers; dimethyl benzene)

9.33E-07
9.59E-07

kg
kg

Xylene (meta-Xylene; 1,3-Dimethylbenzene)
Acetone (dimethylcetone)

2.26E-08
7.47E-09

kg
kg

Biphenyl
Carbon, organically bound

2.29E-09
2.09E-02

kg
kg

Mineral oil (tetradecane)
Naphthalene
Organic chlorine compounds (unspecified)
Organic compounds (dissolved)
Organic compounds (unspecified)

1.81E-08
4.82E-08
3.12E-05
1.84E-09
1.22E-10

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Detergent (unspecified)

6.28E-07

kg

Waste water

4.69E+01

kg

Metals (unspecified)
Silicon dioxide (silica)
Soil loss by erosion into water
Solids (suspended)
Suspended solids, unspecified

1.13E-08
9.06E-27
2.05E-01
5.90E-02
3.92E-06

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Adsorbable organic halogen compounds (AOX)

4.86E-12kg

Biological oxygen demand (BOD)

5.36E-06

kg

Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Total organic bounded carbon

9.47E-05
5.36E-06

kg
kg

Arsenic (+V)
Cadmium (+II)
Chromium (unspecified)
CobaltCopper (+II)

3.53E-07
4.11E-07
5.64E-07
1.75E-07
7.98E-07

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Other emissions tofresh water

Particles to fresh
water

Emissions to sea
water
Analytical measures
to sea water

Heavy metals to sea
waterPage 89 of 117

Iron

2.39E-06

kg

Lead (+II)
Manganese (+II)

1.84E-07
2.47E-07

kg
kg

Mercury (+II)
Molybdenum

3.16E-09
3.43E-09

kg
kg

Nickel (+II)
Silver

3.28E-07
1.02E-08

kg
kg

Strontium
Tin (+IV)

8.26E-06
1.22E-08

kg
kg

Titanium
Vanadium (+III)

1.24E-09
1.10E-07

kg
kg

Zinc (+II)

3.17E-06

kg

Aluminum (+III)

3.99E-08kg

Ammonia
Barium

1.19E-06
8.52E-06

kg
kg

Beryllium
Boron

8.86E-09
6.46E-07

kg
kg

Calcium (+II)
Carbonate

7.05E-05
5.36E-04

kg
kg

Chloride
Magnesium

4.25E-02
1.80E-05

kg
kg

NitrateSodium (+I)
Sulphate
Sulphide

6.95E-07
1.07E-04
2.26E-04
9.76E-05

kg
kg
kg
kg

Sulphur

3.46E-07

kg

Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Acetic acid
Anthracene
Aromatic hydrocarbons (unspecified)
BenzeneBenzo{a}anthracene
Benzofluoranthene
Chrysene
Cresol (methyl phenol)

7.90E-09
3.03E-09
7.08E-09
2.54E-09
5.36E-08
2.18E-06
1.74E-09
1.90E-09
9.76E-09
8.95E-09

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Ethyl benzene
Fluoranthene

1.85E-07
2.03E-09

kg
kg

Inorganic emissions
to sea water

Organic emissions to
sea water

Page 90 of 117

Hexane (isomers)

9.77E-10kg

Oil (unspecified)Phenol (hydroxy benzene)

1.75E-05
3.64E-06

kg
kg

Toluene (methyl benzene)
Xylene (isomers; dimethyl benzene)

1.30E-06
9.19E-07

kg
kg

Naphthalene

2.72E-07

kg

Solids (suspended)

4.26E-03

kg

Cadmium (+II)
Chromium (+III)
Mercury (+II)

4.81E-07
1.97E-09
1.97E-11kg
kg
kg

Antimony
Arsenic (+V)
Cadmium (+II)
Chromium (+III)
Chromium (+VI)
Chromium (unspecified)
CobaltCopper (+II)
Iron
Lead (+II)
Manganese (+II)

2.27E-12
3.08E-10
3.08E-09
4.90E-09
7.87E-12
3.40E-07
5.26E-09
1.02E-08
3.92E-06
6.21E-09
3.30E-07

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Mercury (+II)
Nickel (+II)
Selenium
Strontium
Zinc (+II)

4.33E-11
1.06E-06
1.16E-11
5.53E-05
8.22E-08

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Aluminum (+III)
Ammonia
Beryllium
BromideCalcium (+II)
Chloride

9.69E-07
1.20E-04
1.08E-17
2.08E-08
1.36E-04
4.00E-05

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Particles to sea water
Emissions toagricultural soil
Heavy metals toagricultural soil

Emissions toindustrial soil
Heavy metals toindustrial soil

Inorganic emissions
to industrial soil

Page 91 of 117

Chlorine

8.32E-09

kg

Fluoride
Magnesium (+III)

6.94E-07
1.88E-05

kg
kg

Phosphorus
Potassium (+I)

1.21E-05
5.87E-05

kg
kg

Sodium (+I)
Sulphate

1.46E-05
8.63E-06

kg
kg

Sulphide

5.18E-05

kg

Oil (unspecified)
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (unspecified)

6.38E-05
1.07E-10kg
kg

Crude oil (resource)
Hard coal (resource)
Lignite (resource)
Natural gas (resource)

6.50E+01
8.87E+01
7.18E+01
7.70E+01

MJ
MJ
MJ
MJ

Uranium (resource)

1.81E+02

MJ

Primary energy from hydro power

1.96E+02

MJ

Primary energy from solar energy
Primary energy from wind power
Renewable fuels
Wood

8.78E+00
1.16E+00
9.43E-07
1.85E-03

MJ
MJ
MJ
MJ

Iron
Lead
Rhodium
SiliconSulphur

2.52E-04
1.76E-15
3.97E-20
1.00E-13
3.48E-09

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Organic emissions toindustrial soil

Polymer Bank note (new design)
INPUTS
Flow categories

Flows

Energyresources
Non renewable energy
resources

Renewable energy
resources

Material
resources
Non renewableelements

Page 92 of 117

Non renewable
resources
Antimony - gold - ore (0.09%)
Barium sulphate
BasaltBauxiteBentonite
Calcium chloride
Chromium ore (39%)
Clay
Colemanite ore
Copper - Gold - Ore (1,07% Cu; 0,54 g/t Au)
Copper - Gold - Silver - ore (0,51% Cu; 0,6 g/t
Au; 1,5 g/t Ag)

4.13E-09
1.81E-13
1.49E+00
1.14E-03
1.34E-02
1.85E-11
1.60E-02
2.60E-02
4.23E-06
5.64E-06
1.62E-05

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Copper - Gold - Silver - ore (1,0% Cu; 0,4 g/t
Au; 66 g/t Ag)

2.11E-03

kg

Copper - Gold - Silver - ore (1,1% Cu; 0,01 g/t
Au; 2,86 g/t Ag)

2.16E-03

kg

Copper - Gold - Silver - ore (1,13% Cu; 1,05 g/t
Au; 3,72 g/t Ag)

1.75E-04

kg

Copper - Gold - Silver - ore (1,16% Cu; 0,002
g/t Au; 1,06 g/t Ag)

1.22E-03

kg

Copper - Gold - Silver - ore (1,7% Cu; 0,7 g/t
Au; 3,5 g/t Ag)

1.32E-05

kg

Copper - Molybdenum - Gold - Silver - ore(1,13% Cu; 0,02% Mo; 0,01 g/t Au; 2,86 g/t Ag)

1.77E-03

kg

Copper - Silver - ore (3,3% Cu; 5,5 g/t Ag)

9.12E-06

kg

Copper ore (0.14%)
Copper ore (1.2%)

7.55E-04
2.18E-04

kg
kg

Copper ore (4%)
Copper ore (sulphidic, 1.1%)
Dolomite
Feldspar (aluminum silicates)

1.15E-13
1.37E-10
3.17E-07
1.49E-04

kg
kg
kg
kg

Ferro manganese
Fluorspar (calcium fluoride; fluorite)

8.82E-16
5.42E-06

kg
kg

Graphite
Gypsum (natural gypsum)
Heavy spar (BaSO4)
Ilmenite (titanium ore)
Inert rock
Iron ore (56,86%)
Iron ore (65%)

3.30E-06
3.61E-03
3.20E-02
2.84E-08
9.48E+01
1.81E-02
1.52E-05

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Page 93 of 117

Kaolin ore

5.52E-06

kg

Lead - Zinc - Silver - ore (5,49% Pb; 12,15% Zn;
57,4 gpt Ag)

3.15E-06

kg

Lead - zinc ore (4.6%-0.6%)
Limestone (calcium carbonate)

2.69E-03
2.93E-01

kg
kg

Magnesit (Magnesium carbonate)
Magnesium chloride leach (40%)

1.23E-06
8.04E-04

kg
kg

Manganese ore
Manganese ore (R.O.M.)

4.75E-05
5.62E-04

kg
kg

Molybdenite (Mo 0,24%)
Natural Aggregate

1.08E-03
6.36E-01

kg
kg

Nickel ore (1,5%)
Nickel ore (1.6%)
OlivinePeat
Perlite (Rhyolithe)
Phosphate ore
Phosphorus minerals
Phosphorus ore (29% P2O5)
Potashsalt, crude (hard salt, 10% K2O)
Potassium chloride
Precious metal ore (R.O.M)
Quartz sand (silica sand; silicon dioxide)
Raw pumice
Slate
Sodium chloride (rock salt)
Sodium sulphate
Soil
Sulphur (bonded)
Talc
Tin oreTitanium ore
Zinc - copper ore (4.07%-2.59%)
Zinc - lead - copper ore (12%-3%-2%)
Zinc - Lead - Silver - ore (8,54% Zn; 5,48% Pb;
94 g/t Ag)
Zinc - lead ore (4.21%-4.96%)
Zinc ore (sulphidic, 4%)

5.81E-03
2.17E-03
9.70E-15
2.38E-05
2.19E-03
1.50E-05
2.99E-07
5.55E-06
3.90E-05
1.22E-06
8.45E-05
2.15E-02
5.70E-07
1.63E-14
1.20E-02
1.11E-07
2.46E-01
1.72E-09
1.97E-07
1.57E-14
1.46E-02
1.01E-03
5.71E-04
4.95E-06

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

3.94E-14
1.73E-13

kg
kg

Water
Air
Carbon dioxide

2.17E+02
1.19E+02
9.36E-01

kg
kg
kg

Renewable resources

Page 94 of 117

Emissions to air
Organic emissions to air (group VOC)
Halogenated organic emissions to air

4.34E-18
4.34E-18

kg
kg

Water

1.59E+02

kg

Nitrogen
Oxygen6.32E-04
6.85E-01

kg
kg

Antimony
Arsenic (+V)

3.18E-07
1.06E-06

kg
kg

Arsenic trioxide
Cadmium (+II)
Chromium (+III)
Chromium (+VI)
Chromium (unspecified)
CobaltCopper (+II)
Heavy metals to air (unspecified)

1.84E-12
1.08E-07
3.72E-09
2.61E-10
7.34E-07
2.46E-07
1.32E-06
1.24E-09

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Hydrogen arsenic (arsine)
Iron
Lanthanides
Lead (+II)

1.53E-10
1.38E-07
1.49E-11
2.89E-06

kg
kg
kg
kg

Manganese (+II)
Mercury (+II)
Molybdenum
Nickel (+II)

1.98E-06
5.23E-07
9.21E-09
1.75E-06

kg
kg
kg
kg

Palladium
Rhodium

5.13E-16
4.95E-16

kg
kg

Selenium
Silver

4.14E-06
8.56E-15kg
kg

Tellurium
Thallium

3.74E-10
2.44E-09kg
kg

Tin (+IV)
Titanium

6.61E-07
9.63E-10kg
kg

OUTPUTS
Flow categories

Flows

Material
resources
Renewable resources

Emissions to air
Heavy metals to air

Page 95 of 117

Vanadium (+III)

9.99E-06

kg

Zinc (+II)

1.07E-05

kg

Ammonia
AmmoniumAmmonium nitrate
Argon
BariumBeryllium
Boron
Boron compounds (unspecified)BromineCarbon dioxide
Carbon dioxide (biotic)

7.99E-05
5.64E-07
1.01E-11
6.97E-16
3.29E-05
3.21E-08
6.22E-14
6.50E-05
1.98E-05
2.55E+01
1.96E-04

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Carbon dioxide (biotic)
Carbon disulphide

1.41E-02
1.40E-09

kg
kg

Carbon monoxide
Chloride (unspecified)

2.25E-02
9.79E-07kg
kg

Chlorine
Cyanide (unspecified)

3.92E-07
6.96E-08

kg
kg

Fluoride
Fluorides

8.38E-06
1.14E-07

kg
kg

Fluorine
HeliumHydrazine (H2N4)
Hydrogen7.02E-10
7.84E-08
1.51E-13
1.68E-05

kg
kg
kg
kg

Hydrogen bromine (hydrobromic acid)
Hydrogen chloride

1.77E-09
1.96E-03

kg
kg

Hydrogen cyanide (prussic acid)
Hydrogen fluoride
Hydrogen iodide
Hydrogen phosphorous

2.43E-09
2.97E-04
1.39E-12
6.82E-11

kg
kg
kg
kg

Hydrogen sulphide
Lead dioxide

5.25E-05
8.93E-11kg
kg

Magnesium
Nitrogen (atmospheric nitrogen)Nitrogen dioxide
Nitrogen monoxide
Nitrogen oxides
Nitrous oxide (laughing gas)
Oxygen2.12E-08
3.39E-02
1.02E-07
2.61E-08
6.17E-02
3.87E-04
1.62E-02

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Inorganic emissions
to airPage 96 of 117

Scandium6.96E-12kg

SteamStrontium

6.57E+01
2.82E-10kg
kg

Sulphur dioxide
Sulphur hexafluoride

9.71E-02
6.10E-09

kg
kg

Sulphuric acidTin oxide

1.42E-08
7.77E-12

kg
kg

Zinc oxide
Zinc sulphate

1.55E-11
3.82E-09

kg
kg

Anthracene
Benzo{a}anthracene
Benzo{a}pyrene
Benzo{ghi}perylene

4.53E-10
2.28E-10
1.86E-09
2.03E-10

kg
kg
kg
kg

Benzofluoranthene
Chrysene

4.07E-10
5.60E-10kg
kg

Dibenz(a)anthracene
Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene

1.27E-10
1.51E-10kg
kg

Naphthalene
Phenanthrene

4.79E-08
1.49E-08

kg
kg

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane

7.87E-07
7.74E-12kg
kg

1,2-Dibromoethane
bromoform (US LCI)
Carbon tetrachloride (tetrachloromethane)
Chlorobenzene

1.06E-15
3.45E-14
1.08E-12
1.95E-14

kg
kg
kg
kg

Chloromethane (methyl chloride)
Chlorotoluene (Benzylchloride)

4.69E-13
6.20E-13

kg
kg

Dichloroethane (1,2-Dichloroethane)
Dichloromethane (methylene chloride)
Dioxins (unspec.)
Ethyl chloride

3.54E-14
1.80E-09
1.39E-14
3.72E-14

kg
kg
kg
kg

Halogenated hydrocarbons (unspecified)
Methyl bromide

3.55E-15
1.42E-13

kg
kg

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB unspecified)
Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (2,3,7,8 TCDD)

3.40E-10
2.87E-12

kg
kg

R 11 (trichlorofluoromethane)
R 113 (trichlorofluoroethane)
R 114 (dichlorotetrafluoroethane)
R 116 (hexafluoroethane)

2.37E-06
3.48E-15
2.43E-06
7.01E-10

kg
kg
kg
kg

Organic emissions toair (group VOC)

Page 97 of 117

R 12 (dichlorodifluoromethane)

5.10E-07

kg

R 13 (chlorotrifluoromethane)
R 22 (chlorodifluoromethane)

3.20E-07
5.58E-07

kg
kg

Tetrachloroethene (perchloroethylene)
Tetrafluoromethane

1.02E-10
2.29E-08

kg
kg

Trichloroethene (isomers)
Trichloromethane (chloroform)

7.47E-14
5.23E-14kg
kg

Vinyl chloride (VCM; chloroethene)
2,4-Dinitrotoluene

1.04E-08
2.48E-16

kg
kg

Acentaphthene
Acetaldehyde (Ethanal)

9.85E-13
4.35E-06

kg
kg

Acetic acid
Acetone (dimethylcetone)
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Aldehyde (unspecified)
Alkane (unspecified)
Alkene (unspecified)Aromatic hydrocarbons (unspecified)
BenzeneBiphenyl
Butadiene
ButaneButane (n-butane)
Butanone (methyl ethyl ketone)
Cumene (isopropylbenzene)
Cyclohexane (hexahydro benzene)
Diethylamine
Dioctylphthalate (DOP)
EthaneEthanol
Ethene (ethylene)
Ethyl benzene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Formaldehyde (methanal)
Furan
Heptane (isomers)
Hexamethylene diamine (HMDA)
Hexane (isomers)
Isoprene
Mercaptan (unspecified)

2.12E-05
4.31E-06
3.84E-09
1.55E-06
5.96E-06
8.81E-05
7.24E-05
1.65E-06
1.60E-05
3.28E-12
1.55E-06
1.74E-04
4.27E-05
2.08E-08
6.91E-13
3.21E-08
7.24E-12
6.47E-14
5.66E-04
9.80E-06
5.84E-08
7.16E-05
1.48E-09
4.68E-09
6.50E-05
8.79E-15
3.17E-06
4.31E-12
5.41E-06
4.91E-06
1.12E-07

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Page 98 of 117

Methacrylate

5.94E-09

kg

Methacrylic acid
Methanol

1.77E-14
8.26E-06

kg
kg

Methyl methacrylate (MMA)
NMVOC (unspecified)

9.14E-07
1.93E-03

kg
kg

Octaneortho-Cresol

1.75E-06
8.83E-09kg
kg

para-Cresol
Pentane (n-pentane)

9.53E-09
1.66E-04

kg
kg

Phenol (hydroxy benzene)
Propane

5.45E-09
8.17E-04

kg
kg

Propene (propylene)
Propionaldehyde
Propionic acid (propane acid)
StyreneToluene (methyl benzene)
Trimethylbenzene
Vinyl acetat
Xylene (dimethyl benzene)
Hydrocarbons (unspecified)
MethaneOrganic chlorine compounds
Polycyclic hydrocarbons
VOC (unspecified)

6.51E-06
3.37E-13
5.08E-11
3.11E-06
3.29E-05
7.58E-11
6.73E-15
3.00E-04
3.21E-08
2.63E-02
5.06E-12
9.84E-27
1.59E-03

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Exhaust

9.93E+01

kg

Used air

6.82E-01

kg

Dust (> PM10)
Dust (PM10)
Dust (PM2,5 - PM10)
Dust (PM2.5)

8.54E-09
5.60E-04
5.49E-06
3.97E-03

kg
kg
kg
kg

Dust (unspecified)Metals (unspecified)

2.66E-03
6.89E-11

kg
kg

Tar
Wood (dust)

1.69E-13
2.87E-09

kg
kg

Uranium (total)

2.78E-06

kg

Other emissions to
airParticles to air

Radioactive
emissions to air
Emissions to fresh
waterPage 99 of 117

Analytical measures
to fresh water
Adsorbable organic halogen compounds (AOX)

1.20E-06

kg

Biological oxygen demand (BOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Solids (dissolved)
Total dissolved organic bounded carbon
Total organic bounded carbon

3.79E-04
7.04E-03
1.41E-02
2.17E-08
7.25E-05

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Antimony
Arsenic (+V)
Cadmium (+II)
Chromium (+III)
Chromium (+VI)
Chromium (unspecified)
Cobalt

1.66E-08
6.83E-07
1.35E-06
1.22E-05
5.31E-09
1.30E-06
3.02E-09

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Copper (+II)
Heavy metals to water (unspecified)
Iron
Lead (+II)
Manganese (+II)
Mercury (+II)
Molybdenum
Nickel (+II)
Selenium
SilverStrontium
Thallium

2.69E-06
9.83E-09
8.66E-03
6.76E-06
2.62E-05
3.24E-08
6.37E-06
1.54E-06
1.09E-06
6.57E-07
3.97E-05
3.55E-09

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Tin (+IV)
Titanium
Vanadium (+III)
Zinc (+II)

7.57E-08
9.75E-07
2.12E-06
2.46E-06

kg
kg
kg
kg

Acid (calculated as H+)
Aluminum (+III)
Ammonia
Ammonium / ammonia
BariumBeryllium
Boron

5.68E-07
2.40E-04
6.51E-06
1.29E-04
3.65E-04
1.30E-08
2.36E-05

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Heavy metals to
fresh water

Inorganic emissions
to fresh water

Page 100 of 117

Bromine

6.58E-05

kg

Calcium (+II)
Carbonate

5.17E-03
8.85E-05

kg
kg

Chloride
Chlorine (dissolved)

6.81E-02
2.97E-04

kg
kg

CyanideFluoride

2.28E-07
1.02E-02

kg
kg

Fluorine
Hydrogen chloride

3.01E-08
2.28E-03

kg
kg

Hydrogen cyanide (prussic acid)
Hydrogen fluoride (hydrofluoric acid)

5.10E-11
5.39E-10

kg
kg

Hydroxide
Inorganic salts and acids (unspecified)
Lithium
Magnesium (+III)
Magnesium chloride
Magnesium ion (+II)
Metal ions (unspecific)
Metals (unspecified)
Neutral salts
NitrateNitric acid
Nitrogen
Nitrogen (as total N)
Nitrogen organic bounded
Phosphate
Phosphorus
Potassium
Silicate particles
Sodium (+I)
Sodium chloride (rock salt)
Sodium hypochlorite
Sodium sulphate
Sulphate
Sulphide
Sulphite
Sulphur
Sulphuric acid

4.97E-07
9.67E-16
1.57E-05
7.29E-04
2.38E-07
1.93E-04
1.92E-06
2.29E-29
5.84E-09
3.90E-04
9.57E-11
3.31E-06
1.93E-08
7.88E-06
3.04E-06
7.07E-07
1.42E-06
1.08E-10
1.43E-02
4.23E-08
2.29E-08
1.35E-05
3.66E-02
1.41E-05
6.78E-06
1.01E-06
3.68E-07

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

1,2-Dibromoethane
Chlorinated hydrocarbons (unspecified)

7.55E-12
9.19E-15

kg
kg

Organic emissions tofresh water

Page 101 of 117

Chloromethane (methyl chloride)

3.38E-09

kg

Dichloropropane
Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (2,3,7,8 TCDD)

3.46E-15
2.47E-19kg
kg

Vinyl chloride (VCM; chloroethene)

1.32E-10kg

Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene

2.57E-10
1.04E-10kg
kg

Acetic acid
Acrylonitrile

6.93E-08
7.77E-07

kg
kg

Anthracene
Aromatic hydrocarbons (unspecified)

3.63E-10
4.28E-07

kg
kg

BenzeneBenzo{a}anthracene
Benzo{a}pyrene
Benzofluoranthene
Chrysene
Cresol (methyl phenol)
Ethyl benzene
Fluoranthene
Formaldehyde (methanal)
Hexane (isomers)
Hydrocarbons (unspecified)
Methanol
Oil (unspecified)
Phenanthrene
Phenol (hydroxy benzene)
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH,
unspec.)1.02E-06
3.62E-11
1.31E-10
2.13E-11
1.66E-10
5.13E-09
5.52E-08
5.34E-11
2.07E-10
5.65E-10
4.34E-06
1.32E-05
2.70E-04
8.53E-11
7.61E-07
2.44E-05

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Toluene (methyl benzene)
VOC (unspecified)
Xylene (isomers; dimethyl benzene)
Xylene (meta-Xylene; 1,3-Dimethylbenzene)
Acetone (dimethylcetone)
Biphenyl
Carbon, organically boundMineral oil (tetradecane)
Naphthalene
Organic chlorine compounds (unspecified)
Organic compounds (dissolved)
Organic compounds (unspecified)

8.05E-07
3.83E-07
4.83E-07
9.30E-09
3.07E-09
9.40E-10
4.33E-05
7.44E-09
2.47E-08
5.09E-12
7.32E-10
5.02E-11

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Other emissions tofresh water

Page 102 of 117

Detergent (unspecified)

2.58E-07

kg

Waste water

2.88E-02

kg

Metals (unspecified)
Soil loss by erosion into water
Solids (suspended)
Suspended solids, unspecified

2.48E-10
4.38E-05
3.18E-02
1.59E-06

kg
kg
kg
kg

Adsorbable organic halogen compounds (AOX)

2.36E-12kg

Biological oxygen demand (BOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Total organic bounded carbon

2.60E-06
4.78E-05
2.60E-06

kg
kg
kg

Arsenic (+V)
Cadmium (+II)
Chromium (unspecified)
CobaltCopper (+II)
Iron
Lead (+II)
Manganese (+II)
Mercury (+II)
Molybdenum
Nickel (+II)
SilverStrontium
Tin (+IV)
Titanium

1.93E-07
2.44E-07
4.95E-07
8.92E-08
4.19E-07
1.20E-06
9.65E-08
1.25E-07
1.61E-09
1.48E-09
1.74E-07
4.39E-09
3.57E-06
5.26E-09
5.36E-10

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Vanadium (+III)
Zinc (+II)

5.72E-08
1.65E-06

kg
kg

Aluminum (+III)
Ammonia
BariumBeryllium
Boron

1.72E-08
5.13E-07
4.51E-06
4.63E-09
2.79E-07

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Particles to fresh
water

Emissions to sea
water
Analytical measures
to sea water

Heavy metals to sea
water

Inorganic emissions
to sea water

Page 103 of 117

Calcium (+II)

3.05E-05

kg

Carbonate
Chloride

2.84E-04
2.25E-02

kg
kg

Magnesium
Nitrate

7.81E-06
3.68E-07kg
kg

Sodium (+I)
Sulphate

5.19E-05
1.20E-04

kg
kg

Sulphide
Sulphur

5.16E-05
1.49E-07

kg
kg

Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Acetic acid
Anthracene

4.18E-09
1.60E-09
2.71E-09
1.40E-09

kg
kg
kg
kg

Aromatic hydrocarbons (unspecified)
Benzene

2.60E-08
1.17E-06

kg
kg

Benzo{a}anthracene
Benzofluoranthene

9.15E-10
9.97E-10kg
kg

Chrysene
Cresol (methyl phenol)

5.13E-09
3.87E-09kg
kg

Ethyl benzene
Fluoranthene

9.77E-08
1.08E-09

kg
kg

Hexane (isomers)
Oil (unspecified)Phenol (hydroxy benzene)
Toluene (methyl benzene)

4.22E-10
9.25E-06
1.93E-06
6.89E-07

kg
kg
kg
kg

Xylene (isomers; dimethyl benzene)
Naphthalene

4.86E-07
1.43E-07

kg
kg

Solids (suspended)

2.07E-03

kg

Cadmium (+II)
Chromium (+III)
Copper (+II)
Lead (+II)
Mercury (+II)
Nickel (+II)
Zinc (+II)

1.11E-11
7.23E-10
7.23E-10
1.08E-09
7.23E-12
3.62E-10
2.89E-09

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Organic emissions to
sea water

Particles to sea
water
Emissions toagricultural soil
Heavy metals toagricultural soil

Page 104 of 117

Emissions toindustrial soil
Heavy metals toindustrial soil
Antimony
Arsenic (+V)
Cadmium (+II)
Chromium (+III)
Chromium (+VI)
Chromium (unspecified)
CobaltCopper (+II)
Iron
Lead (+II)
Manganese (+II)

9.85E-13
1.86E-10
2.01E-09
5.66E-10
3.43E-12
2.11E-07
2.41E-09
3.00E-09
1.52E-06
3.78E-10
2.24E-07

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Mercury (+II)
Nickel (+II)

3.40E-12
7.31E-07

kg
kg

Selenium
Strontium

5.04E-12
2.82E-05

kg
kg

Zinc (+II)

4.42E-08kg

Aluminum (+III)
Ammonia
Beryllium
BromideCalcium (+II)
Chloride
Chlorine
Fluoride

4.92E-07
6.09E-05
2.15E-17
1.04E-08
9.37E-05
2.14E-05
3.39E-09
3.46E-07

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Magnesium (+III)
Phosphorus
Potassium (+I)
Sodium (+I)
Sulphate
Sulphide

1.30E-05
6.11E-06
3.69E-05
8.89E-06
5.55E-06
3.33E-05

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Oil (unspecified)
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (unspecified)

5.39E-05
4.25E-11kg
kg

Inorganic emissions
to industrial soil

Organic emissions toindustrial soil

Page 105 of 117

APPENDIX E. LCIA CHARACTERIZATION FACTORS
Primary Energy Demand (non renewable)
Flow

1 MJ = *Unit

Crude oil [Crude oil (resource)]
Hard coal [Hard coal (resource)]
Lignite [Lignite (resource)]
Natural gas [Natural gas (resource)]
Nuclear energy [Uranium (resource)]
Peat [Non renewable resources]
Pit gas [Natural gas (resource)]

2.36E-02
3.80E-02
8.42E-02
2.27E-02
1.00E+00
1.19E-01
2.23E-02

kg
kg
kg
kg
MJ
kg
kg

1 [Flow] =* MJ
4.23E+01
2.63E+01
1.19E+01
4.41E+01
1.00E+00
8.40E+00
4.48E+01

Pit Methane [Natural gas (resource)]

2.01E-02kg

4.98E+01

Raw hardcoal [Hard coal (resource)]

5.56E-02kg

1.80E+01

Raw lignite [Lignite (resource)]

1.25E-01kg

8.00E+00

Sulphur [Non renewable elements]

1.08E-01kg

9.26E+00

Sulphur (bonded) [Non renewable resources]

1.08E-01kg

9.26E+00

Uranium free ore [Uranium (resource)]

2.22E-06kg

4.51E+05

Uranium natural [Uranium (resource)]

1.79E-06kg

5.60E+05

Crude oil [Crude oil (resource)]
Hard coal [Hard coal (resource)]

2.36E-02
3.80E-02kg
kg

4.23E+01
2.63E+01

Lignite [Lignite (resource)]

8.42E-02kg

1.19E+01

Flow

1 MJ = *Unit

Biomass [Renewable energy resources]
Biomass (MJ) [Renewable energy resources]
conifer [Materials from renewable raw materials]
Energy, geothermal, converted [Renewable energy resources]
Energy, potential (in hydropower reservoir), converted [Renewableenergy resources]
Flax long fibre (8% H2O) [Materials from renewable raw materials]

6.83E-02
1.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00

kg
MJ
kg
MJ
MJ

1.47E+01
1.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00

6.45E-02kg

1.55E+01

Flax, Whole plant (field retted, 10% H2O) [Renewable primary
products]
Hemp, Seeds (15% H2O) [Renewable primary products]
Natural Rubber, Seeds (50% H2O) [Renewable primary products]

5.62E-02kg

1.78E+01

4.48E-02
1.43E-01
1.43E-01kg
kg
kg

2.23E+01
7.00E+00
7.00E+00

8.17E-02kg

1.22E+01

5.81E-02kg

1.72E+01

Primary Energy Demand (renewable)

Natural Rubber, Tapped latex, (not conserved, 36%) [Renewableprimary products]
Oil palm, Fruit bunches (20% Palmoil) [Renewable primary
products]
Pine log (44% water content) [Materials from renewable raw
materials]

Page 106 of 117

1 [Flow] = * MJ

Pine log (79% humidity / 44% moisture content) [Materials fromrenewable raw materials]
Primary energy from geothermics [Renewable energy resources]
Primary energy from hydro power [Renewable energy resources]
Primary energy from solar energy [Renewable energy resources]
Primary energy from waves [Renewable energy resources]
Primary energy from wind power [Renewable energy resources]
Renewable fuels [Renewable energy resources]
Sisal, Leaves (4% Fibre) [Renewable primary products]
Soy bean, Beans (13% H2O) [Renewable primary products]
Spruce log (44% water content) [Materials from renewable raw
materials]
Spruce log (79% humidity / 44% moisture content) [Materials fromrenewable raw materials]
Wood [Renewable energy resources]

1.02E-01kg

9.80E+00

1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
6.67E-02
7.19E-01
6.17E-02
5.81E-02

MJ
MJ
MJ
MJ
MJ
kg
kg
kg
kg

1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.50E+01
1.39E+00
1.62E+01
1.72E+01

1.02E-01kg

9.80E+00

6.83E-02kg

1.47E+01

TRACI, Acidification Air [mol H+ Equiv.]
Flow
Ammonia [Inorganic emissions to air]Hydrogen chloride [Inorganic emissions to air]Hydrogen fluoride [Inorganic emissions to air]Nitrogen dioxide [Inorganic emissions to air]Nitrogen monoxide [Inorganic emissions to air]Nitrogen oxides [Inorganic emissions to air]Sulphur dioxide [Inorganic emissions to air]

1 mol H+ Equiv. =*1.05E-02
2.24E-02
1.23E-02
2.50E-02
1.63E-02
2.50E-02
1.97E-02

Unit
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

1 [Flow] = *mol H+ Equiv.
9.55E+01
4.47E+01
8.13E+01
4.00E+01
6.13E+01
4.00E+01
5.08E+01

TRACI, Eutrophication [kg N-Equiv.]
Flow

1 kg N-Equiv.
=*
8.43E+00

Ammonia [Inorganic emissions to air]Unit

1 [Flow] = *kg

1.19E-01

Ammonium / ammonia [Inorganic emissions to fresh water]
Biological oxygen demand (BOD) [Analytical measures to fresh
water]
Biological oxygen demand (BOD) [Analytical measures to sea water]

1.28E+00
2.00E+01

kg
kg

7.79E-01
5.00E-02

2.00E+01

kg

5.00E-02

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) [Analytical measures to sea water]
Chemical oxygen demand (COD) [Analytical measures to fresh water]

2.00E+01
2.00E+01

kg
kg

5.00E-02
5.00E-02

Nitrate [Inorganic emissions to sea water]
Nitrate [Inorganic emissions to fresh water]
Nitrogen [Inorganic emissions to fresh water]
Nitrogen dioxide [Inorganic emissions to air]

4.22E+00
4.22E+00
1.01E+00
2.26E+01

kg
kg
kg
kg

2.37E-01
2.37E-01
9.86E-01
4.43E-02

Nitrogen monoxide [Inorganic emissions to air]

1.46E+01kg

6.86E-02

Page 107 of 117

Nitrogen oxides [Inorganic emissions to air]

2.26E+01kg

4.43E-02

Phosphate [Inorganic emissions to fresh water]
Phosphorus [Inorganic emissions to fresh water]

4.20E-01
1.37E-01kg
kg

2.38E+00
7.29E+00

CML2001 - Nov. 09, Global Warming Potential (GWP 100 years)

1 kg CO2Equiv. = *6.85E-03

Unit

1 [Flow]=*
1.46E+02

1,1,1-Trichloroethane [Halogenated organic emissions to air]Carbon dioxide [Inorganic emissions to air]Carbon dioxide [Renewable resources]

1.00E+00
1.00E+00

kg
kg
kg

Carbon dioxide (biotic) [Inorganic emissions to air]Carbon tetrachloride (tetrachloromethane) [Halogenated organic
emissions to air]
Chloromethane (methyl chloride) [Halogenated organic emissions
to air]Dichloromethane (methylene chloride) [Halogenated organic
emissions to air]Halon (1211) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]Halon (1301) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
HBFC-2402 (Halon-2402) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
HFE 7100 [Halogenated organic emissions to air]Hydrocarbons (unspecified) [Organic emissions to air (group VOC)]
Methane [Organic emissions to air (group VOC)]
Methyl bromide [Halogenated organic emissions to air]Nitrogentriflouride [Inorganic emissions to air]Nitrous oxide (laughing gas) [Inorganic emissions to air]
Perfluoro-2-methylbutane [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
Perfluorobutane [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
Perfluorocyclobutane [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
Perfluorodecalin [Halogenated organic emissions to air]

1.00E+00
7.14E-04

kg
kg

1.00E+00
1.40E+03

7.69E-02kg

1.30E+01

1.15E-01kg

8.70E+00

5.29E-04
1.40E-04
6.10E-04
3.37E-03
1.33E-01
4.00E-02
2.00E-01
5.81E-05
3.36E-03
1.09E-04
1.13E-04
9.71E-05
1.33E-04

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

1.89E+03
7.14E+03
1.64E+03
2.97E+02
7.50E+00
2.50E+01
5.00E+00
1.72E+04
2.98E+02
9.16E+03
8.86E+03
1.03E+04
7.50E+03

Perfluorohexane [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
Perfluoropentane [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
Perfluoropolyether (unspecified) [Halogenated organic emissions toair]
Perfluoropropane [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
R 11 (trichlorofluoromethane) [Halogenated organic emissions toair]
R 113 (trichlorofluoroethane) [Halogenated organic emissions toair]
R 114 (dichlorotetrafluoroethane) [Halogenated organic emissions
to air]
R 115 (chloropentafluoroethane) [Halogenated organic emissions
to air]
R 116 (hexafluoroethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
R 12 (dichlorodifluoromethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to

1.08E-04
1.12E-04
9.71E-05

kg
kg
kg

9.30E+03
8.90E+03
1.03E+04

1.13E-04
2.11E-04kg
kg

8.83E+03
4.75E+03

1.63E-04kg

6.13E+03

1.00E-04kg

1.00E+04

1.36E-04kg

7.37E+03

8.20E-05
9.17E-05kg
kg

1.22E+04
1.09E+04

Page 108 of 117

1.00E+00
1.00E+00

air]
R 123 (dichlorotrifluoroethane) [Halogenated organic emissions toair]
R 124 (chlorotetrafluoroethane) [Halogenated organic emissions toair]
R 125 (pentafluoroethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]

1.30E-02kg

7.70E+01

1.64E-03kg

6.09E+02

2.86E-04kg

3.50E+03

R 13 (chlorotrifluoromethane) [Halogenated organic emissions toair]
R 134 [Halogenated organic emissions to air]R 134a (tetrafluoroethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]

6.94E-05kg

1.44E+04

9.09E-04
6.99E-04kg
kg

1.10E+03
1.43E+03

R 141b (dichloro-1-fluoroethane) [Halogenated organic emissions toair]
R 142b (chlorodifluoroethane) [Halogenated organic emissions toair]
R 143 (trifluoroethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]

1.38E-03kg

7.25E+02

4.33E-04kg

2.31E+03

3.03E-03
2.24E-04
8.06E-03
5.52E-04

kg
kg
kg
kg

3.30E+02
4.47E+03
1.24E+02
1.81E+03

8.20E-03kg

1.22E+02

1.68E-03kg

5.95E+02

3.11E-04kg

3.22E+03

6.76E-05
2.86E-03
1.02E-04
1.56E-03

kg
kg
kg
kg

1.48E+04
3.50E+02
9.81E+03
6.40E+02

9.71E-04
1.03E-02
6.10E-04
6.71E-05
1.58E-04
1.32E-03
3.57E-04
1.41E-03

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

1.03E+03
9.70E+01
1.64E+03
1.49E+04
6.32E+03
7.56E+02
2.80E+03
7.08E+02

R E245fa2 [Halogenated organic emissions to air]R E254cb2 [Halogenated organic emissions to air]

1.52E-03
2.79E-03kg
kg

6.59E+02
3.59E+02

R E338pcc13 (HG-01) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
R E347mcc3 [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
R E347pcf2 [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
R E356pcc3 [Halogenated organic emissions to air]

6.67E-04
1.74E-03
1.72E-03
9.09E-03

kg
kg
kg
kg

1.50E+03
5.75E+02
5.80E+02
1.10E+02

R E43-10pccc124 (H-Galden1040x) [Halogenated organic emissions
to air]5.35E-04kg

1.87E+03

R 143a (trifluoroethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
R 152a (difluoroethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
R 22 (chlorodifluoromethane) [Halogenated organic emissions toair]
R 225ca (dichloropentafluoropropane) [Halogenated organic
emissions to air]
R 225cb (dichloropentafluoropentane) [Halogenated organic
emissions to air]
R 227ea (septifluoropropane) [Halogenated organic emissions toair]
R 23 (trifluoromethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]R 235da2 [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
R 236fa (hexafluoropropane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]R 245ca (pentafluoropropane) [Halogenated organic emissions toair]
R 245fa [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
R 41 [Halogenated organic emissions to air]R 43-10 (decafluoropentane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]R E125 [Halogenated organic emissions to air]R E134 [Halogenated organic emissions to air]R E143a [Halogenated organic emissions to air]R E236ca12 (HG-10) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]R E245cb2 [Halogenated organic emissions to air]Page 109 of 117

R E569sf2 [Halogenated organic emissions to air]

1.69E-02kg

5.90E+01

R32 (difluoromethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]Sulphur hexafluoride [Inorganic emissions to air]

1.48E-03
4.39E-05

kg
kg

6.75E+02
2.28E+04

Tetrafluoromethane [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
Trichloromethane (chloroform) [Halogenated organic emissions toair]
Trifluoromethyl sulphur pentafluoride [Inorganic emissions to air]
VOC (unspecified) [Organic emissions to air (group VOC)]
VOC (unspecified) [Hydrocarbons to fresh water]
VOC (unspecified) [Hydrocarbons to sea water]

1.35E-04
3.33E-02kg
kg

7.39E+03
3.00E+01

5.65E-05
1.33E-01
1.33E-01
1.33E-01

kg
kg
kg
kg

1.77E+04
7.50E+00
7.50E+00
7.50E+00

1 kg CFC 11Equiv. = *1.37E+00

Unitkg

1 [Flow] = * kg
CFC 11-Equiv.
7.30E-01

2.50E+01
1.67E-01
8.33E-02
1.35E+00
1.16E-01
2.63E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

4.00E-02
6.00E+00
1.20E+01
7.40E-01
8.60E+00
3.80E-01
1.00E+00
1.00E+00

R 112 [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
R 113 (trichlorofluoroethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
R 114 (dichlorotetrafluoroethane) [Halogenated organic emissions toair]
R 115 (chloropentafluoroethane) [Halogenated organic emissions toair]
R 12 (dichlorodifluoromethane) [Halogenated organic emissions toair]
R 123 (dichlorotrifluoroethane) [Halogenated organic emissions toair]
R 124 (chlorotetrafluoroethane) [Halogenated organic emissions toair]
R 13 (chlorotrifluoromethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
R 141b (dichloro-1-fluoroethane) [Halogenated organic emissions toair]
R 142b (chlorodifluoroethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]

1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.06E+00

kg
kg
kg

1.00E+00
1.00E+00
9.40E-01

2.27E+00

kg

4.40E-01

1.00E+00

kg

1.00E+00

5.00E+01kg

2.00E-02

5.00E+01kg

2.00E-02

1.00E+00
8.33E+00

kg
kg

1.00E+00
1.20E-01

1.43E+01kg

7.00E-02

R 21 (Dichlorofluoromethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
R 211 [Halogenated organic emissions to air]

2.50E+01
1.00E+00

kg
kg

4.00E-02
1.00E+00

TRACI, Ozone Depletion Air [kg CFC 11-Equiv.]
Flow
Carbon tetrachloride (tetrachloromethane) [Halogenated organic
emissions to air]Dichloromonofluoromethane [Halogenated organic emissions to air]Halon (1211) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]Halon (1301) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
HBFC-1201 (Halon-1201) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
HBFC-2402 (Halon-2402) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
Methyl bromide [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
R 11 (trichlorofluoromethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
R 111 [Halogenated organic emissions to air]Page 110 of 117

R 212 [Halogenated organic emissions to air]

1.00E+00

kg

1.00E+00

R 213 [Halogenated organic emissions to air]R 214 [Halogenated organic emissions to air]

1.00E+00
1.00E+00

kg
kg

1.00E+00
1.00E+00

R 215 [Halogenated organic emissions to air]R 216 [Halogenated organic emissions to air]

1.00E+00
1.00E+00

kg
kg

1.00E+00
1.00E+00

R 217 [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
R 22 (chlorodifluoromethane) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]

1.00E+00
2.00E+01

kg
kg

1.00E+00
5.00E-02

R 225ca (dichloropentafluoropropane) [Halogenated organic
emissions to air]
R 225cb (dichloropentafluoropentane) [Halogenated organic
emissions to air]

5.00E+01kg

2.00E-02

3.33E+01kg

3.00E-02

1 kg NOxEquiv. = *4.23E+02

Unit

1 [Flow] = * kg
NOx-Equiv.
2.36E-03

TRACI, Smog Air [kg NOx-Equiv.]
Flow
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene [Group NMVOC to air]
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene [Group NMVOC to air]
1,2-Butandiol [Group NMVOC to air]

6.71E+02
2.30E+03

kg
kg
kg

1,3-Dimethylcyclohexane [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
1,3-Dimethylcyclopentane [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
1-Butanol [Group NMVOC to air]
1-Butylbenzene [Group NMVOC to air]
1-Butylene (Vinylacetylene) [Group NMVOC to air]
1-Ethoxy-2-propanol [Group NMVOC to air]
1-Heptanol [Group NMVOC to air]
1-Heptene [Group NMVOC to air]

2.34E+03
2.28E+03
1.43E+03
2.39E+03
4.66E+02
1.25E+03
2.15E+03
9.92E+02

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

4.27E-04
4.39E-04
7.01E-04
4.18E-04
2.15E-03
7.97E-04
4.65E-04
1.01E-03

1-Hexene [Group NMVOC to air]
1-Methoxy-2-propanol [Group NMVOC to air]
1-Methyl-2-pyrrolidone [Group NMVOC to air]
1-Nonene [Group NMVOC to air]

7.99E+02
1.56E+03
1.81E+03
7.29E+02

kg
kg
kg
kg

1.25E-03
6.41E-04
5.53E-04
1.37E-03

1-Octanol [Group NMVOC to air]
1-Octene [Group NMVOC to air]
1-Pentadecane [Group NMVOC to air]
1-Pentene [Group NMVOC to air]

2.30E+03
6.17E+02
8.82E+03
6.16E+02

kg
kg
kg
kg

4.35E-04
1.62E-03
1.13E-04
1.62E-03

1-Propanol [Group NMVOC to air]
1-Propylbenzene [Group NMVOC to air]

1.69E+03
2.14E+03

kg
kg

5.91E-04
4.67E-04

1-Tetradecane [Group NMVOC to air]
1-Tridecane [Group NMVOC to air]
1-Undecane [Group NMVOC to air]2-(2-Ethoxyethoxy)-ethanol [Group NMVOC to air]
2,2,3 Trimethylbutane [Group NMVOC to air]
2,2,3,3-Tetramethylbutane [Group NMVOC to air]

8.32E+03
7.62E+03
6.11E+03
1.30E+03
3.19E+03
9.73E+03

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

1.20E-04
1.31E-04
1.64E-04
7.70E-04
3.13E-04
1.03E-04

Page 111 of 117

1.49E-03
4.34E-04

2,2,4-Trimethylpentane [Group NMVOC to air]

2.98E+03kg

3.35E-04

2,2,5-Trimethylhexane [Group NMVOC to air]
2,2-Dimethylbutane [Group NMVOC to air]

3.07E+03
3.31E+03kg
kg

3.25E-04
3.02E-04

2,3 Dimethylpentane [Group NMVOC to air]
2,3,3-Trimethyl-1-butene [Group NMVOC to air]

2.82E+03
9.73E+02kg
kg

3.55E-04
1.03E-03

2,3,4-Trimethylpentane [Group NMVOC to air]
2,3-Dimethyl-2-butene [Group NMVOC to air]

3.31E+03
3.33E+02

kg
kg

3.02E-04
3.00E-03

2,3-Dimethylbutane [Group NMVOC to air]
2,3-Dimethylhexane [Group NMVOC to air]

3.84E+03
2.82E+03

kg
kg

2.61E-04
3.54E-04

2,3-Dimethylnapthtalene [Group NMVOC to air]
2,4-Dimethylheptane [Group NMVOC to air]

9.58E+02
2.52E+03

kg
kg

1.04E-03
3.97E-04

2,4-Dimethylhexane [Group NMVOC to air]
2,4-Dimethylpentane [Group NMVOC to air]
2,5-Dimethylhexane [Group NMVOC to air]2-Butoxy-ethanol [Group NMVOC to air]
2-Ethoxy-ethanol [Group NMVOC to air]
2-Ethoxyethyl acetate [Group NMVOC to air]
2-Ethyl-1-hexanol [Group NMVOC to air]
2-Methoxy-ethanol [Group NMVOC to air]
2-Methyl-1-butene [Group NMVOC to air]
2-Methyl-1-pentene [Group NMVOC to air]
2-Methyl-2-butene [Group NMVOC to air]
2-Methylheptane [Group NMVOC to air]
2-Methylhexane [Group NMVOC to air]
2-Methylnonane [Group NMVOC to air]
2-Methyloctane [Group NMVOC to air]
2-Methylpentane [Group NMVOC to air]
2-Octanol [Group NMVOC to air]
2-Pentene [Group NMVOC to air]
3-Carene [Group NMVOC to air]
3-Methyl-1-butene [Group NMVOC to air]
3-Methylheptane [Group NMVOC to air]
3-Methylhexane [Group NMVOC to air]
3-Methylpentane [Group NMVOC to air]
3-Octene [Group NMVOC to air]
3-Pentanol [Group NMVOC to air]
4-Ethylheptane [Group NMVOC to air]
4-Methylheptane [Group NMVOC to air]Acetaldehyde (Ethanal) [Group NMVOC to air]Acetic acid [Group NMVOC to air]
Acetone (dimethylcetone) [Group NMVOC to air]
Acrolein [Group NMVOC to air]

2.18E+03
2.72E+03
2.27E+03
1.56E+03
1.22E+03
2.10E+03
1.98E+03
1.52E+03
7.05E+02
9.27E+02
2.94E+02
3.27E+03
2.82E+03
5.12E+03
4.11E+03
2.43E+03
2.07E+03
4.73E+02
1.40E+03
6.24E+02
2.83E+03
2.27E+03
2.16E+03
4.27E+02
2.75E+03
2.60E+03
2.57E+03
6.92E+02
7.49E+03
1.04E+04
6.22E+02

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

4.59E-04
3.68E-04
4.40E-04
6.43E-04
8.20E-04
4.77E-04
5.06E-04
6.58E-04
1.42E-03
1.08E-03
3.40E-03
3.06E-04
3.54E-04
1.95E-04
2.43E-04
4.12E-04
4.83E-04
2.11E-03
7.14E-04
1.60E-03
3.54E-04
4.41E-04
4.63E-04
2.34E-03
3.63E-04
3.85E-04
3.89E-04
1.44E-03
1.33E-04
9.58E-05
1.61E-03

Page 112 of 117

alpha-Methyl tetrahydrofuran [Group NMVOC to air]

9.51E+02kg

1.05E-03

alpha-Pinene [Group NMVOC to air]
Benzaldehyde [Group NMVOC to air]

1.02E+03-1.00E+04

kg
kg

9.81E-04-9.97E-05

Benzene [Group NMVOC to air]Benzotrifluoride (Trifluorotoluene) [Halogenated organic emissions
to air]Biacetyl [Group NMVOC to air]
Butadiene [Group NMVOC to air]Butane [Group NMVOC to air]Butene [Group NMVOC to air]Butyraldehyde [Group NMVOC to air]
C10 Cyclic ketones [Group NMVOC to air]
C10 Ketones [Group NMVOC to air]
C5 Ketones [Group NMVOC to air]
C6 Cyclic ketones [Group NMVOC to air]

5.03E+03
8.87E+03

kg
kg

1.99E-04
1.13E-04

2.22E+02
3.84E+02
3.50E+03
5.71E+02
7.13E+02
2.29E+03
2.02E+03
1.67E+03
2.91E+03

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

4.51E-03
2.60E-03
2.86E-04
1.75E-03
1.40E-03
4.37E-04
4.95E-04
5.97E-04
3.43E-04

C6 Ketones [Group NMVOC to air]
C7 Cyclic ketones [Group NMVOC to air]

1.35E+03
3.33E+03

kg
kg

7.39E-04
3.00E-04

C7 Ketones [Group NMVOC to air]
C8 Cyclic ketones [Group NMVOC to air]

1.90E+03
1.87E+03

kg
kg

5.26E-04
5.34E-04

C8 Ketones [Group NMVOC to air]
C9 Cyclic ketones [Group NMVOC to air]

1.33E+03
2.08E+03

kg
kg

7.51E-04
4.80E-04

C9 Ketones [Group NMVOC to air]Carbon monoxide [Inorganic emissions to air]

1.68E+03
7.47E+04

kg
kg

5.97E-04
1.34E-05

Carbon monoxide (biotic) [Inorganic emissions to air]
Chlorobenzene [Halogenated organic emissions to air]cis-2-Butene [Group NMVOC to air]cis-2-Hexene [Group NMVOC to air]

7.47E+04
6.38E+03
3.64E+02
5.95E+02

kg
kg
kg
kg

1.34E-05
1.57E-04
2.74E-03
1.68E-03

cis-2-Pentene [Group NMVOC to air]
Crotonaldehyde [Group NMVOC to air]

4.74E+02
4.97E+02kg
kg

2.11E-03
2.01E-03

Cumene (isopropylbenzene) [Group NMVOC to air]
Cyclobutane [Group NMVOC to air]
Cyclohexane (hexahydro benzene) [Group NMVOC to air]
Cyclohexanol [Group NMVOC to air]

2.03E+03
4.06E+03
2.56E+03
1.80E+03

kg
kg
kg
kg

4.93E-04
2.46E-04
3.90E-04
5.54E-04

Cyclohexanone [Group NMVOC to air]
Cyclohexene [Group NMVOC to air]

2.91E+03
6.42E+02kg
kg

3.43E-04
1.56E-03

Cyclopentadiene [Group NMVOC to air]
Cyclopentane [Group NMVOC to air]
Cyclopentanone [Group NMVOC to air]
Cyclopentene [Group NMVOC to air]
Cyclopropane [Group NMVOC to air]Decane [Group NMVOC to air]Diacetone alcohol [Group NMVOC to air]

8.91E+02
1.93E+03
1.65E+03
9.19E+02
4.48E+04
5.40E+03
5.25E+03

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

1.12E-03
5.18E-04
6.05E-04
1.09E-03
2.23E-05
1.85E-04
1.90E-04

Page 113 of 117

Dibutyl ether [Group NMVOC to air]

1.46E+03kg

6.86E-04

Dichlorobenzene (p-DCB; 1,4-dichlorobenzene) [Halogenatedorganic emissions to air]Dichloromethane (methylene chloride) [Halogenated organic
emissions to air]Diethyl ether [Group NMVOC to air]

1.14E+04kg

8.80E-05

5.22E+04kg

1.92E-05

1.19E+03kg

8.37E-04

Diethylene glycol mono-n-butyl ether [Group NMVOC to air]Diethylketone [Group NMVOC to air]

7.50E+02
3.31E+03

kg
kg

1.33E-03
3.02E-04

Dimethyl adipate [Group NMVOC to air]Dimethyl ether [Group NMVOC to air]

2.61E+03
4.94E+03

kg
kg

3.83E-04
2.02E-04

Dimethyl glutarate [Group NMVOC to air]Dimethyl succinate [Group NMVOC to air]Dimethylamine [Group NMVOC to air]d-Limonene [Group NMVOC to air]Dodecane [Group NMVOC to air]Ethane [Group NMVOC to air]Ethanol [Group NMVOC to air]Ethene (ethylene) [Group NMVOC to air]

8.61E+03
1.23E+04
4.11E+02
1.09E+03
6.97E+03
1.42E+04
2.62E+03
5.05E+02

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

1.16E-04
8.15E-05
2.43E-03
9.14E-04
1.43E-04
7.05E-05
3.81E-04
1.98E-03

Ethine (acetylene) [Group NMVOC to air]
Ethyl acetylen [Group NMVOC to air]
Ethyl amine [Group NMVOC to air]
Ethyl benzene [Group NMVOC to air]
Ethyl butyrate [Group NMVOC to air]
Ethyl cyclohexane [Group NMVOC to air]
Ethyl cyclopentane [Group NMVOC to air]
Ethyl isopropyl ether [Group NMVOC to air]
Ethylene acetate (ethyl acetate) [Group NMVOC to air]
Ethylene glycol [Group NMVOC to air]
Ethylene oxide [Group NMVOC to air]
Ethyl-trans-butyl ether [Group NMVOC to air]

4.08E+03
4.08E+02
3.95E+02
1.69E+03
4.03E+03
2.52E+03
2.17E+03
1.06E+03
6.29E+03
8.89E+02
5.79E+04
1.78E+03

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

2.45E-04
2.45E-03
2.53E-03
5.90E-04
2.48E-04
3.97E-04
4.61E-04
9.44E-04
1.59E-04
1.13E-03
1.73E-05
5.63E-04

Formaldehyde (methanal) [Group NMVOC to air]Formic acid (methane acid) [Group NMVOC to air]
Furan [Group NMVOC to air]Glyoxal [Group NMVOC to air]Heptane (isomers) [Group NMVOC to air]Hexadecane [Group NMVOC to air]Hexan-2-one [Group NMVOC to air]Hexane (isomers) [Group NMVOC to air]
Hexylcyclohexane [Group NMVOC to air]Indan [Group NMVOC to air]

5.52E+02
2.78E+04
3.51E+02
3.50E+02
3.51E+03
9.54E+03
1.35E+03
2.98E+03
5.27E+03
1.15E+03

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

1.81E-03
3.59E-05
2.85E-03
2.86E-03
2.85E-04
1.05E-04
7.39E-04
3.35E-04
1.90E-04
8.66E-04

iso-Amyl-iso-butyrate [Group NMVOC to air]iso-Butane [Group NMVOC to air]

4.73E+03
3.22E+03

kg
kg

2.11E-04
3.11E-04

Page 114 of 117

iso-Butanol [Group NMVOC to air]

2.04E+03kg

4.91E-04

iso-Butene [Group NMVOC to air]iso-Butyl acetate [Group NMVOC to air]

7.39E+02
4.68E+03

kg
kg

1.35E-03
2.14E-04

iso-Butyraldehyde [Group NMVOC to air]iso-Pentane [Group NMVOC to air]

8.09E+02
2.60E+03

kg
kg

1.24E-03
3.84E-04

Isoprene [Group NMVOC to air]iso-Propyl acetate [Group NMVOC to air]

4.38E+02
4.16E+03kg
kg

2.28E-03
2.40E-04

Methacrolein [Group NMVOC to air]
Methane [Organic emissions to air (group VOC)]

7.78E+02
3.37E+05

kg
kg

1.29E-03
2.96E-06

Methane (biotic) [Organic emissions to air (group VOC)]
Methanol [Group NMVOC to air]

3.37E+05
5.07E+03

kg
kg

2.96E-06
1.97E-04

Methyl acetate [Group NMVOC to air]
Methyl acetylene [Group NMVOC to air]
Methyl bromide [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
Methyl cyclohexane [Group NMVOC to air]
Methyl cyclopentane [Group NMVOC to air]
Methyl formate [Group NMVOC to air]
Methyl glyoxal [Group NMVOC to air]
Methyl isobutyrate [Group NMVOC to air]
Methyl propionate [Group NMVOC to air]
Methyl propyl Ketone [Group NMVOC to air]
Methyl tert-butylether [Group NMVOC to air]
Methyl tert-butylketone [Group NMVOC to air]
Methylpentanone [Group NMVOC to air]
Methylvinyl ketone [Group NMVOC to air]Naphthalene [Group PAH to air]
Neopentane [Group NMVOC to air]Nitrobenzene [Group NMVOC to air]Nitrogen oxides [Inorganic emissions to air]Nonane [Group NMVOC to air]Octane [Group NMVOC to air]
Octyl cyclohexane [Group NMVOC to air]Pentane (n-pentane) [Group NMVOC to air]Phenol (hydroxy benzene) [Group NMVOC to air]Propane [Group NMVOC to air]Propanol (iso-propanol; isopropanol) [Group NMVOC to air]Propene (propylene) [Group NMVOC to air]
Propionic acid (propane acid) [Group NMVOC to air]Propyl acetate [Group NMVOC to air]Propyl cyclopentan [Group NMVOC to air]Propylene carbonate [Group NMVOC to air]Propylene glycol [Group NMVOC to air]

4.28E+04
3.75E+02
2.08E+05
2.39E+03
2.09E+03
3.63E+04
2.90E+02
1.19E+04
4.18E+03
1.67E+03
3.75E+03
4.82E+03
1.07E+03
5.02E+02
1.65E+03
6.34E+03
3.42E+04
1.00E+03
4.69E+03
4.05E+03
7.08E+03
2.89E+03
1.36E+03
7.81E+03
6.20E+03
4.04E+02
3.67E+03
5.16E+03
2.47E+03
1.79E+04
1.90E+03

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

2.34E-05
2.66E-03
4.80E-06
4.19E-04
4.77E-04
2.75E-05
3.45E-03
8.44E-05
2.39E-04
5.97E-04
2.66E-04
2.07E-04
9.31E-04
1.99E-03
6.06E-04
1.58E-04
2.92E-05
1.00E-03
2.13E-04
2.47E-04
1.41E-04
3.47E-04
7.38E-04
1.28E-04
1.61E-04
2.47E-03
2.73E-04
1.94E-04
4.05E-04
5.59E-05
5.27E-04

Page 115 of 117

Propylene glycol methyl ether acetate [Group NMVOC to air]

2.52E+03kg

3.96E-04

Propylene oxide [Group NMVOC to air]
Sabinene [Group NMVOC to air]

1.19E+04
6.80E+02kg
kg

8.39E-05
1.47E-03

sec-Butanol [Group NMVOC to air]sec-Butyl acetate [Group NMVOC to air]

2.96E+03
2.92E+03kg
kg

3.38E-04
3.42E-04

sec-Butyl benzene [Group NMVOC to air]
Styrene [Group NMVOC to air]

2.39E+03
2.00E+03

kg
kg

4.18E-04
5.00E-04

tertiary-Butanol [Group NMVOC to air]tertiary-Butyl acetate [Group NMVOC to air]

1.01E+04
2.44E+04

kg
kg

9.90E-05
4.10E-05

Tetrachloroethene (perchloroethylene) [Halogenated organic
emissions to air]Tetralin [Group NMVOC to air]Tolualdehyde [Group NMVOC to air]

4.34E+04kg

2.31E-05

Toluene (methyl benzene) [Group NMVOC to air]trans-2-Butene [Group NMVOC to air]

2.58E+03-1.14E+04
1.20E+03
3.46E+02

kg
kg
kg
kg

3.87E-04-8.80E-05
8.32E-04
2.89E-03trans-2-Hexene [Group NMVOC to air]trans-2-Pentene [Group NMVOC to air]

5.95E+02
4.73E+02kg
kg

1.68E-03
2.12E-03

Trichloroethene (isomers) [Halogenated organic emissions to air]
Trimethylamine [Group NMVOC to air]

4.88E+06
3.44E+02

kg
kg

2.05E-07
2.90E-03

Trimethylbenzene [Group NMVOC to air]Valeraldehyde [Group NMVOC to air]

4.54E+02
8.26E+02kg
kg

2.20E-03
1.21E-03

Xylene (meta-Xylene; 1,3-Dimethylbenzene) [Group NMVOC to air]Xylene (ortho-Xylene; 1,2-Dimethylbenzene) [Group NMVOC to air]

4.55E+02
6.42E+02kg
kg

2.20E-03
1.56E-03

Xylene (para-Xylene; 1,4-Dimethylbenzene) [Group NMVOC to air]

1.13E+03kg

8.82E-04

Page 116 of 117

ACCEPTANCE LETTER FROM THE CRITICAL REVIEW PANEL
Critical Review of the Life Cycle Assessment Study:
Life Cycle Assessment of Canada’s Polymer Bank Notes and Cotton-Paper Bank Notes
Final Report
Prepared for:
The Bank of Canada

May 20, 2011 - Final Acceptance Letter
This critical review of the above-noted LCA report provides the comments of the Review Panel composed of thefollowing reviewers:
Wayne Trusty, Past President, Athena Institute (Chair)
Neil Burnham, Senior Technical Advisor, Note Printing Australia
Lindita Bushi, Ph.D Eng., Senior Research Associate, Athena Institute
Nick Pearson, Senior Technical Expert, Bank of England
The review was performed according to Clause 7.3.3 of ISO 14040 (2006) and Clause 6.3 of ISO 14044 (2006) andtakes into consideration the ISO 14040 series of standards requirements and recommendations.
The Critical Review Panel finds that the above-noted LCA report is fully in compliance with the ISO 14040 (2006)
and 14044 (2006) standards. The Panel commends the Bank of Canada and its consultants for a very thoroughand comprehensive study.

Page 117 of 117