Technical support for environmental footprinting, material efficiency in product policy and the European platform on LCA : durability assessment of vacuum cleaners.
Date: 2015-11-16
Institutions: Institute for Environment and Sustainability
Subjects: durable goods, energy efficiency, energy saving, environmental impact, household electrical appliance, non-durable goods, product life, research report, technical specification

Technical support for Environmental Footprinting, material 
efficiency in product policy and the European Platform on LCA 

Durability assessment of 
vacuum cleaners  

Silvia Bobba, Fulvio Ardente, Fabrice Mathieux 

November 2015  

1 
Report EUR 27512 EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
European Commission 

Joint Research Centre 

Institute for Environment and Sustainability   

Contact information 

Fulvio Ardente 

Address: Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Via E. Fermi 2749 I-21027 Ispra (Italy) 

E-mail: fulvio.ardente@jrc.ec.europa.eu 

Tel.: +(39) 0332 785698 

JRC Science Hub 

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc 

Legal Notice 

This publication is a Science and Policy Report by the Joint Research Centre, the European Commission’s in-house science 
service.  It  aims  to  provide  evidence-based  scientific  support  to  the  European  policy-making  process.  The  scientific  output 
expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person 
acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of this publication. 

All images © European Union 2015,  

JRC96942 

EUR 27512 EN 

ISBN 978-92-79-52710-4 (PDF) 

ISSN 1831-9424 (online) 

doi:10.2788/563222 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015 

© European Union, 2015 

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

Printed in Italy 

Abstract:  

The report aims to contribute to the review process of the specific ecodesign requirements on the durability of the hose and 
the operational motor lifetime of the vacuum cleaner (VC) product group. For this purpose a comprehensive method for the 
environmental  and  economic  assessment  of  extending  the  lifetime  of  VCs  has  been  developed  and  applied,  based  on  the 
former indexes developed within the ‘REAPro’ method (Ardente and Mathieux, 2014). The starting point of the analysis was 
the  performing  of  a  Life  Cycle  Assessment  of  an  exemplary  VC,  complemented  with  the  analysis  of  the  literature.  The 
functional  unit  was  a  bagged  canister  VC  with  an  operating  time  of  10  years.  A  sensitivity  analysis  has  been  implemented 
considering potential changes in the manufacturing, repair, maintenance and energy consumption. Successively, the potential 
extensions of the lifetime of the VC have been analysed through the application of Durability indexes. The report showed 
that extending the lifetime of VCs generally implies benefits, from both environmental and economic perspectives, for the 
large  majority  of  scenarios  considered.  In  general,  these  benefits  already  exist  for  small  extensions  of  lifetime,  and  they 
become  significant  if  the  lifetime  is  extended further.  These  results  could  be  used to  promote  the  design  of  more durable 
products, e.g. via more ambitious policy measures. The report also highlighted the relevance of repairability of VCs from both 
environmental  and  economic  points  of  view.  Repairability  could  be  promoted  for  instance  through  a  proper  ‘design  for 
repairing’  of  products  but  also  the  availability  of  information  and  tools  for  the  repair  and/or  replacement  of  some 
components.  Finally,  the  importance of  the  role  of  consumers  has  been confirmed,  in terms  of  proper use  of  VCs  during 
their  operation  phase  and  the  proper  maintenance/repair  operations  (e.g.  to  grant  the  energy  efficiency  of  the  product 
throughout the lifetime). 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Contents 

Figures ...................................................................................................................................................................... 6 

Tables ....................................................................................................................................................................... 8 

Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................................................ 10 

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 11 

Introduction........................................................................................................................................................... 14 

CHAPTER 1  Review of durability aspects in policies and standards ......................................................... 16 

1.1.  Ecodesign Directive ................................................................................................................................ 16 

1.2.  Ecodesign  Implementing  measure  (Regulation  666/2013)  and  Energy  labelling  of  vacuum 
cleaners (Regulation 665/2013) ........................................................................................................................ 17 

1.3.  Analysis of Durability in the Ecodesign preparatory study and Impact assessment ..................... 19 

1.4.  Durability criteria in the EN and ISO Standards ............................................................................... 23 

1.4.1.  EN 60335 ......................................................................................................................................... 23 

1.4.2.  EN 60312-1:2013 ............................................................................................................................ 23 

CHAPTER 2 LCA and durability — Literature Review ................................................................................ 27 

2.1.  Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 27 

2.1.1.  Simplified LCA and matrix methods in identifying the environmental aspects of a product 

system  29 

2.1.2.  A Practical Method for Quantifying Eco-efficiency Using Eco-design Support Tools ....... 30 

2.1.3.  Eco-design for Energy-using Products: the vacuum cleaners product case ........................... 32 

2.1.4.  Product lifetime optimisation: a challenging strategy towards more sustainable consumption 

patterns 34 

2.1.5.  Eco-Efficiency of Electric and Electronic Appliances: a Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)

35 

2.1.6.  The preparatory study for Eco-Design requirements of EuPs — Vacuum cleaners ........... 36 

2.1.7.  WRAP’s Environmental assessment of consumer electronic products .................................. 41 

2.1.8.  Material-efficiency EcoDesign report and module to the Methodology for the EcoDesign of 
Energy-related Products (MEErP) .............................................................................................................. 42 

2.1.9.  The Durability of Products ............................................................................................................ 43 

2.1.10. Bagless VC ....................................................................................................................................... 44 

2.2.  Final Remarks .......................................................................................................................................... 45 

CHAPTER 3 Presentation of the case-study product .................................................................................... 47 

3 

 
 
 
 
3.1.  Characteristics of the case-study product ............................................................................................ 48 

3.2.  Manufacturing a canister vacuum cleaner ............................................................................................ 50 

3.2.1.  Hose .................................................................................................................................................. 52 

3.2.2.  Motor ................................................................................................................................................ 52 

3.2.3. 

‘Other components’ ........................................................................................................................ 54 

3.2.4.  Packaging .......................................................................................................................................... 57 

3.3.  Use phase .................................................................................................................................................. 58 

3.3.1.  Lifetime ............................................................................................................................................. 58 

3.3.2.  Energy efficiency class .................................................................................................................... 61 

3.3.3.  Maintenance and Repairs ............................................................................................................... 62 

3.3.4.  Auxiliaries components .................................................................................................................. 64 

3.4.  End-of-Life .............................................................................................................................................. 65 

3.5.  Transport .................................................................................................................................................. 66 

CHAPTER 4 LCA of the case-study product .................................................................................................. 67 

4.1.  Goal and scope ........................................................................................................................................ 67 

4.2.  Life Cycle Inventory ............................................................................................................................... 68 

4.2.1.  Manufacturing .................................................................................................................................. 68 

4.2.2.  Use phase .......................................................................................................................................... 71 

4.2.3.  End-of-Life (EoL) ........................................................................................................................... 71 

4.2.4.  Transports ........................................................................................................................................ 72 

4.3.  Impact assessment of an average canister vacuum cleaner ............................................................... 73 

4.4.  Life Cycle Interpretation ........................................................................................................................ 74 

4.4.1.  Manufacturing phase ...................................................................................................................... 74 

4.4.2.  Use phase .......................................................................................................................................... 77 

CHAPTER 5 Environmental assessment of durability issues ....................................................................... 80 

5.1.  Method for the environmental assessment of durability of energy-using products ...................... 80 

5.1.1.  Revision of the method: impacts of auxiliary materials and of replacing product ................ 81 

5.1.2.  Revision of the method: additional impacts of durable product.............................................. 82 

5.2.  Environmental assessment of durability of EuPs: the case-study of vacuum cleaners ................ 83 

5.3.  Analysis of the durability index ............................................................................................................. 85 

5.3.1.  Sensitivity analysis ........................................................................................................................... 90 

5.3.2.  Revision of the method: additional impacts of durable product.............................................. 92 

CHAPTER 6 Durability assessment through Ecoreport Tool ...................................................................... 94 

4 

 
 
 
6.1.  Analysis of durability with results from Ecoreport tool .................................................................... 98 

6.2.  Concluding remarks .............................................................................................................................. 101 

CHAPTER 7 Economic assessment of durability issues ............................................................................. 102 

7.1.  Assumptions for the economic assessment of the durability of vacuum cleaners ...................... 106 

7.2.  Analysis of the difference between the life-cycle costs of the two scenarios (CTOT) ................ 107 

7.2.1.  Life Cycle Costs ............................................................................................................................. 108 

7.2.2.  Sensitivity analysis ......................................................................................................................... 111 

Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................................... 117 

Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................................................. 120 

Annex 1 — Life Cycle Inventory of the canister vacuum cleaner .............................................................. 121 

Annex 2 — LCIA for the environmental durability assessment ................................................................. 127 

Annex 3 — Durability index of canister vacuum cleaner case-study ......................................................... 128 

References ............................................................................................................................................................ 143 

5 

 
 
 
  
 
Figures 

Figure  1:  Energy  label  for  vacuum  cleaners  placed  on  the  market  before  (on  the  left)  and  after  1 
September 2017 (on the right) .................................................................................................................................. 19 

Figure 2: Graphic representation of the two sub-options proposed by (EU 2013a) .................................. 22 

Figure  3:  The  results  of  the  LC  environmental  impact  obtained  from  the  reference  and  each  SLCA 
method  (Hur  et  al.  2005).  Impact  categories  considered  refer  to  the  eco-indicators  developed  by  the 
Korean MOCIE (Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy). ...................................................................... 30 

Figure 4: Factor X chart for two vacuum cleaners (Kobayashi et al. 2005) ................................................. 31 

Figure 5: Percentage contribution to the overall impact of a domestic VC based on the MEEuP study 33 

Figure 6:  Environmental effect of  lifetime extension versus early  replacement for product with lower 
energy consumption ................................................................................................................................................... 34 

Figure  7:  Percentage  contribution  to  the  overall  impact  of  a  domestic  VC  based  on  the  Preparatory 
study LCIA. ................................................................................................................................................................. 38 

Figure  8:  Comparison  between  the  environmental  impacts  of  the  base-case  canister  vacuum  cleaner, 
option 8 (increased lifetime) and option 7 (new materials/lightweight) assessed in the Preparatory study . 40 

Figure 9: Classification of products by energy requirement in the use phase VS materials and process 
phase ............................................................................................................................................................................. 41 

Figure 10: Energy consumption per product (% of the lifecycle).................................................................. 42 

Figure 11: Case-study canister vacuum cleaner ................................................................................................ 48 

Figure 12: Exploded drawing and spare parts listing for the canister vacuum cleaner ............................... 51 

Figure 13: Mass contribution of the canister vacuum cleaner’s components .............................................. 51 

Figure 14: Mass contribution of the hose’s materials ...................................................................................... 52 

Figure 15: Mass contribution of the motor’s materials ................................................................................... 52 

Figure 16: Example of motor assembly — exploded diagram ....................................................................... 53 

Figure  17:  Example  of  an  exploded  drawing  and  spare  parts  listing  for  the  canister  and  the  nozzle 
plate () .......................................................................................................................................................................... 54 

Figure 18: Mass contribution of the ‘other components’ materials ............................................................... 55 

Figure 19: Overview of the canister and some of its components ................................................................ 55 

Figure 20: Overview of filters within the canister ............................................................................................ 56 

Figure 21: Overview of the cord assembly (schematic representation () and the case-study cable) ......... 57 

Figure  22:  Definitions  of  various  ‘life’  terminologies  for  consumer  durables  and  other  machinery 
(Murakami et al. 2010) ............................................................................................................................................... 59 

Figure 23: Motor brushes and their abrasion (ABB group n.d.) .................................................................... 64 

Figure 24: Example of EoL treatments for a vacuum cleaner (Sam et al. 2014) ......................................... 65 

6 

 
 
 
Figure 25: Percentage contribution to the overall impact of the canister vacuum cleaner LC phases ..... 73 

Figure 26: Contribution of the canister’s materials to the overall impact of the canister vacuum cleaner
 ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 75 

Figure 27: PCB of the dismantled vacuum cleaner and example of a more recent PCB () ....................... 76 

Figure 28: Comparison between the LCIAs of VC with two different PCBs. ............................................ 77 

Figure 29: Sensitivity analysis of the energy consumption (related to VC of different energy Efficiency 
Classes) ......................................................................................................................................................................... 78 

Figure  30:  Contribution  of  the  main  LC  phases  to  the  environmental  impact  of  vacuum  cleaner  for 
different  Energy  Efficiency  Classes  to  the  impact  categories:  Abiotic  Depletion  Potential,  mineral 
resources (ADP-res), Human Toxicity non-cancer effects (HT-nc) and Global Warming Potential (GWP)
 ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 79 

Figure 31: Durability index for the canister vacuum cleaner (LRS scenario) ............................................... 88 

Figure 32: Durability index for the canister vacuum cleaner (HRS scenario) .............................................. 89 

Figure 33: Durability Index for the canister vacuum cleaner on varying -values (LRS scenario) ........... 91 

Figure 34: Durability Index for the canister vacuum cleaner by varying -values (LRS scenario) ........... 93 

Figure  35:  Percentage  contribution  to  the  overall  impact  of  the  canister  vacuum  cleaner  LC  phases 
(Ecoreport tool) .......................................................................................................................................................... 96 

Figure 36: Durability index for the canister vacuum cleaner (LRS scenario), Ecoreport tool ................. 100 

Figure 37: Durability Index for the canister vacuum cleaner (HRS scenario), Ecoreport tool ............... 100 

Figure 38: Setting of scenarios to be compared in the assessment of durability ....................................... 102 

Figure 39: CTOT for the canister vacuum cleaners with a lifetime of 500 h and 550 h ........................... 108 

Figure 40: CTOT for the canister vacuum cleaners (on varying X-values) ................................................. 108 

Figure 41: LCC of the base-case (first column) and the durable scenario (second column) ................... 109 

Figure 42: CTOT for the canister vacuum cleaner (on varying CA-values) ................................................. 111 

Figure 43: CTOT for the canister vacuum cleaner (on varying -values) ................................................... 112 

Figure 44: CTOT for the canister vacuum cleaners (on varying R-values) ................................................. 113 

Figure 45: Cost items contribution to the LCC of the Base-case and the Durable Scenario (on varying 
A-values) .................................................................................................................................................................... 113 

Figure 46: Cost items contribution to the LCC of the Base-case and the Durable Scenario (on varying 
M-values) ................................................................................................................................................................... 114 

Figure 47: CTOT for the canister vacuum cleaners (on varying i-values) ................................................... 115 

Figure 48: CTOT for the canister vacuum cleaners (on varying the growth rate values) ......................... 116 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
Tables 

Table 1: Specific Ecodesign requirements for vacuum cleaners .................................................................... 18 

Table 2: Energy efficiency classes ....................................................................................................................... 18 

Table 3: Main reasons for vacuum cleaner breakdowns (AEA Energy & Environment 2009) ................ 21 

Table 4: Literature review on studies of LCA and durability of ErPs. .......................................................... 28 

Table 5: Scope and data quality of 11 simplified methods (Hur et al. 2005) ................................................ 29 

Table 6: Base case VC characteristics considered by Kemna et al. 2005 ...................................................... 32 

Table 7: MEEuP study results of the Life-cycle impact of a domestic VC .................................................. 33 

Table 8: Bill of materials of a vacuum cleaner (mass and percentages of total mass between brackets) . 36 

Table 9: Canister VC characteristics considered by the Preparatory study .................................................. 37 

Table 10: Preparatory study results of the Life-cycle impact of a domestic VC .......................................... 38 

Table 11: EU stock 2005 environmental impacts for the base-case canister VC, the durable option and 
the light-weight option (AEA Energy & Environment 2009) ............................................................................. 40 

Table 12: Life Cycle Costs per Product — Domestic Canisters (AEA Energy & Environment 2009) .. 41 

Table 13: Components of the dismantled canister vacuum cleaner .............................................................. 49 

Table 14: Examples of packaging options ......................................................................................................... 58 

Table 15: Considerations about vacuum cleaners lifetime in literature ......................................................... 61 

Table 16: EoL assumptions in the Preparatory study ...................................................................................... 66 

Table 17: Inventory data used for the LCA of canister vacuum cleaner’s transports ................................. 66 

Table 18: ILCD/PEF recommendation impact categories ............................................................................ 67 

Table 19: Inventory data used for the LCA of canister vacuum cleaner’s hose .......................................... 68 

Table 20: Inventory data used for the LCA of canister vacuum cleaner’s motor........................................ 69 

Table 21: Inventory data used for the LCA of canister vacuum cleaner’s ‘other components’ ................ 70 

Table 22: Inventory data used for the LCA of canister vacuum cleaner’s packaging ................................. 71 

Table 23: Inventory data used for the LCA of canister vacuum cleaner use phase .................................... 71 

Table 24: Inventory data used for the LCA of canister vacuum cleaner EoL (shredding process) .......... 72 

Table 25: Inventory data used for the LCA of canister vacuum cleaner EoL (waste flows) ..................... 72 

Table 26: Inventory data used for the LCA of canister vacuum cleaner’s transports ................................. 72 

Table 27: LC Impact Assessment of the canister vacuum cleaner ................................................................ 73 

Table 28: Environmental impact of the manufacturing phase components/processes ............................. 74 

Table 29: Percentage difference between the environmental impacts of the VC on varying -values and 
the base-case VC ........................................................................................................................................................ 77 

8 

 
 
 
Table 30: Summary of the assumptions for the calculation of the durability index .................................... 85 

Table 31: Summary of the life-cycle impacts of canister vacuum cleaners (section 4.3) ............................ 85 

Table 32: Example of Durability Index (Dn) results (lifetime extension of 100 hours) .............................. 87 

Table  33:  LC  Impact  assessment  of  the  canister  vacuum  cleaner  (results  refer  to  the  overall  product 
lifetime) — Ecoreport tool ....................................................................................................................................... 95 

Table  34:  LC  Impact  assessment  of  the  canister  vacuum  cleaner  (impacts  refer  to  1-year  of  use)  — 
Ecoreport tool ............................................................................................................................................................ 95 

Table 35: LC Impact assessment of the canister vacuum cleaner .................................................................. 97 

Table  36:  Difference  between  the  life-cycle  impacts  obtained  by  the  Ecoreport  Tool  2013  and  those 
calculated by an LCA software with the impact categories selected in Table 35 .............................................. 99 

Table 37: Summary of the assumptions for the calculation of the Durability Index  — Ecoreport tool 
2013 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 99 

Table 38: Life-cycle impacts of canister vacuum cleaner for the calculation of the Durability Index ‘Dn’ 
(as derived from the Ecoreport tool 2013) ............................................................................................................. 99 

Table 39: Summary of the assumptions for the calculation of the CTOT .................................................. 107 

Table 40: Cost item distribution within the canister vacuum cleaner LCC ................................................ 110 

Table 41: Maintenance contribution to the LCC (on varying M parameter) ............................................. 114 

Table 42: CTOT on varying i-values ................................................................................................................. 115 

Table 43: Inventory data used for the LCA of canister vacuum cleaner .................................................... 121 

Table 44: Inventory data used for the LCA of canister vacuum cleaner’s hose ........................................ 122 

Table 45: Inventory data used for the LCA of canister vacuum cleaner’s motor...................................... 123 

Table 46: Inventory data used for the LCA of canister vacuum cleaner’s canister ................................... 124 

Table 47: Inventory data used for the LCA of canister vacuum cleaner’s packaging ............................... 125 

Table 48: Inventory data used for the LCA of canister vacuum cleaner’s transports ............................... 125 

Table 49: Inventory data used for the LCA of canister vacuum cleaner’s EoL ......................................... 126 

Table 50: Inventory data used for the LCA of canister vacuum cleaner’s EoL ......................................... 126 

Table 51: Life-cycle impacts for the calculation of the Durability index ‘Dn’ ............................................ 127 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Abbreviations 

the  Co-ordination  of  Consumer  Representation 

ABS  
ADP 
ANEC 

Acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene 
Abiotic Depletion Potential element 
European  Association 
Standardisation 
European Consumers’ Organization 

for 

Canadian Electrical Stewardship Association 
European Climate Change Programme 
Electrical and Electronic Equipment 
End-of-Life 
Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool 
Energy-related Product 
Energy-using Product 
Global Energy Requirement 
Green Public Procurement 
Global Warming Potential 
High-Density Polyethylene 
‘High repairing’ scenario 
International Consumer Research & Testing 
Life Cycle Assessment 
Life Cycle inventory 
Life Cycle Impact Assessment 
Low-Density Polyethylene 
Linear Low-Density Polyethylene 
‘Low repairing’ scenario 

BEUC 
BMC-GF  Bulk moulding compound — Glass Fibre 
CESA 
ECCP 
EEE 
EoL  
EPEAT 
ErP  
EuP  
GER 
GPP 
GWP 
HD-PE 
HRS 
ICRT 
LCA 
LCI  
LCIA 
LD-PE 
LLD-PE 
LRS  
MEErP  Methodology for the EcoDesign of Energy-related Products 
MEEuP  Methodology for the EcoDesign of Energy-using Products 
PCB  
POM 
POP 
PP   
SHA 
SLCA 
SMW 
VC   
VOC 
WEEE  Waste of Electrical and Electronic Equipment 

Printed Circuit Board 
Polyoxymethylene 
Persistent Organic Pollutants 
Polypropylene 
Small household Appliances 
Simplified LCA 
Small Mixed WEEE 
Vacuum cleaner 
Volatile Organic Compounds 

in 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
Executive Summary 

Context 

This report is part of the project ‘Technical support for Environmental Footprinting, material efficiency 
in product policy and the European Platform on LCA’ (1)  funded by DG Environment from 2013 until 
2016. Material-efficiency criteria for products have become increasingly relevant in EU policy, as reflected 
in some of the latest communications in which the European Commission has manifested its interest in 
‘moving towards a more circular economy’ (2). In particular, the Commission aims to go beyond its initial 
objectives (European Commission 2011; European Commission 2014) and support innovative actions at 
all stages of the lifecycle of products. The circular economy ‘can promote competitiveness, innovation, a 
high  level  of  protection  for  humans  and  the  environment,  […]  and  can  provide  consumers  with  more 
durable and innovative products that provide monetary savings and an increased quality of life’ (3). 

Promoting  more  durable  products  is  also  an  objective  of  the  EU  Ecodesign  Directive  (2009/125/EC), 
which  mentions  the  relevance  for  evaluating  the  potential  for  the  extension  of  lifetime  of  products  (as 
achieved through minimum guaranteed lifetime, minimum time for availability of spare parts, modularity, 
upgradeability, reparability). Ecodesign requirements on durability have been developed, in particular, for 
the ‘vacuum cleaner’ (VC) product group, setting that ‘the hose, if any, shall be durable so that it is still 
useable after 40,000 oscillations under strain’, and that ‘the operational motor lifetime shall be greater than 
or equal to 500 hours’ (4). EU Regulation No  666/2013 also established the need to ‘review the specific 
ecodesign requirements on the durability of the hose and the operational motor lifetime […] by September 
2016’. 

This  report  aims  at  contributing  to  this  review  by  putting  together  results  obtained  when  applying  a 
comprehensive  method  for  the  assessment  of  environmental  and  economic  benefits  of  extending  the 
lifetime  of  VCs.  The  method  has  been  built  upon  the  method  REAPro  (Resource  Efficiency  of 
Products) (5) (6), and based on a ‘life-cycle thinking’ approach. In particular, the environmental assessment 
method has been revised to capture new aspects of the durability (including the assessment of the impacts 
of auxiliary materials used during the operation, the impacts due to the manufacturing of a more durable 
product and the impacts of the potential substituting product). Moreover, the method has been enlarged 
to assess also the economic costs and benefits of extending the lifetime of product. 

Life Cycle Assessment 

The selected base-case product was a bagged VC with a lifetime of 500 hours (7), and a consumption of 
25  [kWh/year] ( 8 ).  The  Bill  of  Materials  has  been  derived  by  exemplary  products  disassembled 
complemented  by  data  from  the  literature.  Information  about  other  life-cycle  phases  (manufacturing, 

(1) 
(2) 
(3) 
(4) 
(5) 

(6) 
(7) 
(8) 

Administrative Arrangement JRC № 33446 -2013-11 07.0307/ENV/2013/SI2.668694/A1 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/index_en.htm  
http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/planned_ia/docs/2015_env_065_env+_032_circular_economy_en.pdf  
Commission Regulation (EU) No 666/2013 
http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/integration-of-resource-efficiency-and-waste-management-criteria-in-european-product-policies-second-phase-
pbLBNA25656/  
Ardente and Mathieux (2014), Journal of Cleaner Production 74(1),62–73. 
This corresponds to 10 years, assuming 50 hours of operation per year. 
This value corresponds to a product of Energy class ‘A’. 

11 

 
 
 
                                                 
transports,  end-of-life)  have  been  derived  by  various  references,  including  the  ‘Work  on  Preparatory 
Studies for Eco-Design Requirements of EuPs (II) Lot 17 Vacuum Cleaners’ (2009). 

The  environmental  impacts  estimated  through  the Life  Cycle  Assessment  methodology  proved  to  be 
largely influenced by the use-phase, especially for impacts as the Global Warming Potential (GWP) and the 
Acidification. The impact due to the production of materials and components was always relevant (above 
15 %)  for  all  the  considered  impact  categories,  and  it  resulted  dominant  for  some  of  them.  Particularly 
relevant is the contribution of the manufacturing of the printed circuit board (PCB), of copper and steel 
parts, and of large plastic parts. 

Durability Assessment 

The  environmental  assessment  of  durability  compared  the  two  different  scenarios:  prolonging  the 
lifetime of the VC beyond 10 years versus the replacement of the VC with a more energy efficient one. 
The  analysis  proved  that  the  benefits  are  mainly  depending  on  the  energy  efficiency  of  the  potential 
replacing  product  and  the  considered  impact  category.  Higher  benefits  are  estimated  for  those  impact 
categories more influenced by the manufacturing. Considering the GWP indicator, extending the lifetime 
of the VC by 100 h (i.e. 2 years) saves around 1.5 % of GWP compared to its replacement with a 15 % 
more efficient product. Alternatively, the same lifetime extension generates higher benefits (up to 20 %) 
for  other  impact  category  (as  the  ‘Abiotic  Depletion  Potential’  (ADP)).  The  analysis  proves  also  that 
higher benefits can be obtained for higher extension of the lifetime. For instance, in comparison to the 
replacement of the VC with a new one 15 % more efficient, a lifetime extension of 300 hours (i.e. 6 years) 
can reduce the GWP impact by 5 %. It was observed that there are also environmental benefits even when 
extra impacts are accounted due to the manufacturing of more durable products. 

In order to perform a comprehensive assessment of durability, the environmental analysis has been also 
performed  using  the  Ecoreport  tool  2013 ( 9 ).  The  life-cycle  impacts  of  the  base-case  VC  and  the 
environmental assessment of extending the lifetime have been calculated based on the same assumptions 
of the previous analysis. This study demonstrated the applicability of the proposed method also through 
the use of the Ecoreport tool, although some limitations occurred (mainly related to the inclusion of new 
materials and components, the adoption of different impact categories and the modelling of aspects as the 
transport, repair and maintenance). The results provided via the Ecoreport tool proved to be similar for 
the GWP impact  category. For instance, compared to the replacement of the VC with a new one  15 % 
more  efficient,  the  lifetime  extension  of  100  h  reduces  the  GWP  by  3.7 %  (compared  to  the  1.7 % 
previously calculated). The analysis based on other impact categories has been not reported due to higher 
uncertainties and lower comparability. 

Similarly  to  the  environmental  analysis,  the  economic  assessment  analysed  the  costs  and  benefits  of 
prolonging the lifetime of VC versus its replacement, taking a life-cycle perspective. The outcomes proved 
that the lifetime extension of 100 h brings a saving of about 11-13 € (10), depending on assumed the energy 
efficiency  class  of  a  potential  replacing  VC.  Moreover,  the  higher  lifetime  extension,  the  higher  are  the 
economic  benefits  achieved.  Also  the  repair  costs  have  been  included  in  the  economic  assessment  and 
revealed  to be relevant. For example, for repair costs lower than  20 % than  the purchasing price  of the 

(9) 

The ‘Ecoreport tool’ is the tool used to run the environmental assessment within the preparatory study for Ecodesign implementing measures for energy 
related product. The version considered for this analysis was the v.3.06 as modified in 2013 to take into account the lifetime parameter [BIO Intelligence 
Service (2013a)] 

(10)  This scenario did not include costs for repair. 

12 

 
 
 
                                                 
VC, it is always convenient to extend the lifetime  than  replacing  a product with one  15 % more  energy 
efficient.  For  repair  costs  up  to  40 %  of  the  purchasing  price,  the  economic  benefits  occur  when  the 
lifetime is extended for more than 200 h. 

The environmental and economic assessments have been also complemented by a detailed sensitivity 
analysis of the assumptions, to increase the robustness of the results. Also in this case, the extension of the 
lifetime resulted to be environmentally beneficial in the large majority of the considered scenarios. 

Conclusions 

In conclusion, the study showed that extending the lifetime of VC generally implies benefits, from both 
environmental and economic perspectives, for the large majority of scenarios considered. In general, these 
benefits  already  exist  for  small  extension  of  the  lifetime  and  they  become  significant  if  the  lifetime  is 
extended further. These  results could be  used  to promote the  design of more durable products, e.g. via 
more ambitious policy measures. 

The  report  also  highlighted  the  relevance  of  reparability  of  VCs  from  both  environmental  and 
economic  points  of  view.  Reparability  could  be  promoted  for  instance  through  a  proper  ‘design  for 
repairing’ of products but also the availability of information and tools for the repair and/or replacement 
of some components. 

Finally, the importance of the role of consumers has been confirmed. This is particularly important in 
terms of proper use of VCs during their operation phase and the proper maintenance/repair operations 
(e.g. to grant the energy efficiency of the product throughout the lifetime). 

The  results  presented  in  this  report  should  be  considered  during  the  review  of  EU  Regulation 

No 666/2013 of 8 July 2013 on ecodesign requirements for vacuum cleaners. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
0. Introduction 

Durability is often seen as one of the most important criteria for resource efficiency of products. The 
relevance of durability was mentioned in some major European policy documents (EC 2011a; EC 2011b) 
and included for several years in some European and non-European voluntary instruments (e.g. criteria for 
Green Public Procurement and for various eco-labelling  schemes as the  EU  Ecolabel, Nordic Ecolabel, 
Blaue Engel, and Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool — EPEAT). 

Durability is a cross-cutting requirement of different aspects of resource efficiency requirements (waste 
reduction,  reparability,  design  for  disassemblability,  remanufacturing,  refurbishment  and  reuse),  and  it 
should be carefully assessed to evaluate potential benefits associated to the lifetime extension (Bundgaard 
et al. 2014). 

In the last year there were  some  examples of durability  aspects introduced into mandatory  European 
policies  (e.g.  Ecodesign  implementing  measures  for  some  Energy-related  Products  —  ErP).  However, 
there are several difficulties in implementing durability requirements, as for example the strict relationship 
with the user behaviour or the lack of measurement methods. Moreover, the extension of the lifetime of 
ErP  can  produce  conflicting  environmental  effects,  since  it  can  produce  some  advantages  (in  terms  of 
lower use of resources and waste reduction), but it can also cause some impacts (in terms of higher energy 
consumption  during  the  operation).  Also  the  assessment  of  the  durability  of  products  and  of  the 
associated benefits/impacts is more difficult compared to energy efficiency aspects. Standardised tests for 
the durability are missing for a large number of products and this has been representing an obstacle to the 
implementation and verification of durability measures into policies. 

Some authors also emphasized that the technological improvement due to ecodesign policy measures 
had  also  positive  impacts  for  the  durability  (Bundgaard  et  al.  2014).  Nonetheless,  resource  efficiency 
aspects and, in particular, durability, are still considered as crucial factors to be implemented into product 
policies.  For  instance,  in  order  to  stress  these  aspects,  the  Austrian  ‘Sustainability  label  for  electric  and 
electronic appliances designed for easy repair (white and brown goods)’ underlines the importance of the 
‘repair services’ within the context of the EU legislation, with particular reference to the WEEE Directive 
(Österreichisches  Normungsinstitut  2006).  Criteria  on  durability  as  implemented  in  some  voluntary 
instruments  can  be  divided  into  two  main  groups:  direct  criteria  on  durability  of  a  specific  product  or 
component, or indirect criteria. These latter are mainly related to extended warranty, upgradability, repair, 
availability of spare parts and modularity (Bundgaard et al. 2014). Moreover, it should be noticed that the 
costs due to repairing/replacing spare parts or to higher operational costs can discourage the consumer in 
purchasing longer-lasting products (including also reused products) (Boulos et al. 2014). 

Vacuum  cleaner  is  one  of  the  few  product  groups  for  which  durability  requirements  have  been 
introduced  into  Ecodesign  measures  (EC  2008).  These  requirements  have  been  introduced  because  the 
relevance of lifetime issues for VC has been recognised during the preparatory phase due to the availability 
of a standardised method for the testing of the hose durability and operational motor lifetime. However, 
even  if  the  potential  benefit/cost  of  extending  the  lifetime  of  VC  have  been  assessed  within  the 
preparatory  study,  it  can  represent  a  starting  point  for  a  more  details  and  exhaustive  analysis  as  some 
considerations  about  technology  development,  or  increase  of  energy  efficiency  of  replacing  products  or 
even higher options of lifetime extension are not included in such a study. 

14 

 
 
 
This report will analyse the environmental and economic benefits, in a life-cycle perspective, due to the 
extension of the lifetime of VCs. The first part will analyse durability issues, focusing on EU policies and 
the scientific literature. Successively, a case-study VC is analysed through the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) 
methodology. Results are used to assess the potential environmental and economic costs and benefits due 
to the extension of its lifetime. The analysis will be also be complemented with results obtained with the 
Ecoreport tool (11). 

This  report  has  been  developed  within  the  study  ‘Technical  support  for  Environmental  Footprint, 
material  efficiency  in  product  policy  and  the European  Platform  on  LCA’  funded  by  DG  Environment 
(AA JRC No 33446 — 2013-11 07.0307/ENV/2013/SI2.668694/A1). 

(11)  Based on the ‘Methodology for the Ecodesign of Energy-related Products’ (MEErP) 

15 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
1. CHAPTER 1  
Review of durability aspects in policies and standards 

Chapter 1 analyses the available policies and standards relevant to durability of the VCs product group. 
In  this  context,  the  Ecodesign  directive  and  the corresponding  implementing  measures  have  introduced 
some  durability  criteria especially  for non-directional  household lamps  (EU 2009a) and vacuum  cleaners 
(EU 2013a). 

Concerning  the  Ecodesign  directive  and  the  energy  labelling  regulation  for  VCs,  section  1.1  and  1.2 
report  the  significant  information  about  durability  and  VCs.  Section  1.3  analyses  the  durability  issue  as 
discussed in the Preparatory study for ecodesign requirements of Energy-using Products and in the Impact 
Assessment  report  accompanying  the  ecodesign  directive  and  the  energy  label  of  VCs.  Finally,  the 
international  standards  concerning  vacuum  cleaners  have  been  investigated:  section  1.4  illustrates  the 
durability  criteria  proposed  in  the  EN  and  ISO  standards  regarding  durability  of  vacuum  cleaners  (in 
particular for the hose durability and the operational motor lifetime). 

1.1. 

Ecodesign Directive 

In 2009 Directive 2009/125/EC was adopted by the European Union for establishing a ‘framework for 
the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products’, i.e. those products having an impact on 
energy consumption (12). This section collects the most significant information included in the Ecodesign 
Directive that are propaedeutic for this study. 

The  background  information  of  Directive  2009/125/EC  highlight  that,  within  the  European 
Community, a large portion of natural resources and energy is consumed for production and use of the 
Energy-related  Products  (ErPs);  furthermore,  the  electricity  demand  in  EU  is  fasting  growing  (and  it  is 
projected  to  grow  within  the  next  20  to  30  years  in  the  absence  of  any  policy  action  to  counteract  this 
trend) (EU 2009b). The Commission, in its European Climate Change Programme (ECCP) (13), suggested 
that  lower  energy  consumption  is  feasible,  notably  in  terms  of  preventive  approach.  In  this  framework, 
energy savings can represent the most cost-effective way to both increase the supply security and decrease 
the import dependency. It should be also acknowledged that certain ErPs have significant improvement 
potentials  through  better  design  and  a  more  environmentally  friendly  use.  The  integration  between  the 
environmental  aspects  and  the  product  design  (EcoDesign (14))  is  recognised  as  a  crucial  factor  in  the 
Community  strategy  on  Integrated  Product  Policy  (EC  2001),  where  the  purpose  is  the  optimisation  of 
environmental performances of products along their life-cycle, without negatively affecting their functional 
qualities. 

In  this  perspective,  the  EcoDesign  directive  establishes  a  framework  for  setting  up  EcoDesign 
requirements  for  Energy-related  Products,  and  so  it  contributes  to  Sustainable  Development  improving 
both energy and resource efficiency of products. 

(12)  Energy-related products include both Energy-using Products (EuPs) and products which not use energy but having an impact on energy 
(13) 
(14) 

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/eccp/second/index_en.htm (accessed April 2015) 
‘Ecodesign’  means  the  integration  of  environmental  aspects  into  product  design  with  the  aim  of  improving  the  environmental  performance  of  the 
product throughout its whole life-cycle (EU 2009b) 

16 

 
 
 
                                                 
It  should  be  noticed  that  the  EcoDesign  directive  focuses  on  ErPs  with  a considerable  sales  volume 
within  the  Community  (higher  than  200  000  units/year),  with  a  significant  impact  but  also  with  a  high 
potential of improvement concerning their environmental impacts, without excessive costs. 

In order to achieve the improvement of the environmental performances of products, the ‘EcoDesign 
parameters for products’ related to all the phases of the products life-cycle have been identified (Annex I 
of the Ecodesign Directive). Among others, the extension of lifetime is one these key criteria and is stated 
in terms of: 

-  minimum guaranteed lifetime; 
-  minimum time for availability of spare parts; 
-  modularity; 
-  upgradeability; 
- 
reparability. 

This  means  that  different  aspects  occurring  during  the  life-cycle  of  products  are  related  to  the  ‘lifetime’ 
parameter and should be taken into account for evaluating ‘the potential for improving the environmental 
aspects’ (EU 2009). 

In  this  context,  the  communication  factor  plays  a  key  role  for  maximising  the  environmental 
characteristics  and  performance  (particularly  from  manufacturers  to  consumers),  also  through  the 
sustainable use of products. Indeed, within the ‘requirements relating to the supply of information’ (Part 2 
of Annex I of the Ecodesign Directive), there are listed the required information that should be supplied 
by  manufacturers  to  the  end  users.  These  information  refer  to  the  environmental  characteristics  and 
performance  of  ErPs  but  also  to  their  handling,  for  instance  how  to  install,  use,  maintain  and  dispose 
those  products  in  an  environmentally  friendly  manner,  the  period  of  availability  of  spare  parts  and  the 
possibility of upgrading products. 

Finally, it is worth noting that the EcoDesign directive is complementary to other policy instruments 
including: energy labelling and standard product information of energy consumption (EU 1992; EU 2008), 
eco-label  award  schemes  (EU  2000),  waste  electrical  and  electronic  equipment  (WEEE)  (Directive 
2002/96/EC), use of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (Directive 2002/95/EC, 
Directive 2006/121/EC). 

1.2. 

Ecodesign Implementing measure (Regulation 666/2013) and 

Energy labelling of vacuum cleaners (Regulation 665/2013) 

As  previously  mentioned,  the  Ecodesign  directive  introduced  durability  issues  in  particular  for  lamps 
and  vacuum  cleaners.  Among  the  Ecodesign  implementing  measures,  the  EU  Regulation  No 666/2013 
(EU 2013a) is about the ecodesign of vacuum cleaners. In such a document, some significant elements are 
identified, such as energy consumption in the use phase, dust pick-up on carpet and on hard floor, dust re-
emission, noise (sound power level) and durability (particularly about hose and operational motor lifetime). 

In  Table  1  the  details  of  the  ecodesign  requirements  are  illustrated.  The  application  of  these 
requirements is scheduled in two different steps in order to allow manufacturers enough time for product 
re-design. Note  that when this Regulation entered into force in 2013, the benchmark between domestic 
vacuum cleaners available in the market was ‘an upright vacuum cleaner of 650 W at a cleaning head width 

17 

 
 
 
of  0.28  m,  which  translates  into  a  specific  energy  consumption  of  1.29  Wh/m2,  although  with  sound 
power level rated at over 83 dB’. 

Table 1: Specific Ecodesign requirements for vacuum cleaners 

Parameter 

Annual energy requirement 
Rated input power 
Dust pick-up on carpet 
Dust pick-up on hard floor 
Dust re-emission 
Sound power level 
Hose 
Operational motor 

From 
1 September 2014 
65 
1600 
0.7 
0.95 
- 
- 

From 
1 September 2017 
43 
900 
0.75 
0.98 
1 
80 

Unit of 
Measure 
[kWh/year] 
[W] 
- 
- 
[ %] 
[dB(A)] 

Still useable after 40 000 oscillations under strain 
Greater than or equal to 500 hours 

This EU regulation highlights that the ‘durability’ parameter is strictly related to hose durability and the 
operational motor lifetime. The ‘Measurements and calculation method’ (Annex II of the 666/2013/EU) 
specify that the hoses ‘shall be considered usable after 40 000 oscillations under strain if it is not visibly 
damaged after those oscillations, and strain shall be applied by means of a weight of 2.5 kilograms’; while 
concerning the operational motor, its lifetime should be greater or equal to 500 hours, and the test ‘may be 
discontinued after 500 hours and shall be discontinued after 600 hours’, as envisaged also by the existing 
standards about vacuum cleaners (chapter 1.4). 

Together with the Ecodesign directive, other Union instruments contribute to create a legal framework 
in order to maximise the energy savings and the environmental performances of products. Among these 
instruments,  Directive  30/2010  ‘on  the  indication  by  labelling  and  standard  product  information  of  the 
consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products’ (EU 2010) concerns the labelling 
and standard product information about energy consumption in order to allow end-users to choose more 
efficient  products.  In  particular,  Regulation  665/2013  (EU  2013b)  supplements  Directive  30/2010  with 
regard to energy labelling of vacuum cleaners. 

Energy 
Efficiency 
Class 

A+++ 
A++ 
A+ 
A 
B 
C 
D 
E 
F 
G 

Table 2: Energy efficiency classes 

Annual energy consumption (AE) [kWh/y] 

From 
1 September 2014 
n/a 
n/a 
n/a 
AE ≤ 28,00 
28.00 < AE ≤ 34.00 
34.00 < AE ≤ 40.00 
40.00 < AE ≤ 4616.00 
46.00 < AE ≤ 52.00 
52.00 < AE ≤ 58.00 
AE > 58.00 

From 
1 September 2017 
AE ≤ 10.00 
10.00 < AE ≤ 16.00 
16.00 < AE ≤ 22.00 
22.00 < AE ≤ 28.00 
28.00 < AE ≤ 34.00 
34.00 < AE ≤ 40.00 
AE > 40.00 
n/a 
n/a 
n/a 

18 

 
 
 
 
The  Energy  label  of  VCs  also  prescribes  to  label  the  annual  energy  consumption  in  kWh/year,  as 
indicative annual energy consumption based on 50 cleaning tasks. Similarly the Ecodesign implementing 
measures assumes 50 one-hour cleaning tasks per year. 

The  energy-labelling  directive  identifies  the  information  that  must  be  provided  on  the  label,  on 
technical  documentation,  on  any  advertisement  disclosing  energy-related  or  price  information,  and  any 
technical promotional  materials including the technical parameter of a VC model. Table  2 illustrates the 
energy efficiency classes set for the VC product group. Starting from 1/9/2017 the worst energy class will 
include VCs with an annual energy consumption higher than 40 [kWh/y]. 

Figure 1: Energy label for vacuum cleaners placed on the market before (on the left) and 
after 1 September 2017 (on the right) 

1.3. Analysis of Durability in the Ecodesign preparatory study and Impact 

assessment 

An important source of information for the European policies about ecodesign of VCs is represented 
by  the  Preparatory  study  for  ecodesign  requirements  of  Energy-using  Products  (EuPs)  about  vacuum 
cleaners (in the following called ‘Preparatory study’) carried out by AEA Energy & Environment, Intertek, 
and Consumer Research Associates between November 2007 and January 2009. The available information 
of  this  document  concerns  technical,  environmental  and  economic  aspects  of  VCs;  therefore, 
complemented  by  those  included  within  the  Impact  Assessment  report  accompanying  the  ecodesign 
directive and the energy label of VCs (EC 2013), they were used as sources of information but also as basis 
for comparison with the results obtained by this study. Those compliant to such purpose are hereinafter 
illustrated. 

As  mentioned  in  section  1.1,  products  that  should  be  covered  by  the  implementing  measures  of  the 
ecodesign  directive  must  respect  three  criteria:  large  quantities  of  products  placed  on  the  EU  market, 
significant  environmental  impact  related  to  energy  consumption,  significant  potential  improvement 
without entailing excessive costs. According to the Preparatory study, VCs respect all these three criteria. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
In 2006, the apparent consumption (15) of domestic VCs in EU-25 was around 45 million, most of them 
imported from China (only about 14 million produced in EU-27, particularly in Germany, Italy and UK). 
Note that the Preparatory study assumes that 85 % of the VCs on the market are canister VCs, while just 
15 %  are  uprights.  Trade  data  and  PRODCOM  statistics (16)  proved  that  the  sales  growth  rate  between 
2000  and  2005  was  around  9 %,  and  most  of  the  sold  units  are  related  to replacements,  but  during the 
crisis 2008-2010 the sales dropped  to the  level  of  around 2005, and afterwards  started  again  to increase 
(EC 2013; AEA Energy & Environment 2009). As illustrated in the Preparatory study, the main reasons 
for the increase of the sales of VCs between 2000 and 2005 may be related to the VC lifetime: the assumed 
average  lifetime  for  domestic  VCs  is  equal  to  8  years,  but  the  Preparatory  study  forecasted  that  it  is 
expected to decline from 8 years in 2010 to 5 years in 2020. 

According  to  the  available  information  of  both  the  Preparatory  study ( 17)  and  the  Impact  assessment 
report (18), the overall amount of electricity consumption associated to the operation of vacuum cleaners is 
very  high:  around  19  TWh  per  year  in  the  EU-27  (about  25 %  due  to  non-domestic  VCs,  and  75 %  to 
domestic ones). Finally, an initial Methodology study for ecodesign of Energy-using Products (MEEuP), 
demonstrating that VCs environmental impact is ‘use-phase’ dominated, estimated the amount of potential 
savings deriving from the application of different design options. 

The  case-study of this report is therefore  a domestic  canister vacuum  cleaner  with a lifetime of 8 years, 
consistent with the above-mentioned market trends. 

In  order  to  evaluate  the  amount  of  energy  use  and  the  corresponding  environmental  impact,  different 
aspects  should  be  simultaneously  taken  into  account,  as  the  number  of  households ( 19),  the  dwelling 
sizes (20) and  the  power consumption  of VCs  (EC 2013; AEA Energy  & Environment 2009). Especially 
concerning  the  latter,  it  is  worth  noting  that  this  parameter  plays  a  central  role  in  potential  energy 
consumption savings, as consumers’ choices are often based on it: the higher the input power, the higher 
seems to be the performance of the VCs. Mainly for that reason, in the last decades the input power range 
of VCs has increased. On the contrary, the Preparatory study affirms that ‘there is no correlation between 
input  power  and  cleaning  performance’.  Moreover,  the  study  depicts  that  the  range  of  vacuum  cleaners 
available in the market in 2005 includes products with an input power range from 1 000 W to 2 700 W, 
even if there are also examples of machines working in the range 650-900 W. This range is also related to 
the type of VC: the input power range is higher for canister than for upright VCs, but it is also higher for 
bagless than for bagged VCs (AEA Energy & Environment 2009). 

In  this  framework,  the  lifetime  of  VCs  is  fundamental  for  assessing  the  environmental  impact  and  the 
potential savings associated to the life-cycle of VCs, and it should be noted that lifetime is dependent on 
different  aspects.  In  this  perspective,  the  Preparatory  study  highlights  that  the  potential  increase  of  the 
environmental  impact  due  to  the  VCs  energy  consumption  within  the  European  Union  is  not  directly 
connected  to  more  VCs  sales;  the  essential  parameter,  in  fact,  is  represented  by  the  total  number  of 
the  amount  of  energy  demand. 
operating  hours  per  household ( 21 ),  directly  associated 

to 

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/external/prodcom-database-eurostat  

(15)  The apparent consumption of VCs is given by the production and the imports of VC minus the exports of VCs 
(16) 
(17)  The environmental impact assessment of the EU-Stock 2005 highlights an electricity consumption of 3.7 TWh 
(18) 
(19)  The number of households is supposed to increase around 1-1.5 % per year (EC 2013) 
(20)  The dwelling size is supposed to be incremented by 20 % in the period 2000-2020 (EC 2013) 
(21)  This parameter is strongly affected by the consumer’s behaviour as well as on the functions for which the VC is used (for instance use in a garage or wet 

In 2010 the EU-27 stock is of about 200 million units 

and dry cleaning) 

20 

 
 
 
                                                 
Moreover, the lifetime of an average VC is mainly related to some of its components, essentially the hose 
and the operational motors; this is confirmed if the principal reasons  for breakdown are analysed (Table 
3). Note that the breakdown of the motor usually corresponds to the substitution of the VC as the motor 
operating lifetime strictly depends on the wearing down of its carbon brushes and, in the domestic market, 
a worn-out carbon brush means the motor is unusable. This usually occurs after 500 hours of operating 
time  of  the  motor  (that  corresponds  to  about  8  years  of  VC  use)  (AEA Energy  & Environment  2009).

Hence, the lifetime adopted in the Preparatory study for assessing the environmental impact of a domestic 
vacuum  cleaner  is  500  hours,  considering  62.5  hours  per  year  of  time  spent  cleaning  and  an  electricity 
consumption of 1.5 kWh per hour (which means about 94 kWh per year). 

Table 3: Main reasons for vacuum cleaner breakdowns (AEA Energy & Environment 2009) 

Reason for breakdown 
Split/broken hose 
Suction 
Motor 
Broken casing 
Power cable 

Upright 
21 % 
19 % 
16 % 
- 
- 

Cylinder 
25 % 
15 % 
- 
11 % 
11 % 

Based  on  these  hypotheses,  the  analysis  performed  by  the  Preparatory  study  proves  that  the  canister 

VC life-cycle impacts are mainly related to the use-phase (22). 

As  previously  mentioned,  the  Preparatory  study  assessed  the  ‘improvement  potential’  through  8 
different ‘design options’, which take into account both the environmental and the economic aspects. The 
technical design options adopted by the Preparatory study are the followings: 

-  maximisation of fan efficiency; 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

improvement of efficiency airways; 
improvement of the nozzle; 
reduction of filtration energy losses; 
reduction of leakage losses; 
combination of the previous five options; 
reduction of materials (for instance considering best materials options); 
increase of the product lifetime. 

Among these options, two are particularly relevant for the objective of this study. The first refers to the 
potential  extension  of  VC  lifetime  (option  8  within  the  Preparatory  study:  ‘Increased  product  lifetime’), 
while  the  second  refers  to  the  potential  reduction  of  materials  (option  7  within  the  Preparatory  study: 
‘reduced  materials/lightweighting’).  For  both  of  these  options,  the  life-cycle  impact  has  been  calculated 
through  the  Ecoreport  tool  and  a  Life  Cycle  Cost  analysis  has  been  performed.  The  main  outcomes  of 
these analyses are illustrated in section 2.1.6. 

(22) 

For a domestic bagged canister vacuum cleaner with a lifetime of 8 years and an energy consumption of 1.5 kWh per hour, almost 90 % of the life-cycle 
Total Energy (GER) is to be associated to the use-phase, while less than 10 % is related to the manufacturing phase 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Based on the Preparatory study results, the Impact Assessment report figures some policy options for 
implementing  the  ecodesign  requirements  and  the  energy  labelling  for  VCs.  These  options  concern  the 
introduction  of  a  power  cap  (sub-option  1  in  the  Impact  Assessment  report),  the  elimination  of  one  or 
more  energy  efficiency  classes  in  line  with  the  2010  industry  proposal  (sub-option  2  in  the  Impact 
Assessment  report)  and  the  combination  of  these  two  aspects  (sub-option  3  in  the  Impact  Assessment 
report). The sub-option 1 considers the introduction of a first power cap in 2014 (1 000 W) and a second 
one  in  2017  (750  W).  The  sub-option  2,  as  illustrated  in  Figure  2,  refers  to  the  elimination  of  class  F 
(during the first stage) and class G (during the second stage), without any power cap. Indeed, the second 
option proposes a first cap of 1 600 W  together with the elimination of classes F and G, followed by a 
second step establishing a 1 200 W cap and the elimination of the D and E energy efficiency classes; in the 
meantime  it  is  supposed  to  create  three  new  classes:  A+,  A++  and  A+++  (EU  2013a).  All  three  sub-
options  can  guarantee  a  reduction  of  the  environmental  impact  within  the  EU,  but  sub-option  3  is 
considered to offer the optimal solution between fast savings and minimum strain for the industry (EU 2013a). 

Finally,  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  Impact  Assessment  report  affirms  that  the  ‘durability 
requirements addressing the hose and the motor can be introduced’. This is related to the not insignificant 
energy embedded in domestic VCs, to the top reasons for breakdowns (mainly due to the ‘split or broken 
hose’  and  the  ‘motors’)  and  to  the  existence  of  applicable  test  methods  included  in  the  IEC  60312 
standard (EU 2013a). 

Figure 2: Graphic representation of the two sub-options proposed by (EU 2013a) 

In  conclusion,  the  relevant  aspects  coming  to  light  from  the  Preparatory  study  and  the  Impact 

assessment report are hereinafter summarised: 

-  VC environmental impact is ‘use-dominant’, but it is worth noting  that the manufacturing phase 
contribution, especially for domestic VCs, is lower than 10 %. Note that the energy consumption 
is higher than 90 kWh per year; 
the  energy  consumption  during  use  and  hence  the  environmental  impacts  of  VCs  depends  on 
several  factors,  for  instance  time  spent  cleaning,  dwelling  size,  number  of  households,  power 
consumption; 

- 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
- 

- 

- 

- 

lifetime  of  VCs  strictly  depends  on  the  consumer’s  behaviour  in  terms  of  frequency  of 
maintenance, repair and substitution of VC (23); 
lifetime of VCs is dependent on the repair and maintenance potential of some of its components, 
especially the hose and the operational motor; 
the  extension  of  VC  lifetime  has  been  assessed  (from  an  environmental  and  economic  point  of 
view)  but  without  taking  into  account  the  substitution  of  the  VC  with  one  that  is  more  energy 
efficient; 
the policy options for the achievement of energy consumption savings and environmental impact 
reduction take into account the potential introduction of a power cap combined to the elimination 
of some energy efficiency classes. 

1.4. 

Durability criteria in the EN and ISO Standards 

Under  the  Union  harmonization  legislation,  EN  60335.2.2  (CENELEC  2012)  and  EN  60312  (IEC 
60312-1:2010, and A1:2011) are the two major standards applicable to vacuum cleaners (EC 2014a), and 
both  of  them  are  harmonised  with  the  equivalent  IEC  standards  (International  Electrotechnical 
Commission, www.iec.ch/). Details of these standards are described in the following sections. 

1.4.1. 

EN 60335 

Within  the  family  of  standards  EN  60335  (‘Household  and  similar  electrical  appliances’),  the  EN 
60335-2-2 deals with the specific requirements for vacuum cleaners and water-suction cleaning appliances 
for  household  and  similar  purposes,  including  vacuum  cleaners  for  animal  grooming,  centrally  sited 
vacuum  cleaners  and  automatic  battery-powered  cleaners.  Hazards  associated  with  appliance  usage  are 
taken into account, as the standard is largely focused on safety issues. 

The  general  conditions  of  the  tests  envisage  that,  for  motor-operated  appliances ( 24),  ‘the  tests  are 
carried out on the appliance as supplied’ and with a power input corresponding to ‘the power input at the 
most unfavourable voltage within the rated voltage range’. This standard also defines the maximum input 
power, the minimum airflow and the nominal input power. The maximum input power is measured when the 
airflow  is  at  the  highest  (sometimes  called  open  airflow);  the  minimum  input  power  is  measured  when 
airflow is zero (sometimes called  sealed suction); indeed, the nominal input power is the arithmetic average of 
maximum  electric  input  power  in  W  (at  highest  airflow)  and  the  minimum  input  power  in  W  (at  zero 
airflow).  Moreover,  a  10 %  tolerance  is  allowed  by  the  standard  in  the  nameplate-declaration  of  nominal 
and maximum value in W. 

1.4.2. 

EN 60312-1:2013 

The EN 60312-1:2013 aims at specifying essential performance of dry vacuum cleaners and to describe 
methods  for  measuring  this  performance.  Thus,  it  describes  various  test  methods  dealing  with  the 
measurements relative to cleaning surfaces with different soiling types. 

(23)  This VC substitution certainly depends on the cleaning performances of VC, but also by other non-technical aspects: the obsolescence of a product can 

be related primarily to the quality of the product but also to the desirability of the same (Cooper 2012). 
(24)  Motor-operated appliances are defined as ‘appliance incorporating motors but without any heating element’. 

23 

 
 
 
                                                 
The measurements and the testing should be done in accordance with ISO554 (‘Standard atmospheres 
for  conditioning  and/or  testing’),  and  should  be  carried  out  under  standard  atmospheric  conditions. 
Moreover, the floor on which the carpet for the test is placed must be flat, consisting in a smooth untreated 
pine plywood or equivalent panel, at least 15mm thick and of a size appropriate for the test  in  order  to  minimise  the 
influence of electrostatic phenomena. The equipment and materials for measurements to be used in a test 
shall, prior to the test, be kept hanging free or laying flat for at least 16 h at standard atmospheric conditions. Finally, 
1 % tolerance shall be allowed for carrying out measurements. 

During  the  test,  the  vacuum  cleaner  and  its  accessories  should  be  used  in  accordance  with  the 
instructions given by manufacturers about the normal operation. Note that before each test, both vacuum 
cleaner  and  its  attachment  shall  be  kept  running  for  at  least  10  minutes  in  order  to  permit  their 
stabilisation. 

As the conditions of the carpet (on which the dust removal ability is assessed) could change over time, 

a regular check should be done in order to verify the test results obtained (25). 

The dry vacuum cleaner tests described in that standard are the following: 

fibre removal from carpets and upholstery; 
thread removal from carpets; 

-  dust removal from hard flat floors; 
-  dust removal from hard floors with crevices; 
-  dust removal from carpets; 
-  dust removal along walls; 
- 
- 
-  maximum usable volume of the dust receptacle; 
- 
-  performance with loaded dust receptacle; 
- 
total emission while vacuum cleaning; 
- 
filtration efficiency of the vacuum cleaner; 
-  miscellaneous tests. 

air data; 

Test on durability are included within the ‘miscellaneous tests’ section, with particular reference to the 
hose  (‘Deformation  of  hose  and  connecting  tubes’,  ‘Flexibility  of  the  hose’,  ‘Repeated  bending  of  the 
hose’)  and  the  motor  (‘Life  test’).  Note  that  this  standard  never  tests  the  motor  as  a  stand-alone 
component, but the whole VC with all its electrical components. 

(25)  Concerning the test carpet, a Wilson type is the ‘preferred test carpet’ that shall be used for international comparative testing. 

24 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
BOX 1: Deformation of hose and connecting tubes  

This test aims at determining the ability of the hose, the connecting tubes, the tube 
grip  and  the  hose  connection  to  sustain  a  certain  load,  equivalent  to  a  moderately 
heavy person, without undergoing permanent deformations and so an impairment of 
the vacuum cleaner performances. 

Through a screw press and a load indicator, a measured force shall be applied to 
the object: starting from 0 N, it is increased to 700 N and kept for 10 seconds before 
being reduced again to 0 N. Note that the hose shall not be stretched or compressed 
during the test. 

Prior  to  the  test,  the  cross-sectional  diameter  of  the  object  being  tested  is 
measured. This operation will be repeated at least 1 minute after the end of the test 
procedure, in order to express the permanent deformation as a percentage reduction 
in the original diameter (adapted from EN 60312-1:2013). 

BOX 2: Flexibility of the hose 

In order to assess the hose’s ability in not creasing under stress, the flexibility of 

the hose shall be tested. 

The material required for this test is 1.5 m of the hose, bent in shape of a U; the 
free  ends  of  the  hose  shall  be  clamped  together.  The  tested  hose  shall  be  left 
suspended and, 1 minute after, the greatest distance between the centre lines of the 
two  hose  legs  is  measured.  At  this  point,  a  load  of  1 000  g  shall  be  applied  to  the 
lowest  point  of  the  tested  object  and  the  same  distance  shall  be  measure  after  1 
minute. 

The  ratio  between  the  difference  of  these  two  values  and  the  original  distance 
measure  (before  the  load  application)  represents  the  flexibility  of  the  hose  (adapted 
from EN 60312-1:2013). 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
BOX 3: Repeated bending of the hose  

As the repeated bending of the hose may cause leakages affecting vacuum cleaner 

performance, the hose’s ability to be repeatedly bent shall be assessed. 

Hence,  the  hose  connector  shall  be  attached  to  a  pivoting  lever  with  a  clamping 
device so that the lever is operated by means of an oscillator performing a raising and 
lowering  movement  (frequency  of  10  ±  1  periods  per  minute).  The  lever  is  initially 
positioned  horizontally  and  then  raised  to  form  an  angle  of  40  ±  1  grades  with  the 
horizontal plane. The distance between the hose-fitting end of the connector and the 
pivot point shall be 300 mm ± 50 mm. 

At this point, a load of 2.5 kg is attached to the hose pendent part so that is lifted 
to a height of 100 mm ± 10 mm above the mounting-bock and, during the remainder 
of the period, rests on the mounting-block to completely unload the hose. 

A lateral deflection of maximum 3 grades is given in order to avoid the pendulation 
of the weight. The numbers of oscillations until the hose shall be considered unusable 
is  recorded.  Note  that  ‘it  is  recommended  that  the  test  is  discontinued  after  40 000 
oscillations’ (adapted from EN 60312-1:2013). 

BOX 4: Life test 

The  life  test  purpose  is  the  determination  of  the  vacuum  cleaner’s  ability  to 

maintain its air flow performances when the dust receptacle is partly filled.  

(air  data  measurements,  dust  emission, 

Before loading the dust receptacle (50 % of dust required), some specific tests shall 
filtration 
have  been  performed 
measurements).  Once  the  receptacle 
is  run 
is 
intermittently  with  periods  of  14.5  min  on  and  30  sec  off  (not  in  contact  with  the 
floor if there is an agitation device). After 50 h ± 5 h, the dust receptacle and filters 
should be substituted by new ones and, under these conditions, air measurements are 
repeated. 

loaded  the  vacuum  cleaner 

This cycle shall be repeated in steps of 50 h ± 5 h. Note that the recommendation 
is  that  the  total  time  of  the  test  shall  be  at  least  500  h  (adapted  from  EN  60312-
1:2013). 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
2. CHAPTER 2 
LCA and durability — Literature Review 

2.1.  Introduction 

According to a review of the scientific literature, few studies have been identified concerning the LCA 
of  VCs  and  the  discussion  of  durability  issues.  Moreover,  these  studies  were  often  not  detailed  in  the 
analysis of durability or mainly based on qualitative judgements. In some cases, the study provided general 
considerations for EEE, including also VC. 

Consistent with the  goal  of this study,  the  relevant studies in the literature  have been  summarised  in 
Table  4  and  further  classified  based  on  their  topic.  In  particular,  the  classification  focuses  on  the 
dissertation  of  specific  features  about  the  assessment  of  VC  durability.  Thus,  the  criteria  for  the 
classification of those studies deal with: 

- 

- 
- 

- 
- 

- 

considerations regarding the durability of EEE, and VCs in particular (quantitative and qualitative 
dissertations); 
considerations regarding the lifetime of EEE and its dependency on specific aspects; 
some  specific  LCA  steps,  with  reference  to  the  Life  Cycle  Inventory  (LCI)  and  the  Life  Cycle 
Impact Assessment (LCIA) of EEE, and VCs in particular; 
economic considerations associated to the life-cycle of EEE and/or to the durability issue; 
considerations regarding the consumer’s role affecting durability (for instance time spent cleaning, 
obsolescence of products, maintenance and repair operations); 
considerations  regarding  the  existence  and  the  applicability  of  standards  and  test  methods  about 
VCs. 

Studies  not  directly  addressed  to  VCs  are  highlighted  through  the  acronym  ‘G.C.’,  meaning  ‘general 
considerations’,  while  studies  in  which  some  specific  information  are  related  to  VCs  are  highlighted 
through ‘X’. 

As mentioned previously, among the studies on VCs (11 of 18 studies), the majority discuss the lifetime 
of VCs, while a more detailed analysis of durability is generally missing. It is interesting to note that all the 
studies addressing durability of VCs provide information also about the VCs’ lifetime and the consumer 
role. 

The following sections analyse in detail some relevant outcomes of these studies. 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4: Literature review on studies of LCA and durability of ErPs. 

N° 

Authors 

Article title 

1 
2 
3 

4 

5 

6 
7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 
14 
15 

16 

17 

18 

(Rose 2000) 
(Ernzer & Birkhofer 2003) 
(Kobayashi et al. 2005) 

(Kemna et al. 2005) 

(Hur et al. 2005) 

(Cooper 2005) 
(Abele et al. 2005) 

(van Nes & Cramer 2006) 

(Allenby 2006) 

(Kota & Chakrabarti 2007) 

(Barba-Gutiérrez et al. 2008) 

(AEA Energy & 
Environment 2009) 
(WRAP 2010) 
(WRAP 2011) 
(DEFRA 2011) 

Design for environment: a method for formulating product end-of-life strategies 
How to carry out life cycle design? Methodical support for product developers 
A Practical Method for Quantifying Eco-efficiency Using Eco-design Support Tools 
Methodology Study Eco-design of Energy-using Products — MEEUP Product Cases 
Report 
Simplified LCA and matrix methods in identifying the environmental aspects of a 
product system. 
Slower Consumption. Reflections on Product Life Spans and the ‘Throwaway Society’ 
Environmentally Friendly Product Development Methods and Tools 
Product lifetime optimization: a challenging strategy towards more sustainable 
consumption patterns 
Improvement Plan of Recycling rate of the Electronic & Electrical Equipment with 
Considering of Economics; Case study of Vacuum Cleaner 
Use of DFE methodologies and tools — major barriers and challenges 
Eco-Efficiency of Electric and Electronic Appliances: A Data Envelopment Analysis 
(DEA) 
Work on Preparatory Studies for Eco-Design Requirements of EuPs (II) Lot 17 
Vacuum Cleaners 
Environmental assessment of consumer electronic products 
Specifying durability and repair in vacuum cleaners 
Public understanding of product lifetimes and durability 

(WRAP 2013b) 

Product design review of a Vacuum Cleaner 

(Sam et al. 2014) 

(Boulos et al. 2014) 

Resource efficiency indicators en case studies 
The Durability of Products: Task 1 Report. Standard assessment for the circular 
economy under the Eco-Innovation Action Plan 

y
t
i
l
i
b
a
r
u
D

e
m

i
t
e
f
i

L

s
n
o
i
t
a
c
i
d
n
i

 —   X 
 —   X 
 —   X 

G.C.  X 

A
C
L

c
i
m
o
n
o
c
E

s
t
c
e
p
s
a

 —  
 —  
 —  

r
e
m
u
s
n
o
C

e
l
o
r

X 
X 
X 

s
d
r
a
d
n
a
t
S

 —  
 —  
 —  

A
I
C
L
 —  
X 
X 

G.C. 

G.C.  G.C. 

 —  

I
C
L

 —  
 —  
 —  

 —  

 —  

 —  

G.C. 

X 
X 
 —   X 

X 
 —  

X 

X 
X 

 —  

 —  

 —  

X 
X 

X 
X 

 —  
 —  

 —  

 —   X (EoL) 

 —  

 —  

 —   X 

G.C.  G.C. 

 —  

 —  

 —  

 —  

X 

X 

 —  

 —  

X 

X 

 —   G.C. 
G.C.  X 
X 

X 

 —  

 —  

G.C. 

 —  

 —  
 —  
 —  
X 
(packaging) 
 —  

 —  

G.C.  G.C. 

 —  

X 

X 

X 

 —  
 —  
 —  

 —  

 —  

 —  

 —  

 —  

X 

X 

X 

 —  

X 

X 

 —   G.C. 
G.C.  G.C. 
 —  

X 

 —  
 —  
 —  

 —  

 —  

 —  

 —  

 —   G.C. 

G.C. 

 —  

G.C. 

G.C. 

 —  

 —  

 —  

G.C.: General Consideration; means that the study does not refer specifically to VCs but give some information about ErPs 

X:  This means that the information within the study refer to VCs 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1.1. 

Simplified LCA and matrix methods in identifying the environmental 

aspects of a product system 

A  study  by  Hur  et  al.  (2005)  developed  the  Environmentally  Responsible  Product  Assessment 
(ERPA) (26)  method  to  identify  how  a  simplified  LCA  (SLCA)  could  be  applied  for  the  assessment  of 
Electrical  and  Electronic  Equipment.  In  the  study,  several  simplifications  have  been  done  in  order  to 
identify those life-cycle stages that could be omitted without significantly modifying the overall results. 

Two case-studies have been analysed: vacuum cleaners and mobile phones. Their life-cycles have been 
divided in seven sub-stages (three levels for the pre-manufacturing, one level for manufacturing, one level 
for distribution and use and two levels for the end-of-life). Several assumptions about the reduction of the 
study scope (for instance excluding some levels of product system) and on data availability (for instance 
through the availability of databases or secondary data) have been introduced for each of these sub-stages 
(Table 5). Then, the obtained impact assessment results have been compared to a reference method (‘Ref’ 
in Table 5 and Figure 3) through the calculation of the ratio between the LCIA of a specific SLCA and the 
LCIA of the reference method. 

The  results  of  the  ERPA  method  prove  that  for  both  the  case-study  products,  the  exclusion  of  the 
‘distribution  and  use’  stage  (i.e.  SLCA  5,  9,  10  and  11  in  Table  5)  causes  high  differences  between  the 
LCIA results and those of the reference method. Focusing on the VC case-study, the comparison between 
the two SLCA which differ only in the ‘distribution and use phase’ (4 and 5 in Table 5) (27) points out that 
the potential environmental impact related to ‘distribution and use’ accounts for almost 60 % of the LC 
impact (Figure 3). 

Table 5: Scope and data quality of 11 simplified methods (Hur et al. 2005) 

(26)  The ERPA method is one of the matrix methods used for the identification of the key environmental performance of an examined product system.  
(27)  Between method 4 and method 5, the only difference is about the use phase and the components recycling. 

29 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 3: The results of the LC environmental impact obtained from the reference and each SLCA method 
(Hur et al. 2005). Impact categories considered refer to the eco-indicators developed by the Korean MOCIE (Ministry 
of Commerce, Industry and Energy). 

Moreover,  taking  into  account  also  the  difficulty  in  data  collection  and  calculation,  the  simplified 

methods have been grouped in 4 classes based on data accuracy and simplification. 

So  this  study  underlines  that,  in  order  to  assess  the  environmental  performance  of  VCs,  the 
‘distribution  and  use  phase’  is  the  most  important  life-cycle  stage  in  terms  of  environmental  impact; 
therefore it should be modelled through actual data. Indeed, concerning other life-cycle stages (‘resource 
acquisition  and  materials  production’,  ‘sub-components  manufacturing’  and  ‘materials  disposal’),  the 
availability of secondary data instead of actual data doesn’t strongly affect the final result. Note that for the 
‘manufacturing’ stage  actual  data  have been  considered for all  the SLCA.  Furthermore, the  exclusion of 
some life-cycle stages, except for the use-phase, seems not to highly affect the LCIA results. 

Finally,  the  VC  environmental  impact  analysis ( 28)  shows  that  the  higher  environmental  burdens  is 
attributable to the motor (almost 40 % of the life-cycle impact), followed by hose (about 20 % of the life-
cycle impact) and printed board assembly (about 15 % of the life-cycle impact). Concerning the life-cycle 
stages, the pre-manufacturing and the use phase account for almost 90 % of the life-cycle impact. 

2.1.2.  A Practical Method for Quantifying Eco-efficiency Using Eco-design 

Support Tools 

A study by Kobayashi et al. (2005) analysed two different case-studies of VC: a base-case manufactured 
in 1990 and a newer product manufactured in 2003. The main differences in the VC structure concern the 
dust collection system (the new one is a cyclone type, hence it doesn’t need a paper dust bag), the weight 
(the new one weighs 5.3 kg, which means about 40 % less than the base-case) and the dust suction (the 
new one is more powerful). Both products are assumed to have the same lifetime (7 years). Note that, as 
the new VC has a more powerful dust suction, the study assumed that its electricity consumption during 
the use phase is higher than the energy consumption of the base-case VC. 

(28)  The selected SLCA for the environmental assessment of VC is method 2 in Table 5, which means: actual data for ‘manufacturing’, ‘distribution and use’ 
and components recycling’ stages; database data for ‘Resource acquisition and materials production’, components manufacturing’ and ‘materials disposal’ 
stages; exclusion of the ‘sub-components manufacturing’ stage data. 

30 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  environmental  impact  of  the  two  VC  models  is  assessed  with  Life-cycle  Impact  assessment 
Method based on Endpoint modelling (LIME). From these results, it is possible to conclude that the main 
contribution is due to the use phase, even if the contribution of materials to the impact is relevant. Note 
that the EoL modelling assumes a direct landfill disposal for the base-case VC and the recycling of ABS, 
PP, PE, PVC, iron, copper and aluminium and incineration or disposal of the other materials for the new 
VC  (the  LCIA  highlights  that  some  environmental  credits  are  associated  to  the  End-of-Life  of  the  new 
VC). The comparison between the base-case model and the new VC points out that the impact of the new 
one is the highest (4 % more than the base-case); this means that, even if there is a reduction of materials 
related  to  the  non-use  of  dust  bags,  the  VC  has  an  overall  higher  impact  due  to  the  higher  energy 
consumption in the use phase. This is confirmed by the contribution analysis: emissions of CO2, SOX, and 
NOX are mainly related to the electricity consumption. 

Kobayashi et al. (2005) also analysed the eco-efficiency of products defined as the ‘product value per 
unit  of  environmental  impact’.  Authors  then  realised  the  ‘Factor  X  chart’  where  the  horizontal  axis 
represents the product value factor, which means an improvement of the product value, and the vertical 
axis represents the environmental impact reduction factor, which means a reduction of the environmental 
impact (Figure 4). The resulting chart shows that the product value of the new VC was about 1.6 times the 
product  value  of  the  base-case  VC,  while  the  environmental  impact  of  the  base-case  VC  was  about  0.9 
times the  new VC impact (thus the new  VC  had  a higher environmental  impact than  the  old  one). The 
chart also illustrates the so-called Factor 4, meaning the curve of Factor X obtained doubling the product 
value without increasing the environmental burdens. Kobayashi et al. (2005) concluded that for the new 
VC the improvement of the product value was the main contributor to the improvement of eco-efficiency, 
while in the future it will be necessary to achieve further reductions in environmental impacts. 

Figure 4: Factor X chart for two vacuum cleaners (Kobayashi et al. 2005) 

31 

 
 
 
 
2.1.3. 

Eco-design for Energy-using Products: the vacuum cleaners product 

case 

Vacuum cleaners are included among the 10 product cases assessed through the Methodology for the 

Ecodesign of Energy-using products (MEEuP) (Kemna et al. 2005). 

This methodology study performed  a LCA of  a base-case  bagged  VC with an average power of 90.5 
kW  and  a  mass  of  8 kg  (including  packaging).  Concerning  the  use  phase,  the  time  spent  cleaning  is 
assumed to be about 70 minutes per week and the replacement of bags and filters is supposed to be 5 bags 
and 1 filter per year. 

It is interesting to note that Kemna et al. (2005) consider not economically convenient to repair the VC 
outside the warranty period, due to the ‘relative modest product price for most models’. The maintenance 
of VCs substantially consists in the filters replacement (Kemna et al. 2005). The main characteristics of the 
base-case VC are summarised in Table 6. 

The life-cycle  impact of one  canister VC (Table 7 and  Figure  5)  depicts the high contribution of the 

use-phase for several categories, but also a not negligible contribution of the manufacturing phase. 

Table 6: Base case VC characteristics considered by Kemna et al. 2005 

Manufacturing 
phase 

Use Phase 

LCC data 

A
C
L

C
C
L

Total mass (including packaging) 
VC bags 
Lifetime 
Electricity consumption per hour 
Number of hour per year in use 
Product price 
Electricity price 
VC bags price 
Repair & maintenance costs 

[g] 
[g/year] 
[years] 
[kWh/h] 
[hours] 
[€] 
[€] 
[€] 
[€] 

8 000 
550 
8 (= 480 hours) 
1.55 
60 
125 
90 
78 
40 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 7: MEEuP study results of the Life-cycle impact of a domestic VC 

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

-20%

EoL

Use phase

Distribution

Manufacturing

Figure 5: Percentage contribution to the overall impact of a domestic VC based on the MEEuP study 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1.4.  Product lifetime optimisation: a challenging strategy towards more 

sustainable consumption patterns 

An interesting study on the durability of EEE has been proposed by  van Nes and Cramer (2006). In 
the  framework  of  the  lifetime  optimisation,  the  advantages  related  to  the  early  replacement  of  products 
consuming  energy  during  their  lifetime  have  been  assessed  in  order  to  evaluate  the  environmental 
desirability  of  longer-lasting  products  and  to  analyse  the  dualism  existing  between  the  lengthening  and 
shortening of the lifetime. 

According  to  the  authors,  the  concept  of  ‘product  life’  can  be  approached  from  different  points  of 
view, such as technical and economic, but also aesthetical and psychological. The substitution of a good 
can be associated to many reasons that are dependent by users, by market and by technical issues. In this 
perspective, product lifetime can be considered a part of a broader process, which aims at striving for a 
new utilisation-focused service economy. 

Through  a  simple  model,  the  environmental  impacts  of  two  products  with  a  different  lifetime  have 
been evaluated. Noticeably, the longer-lasting product has a higher energy consumption than the shorter-
lasting product, and so the environmental impacts reduction decreases (Egain in Figure 6). 

The critical issue is then represented by the replacement with a more energy-efficiency product. In this 
case, a payback period (Tp) has been defined to represent the time range between the replacement and the 
break-even  point  (BEP),  after  which  the  new  product  is  more  convenient  in  terms  of  environmental 
performance.  The  analysis  of  the  ‘early  replacement  scenario’  demonstrates  that  the  environmental 
benefits depend on the time range between the early replacement and the replacement due to the end of 
the lifetime product. This means that an early replacement is environmentally desirable when the payback 
period is shorter than the more efficient product’s lifetime (Figure 6). 

Figure 6: Environmental effect of lifetime extension versus early replacement for product with lower energy 
consumption 

34 

 
 
 
 
Therefore, this study highlights that the environmental desirability of an early replacement of a product 
is  connected  to  the  initial  environmental  impact  of  the  replacing  product,  but  also  to  the  lower  energy 
consumption and the lifetime of the new product. 

2.1.5. 

Eco-Efficiency of Electric and Electronic Appliances: a Data Envelopment 

Analysis (DEA) 

A  study  by  Barba-Gutiérrez  et  al.  (2008)  compares  the  eco-efficiency  of  some  household  electric 
appliances. Authors developed a standard Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) method, which uses LCA 
‘ecoipoints’ (29) (as unit of measure of the environmental impact of products) and the retail price (as unit of 
measure of their economic value). Therefore, the increase of the eco-efficiency is associated to the increase 
of the economic value of the product and/or to the reduction of its environmental impact. 

A wide spectrum of appliances has been considered in this study, including VCs. The bill of materials 

for VCs is illustrated in Table 8; note that its mass amounted to 4.5 kg. 

The  Eco-Indicator99  method  has  been  used  for  the  Life  Cycle  Impact  Assessment  (software 
SimaPro6.0). Results prove that the major impact is related to the ‘Resources’ damage (30) (1.79 ecopoints 
per VC, or 397.78 ecopoints per ton), similarly to the other assessed products. More specifically the major 
contribution  is  due  to  the  presence  of  copper  and  aluminium,  which  contribute  to  the  total  impact 
respectively 47 % and 25 %. 

Because  the  product  is  eco-efficiency,  through  the  DEA  model  the  necessary  reduction  of  the 
environmental  impact  has  been  calculated  for  all  the  three  assessed  impact  categories  (Human  Health, 
Ecosystem  Quality  and  Resources).  Thus,  DEA  results  depict  that  the  VCs  product  group  exhibits 
decreasing returns to scale (31):  this  means  that,  the  environmental  impact  reduction  will  not  correspond  to  a 
proportional  reduction  of  the  product  price.  It  is  therefore  suggested  that  for  these  products  the  more 
desirable design option should consider ‘less functionality and complexity and a lower value but with less 
environmental impact’. 

Finally, the future efforts of the DEA approach are focused on including the lifetime of products in the 

calculation of their eco-efficiency. 

(29)  Ecoipoints are used to calculate the difference between the impact in a specific area and the quality target value (Barba-Gutiérrez et al., 2008). 
(30)  The ‘damages to resources are expressed as surplus energy for the future mining of resources’ (Barba-Gutiérrez et al., 2008). 
(31) 

In economy, the return to scale refers to the trend of the increase in production in respect to the increase of the factors of production (land, labour and 
capital).  A  decrease  in  return  to  scale  occurs  when  an  increase  of  the  factors  of  production  corresponds  to  a  less  than  proportional  increase  in  the 
production outputs. 

35 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 8: Bill of materials of a vacuum cleaner (mass and percentages of total mass between brackets) 

2.1.6. 

The preparatory study for Eco-Design requirements of EuPs — Vacuum 

cleaners 

The  Preparatory  study  for  ecodesign  requirements  of  Energy-using  Products  (EuPs)  about  vacuum 
cleaners  was  carried  out  by  AEA  Energy  &  Environment,  Intertek  and  Consumer  Research  Associates 
between  November  2007  and  January  2009.  In  this  section,  the  most  relevant  information  for  the 
durability assessment of VCs are reported. 

As  mentioned  in  section  1.3,  the  Preparatory  study  assessed  the  environmental  performance  of 
different  types  of  VCs:  canister  (domestic  and  commercial),  upright  (domestic  and  commercial)  and 
battery/cordless  VCs)  as  well  as  their  Life-Cycle  Cost  (LCC).  Moreover,  some  improvement  potential 
options  have  been  assessed  in  order  to  highlight  the  potential  improvement  in  terms  of  environmental 
benefits. 

As  this  report  assesses  the  durability  of a  canister VC,  the information  hereinafter  reported  refers  to 

this type of VC. 

The base-case VC is a bagged VC with a mass of about 8.5 kg (including packaging). Indeed, about the 
use phase of the VC, the Preparatory study underlines the importance of taking into account the operating 
hours of the appliance for evaluating the energy consumption during its lifetime. In this perspective, the 
average amount of time spent cleaning is assumed to be 1 hour per week, as the average between a ‘light’ 
pattern (15 minutes per week) and a ‘heavy’ pattern (4 hours per week). Note that in order to ‘equate 500 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
hours (domestic)’, the total hours in use for domestic VCs considered for the analysis are 62.5 per year.  
The characteristics of the canister VC considered by the Preparatory study are illustrated in Table 9. 

Table 9: Canister VC characteristics considered by the Preparatory study 

Manufacturing 
phase 

Use phase 

A
C
L

EoL 

C
C
L

LCC data 

[g] 
[g] 
[g] 
[g] 
[g] 
[g] 
[g] 
[m3] 
[years] 
[kWh/h] 
[hours] 

4 188 
695 
1 467 
478 
8 
29 
1 612 
0.08 
8 (= 500 hours) 
1.5 
62.5 

Bulk Plastic 
Tec Plastics 
Ferro 
Non-Ferro 
Coating 
Electronics 
Misc. 
Volume of packaged product 
Lifetime 
Electricity consumption per hour 
Number of hour per year in use 
‘All EoL vacuum cleaners are separately collected in accordance 
with the WEEE Directive’ 
‘70 % of separately collected EoL vacuum cleaners are recovered, 
complying with the WEEE Directive’ 
‘50 % of separately collected EoL vacuum cleaners undergo reuse 
and recycling, also complying with the WEEE Directive’ 
‘Metals — 95 % recycling is assumed’ 
‘Plastics — 1 % reuse, closed loop recycling assumed. The 
percentage of material recycling is calculated so that an overall 
50 % reuse and recycling rate for vacuum cleaners is achieved. The 
percentage of thermal recycling is such as to achieve an overall 
recovery rate for vacuum cleaners of 70 %’ 
‘Landfill — 30 % of products are not recovered’ 
Product price 
Electricity price 
VC bags price 
Office paper (~filters, instruction 
manuals, etc.) 
Repair & maintenance costs 

110 
91 
52 

[€] 
[€] 
[€] 

[€] 

[€] 

2 

8 

The life-cycle impact of one canister VC (Table 10 and Figure 7) depicts the high contribution of the 

use-phase for several categories, but also a not negligible contribution of the manufacturing phase. 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 10: Preparatory study results of the Life-cycle impact of a domestic VC 

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

-20%

EoL

Use phase

Distribution

Manufacturing

Figure 7: Percentage contribution to the overall impact of a domestic VC based on the Preparatory study LCIA. 

As previously mentioned (section 1.3), the Preparatory study considered 8 ‘design options’ and, among 

them, option 7 and option 8 are those more compliant with the goal of this study. 

In option 8, the fundamental assumption is an increase of the VC lifetime of 50 %, which means from 
8 years (average lifetime considered) to 12 years. It is worth noting that ‘the question of whether or not it 
is better to replace more quickly an inefficient vacuum cleaner with an efficient vacuum cleaner’ was not 
considered  in  this  option.  Therefore,  the  Preparatory  study  presents  the  results  of  the  environmental 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
impact  of  a  base-case  VC  in  comparison  to  a  VC  with  a  longer  lifetime (32).  It  is  to  be  noticed  that  the 
description  of  this  scenario  suggested  that  the  longer-lasting  VC  has  a  higher  impact  associated  to  the 
manufacturing  phase  due  to  the  employment  of  more  or  different  materials  in  order  to  guarantee  the 
higher lifetime of the product. However, no further details are provided. The results depict a lower impact 
for  the  option  8  respect  to  the  base-case  VC,  particularly  the  domestic  one ( 33).  Available  results  are 
aggregated and a contribution analysis in order to evaluate the potential decrease of the use-phase impact 
and  the  potential  increase  of  manufacturing  impact  in  option  8  is  not  immediate.  Moreover,  the 
comparison  between  the  impacts  of  option  8  and  the  base-case  does  not  take  into  account  that  the 
temporal system boundaries are different and the related function provided by the two alternatives (8 years 
for  the  life-cycle  impacts  of  the  base-case  and  12  years  for  those  regarding  option  8)  (Table  11).  The 
corresponding economic analysis highlights that the extension of the VC lifetime corresponds to higher 
life-cycle  costs,  particularly  due  to  the  increase  of  the  ‘repair  &  maintenance  costs’  item:  the  base-case 
assessed in the Preparatory study assumes that the repair and maintenance costs represent about 3 % of 
the overall life-cycle cost (34),  while for the  VC with an ‘increased  product lifetime’, this value rises until 
10 %. Indeed, the  contribution of the  other cost items  in  respect to the LCC remains almost the  same. 
Note also that the purchase price of the longer-lasting product is assumed to be higher than the purchase 
price of the base-case VC (Table 12). 

In  option  7,  the  main  assumption  is  that  the  environmental  impact  of  the  VC  could  be  reduced  ‘by 
reducing the amount of materials used in its construction’, for instance through the employment of new 
materials. Hence, a mass of 50 % of the base-case VC mass is considered, and it is interesting to see that 
this reduction can be even higher: in fact, there are canister VCs even lighter than 4.5 kg (35). The results 
depict  a  reduction  of  all  the  impact  categories  considered (36).  Similarly  to  the  aforementioned,  it  is  not 
possible  to  disaggregate  the  information  in  order  to  understand  to  what  life-cycle  phase  (and/or  used 
material) the savings are associated. It is interesting to note that the decrease of the ‘Total Energy (GER)’ 
used in option 7 in respect to the base-case is higher than the decrease of the ‘Total Energy (GER)’ used 
in option 8 in respect to the base-case (Table 11). Indeed, in the ‘reduced materials/lightweighting’ option, 
the values adopted by the Preparatory study don’t affect the VC life-cycle costs; thus, the variation of the 
manufacturing materials seems not to affect the purchase price of the product (Table 12). 

(32)  The environmental assessment is performed through the MEEuP eco-report. 
(33)  The  life-cycle  impact  assessment  proves  that the  most  relevant  benefits  are  related to  the emission  of  particulate matter  (lower  impact  of more  than 
30 %), waste generation (-26 % of ‘waste, hazardous/incinerated’ and -17 % of ‘waste, non-haz/landfill’) and heavy metals emissions (-18 % of ‘Heavy 
metals’ emitted in air and -20 % of those emitted in water), while the savings about the total energy requirement are lower (less than 5 %). 

(34)  The LCC is comprehensive of product purchase, electricity, dust bag and filter costs. 
(35) 

http://www.miele.co.uk/vacuum-cleaners/  4.3kg  —  MIELE;  http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/home-appliances/vacuum-cleaners/cylinder-vacuum-
cleaners/337_3169_30257_xx_xx/xx-criteria.html  4.5kg  —  HOOVER;  http://www.allergybuyersclub.com/all-canister-vacuum-cleaners.html#top  4.9 
— ELECTROLUX; http://www.betterlifeuae.com/media/73364/vsz3180gb %20ss.pdf 4.3kg (cylinder only) — SIEMENS (ACCESS: 30/01/2015). 

(36)  The life-cycle impact assessment proves that the most relevant benefits are related to the waste generation (-45 % of ‘waste, hazardous/incinerated’ and -

28 % of ‘waste, non-haz/landfill’) and heavy metal emissions (-27 % of ‘Heavy metals’ emitted in air and -40 % of those emitted in water). 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 11: EU stock 2005 environmental impacts for the base-case canister VC, the durable option and the light-

weight option (AEA Energy & Environment 2009) 

Main life-cycle indicators 

Unit of 
Measure 

Canister 
VC base-
case 

316.00 
26.30 
29.00 
803.00 
72.00 
14.00 
82.00 

0.00 

[PJ] 
[TWh] 
[mln m3] 
[kton] 
[kton] 
[mt CO2eq] 
[kt SO2eq] 

Total Energy (GER) 
  of which electricity 
Water (process)* 
Waste, non-haz./ landfill* 
Waste, hazardous/incinerated*  
Greenhouse Gases inGWP100 
Acidifying agents (AP) 
Volatile Org. Compounds 
(VOC) 
Persistent Org. Pollutants 
(POP) 
[ton Ni eq] 
Heavy Metals (HM) 
[ton Ni eq] 
PAHs 
[kt] 
Particulate Matter (PM, dust) 
[ton Hg/20] 
Heavy Metals (HM) 
Eutrophication (EP) 
[kt PO4] 
*=caution: low accuracy for production phase 
+Calculated as: (Option8 — Base-Case)/ Base-Case [ %] 
oCalculated as: (Option7 — Base-Case)/ Base-Case [ %] 

[g i-Tec] 

[kt] 

3.00 

11.00 
2.00 
30.00 
5.00 
0.00 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Option 8: Increased 
Product Lifetime 

Option 7: 
Reduced Materials/ 
Lightweight 

LCIA 
303.00 
26.10 
28.00 
663.00 
53.00 
14.00 
79.00 

Variation+ 
-4.11 % 
-0.76 % 
-3.45 % 
-17.43 % 
-26.39 % 
0.00 % 
-3.66 % 

0.00 

0.00 % 

LCIA 
299.00 
26.00 
27.00 
577.00 
39.00 
13.00 
77.00 
0.00 

Variationo 
-5.38 % 
-1.14 % 
-6.90 % 
-28.14 % 
-45.83 % 
-7.14 % 
-6.10 % 

3.00 

0.00 % 

9.00 
2.00 
21.00 
4.00 
0.00 

-18.18 % 
0.00 % 
-30.00 % 
-20.00 % 
-4.11 % 

3.00 

0.00 % 

8.00 
2.00 
23.00 
3.00 
0.00 

-27.27 % 
0.00 % 
-23.33 % 
-40.00 % 
0.00 % 

Canister Vacuum Cleaner base case

Option 7: Reduced Materials/Lightweighting

Option 8: Increased Product Lifetime

Figure 8: Comparison between the environmental impacts of the base-case canister vacuum cleaner, option 8 
(increased lifetime) and option 7 (new materials/lightweight) assessed in the Preparatory study 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 12: Life Cycle Costs per Product — Domestic Canisters (AEA Energy & Environment 2009) 

Cost item 

Canister 
VC base 
case [€] 

Product price 
Installation/ acquisition costs  
Fuel (gas, oil, wood) 
Electricity 
Bags 
Filters 
Repair & maintenance costs 
Total 
+Calculated as: (Option8 — Base-Case)/ Base-Case [ %] 
oCalculated as: (Option7 — Base-Case)/ Base-Case [ %] 

110.00 
0.00 
0.00 
91.00 
52.00 
2.00 
8.00 
263.00 

Option 8: Increased 
Product Lifetime 

Option 7: 
Reduced Materials/ 
Lightweight 

LCC [€]  Variation+  LCC [€]  Variationo 
0.00 % 
0.00 % 
0.00 % 
0.00 % 
0.00 % 
0.00 % 
0.00 % 
0.00 % 

10.00 % 
0.00 % 
0.00 % 
37.36 % 
36.54 % 
50.00 % 
362.50 % 
35.74 % 

110.00 
0.00 
0.00 
91.00 
52.00 
2.00 
8.00 
263.00 

121.00 
0.00 
0.00 
125.00 
71.00 
3.00 
37.00 
357.00 

2.1.7.  WRAP’s Environmental assessment of consumer electronic products 

A study by (WRAP 2010) classified electronic products into ‘use phase dominant’ or ‘materials/process 
dominant’ depending of such key factors as: the amount of material used for the product manufacturing, 
the  amount  of  electronic  components ( 37)  in  products,  the  power  demand,  the  use  frequency  and  the 
lifetime  of  the  product.  As  depicted  in  Figure  9, VCs  belongs  to  the  first  category,  i.e.  among  products 
with a dominant use  phase. In fact,  the energy  requirement for the manufacturing phase  (‘materials and 
process’ in the following figures) turns out to be less than 15 % of the total life-cycle energy, much lower 
than the energy requirement during the use phase (about 80 %) (Figure 10). 

Figure 9: Classification of products by energy requirement in the use phase VS materials and process phase 

Moreover,  the  study  identifies  the  consumer’s  behaviour  as  a  key  aspect  influencing  significantly  the 
energy savings, mainly during the use phase. Therefore it is always important to inform the final user about 

(37) 

‘Electronic components such as large integrated circuits can require 140 times more energy to be produced than plastics such as PVC’ (WRAP 2010). 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
the consumption profile of products in order to permit a conscious choice among differently performing 
goods. In this framework, the WRAP assessment highlights the need of more and specific information in 
order to quantify the frequency of use and the lifetime of products. 

Figure 10: Energy consumption per product (% of the lifecycle) 

2.1.8.  Material-efficiency EcoDesign report and module to the Methodology 

for the EcoDesign of Energy-related Products (MEErP) 

A study by BioIS (BIO Intelligence Service 2013a) analysed the MEErP methodology with the purpose 
of  analysing  and  integrating  Material  Efficiency  aspects,  including  the  product’s  lifetime.  The  study 
observed that the Ecoreport tool already uses this parameter to calculate the life-cycle impact of a product. 
In any case, some general recommendations are proposed to enhance its use. 

The study provides guidance on: 

- 

- 

- 

the  definition  of  ‘performance  and  durability  parameters’ (38),  in  order  to  correctly  define  the 
lifetime of products; 
the definition of lifetime, in order to clearly distinguish between the technical lifetime, the service 
lifetime (39), the years of use plus storage period at the consumer (lifetime to disposal); 
the  calculation  of  the  impact  per  year  of  use,  which  allows  assessment  of  the  benefits  of  the 
lifetime extension of products. 

Moreover,  the  study  highlights  the  essential  need  to  grant  a  sufficient  level  of  performance  of  the 
product  throughout  its  lifetime  in  order  to  satisfy  the  expectations  of  the  consumers,  and  in  this 
perspective some performance parameters have been analysed. 

(38)  These  parameters  refer  to  the  performance  and  the  functionality  of  a  specific  product  after  a  certain  amount  of  lifetime.  For  instance,  performance 
parameters refer to the start-up time, the cleaning/sucking ability, or to environmental aspects such as energy efficiency, noise emissions and so on. 
(39)  The technical lifetime is the time that a product is designed to last to fulfil its primary function; the actual time in service is the time the product is used 
by the consumer (after which a product it is discarded due to replacement, poor functionality, change of needs or to other reasons related, or not, to the 
product). 

42 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Together  with  the  ‘performance  and  durability  parameters’,  also  ‘lifetime’,  ‘warranty’  as  well  as 
‘availability of spare parts’ and ‘easiness of reparation and upgrade’ have been included in those parameters 
useful for assessing the durability of components/products. Note that the last two are not considered as 
‘quantifiable  parameters’  and,  contrary  to  the  others,  they  are  also  considered  as  not  related  to  product 
design. Moreover, ‘performance and durability parameters’, ‘lifetime’, and ‘warranty’ shouldn’t be related 
only to the component design, but to the entire product design stage. 

The  RACER  analysis (40)  (Relevance,  Acceptance,  Credibility,  Easiness  and  Robustness)  performed  in 
this study shows that ‘lifetime and warranty’ are included among the parameters with high relevance for 
Ecodesign, while the ‘performance and durability parameters’ is among those with medium relevance. It is 
also  interesting  to  note  that  the  weight  of  a  product  is  not  evaluated  as  ‘potentially  useful  for 
implementation in the Methodology for Ecodesign of Energy-related Products’ (BIO Intelligence Service 
2013d; BIO Intelligence Service 2013a). 

Finally,  consistent  with  the  Ecodesign  Directive  (2009/125/EC),  in  this  study  some  ‘information 
parameters’  contributing  to  material  efficiency  are  defined  in  order  to  set  the  ecodesign  requirements. 
Among  them,  ‘information  on  product  lifetime  or  appropriate  use/maintenance  to  optimise  life 
expectancy’ is highlighted as having both direct and indirect impacts on the environmental impacts of the 
products,  particularly  during  the  use  phase.  Even  if  the  study  points  out  the  difficulty  in  quantitatively 
estimating  the  contribution  of  the  information  parameters  for  improving  material  savings,  it  should  be 
noted  that  highly  credible  and  unambiguous  (even  if  only  basic)  information  can  contribute  to  the 
appropriate use/maintenance of products and their durability. 

2.1.9. 

The Durability of Products 

A study performed by the global sustainability consultancy Ricardo-AEA (Boulos et al. 2014) (41) deals 

with durability of products. 

The definition proposed by (Boulos et al. 2014) is the following: 

‘Durability  is  the  ability  of  a  product  to  perform  its  function  at  the  anticipated  performance  level  over  a  given  period 
(number of cycles — uses — hours in use), under the expected conditions of use and under foreseeable actions. Performing the 
recommended  regular servicing, maintenance, and replacement activities as specified by the manufacturer will help to ensure 
that a product achieves its intended lifetime.’ 

Many factors should be considered in order to better assess the benefits related to the extension of a 
product’s lifetime, for instance: production costs of materials; components and manufacturing processes; 
innovation  rates;  the  role  of  key  components  in  some  products  (such  as  the  motor  in  VCs);  potential 
impacts  in  the  product’s  second  life;  the  availability  of  appropriate  standards  for  testing  longer-lasting 
products. Moreover, it is worth noting that the replacement of a specific product could be caused by the 
failure  of  the  product  (or  one  of  its  components),  or  by  the  technology  development  (high  rate  of 
innovation) or by fashion (obsolescence designed by an economic driver). 

The study selected two case-study products to be analysed: refrigerators and ovens. These  have  been 
selected based on criteria dealing with the existence of an improvement potential in extending the lifetime 

(40)  The RACER criteria have been set by the European Commission in the Impact Assessment Guidelines (SEC(2005)791) for evaluating the sustainability 

of indicators (EC 2005). 
http://www.ricardo-aea.com/cms/ 

(41) 

43 

 
 
 
                                                 
of products,  but  also with consumer perception. It is worth noting that the ‘durable alternative’ in both 
cases  takes  into  account  the  potential  changes  concerning  design  or  technology  of  the  components;  the 
tests  proposed  in  this  study  are  substantially  based  on  existing  test  methodologies,  even  if  more  test 
conditions  are  suggested.  Furthermore,  the  study  focuses  on  potential  improvements  related  to  key 
components for product durability. 

The study also highlights the relevance of the design of products, as this can influence  such material 
efficiency  aspects  as  maintenance,  reparability  and  remanufacturing.  Moreover,  it  considers  the  two 
concepts  of 
linked  (and  often  also 
‘product  durability’  as 
interchangeable). 

lifetime’  and 

inextricably 

‘product 

Moreover, some procedures to evaluate durability of products are identified based on: 

- 
- 

- 
- 
- 

the comparison of the target life (42); 
the Failure Mode Verification Testing — FMVT: used for comparing two or more products under 
different stress conditions; 
the comparison to degradation (for products in which degradation over time is measurable) (43); 
the comparison to design iterations (FMVT for comparing different design options); 
the key component testing. 

Finally, EU Ecolabel and GPP instruments are identified as opportunities in the framework of product 
durability. They can strengthen the role of durability, design for repair and remanufacturing into product 
requirements. 

2.1.10.  Bagless VC  

Starting  from  the  early  1990s,  a  new  type  of  vacuum  cleaners  appeared  in  the  European  market:  the 
cyclonic filtration bagless cleaners. This innovating option predominated the UK market, while the bagged 
options still dominated many other EU countries. According to Kemna et al. (2005) in 2001 the market 
share of bagless system was 14 %, while it rose to 28 % in 2004. 

The  Preparatory  study  points  out  that  bagless  vacuum  cleaners  have  higher input  power  ranges  than 
bagged VCs, but despite these higher values, the market trends highlight a development of bagless  VCs 
due to their lower selling prices (AEA Energy & Environment 2009). This is confirmed also by consumer 
websites (44). 

In some other studies, the bagless option is not always considered. For instance, Ernzer and Birkhofer 
(2003) and Abele et al. (2005) perform a Life Cycle Assessment of ‘a standard vacuum cleaner using filter 
bags’, and they both consider a consumption of 6 dust bags per year. Moreover, the considerations about 
the dust bags refer also to the potential loss of suction: the results of these studies prove that the higher 
losses of suction correspond to the conventional VC with filter bags, while they are lower than 15 % for 
other developed filter systems (i.e. cyclone with specific filter systems). 

(42)  This represents the most common durability test: the device/product is exposed to specific conditions in order to establish whether or not the product 

achieves the requirements. 

(43)  Through a portion of a life test, the time of failure of the product is estimated; thus it is possible to determine the rate of degradation of key parameters 

of the specific product. 
For instance http://www.vacuumcleanersdigest.com/bagless.html (accessed April, 2015). 

(44) 

44 

 
 
 
                                                 
An  exception  is  represented  by  Kobayashi  et  al.  (2005).  This  case  study  examines  two  different  VCs 
manufactured respectively in 1990 and 2003, and one of the main differences concerns the dust collection 
option (the new one is a cyclone type, and hence it doesn’t need a paper dust bag) (for details see section 
2.1.2). 

2.2. 

Final Remarks 

Nowadays, few studies are available on the environmental assessment of VCs, and these do not provide 
a  detailed  assessment  of  durability  aspects.  Moreover,  the  majority  of  these  studies  are  not  transparent 
enough in the discussion of the assumptions and input data used. The Preparatory Study on Ecodesign of 
VCs  (AEA  Energy  &  Environment  2009)  resulted  in  the  study  which  discussed  more  in  detail  apsects 
related  to  the  extension  of  the  lifetime  of  VCs.  However,  this  study  is  not  fully  transparent  in  the 
discussion of the assumptions adopted to perform the analysis. 

In  general,  vacuum  cleaners  can  be  considered  as  a  product  with  a  balanced  relation  between  its 
product  value  and  its  environmental  impact,  thus  an  eco-efficient (45)  product  category.  Considering  its 
potential technological development, the same studies highlight that the environmental impact reduction is 
lower  than  the  improvement  of  the  VCs’  product  value  (Barba-Gutiérrez  et  al.  2008;  Kobayashi  et  al. 
2005). The available LCA point out that VCs are ‘use-phase dominant’ products (Abele et al. 2005; Hur et 
al. 2005; Kobayashi et al. 2005;  Kemna et al. 2005; van Nes & Cramer 2006; Kota & Chakrabarti 2007; 
AEA Energy & Environment 2009; Gandy et al. 2012;), stressing the relevance of the energy consumption 
during operation. It  is also noted that manufacturing  is always relevant, especially  due  to the impacts of 
motors and PCBs (Abele et al. 2005; Barba-Gutiérrez et al. 2008; Hur et al. 2005; Kobayashi et al. 2005; 
Kota & Chakrabarti 2007; WRAP 2010; Gandy et al. 2012; van Nes & Cramer 2006). 

Taking  into  account  the  potential  improvements  on  these  products  related  to  the  technological 
development, several options have been explored in order to evaluate the potential benefits related to the 
extension of VC lifetime and to the employment of less (for instance bagless VC) or new materials (AEA 
Energy & Environment 2009; Kobayashi et al. 2005). Moreover, some studies assume that the economic 
value (i.e. the  price) will  increase  in the next decades, and that there is the possibility  that this could be 
related  to  higher  environmental  impacts,  occurring  especially  in  the  manufacturing  phase.  More  focus 
should be addressed to the reduction of the environmental impacts in order to encourage the use of more 
environmentally  friendly  products,  even  when  more  expensive  (Barba-Gutiérrez  et  al.  2008;  Hur  et  al. 
2005; Kobayashi et al. 2005). 

According to the analysis of the literature, the improvement of product durability is one of the possible 
strategies  that  allow  the  strengthening  of  the  relation  between  more  environmentally  and  economically 
convenient  products.  Doubtless,  the  durability  of  vacuum  cleaners  (and  of  EEEs  in  general)  is  strictly 
influenced by several factors, such as consumer behaviour, costs, repairability and reusability and existence 
of  testing  methods  for  assessing  the  longer-lasting  products’  performance  (Boulos  et  al.  2014;  BIO 
Intelligence  Service  2013d;  BIO  Intelligence  Service  2013b;  BIO  Intelligence  Service 2013c;  Abele  et  al. 
2005). Hence, both the industry and the consumers have a key role for many of these aspects. For instance 
the replacement of a product is not always due to its breakdown or lower performance but due to a user 
choice;  the  lifetime  of  a  product  depends  on  the  use  condition  during  the  operation  (e.g.  proper 

(45)  Eco-efficiency is defined as ‘product value per unit of environmental impact’ (Kobayashi et al. 2005). 

45 

 
 
 
                                                 
maintenance according to manufacturer’s instructions); the repairing of the product is related to the ease 
of disassemblability and availability of spare parts. On such purpose, the SCOPE project on durability of 
household appliances, based  on interviews undertaken in the United Kingdom, observed that over two-
thirds of users considered the EEE repairing cost discouraging (Cooper 2005). 

The  relevance  of  lifetime  for  most  purchased  products  strengthens  the  need  of  highly  credible  and 
unambiguous  information  and  communication  to  consumers,  in  order  to  increase  the  acceptability  and 
penetration  rates  of  durable  products  on  the  market  (BIO  Intelligence  Service  2013b;  BIO  Intelligence 
Service 2013c; BIO Intelligence Service 2013a; Cooper 2005; van Nes & Cramer 2006). 

46 

 
 
 
 
3. CHAPTER 3 
Presentation of the case-study product 

The method for the assessment of durability (Ardente et al. 2012) has been reviewed and applied to a 
specific  ErP  —  i.e.  to  a  vacuum  cleaner.  The  aim  is  the  identification  of  the  potential  environmental 
benefits  associated  to  the  lifetime  extension  of  an  average  vacuum  cleaner  (VC)  placed  in  the  market, 
taking into account the current energy label and Ecodesign regulations (chapter 1.1). 

The analysis of durability is based on the setting of two scenarios. The first is the base-case scenario, in 
which a standard product (product (A)) is supposed  to reach its forecasted end  of operating life and, at 
this moment, to be substituted by a new product (product (B)) with the same functionalities. Indeed, the 
second scenario is the Durable scenario, wherein the product (A) is supposed to have an extended lifetime, 
so that the substitution with a new product will occur later compared to the base-case scenario. 

The main assumptions for assessment of durability of the vacuum cleaner are depicted in chapter 3. A 
canister vacuum cleaner has been dismantled and all its components have been categorised by weight and 
materials.  Thus,  considerations about the manufacturing phase  (section  3.2) are exposed, with particular 
attention to the hose and the operational motor (sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2), while all the other components 
are  included  in  the  same  group  (section  3.2.3).  Also  the  packaging  enters  into  the  manufacturing  phase 
considerations (section 3.2.4).   

The  use  phase  (section  3.3)  focuses  on  the  lifetime  considerations  about  vacuum  cleaners  (section 
3.3.1),  but  also  on  the  energy  efficiency  of  this  products  group  (section  3.3.2)  and  on  the  materials and 
operation necessaries for the VCs’ maintenance and correct functioning (sections 3.3.3 and 3.3.4). 

Finally,  section  3.4  deals  with  the  end-of-life  considerations  about  vacuum  cleaners,  and  section  3.5 
exposes the main assumptions concerning the transports during the whole VC life-cycle (for raw materials 
procurement, delivery and EoL). 

47 

 
 
 
3.1. 

Characteristics of the case-study product 

Based  on  available  market  information,  85 %  of  vacuum  cleaners  sold  in  2005  were canister  models, 
while  15 %  were  upright  (AEA  Energy  &  Environment  2009).  Canisters  are  preferred  because  they  are 
handier and in general more reliable than the uprights (AEA Energy & Environment 2009). 

Consistent  with  this  information  and  the  literature  review  (chapter  2)  we  selected  as  case-study  a 
canister  vacuum  cleaner.  It  has  been  dismantled  in  order  to  classify  its  components  (by  mass  and 
materials). The main characteristics of the canister vacuum cleaner are illustrated in Table 13. 

Figure 11: Case-study canister vacuum cleaner 

The main phases considered for both the LCA and the Durability assessment are: 

-  manufacturing, including transport for raw materials and the final delivery of the product (section 

3.2); 

- 

-  use  phase,  including  the  consumption  of  electricity  during  the  operation,  the  use  of  auxiliary 
components  (periodical  changes  of  dust-bags)  and  maintenance  (periodical  filter  replacements) 
(section 3.3); 
end-of-life (EoL), including transport and impact of waste treatment in a WEEE recycling plant. 
Potential  credits  related  to  recycling  and  recovery  of  materials  have  not  been  considered  in  the 
analysis  in  order  to  avoid  calculating  environmental  benefits  of  both  recyclability  and  durability 
(Ardente et al. 2014) (section 3.3.4). 

The sections that follow illustrate the main considerations and assumptions of the study. A LCA of the 
case-study product has been performed through GaBi 6 software; this represents the starting point of the 
following assessment of durability. 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 13: Components of the dismantled canister vacuum cleaner 

49 

 N Component Description Sub-category LCA model category N Component Description Sub-category LCA model category 1  Hose terminal Hose Hose 26  Pedal Canister case “Other components” 2  Hose handle Hose Hose 27  Pedal spring Canister case “Other components” 3  Tube extension Hose Hose 28  release lid Canister case “Other components” 4  Tube extension Hose Hose 29  Grip-handle Canister case “Other components” 5  Seal Hose Hose 30  Canister case, lower part Canister case “Other components” 6  Hose Hose Hose 31  Hose Air Regulator Canister case “Other components” 7  Connector Motor Motor 32  Canister case, upper part Canister case “Other components” 8  Fan housing Motor Motor 33  Padding indicator Canister case “Other components” 9  Seal Motor Motor 34  Filter Filter “Other components” 10  Stator assy Motor Motor 35  Filter Filter “Other components” 11  Fan Motor Motor 36  Filter Filter “Other components” 12  Carbon brushes Motor Motor 37  Nozzle Nozzle “Other components” 13  Rotor Motor Motor 38  Plastic components Nozzle “Other components”  14  Connectors Motor Motor 39  Wheels Nozzle “Other components” 15  Seal Motor Motor 40  Wheels axle Nozzle “Other components” 16  Washer Motor Motor 41  Nuts and springs Nozzle “Other components” 17  Motor cover Motor Motor 42  PCB PCB “Other components” 18  Guard motor Motor Motor 43  PCB PCB “Other components” 19  Springs Motor Motor 44  Power cord Power cord reel “Other components” 20  Nuts   45  Body Power cord reel “Other components” 21  Seal Motor Motor 46  Spring and Keeper Power cord reel “Other components” 22  Cable parts Cables “Other components” 47  Contact Power cord reel “Other components” 23  Cable parts Cables “Other components” 48  Seal Power cord reel “Other components” 24  Power button Canister case “Other components” 49  Canister wheels Wheels “Other components” 25  Canister case, middle part Canister case “Other components” 50  Canister wheel Wheels “Other components”  
 
 
 
3.2.  Manufacturing a canister vacuum cleaner 

In order to perform the environmental analysis, the main components of the vacuum cleaner have been 

taken into account, with particular attention to the hose and the operational motor. 

The case-study product (with a mass of 5.721 kg) was dismantled so that each part could be measured 
and the corresponding material identified. Figure 12 shows the exploded diagram of some vacuum cleaner 
parts, as derived from online manuals (46). 

Figure  13  shows  the  mass  contribution  of  the  vacuum  cleaner’s  components.  As  depicted  in  the 
previous chapters, the critical parts for durability requirements for vacuum cleaners are the hose and the 
operational motor. Therefore these parts have been investigated in detail. 

Note  that detailed data  about the energy  consumption for the manufacturing of vacuum  cleaners are 
missing in literature, as well as in the Preparatory study. Based on some studies on the manufacturing of 
various electrical and electronic equipment (vacuum cleaners, clothes washers, refrigerators, dishwashers), 
10 [kWh] of electricity were assumed for the assembly of the VC (Horie 2004; Olivetti et al. 2012; Wong 
2009; WRAP 2010; Boustani et al. 2010). 

(46) 

http://www.manualowl.com/m/Hoover/S3332/Manual/380541 
(accessed 
http://www.manualowl.com/m/Hoover/S3332/Manual/182503?page=1 (accessed March 2015) 

March 

2015), 

50 

 14  Connectors Motor Motor 39  Wheels Nozzle “Other components” 15  Seal Motor Motor 40  Wheels axle Nozzle “Other components” 16  Washer Motor Motor 41  Nuts and springs Nozzle “Other components” 17  Motor cover Motor Motor 42  PCB PCB “Other components” 18  Guard motor Motor Motor 43  PCB PCB “Other components” 19  Springs Motor Motor 44  Power cord Power cord reel “Other components” 20  Nuts   45  Body Power cord reel “Other components” 21  Seal Motor Motor 46  Spring and Keeper Power cord reel “Other components” 22  Cable parts Cables “Other components” 47  Contact Power cord reel “Other components” 23  Cable parts Cables “Other components” 48  Seal Power cord reel “Other components” 24  Power button Canister case “Other components” 49  Canister wheels Wheels “Other components” 25  Canister case, middle part Canister case “Other components” 50  Canister wheel Wheels “Other components”  
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 12: Exploded drawing and spare parts listing for the canister vacuum cleaner 

Components mass contribution 

]
g
k
[

t
h
g
i
e
W

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

0.209 
0.310 

0.504 

0.696 

1.862 

2.060 

Filter

PCB

Cable

Wheel

Nozzle

Cord reel assembly

Hose

Motor

Canister case

Figure 13: Mass contribution of the canister vacuum cleaner’s components 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.2.1.  Hose 

The hose of the canister vacuum cleaner is mainly composed of plastics. More specifically, the rigid part 
is  made  of  acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene  (ABS  —  more  than  66 %  of  the  total  hose  mass),  while  the 
flexible part is made of high-density polyethylene (HDPE — about 30 % in mass) (Figure 14). 

Figure 14: Mass contribution of the hose’s materials 

3.2.2.  Motor 

The vacuum cleaner motor is one of the most important components. It represents more than 30 % of 

the total mass (1 862 g) and mainly contains steel and various plastics (Figure 15). 

Figure 15: Mass contribution of the motor’s materials 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 16: Example of motor assembly — exploded diagram 

A motor settled into a vacuum cleaner consists of different components, all placed into a motor case 

(Figure 16). 

Almost all  the steel contained in the  motor  is associated to the rotor and the  stator. The same  holds 
true for copper, with which the stator and rotor windings are  composed. Plastic parts in the motor case 
and the fan were made of polyester fiberglass resins (BMC-GF) (47). 

Note that motor manufacturing requires energy in order to be assembled. Few data are available in the 
literature  concerning  the  motor  assembly,  particularly  in  relation  to  appliance  motors.  Based  on  studies 
about  the  environmental  impacts  of  appliances,  the  energy  consumption  for  the  motor  assembly  is 
negligible in respect to the overall impact of the life-cycle. 

(47)  Bulk  moulding  compound  or  bulk  moulding  compounds  (BMC)  glass  fibre  is  a  ready-to-mould  material  usually  used  in  injection  moulding  and 

compression moulding. 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.2.3. 

‘Other components’ 

All the other components of the vacuum cleaner were individually modelled, but according to chapter 

0, they were grouped in prospect of the Impact Assessment. Other components of the VC are: 

canister case; 
cord reel assembly; 

- 
- 
-  nozzle; 
- 
filters; 
-  wheels; 
- 
cables; 
-  printed circuit board (PCB). 

These components are separately analysed, but according to chapter 0, they were all grouped together 

in the Life Cycle Impact Assessment. 

Figure 17: Example of an exploded drawing and spare parts listing for the canister and the nozzle plate (48) 

All  these  parts  are  made up  of  different  materials,  with  ABS  being  the  most-used  material  (in  mass). 
Due to its mechanical properties (mainly impact resistance and toughness), ABS is used for the canister, 
the cord reel and the nozzle plate. Other materials used are polypropylene (PP) (in the nozzle plate and 
wheels), polyvinylchloride (PVC) (in the cables as insulation material and copper, in the cables). 

(48) 

http://www.searspartsdirect.com/Kenmore-Vacuum-Parts/Model-1162561290/0582/0642000/10042604/00001.html 
http://www.searspartsdirect.com/Hoover-Vacuum-Parts/Model-S3281/0517/0642000/P0011218/00002.html (accessed March 2015) 

(accessed  March 

2015) 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
'Other components' materials composition [g] 

PP, 433, 13.70% 

PVC, 207, 6.55% 

copper, 96, 3.03% 

steel, 89, 2.81% 

PE, 73, 2.31% 

POM, 42, 1.33% 

PCB, 12, 0.38% 

brass, 6, 0.19% 

rubber, 4, 0.13% 

others, 8, 0.25% 

ABS, 2193, 69.33% 

Figure 18: Mass contribution of the ‘other components’ materials 

Hose module 

PCB 

Cord reel assembly 

Figure 19: Overview of the canister and some of its components 

The canister case represents the main part of the vacuum cleaner, wherein all the components (except 
for the hose and the nozzle) are contained. It is mainly constituted by ABS (about 2 kg, corresponding to 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
97 % of the mass of the canister case and about 35 % of the vacuum cleaner). Polyoxymethylene (POM), 
rubber and steel constitute the remaining 3 % of the canister case. The forepart of the canister is allocated 
for the dust-bag, where is also placed the hose  module connecting the canister with the hose. The cord 
assembly is set next to the motor and the fan cases in the rear part of the canister case. On the opposite 
side of the cord reel, a simple PCB is placed ( 

Figure 19). 

In canisters, there are three different kinds of filters (49): pre-motor filter, air clean filter and  dust-bag. 
The pre-motor filter aims at protecting the vacuum cleaner motor from collecting dirt and dust particles; 
the air clean filter is a three-layer exhaust filter, made of electrostatically charged fibres, whose objective is 
to capture 99.95 % of microscopic particles bigger than 0.5 microns and 94 % of particles bigger than 0.3 
microns (50). The dust bags collect dirt and dust until their fulfilment and, depending on their  efficiency; 
there  are  many  types  available  on  the  market.  These  kinds  of  filters  are  usually  composed  of  various 
materials, such as borosilicate glass fibres or plastic fibres (e.g. PP and PE), bound together with binders. 
The  efficiency  of  the  barrier  filter  could  be  measured  consistently  with  the  European  Standards  (EN 
1822).  One  of  the  more  effective  filter  medias  used  for  vacuum  cleaners  is  the  HEPA  filter  (High 
Efficiency Particulate Airflow); there are different grades of HEPA (H13-H14), and ULPA filters are even 
more well-performing (U15-U17). The Preparatory study affirmed that the most used is HEPA12 (overall 
efficiency: 99.5 %). 

Figure 20: Overview of filters within the canister 

The power cord assembly consists of the attachment cord and the cord reel. The latter is substantially 
composed by a mix of plastics (ABS and PE) and steel, while the former is a cable (composed of copper 
and PVC) (Baitz et al. 2004) (Figure 21). 

(49) 

(50) 

http://www.sylvane.com/miele-s2121-olympus-vacuum.html 
http://chinarayi.en.alibaba.com/product/1557977374-
2015), 
219940969/Hoover_Vacuum_Cleaner_HEPA_Pre_Motor_Filter.html 
http://web.extension.illinois.edu/healthyair/vacuums.cfm (accessed March 2015), http://www.sopgreenklean.com/how-a-vacuum-bag-works (accessed 
March 2015) 
http://web.extension.illinois.edu/healthyair/vacuums.cfm (accessed March 2015), http://www.sopgreenklean.com/how-a-vacuum-bag-works (accessed 
March 2015) 

(accessed  March 

(accessed 

March 

2015), 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 21: Overview of the cord assembly (schematic representation (51) and the case-study cable) 

A very simple PCB is installed on the opposite side of the cord reel. However, as with other EEE, it is 
expected that more recent and advanced VCs will require more complex electronic circuits. The potential 
use of more complex PCB has been investigated during the LCIA and the durability assessment (section 
4.4.1 and Figure 27). 

Finally, the nozzle plate is made of different plastics (ABS, PP and PE), but it embodies also a small 

percentage of steel used for the wheels shaft. 

3.2.4.  Packaging 

The  preparatory  study  on  VC  assumed  that  cardboard  packaging  accounts  for  about  10-20 %  of  the 
mass  product,  and  it  sets  the  average  volume  of  a  packaged  product  as  0.08  m3  (AEA  Energy  & 
Environment 2009). These figures are also in line with other products on the market (Table 14). 

According  to  the  Preparatory  study,  packaging  includes  cardboard,  instruction  manuals  (paper)  and 
polybag  (plastic  bags  for  holding  manuals  and  parts  of  the  vacuum  cleaner).  The  presence  of  these 
materials for the vacuum cleaner packaging is confirmed by (WRAP 2013b): usually, the canister vacuum 
cleaner is packed into a corrugated carton board, and PE-LD clear sleeves are generally used for packaging 
the  main  body  and  the  product  components.  Moreover,  paper  manuals  are  usually  included  in  the 
packaging, with a full gloss cover and a guarantee slip. 

(51) 

http://dashing.en.ecplaza.net/h05vvh2-f-wire—219614-1440078.html (accessed March 2015) 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 14: Examples of packaging options 

Product 

Size [cm] 

Volume [m3] 

 [kg] 

Packaging 
[%] on the packaged 
product 

50 X 31 X 30 

0.048 

1.26 

20 % 

46 X 28.5 X 29.5 

0.040 

1.30 

21 % 

46 X 29.5 X 27.5 

0.037 

1.70 

28 % 

40 X 31 X 30 

0.037 

0.70 

13 % 

1 

2 

3 

4 

1 — http://www.philips.com.sg/c-p/FC9172_67/performer-vacuum-cleaner-with-bag-with-triactive-nozzle/specifications (accessed March 2015) 
2 — http://benheng.en.alibaba.com/product/1150692626-

218724616/Very_Cheap_Price_Bag_Canister_Vacuum_Cleaner_Daewoo_Cylinder_Bagged_Suction_Vacuum_Cleaner.html (accessed March 2015) 

3 — http://www.globalsources.com/si/AS/Suzhou-KVC/6008828688906/pdtl/Canister-Vacuum-Cleaner/1049456623.htm (accessed March 2015) 
4 — http://tianer.en.alibaba.com/product/1096311200-

200037747/Bagged_Canister_Vacuum_Cleaner_with_Dust_Bag_with_Big_Dust_Capacity_TE_806E.html (accessed March 2015) 

3.3. 

Use phase 

Based  on  literature  review,  the  use  phase  represents  the  most  important  phase  in  terms  of 
environmental loads for the ErP (Boustani et al. 2010; Gandy et al. 2012; Kota & Chakrabarti 2007; Hur et 
al. 2005; Abele et al. 2005; Kobayashi et al. 2005). 

In order to analyse the impact of the consumption of energy and auxiliary materials, the lifetime of an 
average  canister  vacuum  cleaner  has  to  be  evaluated  (chapter  3.3.1),  as  well  as  maintenance  and  repairs 
required during its lifetime (chapter 3.3.3). 

3.3.1. 

Lifetime 

As mentioned previously, the lifetime depends on several aspects, not all related to the functioning of 
the  vacuum  cleaner.  In  fact  subjective  issues  could  occur  in  the  decision  of  the  final  user  to  replace  a 
vacuum  cleaner  (chapter  3/3.10).  In  this  perspective,  the  repair  operations  should  also  be  taken  into 
account. Clearly, depending on the damage and on the breakdowns that could occur to the considered ErP 
(repair  of  one  or  more  essential  components  or  minor  repair  actions),  the  repair  may  or  may  not  be 
convenient; this convenience should be evaluated on an economical point of view, but also on the length 
of time necessary for the repair operations (i.e. when the product is unable to accomplish its functions). 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Generally speaking, studies on WEEE trends implemented by Huisman et al. (2012) and Monier et al. 
(2013)  prove  that  the  residential  time  of  EEE  is  shortened  in  the  decade  2000-2010  (-12 %  for  Small 
Household  Appliances),  where  ‘residential  time’  means  the  age  of  products  including  the  time  of  non-
functioning or unused appliances in stock (Murakami et al. 2010; Oguchi et al. 2010). 

Figure 22: Definitions of various ‘life’ terminologies for consumer durables and other machinery (Murakami et al. 
2010) 

Considerations  about vacuum  cleaner lifetimes  collected from the literature  review are illustrated and 
summarised in Table 15. These are based on the average lifetime and the residential time of products, but 
also  on  their  wear-out  life,  meaning  the  length  of  time  after  which  the  product  can’t  meet  its  original 
functions. 

Different  sources  confirm  that  the  life  expectancy  of  a  canister  vacuum  cleaner  is  between  5  and  9 
years, but some others point out longer periods. The Canadian Electrical Stewardship Association (CESA) 
indicates a range of lifetime between 6 and 9 years (Canadian Electrical Stewardship Association 2011), as 
well as DEFRA (2011) (5-7 years), Kobayashi et al. (2005) (7 years) and Rose  (2000) (wear-out life of 8 
years, whereas the vacuum cleaner technology cycle is 7 years); nevertheless in some consumer  websites 
the life expectancy rises to 12 years. 

The average lifetime considered in the Preparatory study for vacuum cleaners is 8 years, ranging from 
6.3 to 10 years. The Preparatory study also considers the potential extension of the product lifetime up to 
12 years. Both the energy label and the Ecodesign implementing measures for VCs assume 50 one-hour 
cleaning  tasks  per  year.  Assuming  500  hours  of  lifetime  of  the  motor,  this  corresponds  to  a  10-year 
lifetime of the product. 

In some cases, the lifetime is expressed in operating hours, as for the European Association for the Co-
ordination  of  Consumer  Representation  in  Standardisation  (ANEC)  and  the  European  Consumers’ 
Organisation  (BEUC).  They  affirmed  that  comparative  tests  performed  by  International  Consumer 

59 

 
 
 
 
Research & Testing (ICRT) members for vacuum cleaners prove a life expectancy higher than 550 hours 
(Maurer 2010). 

Some manufacturers  tested their vacuum  cleaners to last  1 000  operating  hours or an average of 20 
years  of  residential  use,  and  prove  that  the  motor  achieved  between  800  and  950  hours  and,  if  used 
consistently to the manual instruction, it can last up 1 200 hours (52). 

Finally,  an  interesting  indicator  can  be  the  warranty  offered  by  manufacturers  and  the  availability  of 
spare  parts:  the  manufacturer’s  warranty  constitutes  an  element  on  which  consumers  assess  a  product 
lifetime, as they infer that it’s connected to the reliability of products evaluated by the manufacturer itself 
(Boulos et al. 2014). Note that warranty is considered one of the parameters for evaluating the repairability 
and the durability of the product by the MEErP (Bundgaard et al. 2014; BIO Intelligence Service 2013d). 
Depending  on  the  manufacturer  and  on  the  vacuum  cleaner  components,  the  years  of  warranty  can 
assume different values, for instance 7-10 years on the motor and body casing (53), 5 years (54) or 2 years (55) 
for the vacuum cleaner and its components.  

(52) 
(53) 
(54) 
(55) 

http://www.which.co.uk/news/2009/10/miele-ads-banned-for-vacuum-cleaner-claims-186889/ (accessed march 2015) 
http://www.achooallergy.com/miele.asp (accessed march 2015) 
http://www.dyson.com/vacuums/browsetherange.aspx (accessed march 2015) 
http://www.electrolux.com.au/Global-pages/Page-Footer-Menu/Top/Changes-to-Consumer-Law/ (accessed march 2015) 

60 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 15: Considerations about vacuum cleaners lifetime in literature 

Product 

Lifetime 

Note 

Source 

5-7 years 

8 years 

5-7 years 

‘5-7 years lifespan. Clean the 
filters after every few uses to 
make sure nothing is blocking 
the nozzle, hose or entry to the 
bag.’ 

‘After every few uses, clean the 
filters to make sure nothing is 
blocking the nozzle, hose or 
entry to the bag or the dirt 
container.’ 

http://classiccleaners.net/2013/09/03
/whats-the-life-expectancy-of-these-5-
appliances-part-1/ (accessed March 
2015) 

‘Okala Practitioner: Integrating 
Ecological Design’ 

(Johnston 2013) 

6-12 years 
(average = 9 
years) 

‘Some models of vacuum 
cleaners have been 
demonstrated to have life spans 
in excess of 12 years.’ 

Canadian Electrical Stewardship 
Association (CESA) 

Year 

2013 

2013 

2013 

2011 

Vacuum 
cleaner 

Vacuum 
cleaner 

Vacuum 
cleaner 

Vacuum 
(canister, 
stick, 
upright, 
handheld) 
Vacuum 
cleaner 

5-7 years 

Vacuum 
cleaner 

550 hours 

Vacuum 
cleaner 

more than 
1,200 hours 

Vacuum 
cleaner 

Vacuum 
cleaner 
Vacuum 
cleaner 

Vacuum 
cleaner 

7 years 

up to 10 or 
12 years 

15-20 years 

more than  
1 000 
operating 
hours or 20 
years 

‘Most consumers replace a 
vacuum cleaner due to a 
decrease in the 
cleaning performance of the 
product over time but only 
rarely because the motor is 
broken.’ 
‘Miele said its vacuum cleaner 
motors achieved between 800 
and 950 hours on the highest 
setting, which was 300-450 
hours above standard test 
regulations, and when the S7 
was used on variable power 
settings, as recommended in the 
instruction manual, the motor 
lasted up to 1 200 hours’ 

Department for Environment, Food 
and Rural Affairs by brook Lyndhurst  

2011 

The European Association for the Co-
ordination of Consumer 
Representation in Standardisation 
(ANEC) & the European Consumers’ 
Organisation (BEUC) 

2010 

http://www.which.co.uk/news/2009/
10/miele-ads-banned-for-vacuum-
cleaner-claims-186889/ (accessed 
March 2015) 

2009 

A Practical Method for 
Quantifying Eco-efficiency 
Using Eco-design Support 
Tools 
http://www.vacuumcleanerrepair.org/ 
(accessed March 2015) 

(Lee n.d.) 

http://www.achooallergy.com/miele-
callisto-s5280-vacuum-cleaners.asp 
(accessed March 2015) 

2005 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

3.3.2. 

Energy efficiency class 

Based on European web shops and manufacturers’ websites, the majority of vacuum cleaners placed on 
the market belong to classes A and B. It is expected that future products will progressively move towards 
higher energy efficiency classes (EU 2013b). 

61 

 
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
 
For the current analysis it was decided to study a VC belonging to energy class A (section 1.2) with a 

yearly energy consumption of 25 [kWh/y]  (56). 

3.3.3.  Maintenance and Repairs 

The  maintenance  of  vacuum  cleaners  includes  all  those  aspects  aiming  at  the  correct  household 
functioning (in terms of performance) and at guaranteeing the proper lifetime of the product. Typically, 
vacuum problems are related to the stress of some elements and to the frequency of the appliance usage. 
In particular, the most common malfunctions are associated to hose, suction issues, belt, agitator brush, 
canister case or power cable (section 1.3). In any case, a constant check of the vacuum cleaner might limit 
possible breakdowns (57). 

When  buying  a  vacuum  cleaner,  simple  maintenance  instructions  are  provided  in  the  user  guide 
included  in  the  box.  That  manual  permits  the  user  to  correctly  use  the  appliance  maximising  its 
performances and minimising early failures, as well as to diagnose the main problems could be occurred 
and to do simple repairs on its own. Note in some cases, there are available online user guides containing 
an exploded view of all the key parts, the parts catalogue, the electrical fault diagnosis and wiring scheme, 
and a step-by-step guide to disassemblability, with photographs illustrating parts, locations and fasteners 
(WRAP  2011).  Moreover,  often  it’s  possible  to  find  a  catalogue  of  all  the  spare  parts  on  the  company 
website. 

Doubtless,  when  some  breakdowns  occur  but  the  product  replacement  is  not  considered  as  the  first 
option,  the  repair  of  the  vacuum  cleaner  (or  one  of  its  components)  takes  place.  The  MEEuP  Product 
Cases Report (Kemna et al. 2005) assumed that about 50 % of vacuum cleaners undergo a repair during 
the product lifetime of 8 years, with an estimated repair cost of EUR 50. On the other hand, the ‘Which?’ 
survey (AEA Energy & Environment 2009) assumes a lower percentage of repairs (10-20 %) in the first 6 
years of the product life. The same survey reports that canister vacuum cleaners seem to be more reliable 
than the uprights: just 1 in 10 of canister models require repairs in those 6 years, contra 1 in 5 of upright 
vacuum cleaners (WRAP 2011). The Consumer Report 2004 (58) depicts a repair rate of 13 % for upright 
vacuum  cleaners  (excluding  belt  replacement,  which  represent  one  of  the  most  common  reasons  of 
breakdowns  for  upright  VCs  —  AEA  Energy  &  Environment  2009),  and  of  23 %  for  canister  vacuum 
cleaners;  this means the  repair could be  a minor or major repair, but it doesn’t necessarily  mean a total 
failure of the vacuum cleaner. 

Clearly, some components of the vacuum cleaner are easier to repair and/or replace, while others could 
require  a  professional  intervention  (WRAP  2013a).  This  is  the  case  of  motor  or  some  electrical 
components,  that  can  critically  influence  the  reliability  of  the  internal  operating  mechanisms  and, 
ultimately, the product durability (Cooper 2005). In effect, universal motors used in the vacuum cleaners 
(with  carbon  brushes)  are  usually  not  considered  as  serviceable  (meaning  not  repairable),  because  if  the 
brushes  wear  out,  it  is  not  convenient  to  replace  them,  and  it  is  necessary  to  replace  the  whole  motor 
(AEA Energy & Environment 2009). 

There  are  several  maintenance  guidelines  and  instruments  available  online.  Usually  they  give  general 
recommendations to preserve the correct operation of the vacuum cleaner, with particularly focus to  the 

(56)  The energy class A is enclosed between 22 and 28 [kWh/year]. 
(57) 
(58)  www.cunsomereport.org 

http://www.vacuumcleanerrepair.org/, (AEA Energy & Environment 2009) 

62 

 
 
 
                                                 
motor  (for  example  periodically  substitution  of  pre-  and  post-motor  filters,  or  precautions  to  extend 
vacuum cleaners’ lifetimes) (59). Moreover, most of these guidelines notice that motor replacement is quite 
costly,  and  for  that  reason  they  are  generally  not  convenient  to  replace.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  there  is 
available information online explaining how it’s possible to manually replace the motor directly by the user 
(this  is  possible  in  those  products  specifically  designed  for  the  purpose ( 60)),  while  in  other  cases  the 
substitution is not possible without breaking motor or canister components. 

The  maintenance  can  be  classified  as  ordinary  maintenance  (chapter  3.3.3.1)  and  extraordinary 

maintenance (chapter 3.3.3.2). 

3.3.3.1.  Ordinary maintenance 

Ordinary maintenance should be carried out according to the effective running  time of the system in 
order  to  ensure  an  efficient  performance  and  avoid  serious  mechanical  damage.  Concerning  vacuum 
cleaners, this involves primarily the substitution and the cleaning of filters (61). 

To  ensure  the  correct  operation  of  a  vacuum  cleaner  during  its  lifetime,  filters  should  be  regularly 
replaced  (where  applicable),  as  should  dust  bags  (Kemna  et  al.  2005).  Note  that  the  substitution  of  full 
dust bags is not included in ‘maintenance’, but is part of the normal operation activities (i.e. consumption 
of auxiliary materials necessary to accomplish the vacuum cleaner functions). 

The Preparatory study suggests that the typical replacement frequency for filters is one set of filters per 
vacuum cleaner per year. Some manufacturers recommend changing the filter every six months or once a 
year (62).  Other  manufacturers  recommend  changing  filters  at  least  once  a  year,  but  in  the  meanwhile  to 
wash them every 30 days (63). 

As mentioned above, almost all the spare parts can be found on the market with minor effort. In the 
case-study realised by WRAP (WRAP 2011) it is confirmed that most of the components are quick and 
easy to access in order to permit the maintenance of vacuum cleaners. However, access to certain specific 
components  is  restricted  to  professional  service  engineers,  particularly  for  mechanical  or  electrical 
components. 

(59)  The main recommendations are related to: cleaning of vacuum cleaner filters, proper usage of the cord (untangled all the time, prevention of kinks), 

regular checking of the bags and substitution when it is only half full (for suction performances), the monitoring of noise and performance (refer to the 
instruction manuals). (http://www.cleanipedia.co.uk/en/floor-carpets/vacuum-cleaner-maintenance-how-to-keep-your-hoover-in-good-condition 
(accessed 2015), http://homeguides.sfgate.com/preserve-life-vacuum-cleaner-motor-49266.html (accessed 2015), 
http://www.doityourself.com/stry/cleaning-a-vacuum-filter (accessed March 2015), http://www.airfilters.com/blog/vacuum-cleaner-maintenance/ 
(accessed March 2015), http://www.mrappliance.com.au/Appliance-Spare-Parts/Manufacturers/Dyson-Vacuum-Cleaner-Parts/Dyson-Motors 
(accessed March 2015). 
https://it.ifixit.com/Guide/Dyson+DC14+Motor+Replacement/11532 (accessed March 2015), 
http://www.dysonmedic.com/DC07 %20Folder/DC07 %20Motor %20change.html (accessed March 2015), 
https://it.ifixit.com/Guide/Repairing+Dyson+DC08+Motor+ %28Fran %C3 %A7ais %29/9773 (accessed March 2015) 
(BigGreen Commercial n.d.), http://www.achooallergy.com/vacuum-cleaner-maintenance-guide.asp (accessed 2015), 
http://www.vacuumcleaneronline.com/vacuum-cleaner-maintenance-quick-tips-to-avoid-unnecessary-service-calls/ (accessed 2015), 
http://www.svcvacuum.com/bagless_mant.html) (accessed March 2015), 
http://www.achooallergy.com/miele-freshair-s8390-canister-vacuum-cleaner.asp (accessed March 2015), http://www.manualowl.com/m/Miele/S-8390-
Kona/Manual/322606 (accessed March 2015), http://www.amazon.com/203-1073-Bissell-Cleaner-Replacement-Pre-Motor/dp/B0054SN33Y 
(accessed March 2015), http://service.hoover.co.uk/advice-centre/how-to-maintain-your-vacuum-cleaner/ (accessed March 2015), 
http://evacuumstore.com/c-1726-dyson-vacuum-filters.aspx (accessed March 2015), 
http://www.miele.co.uk/Resources/OperatingInstructions/S %206210_S %206390.pdf (accessed March 2015) 
http://www.ebay.com/bhp/dyson-vacuum-cleaner-filters (accessed March 2015) 

(60) 

(61) 

(62) 

(63) 

63 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.3.3.2.  Extraordinary maintenance 

Extraordinary maintenance includes those operations that are not constantly carried out, and deals with 
failure  of  specific  components.  Replacing  some  parts,  such  as  the  motor,  can  be  expensive.  Induction 
motors,  which  are  mainly  used  in  household  appliances,  have  a  short  lifetime  and  a  low  number  of 
operating  hours  (De  Almeida  2007;  De  Almeida  et  al.  2008).  Moreover,  they  require  very  little 
maintenance (Brook Crompton 2009). The brushes are the most critical elements of the motor for failure, 
because  of  wear (64).  In  order  to  avoid  replacing  brushes,  longer  carbon  brushes  can  be  used,  expressly 
designed  for  the  whole  life  of  the  product  (WRAP  2011).  The  Preparatory  study  highlighted  that  the 
tendency of brushes to wear down is related to the life of the motor: their substitution is not considered a 
common  practice,  so  that  when  the  brushes  wear  down,  the  motor  cannot  be  repaired  and  need  to  be 
substituted.  Mainly  for  that  reason,  in  the  Preparatory  study  the  motor  lifetime  is  considered  not  lower 
than 500 hours. 

Figure 23: Motor brushes and their abrasion (ABB group n.d.) 

3.3.4.  Auxiliaries components 

During  the  use  phase,  some  ErPs  need  auxiliaries’  materials  for  the  operation.  Among  the  canister 

vacuum cleaners, there are two main options: bagged and bagless vacuum cleaners. 

The bagless option is becoming quite common in Europe, particularly in the UK market. In this kind of 

vacuum cleaner, reusable containers are used for storage dirt particles, saving the use of bags. 

Bagged vacuum cleaners employ a disposable dirt storage container that is disposed of once it is full, 
while the bagless vacuum cleaners use a reusable container permitting the saving of dust-bags. Consistent 
to the AEA Energy & Environment 2009, as bagged machines represent a large part of the market in most 
EU  countries  (except  for  UK),  in  this  study  a  bagged  product  is  considered.  Hence,  bagged  vacuum 
cleaners  for  instance  need  the  periodical  replacement  of  dust-bags.  These  consumables  should  be  taken 
into account in the analysis as they are part of the product life-cycle, and they contribute the final impact 
of vacuum cleaners. 

For this study, consistent to what was illustrated in section 2.1.10 and to the analysis performed into the 
Preparatory  study,  the  bagged  option  is  selected.  In  any  case,  the  dust  bags  are  considered  as  a  specific 
item within the analysis in order to check its influence to the life-cycle VC impacts and the life-cycle VC 
costs. 

The Preparatory study considers a dust bag replacement of 10 bags per year, but it could rise to 15 bags 
per year depending on the operation conditions and user behaviour. On the other hand, both Abele et al. 

(64) 

https://www.anaheimautomation.com/manuals/forms/brush-dc-motor-guide.php (accessed March 2015), (De Almeida et al. 2008) 

64 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
(2005) and Kemna et al. (2005) considered a lower number of bags replaced: respectively 6 dust bags per 
year and 5 dust bags per year. 

3.4. 

End-of-Life 

The recycling process of a WEEE has been regulated by the EU Directive (2002/96/EC) (EU 2012). It 
consists  in  sequence  of  different  treatments  to  progressively  separate  recyclable/recoverable  fractions 
(Johansson & Björklund 2010; Sam et al. 2014; Allenby 2006; Bundgaard et al. 2014; Monier et al. 2013). 
Note that the WEEE Directive specifies that, starting from 15 August 2015, the minimum rate for SHA 
recovery  must  be  75 %,  while  at  least  55 %  of  SHA  shall  be  prepared  for  re-use  and  recycled 
(2002/96/EC). 

Figure 24: Example of EoL treatments for a vacuum cleaner (Sam et al. 2014) 

Vacuum  cleaners  belong  to  the  subcategory  of  WEEE  within  the  category  of  ‘Small  household 
appliances’ (SHA). In order to estimate the type and composition of WEEE treated into the civic amenity 
site (65),  starting  from  this  categorisation  of  WEEE,  a  study  by  the  UK  Department  for  Environment, 
Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA 2007) highlighted that vacuum cleaners dominate the category 2 of Small 
Mixed  WEEE (66)  (SMW):  they  represent  more  than  60 %  of  the  SMWs.  Indeed,  the  Preparatory  study 
suggests that average waste vacuum cleaners collected per year within the EU-27 is about 100 000 tonnes 
that,  for  an  average  weight  of  7.2  [kg]  per  vacuum  cleaner,  corresponds  to  about  14  million  tonnes  of 
waste equipment. 

(65)  Or a household waste recycling centre, where the household waste can be disposed in order to begin their EoL treatments. 
(66) 

‘Small  mixed  WEEE  (SMW)  refers  to  a  wide  range  of  waste  electrical  items  which  includes:  small  household  appliances,  IT  and  communications 
equipment,  powered 
smoke  detectors  and  dispensers.’ 
http://www.complydirect.com/news/ea-issue-guidance-for-small-mixed-weee/#.VRE48eHLL0w (accessed March 2015) 

sports  equipment,  medical  devices,  control 

instruments, 

toys  and 

tools, 

65 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
The disposal of the VC occurs at the end of the product lifetime. During the operating time, VCs also 
produce  waste  due  to  the  use  of  auxiliaries’  components  and  ordinary  maintenance  (i.e.  dust-bags  and 
filters).  Also  extraordinary  maintenance  produces  some  waste,  but  this  amount  can  be  considered  as 
negligible (EC 2013; AEA Energy & Environment 2009).The study by Kemna et al. (2005) assumes a high 
percentage of recycling rate of metals (95 %) and energy recovery of plastics (90 %), while the values in 
the Preparatory study are illustrated in Table 16. 

Table 16: EoL assumptions in the Preparatory study 

Material 

Disposal 

Recycling 

Bulk Plastics 
TecPlastics 
Ferro 
Non-ferro 
Coating 
Electronics 

Misc. 
Total mass 

33.71 % 
33.67 % 
29.99 % 
29.92 % 
25.00 % 
48.28 % 

29.96 % 
32.24 % 

66.29 % 
66.33 % 
70.01 % 
69.87 % 
62.50 % 
48.28 % 

69.98 % 
67.78 % 

Based  on  this  information, the EoL scenario considered in  this study  was  modelled according to the 
IEC/TR  62635  (IEC  2012)  and  on  (Huysman  et  al.  n.d.).  More  specifically,  it  takes  into  account  the 
environmental  impact  of  the  transport  of  wastes,  as  well  as  the  shredding  operations.  The  disposal, 
recycling  and  recovery  options  of  the  waste  flows  are  not  considered  for  the  LCA  as  well  as  for  the 
environmental assessment of durability. To be thorough in respect to the LCA model, the waste flows are 
defined based on the IEC/TR 62635, which provides some detailed figures on the recycling and recovery 
rates of WEEE components and materials undergoing different separation processes. 

3.5. 

Transport 

Transport related to raw materials as well as to product delivery has been also considered in the analysis 
to calculate life-cycle impacts of the case-study VC. The manufacturing factory is supposed to be settled 
within the European Union. 

For the procurement of raw materials it is supposed that plastic parts are transported for about 100 km, 
while all the other raw materials, for 200 km. In regards to packaging, transport on a lorry for 100 km has 
been included. Concerning delivery, it was hypothesised that the vacuum cleaner travels in the EU for an 
overall  distance  of  1  000 km.  Finally,  the  transports  associated  to  the  EoL  are  assumed  to  be  about 
100 km. 

Table 17: Inventory data used for the LCA of canister vacuum cleaner’s transports 

Transported material 

Plastics 
Metals 
Packaging materials 
VC 
VC 

Life-cycle stage 
description 
Raw material procurement 
Raw material procurement 
Raw material procurement 
Delivery 

EoL 

Distance [km] 

100  
200  
100  
1 000  
100   

66 

 
 
 
 
4. CHAPTER 4 
LCA of the case-study product 

4.1. 

Goal and scope 

The  overall  aim  of  this  LCA  is  to  assess  the  potential  environmental  impact  of  an  average  canister 
vacuum cleaner. Moreover, the results represent the background data for the environmental assessment of 
vacuum cleaner durability. In this framework, the impact categories selected for this study are ILCD/PEF 
recommendation (Table 18). Note that the land use impact category has been excluded (due to limited life-
cycle  inventory  data)  and  the  Resource  Depletion  impacts  have  been  subdivided  into  Abiotic  Depletion 
Potential, mineral resources (67) and Primary energy from non-renewable resources (net cal. value). 

Table 18: ILCD/PEF recommendation impact categories 

Impact categories 

Abiotic Depletion Potential, mineral resources  
Acidification, accumulated exceedance  
Ecotoxicity for aquatic fresh water, USEtox (recommended)  
Freshwater eutrophication, EUTREND model, ReCiPe  
Human toxicity cancer effects, USEtox (recommended)  
Human toxicity non-canc. effects, USEtox (recommended)  
Ionising radiation, human health effect model, ReCiPe ] 
IPCC global warming, excl biogenic carbon  
Marine eutrophication, EUTREND model, ReCiPe  
Ozone depletion, WMO model, ReCiPe  
Particulate matter/Respiratory inorganics, RiskPoll  
Photochemical ozone formation, LOTOS-EUROS model, ReCiPe  
Primary energy from non-renewable resources (net cal. value)  
Terrestrial eutrophication, accumulated exceedance  
Total freshwater consumption, including rainwater, Swiss Ecoscarcity  

ADP-res 
AP 
FET 
EPf 
HT-C 
HT-nC 
IR 
GWP 
Epm 
ODP 
PMF 
POCP 
PEn 
EPt 
FC 

Unit of 
Measure 
[kg Sb-Equiv.] 
[Mole of H+eq.] 
[CTUe] 
[kg P eq] 
[CTUh] 
[CTUh] 
[kg U235 eq] 
[kg CO2Equiv.] 
[kg NEquiv.] 
[kg CFC-11 eq] 
[kg PM2,5Equiv.] 
[kg NMVOC] 
[MJPrim] 
[Mole of N eq.] 
[UBP] 

The  functional  unit  of  the  study  is  a  packaged  canister  vacuum  cleaner  (5.721 kg  of  mass  for  the 
vacuum cleaner and 1.26 kg for the packaging) with an operating lifetime of 10 years (corresponding to 50 
hours per years of time spent vacuuming). 

The system boundaries include the following phases: 

-  manufacturing phase (including transports for raw materials and the final delivery of the product); 
-  use phase, including consumption of electricity during the operation, use of auxiliaries components 

- 

(periodical change of dust-bags) and maintenance (periodical filter replacements); 
end-of-life (EoL), including transport and impact of waste treatment in a WEEE recycling plant. 
Impacts related to further processing of recyclable and recoverable materials, and benefits related 

(67)  The abiotic depletion potential — resources — is an impact category that account for the extraction rate of a certain resource (in relationship to the 

estimated world reserves), compared to a reference resource (antimony).  

67 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
to secondary materials production were not considered in the analysis, because the EoL scenarios 
are  strictly  related  to  the  materials  and  the  technology  potentiality  in  separating  and  treating  the 
waste flow materials. So that, as many information about the manufacturing of the new product in 
the  future,  and  the  technological  developments  are  complicated  to  model  and  they  potentially 
increase  the  uncertainty  of the final results, the comparison between  the two  scenarios excluded 
the EoL treatments. 

The LCA of the case-study product is performed through GaBi 6 software and the database used is PE 
database for almost all the process units. Though, in some cases, due to lack of information, Ecoinvent 
v2.2, DKI/ECI (68) and PE/FEFCO (69) databases are used (ANNEX1). 

Data used for the model realisation refer to a dismantled canister vacuum cleaner described in section 
3.1: all the components have been weighted and categorised by material (thanks to the brands). Where the 
information was not available, data are based on literature. 

4.2. 

Life Cycle Inventory 

The Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) mainly refers to the case-study product described in section 3.1. This 
section depicts the specific hypotheses on which the LCA modelling is based on. Moreover, the detailed 
LCI (including tables and flowcharts) is available in ANNEX 1. 

As  underlined  by  Chiu  &  Chu  (2012),  the  major  difficulties  about  the  LCI  data  collection  should  be 

associated to the availability of reliable database of both materials and processes. 

Consistent  with  the  goal  of  the  study,  except  for  the  hose  and  the  operational  motor,  all  the  other 

components of the vacuum cleaner have been grouped. 

4.2.1.  Manufacturing 

4.2.1.1.  Hose 

The inventory data used for the hose model are showed in Table 19. 

Table 19: Inventory data used for the LCA of canister vacuum cleaner’s hose 

Material 

ABS 
PE 
PP 
Rubber 

Unit of 
Measure 
[kg] 
[kg] 
[kg] 
[kg] 

Mass  

0.461 
0.214 
0.018 
0.003 

(68)  German Copper Institute, http://www.kupferinstitut.de/  
(69)  European Database for Corrugated Board Life Cycle Studies, (FEFCO 2011) 

68 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
4.2.1.2.  Motor 

The total weight of the motor is 1.862 kg: more than 30 % of the vacuum cleaner weight. Note that in 

the inventory, 13 g were not defined. 

For almost all the materials it was possible to find a correspondence in the PE database (70), but it’s to 
be noted that for some others there is not a matching process within the database; for that reason, they 
have been modelled ad hoc. This is the case of the winding assembly: an average composition have been 
extrapolated based on literature data (De Almeida et al. 2008; De Almeida et al. 2013; Olivetti et al. 2012). 

Concerning  plastic  elements,  the  material  brand  of  plastics  allowed  the  identification  of  the  plastic 
typology. For instance, the brand on the motor case and on the fan shows that those plastics are polyester 
fiberglass  resins  (BMC-GF).  The  modelling  was  made  according  to  Menzolit®  BMC  1000,  a  bulk 
moulding  compound  based  on  unsaturated  polyester  resin (71)  (>UP-(MD+GF)70<),  made  up  of  25 % 
glass fibre (GF), 45 % mineral powder (MD) and 30 % unsaturated polyester (UP) (European Alliance for 
SMC/BMC 2011). The production process considered is injection moulding. 

Note that motor manufacturing requires energy in order to be assembled. Few data were available in 
the  literature  concerning  the  motor  assembly,  particularly  in  relation  to  appliance  motors.  Based  on 
selected  studies  about  the  environmental  impacts  of  appliances,  the  energy  consumption  for  the  motor 
assembly has been neglected (Olivetti et al. 2012; Wong 2009; Horie 2004). 

The inventory data used for the motor model are shown in Table 20. 

Table 20: Inventory data used for the LCA of canister vacuum cleaner’s motor 

Material 

Aluminium 
Brass  
Copper  

Copper windings 

Copper 
Steel 
Aluminium  

BMC-GF  
Graphite  
Polyethylene granulate (PE)  
Polypropylene granulate (PP) 
Rubber sealing compound  
Steel  
Others 

Unit of 
Measure 
[kg] 
[kg] 
[kg] 

[kg] 

[kg] 
[kg] 
[kg] 
[kg] 
[kg] 
[kg] 
[kg] 

Mass  

0.042 
0.025 
0.124 
0.0326 
0.271 
0.0579 
0.267 
0.007 
0.016 
0.259 
0.133 
0.614 
0.013 

(70) 
(71) 

http://www.gabi-software.com/databases/ (accessed March 2015) 
http://plastics.ulprospector.com/datasheet/e92126/menzolit-bmc-1000  (accessed  March  2015),  http://www.matbase.com/material-categories/natural-
and-synthetic-composites/polymer-matrix-composites-pmc/reinforced-polymers/material-properties-of-unsaturated-polyester-resin-15-percent-glass-
fiber-reinforced-bulk-mouldin.html#properties (accessed March 2015) 

69 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.2.1.3.  ‘Other components’ 

All  other  components  of  the  vacuum  cleaner  were  individually  modelled,  but  as  in  chapter  3.2  they 

were all grouped in prospect of the Impact Assessment. 

The inventory data used for the ‘other components’ model are showed in Table 21. 

Table 21: Inventory data used for the LCA of canister vacuum cleaner’s ‘other components’ 

Component 

Material 

ABS 
POM 
Rubber 
Steel 
Brass 
ABS 
PE 
Rubber 
Steel 
PVC 
Copper 
ABS.PP 
PE-HD 
PP 
Steel 
PE-HD 
PP 
Brass 
PE 
PVC 
Wires 
Brass 
PVC 
Wires 
PCB 
Steel 

Canister case 

Hose Reel 

Attachment cord 

Nozzle plate 

Filter 
Wheels 

Cables 

Cables 

PCB 

Others 

Unit of 
Measure 
[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] 

Mass 

2 
0.042 
0.002 
0.004 
0.004 
0.142 
0.021 
0.002 
0.052 
0.194 
0.089 
0.052 
0.020 
0.219 
0.019 
0.017 
0.209 
0.002 
0.015 
0.011 
0.005 
0.001 
0.002 
0.002 

0.012 
0.014 
0.008 

4.2.1.1.  Packaging 

To model the packaging, both the cardboard for the box and the paper for the instruction manual have 
been considered. Moreover, a small percentage of plastic (PE-LD) has been included. Data are based on a 
waste  material  declaration  of  Philips’  canister  vacuum  cleaner (72):  1.26 kg,  about  20 %  of  the  packaged 
product. 

(72) 

http://download.p4c.philips.com/files/f/fc9192_81/fc9192_81_wad_aen.pdf (accessed March 2015), Table 14 

70 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 22: Inventory data used for the LCA of canister vacuum cleaner’s packaging 

Material 

PE-LD 
Paper 
Cardboard 

Unit of 
Measure 
[kg] 
[kg] 
[kg] 

Mass 

0.06 
0.10 
1.10 

4.2.2.  Use phase 

The canister vacuum  cleaner lifetime  is assumed  to be 10 years, consistent with the  literature  review. 
Moreover, concerning its energy consumption, the VC is supposed to belong to the energy class A in the 
energy  labelling  starting  from  September  2017  (EU  2013b),  so  that  a  yearly  energy  consumption  of  25 
[kWh/y] is adopted for the LCA. 

As  the  case-study  product  is  a  bagged  vacuum  cleaner,  the  frequency  of  dust-bag  replacement  is 
assumed equal to 7 bags per year (73). Indeed, the estimate for ordinary maintenance for the present LCA is 
the use of 1 set of filters per year. 

Finally, extraordinary maintenance is not considered in this specific LCA. 

Table 23: Inventory data used for the LCA of canister vacuum cleaner use phase 

Material 

Bags 
Set of filters 
Electricity consumption 

Unit of 
Measure 
[kg/piece] 
[kg/piece] 
[kWh/year] 

Mass 

0.04 
0.017 
28 

4.2.3. 

End-of-Life (EoL) 

Consistent with the system boundaries of the LCA, the EoL is modelled up to final disposal of waste 
material  flows,  but  only  the  environmental  impacts  associated  to  the  EoL  chain  until  the  shredded 
products  are  considered.  Note  that,  even  if  there  are  examples  of  vacuum  cleaners  for  which  high 
percentages  of  recycled  material  have  been  used  in  polymer  contents  (WRAP  2013b),  the  secondary 
material and the recycling content are not considered in the LCA. This means no environmental credits (or 
benefits) are associated to the EoL. 

Therefore,  based  on  Huysman  et  al.,  transports,  energy  and  chemical  elements  necessary  for  the 
treatment processes have been included into the EoL scenario (Table 24). It’s to be noticed that Huysman 
et al. includes also the styrene butadiene styrene (SBS) for the plastics separation; according to the system 
boundaries of this study, this has been not considered, as it is used after the shredding operations. 

(73)  This is the average value of those available in literature (section 3.3.4). 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 24: Inventory data used for the LCA of canister vacuum cleaner EoL (shredding process) 

Material 

Carbon black 
Limestone 
Electricity 
Magnetite 

Transports 

Unit of 
Measure 
[kg] 

[kg] 
[MJ] 
[kg] 
[kg*km] 

Mass 

0.079 

0.348 
10.298 
0.054 
9.029 

Finally, the recycling and recovery rate of product parts is modelled according to IEC/TR 62635 (Table 

25). 

Table 25: Inventory data used for the LCA of canister vacuum cleaner EoL (waste flows) 

Material 

Recycling 

Incineration  Disposal 

ABS 
ABS.PP 
Aluminium 
BMC-GF 

Brass 
Copper 
Graphite 
PCB 
PE 
POM 

PP 
PVC 
Rubber 
Steel 
Cardboard 
LDPE 

Paper (Manual) 

74 % 
0 % 
91 % 
0 % 
100 % 
100 % 

0 % 
0 % 
90 % 
0 % 

90 % 
0 % 
90 % 
94 % 
90 % 
90 % 

90 % 

26 % 
100 % 
0 % 
100 % 
0 % 
0 % 
0 % 
0 % 

10 % 
100 % 
10 % 
100 % 

10 % 
0 % 
0 % 

10 % 
0 % 

0 % 
0 % 

9 % 
0 % 
0 % 
0 % 
100 % 
100 % 
0 % 

0 % 
0 % 
0 % 
0 % 
6 % 

10 % 
0 % 
10 % 

4.2.4. 

Transports 

Consistent  with  the  assumptions  in  section  3.5,  the  inventory  data  used  for  the  motor  model  are 

showed in Table 26. 

Table 26: Inventory data used for the LCA of canister vacuum cleaner’s transports 

Transported 
material 

Plastics 

Metals 

Packaging 
materials 
VC 
VC 

Life-cycle stage 
description 
Raw material 
procurement 
Raw material 
procurement 
Raw material 
procurement 
Delivery 
EoL 

Distance 
[km] 

Mass*Distance 
[kg*km] 

100  

200  

100  

1 000  
100  

432.32  

279.57  

126.00  

6 981.00  
698.10  

72 

 
 
 
 
 
4.3. 

Impact assessment of an average canister vacuum cleaner 

All the impacts hereinafter illustrated have been calculated for the considered functional unit (a canister 

vacuum cleaner with an operating lifetime of 10 years). 

Table 27 and Figure 25 shows that the life-cycle overall environmental impacts of the canister vacuum 
cleaner and the percentage contribution of life-cycle phases: manufacturing, use (including consumption of 
energy and auxiliary materials and ordinary maintenance) and end-of-life. 

Table 27: LC Impact Assessment of the canister vacuum cleaner 

Use phase 

Ordinary 
maintenance 
and dust-bags 
1.80E-07 
1.60E-03 
5.09E-02 
5.42E-07 

3.92E-09 
1.79E-08 
3.83E-02 
4.24E-01 
1.69E-05 
1.39E-10 

8.75E-05 
1.03E-03 
1.46E+01 
2.74E-03 
3.10E-01 

Impact 
category 

Unit of 
measure 

Vacuum 
Cleaner 

Manufacturing 

Auxiliaries 
components 

ADP-res 
AP 

FET 
EPf 
HT-C 
HT-nC 
IR 
GWP 

Epm 
ODP 
PMF 
POCP 
PEn 
EPt 

FC 

[kg SbEquiv.] 
[Mole of H+eq.] 
[CTUe] 
[kg P eq] 
[CTUh] 
[CTUh] 
[kg U235 eq] 
[kg CO2Equiv.] 
[kg NEquiv.] 
[kg CFC-11 eq] 
[kg PM2,5Equiv.] 
[kg NMVOC] 
[MJ] 

[Mole of N eq.] 
[UBP] 

1.27E-03 
8.04E-01 
7.78E+01 
3.79E-04 

3.37E-07 
9.18E-06 
5.59E+01 
1.49E+02 
1.06E-02 
1.11E-07 

4.94E-02 
3.18E-01 
2.76E+03 
1.13E+00 
1.60E+02 

1.21E-03 
1.20E-01 
7.39E+01 
1.61E-04 

2.11E-07 
6.22E-06 
2.77E+01 
2.72E+01 
4.29E-03 
2.11E-08 

8.17E-03 
6.39E-02 
5.84E+02 
2.37E-01 
2.57E+01 

9.76E-07 
4.06E-03 
2.21E-01 
6.50E-05 

1.48E-08 
2.70E-08 
-1.27E-02 
1.80E+00 
8.04E-04 
-5.35E-11 

1.26E-04 
4.56E-03 
2.27E+01 
1.88E-02 
8.94E+00 

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

-20%

Energy 
consumption 

EoL 

6.09E-05 
6.70E-01 
3.52E+00 
1.48E-04 

1.02E-07 
2.86E-06 
2.44E+01 
1.18E+02 
5.19E-03 
8.78E-08 

4.04E-02 
2.46E-01 
2.11E+03 
8.62E-01 
1.24E+02 

9.16E-07 

8.64E-03 
1.22E-01 
4.17E-06 
4.99E-09 
4.92E-08 
3.68E+00 

1.59E+00 
2.53E-04 
1.82E-09 
5.71E-04 
3.10E-03 
3.01E+01 

1.25E-02 
1.66E+00 

EoL

Ordinary maintenance

Auxiliaries

Energy consumption

Manufacturing

Figure 25: Percentage contribution to the overall impact of the canister vacuum cleaner LC phases 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The results demonstrate that the major contributions in terms of environmental impacts are associated 

to use and manufacturing phases. 

In particular, for the impact categories more related to the energy consumption (Acidification, GWP, 
Ozone Depletion and Particulate Matter) the energy consumption contribution is always higher than 79 %. 
In any case, except for Ecotoxicity for aquatic fresh water and Abiotic Depletion, the use phase can’t be 
considered as negligible (less than 5 %). 

The  manufacturing  phase  is  particularly  relevant  (more  than  95 %)  for  Ecotoxicity  for  aquatic  fresh 

water and Abiotic Depletion; in any case, it’s never lower than 14.5 % for all 15 impact categories. 

Concerning  auxiliaries  components  and  ordinary  maintenance,  note  that  on  the  whole  they  have  an 
environmental  impact  higher  than  15 %  only  for  Freshwater  eutrophication  (6.55E-05 kgPeq).  The  EoL 
phase  contributes  for  less  than  5 %  for  almost  all  the  impact  categories;  an  exception  is  represented  by 
Ionising Radiation. Note that the system boundaries of the study have been set to include only the pre-
processing of the VC waste, and do not include the further treatments of recyclable/recoverable materials, 
nor the potential environmental credits due to the energy and material recovery (section 3.4 and 0). 

4.4. 

Life Cycle Interpretation 

The  impacts  have  been  calculated  for  all  the  impact  categories  illustrated  in  tables  and  reported  in 
ANNEX  2.  This  section  illustrates  a  more  detailed  analysis  performed  for  some  exemplary  impact 
categories as: 

-  GWP, being dominated by the energy consumption; 
-  Abiotic Depletion Potential, mineral resources, being dominated by the manufacturing phase; 
-  Human toxicity cancer effects, being equally influenced by both manufacturing and use phase. 

4.4.1.  Manufacturing phase 

Consistent with the goal and scope of the study, hose and operational motor are modelled separately to 
all the ‘other components’ of the canister vacuum cleaner (i.e. canister case, PCB, nozzle plate, hose reel, 
attachment  cord,  cables,  filter  and  wheels).  Moreover,  packaging  and  transports  of  raw  materials  are 
included in the manufacturing phase. Results are illustrated in Table 28. 

Table 28: Environmental impact of the manufacturing phase components/processes 

IPCC global warming, 
excl biogenic carbon 

[kg CO2Equiv.] 

Hose 
Motor 
‘Other components’ 

Energy consumption 
Packaging 
Transport 

 2.48  

 5.47  
 12.66  
 4.73  
 1.42  
 0.04  

[%] respect 
to the total 
1.82 % 
4.00 % 
9.27 % 

3.46 % 
1.04 % 
0.03 % 

Human toxicity canc. 
effects, USEtox 
(recommended)  

Abiotic Depletion 
Potential, mineral 
resources 

[CTUh] 

1.79E-08 

5.23E-08 
1.16E-07 
4.07E-09 
1.78E-08 
2.84E-10 

[%] respect 
to the total 
5.56 % 
16.24 % 
36.01 % 

1.26 % 
5.52 % 
0.09 % 

[kg SbEquiv.] 

8.71E-07 

1.04E-03 
1.62E-04 
2.43E-06 
3.75E-06 
6.46E-09 

[%] respect 
to the total 
0.07 % 
82.25 % 
12.74 % 

0.19 % 
0.30 % 
0.00 % 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
In  line  with  results  from  the  literature,  the  energy  consumption  for  the  manufacturing  phase  is 
negligible: it represents about 3.5 % of the GWP of the VC (4.73 kg CO2eq) and is negligible for the other 
two impact categories. Focusing on the GWP manufacturing impact however, electricity represents one of 
the  most  important  elements.  Regarding  materials,  more  than  35 %  of  the  impact  is  associated  to  ABS 
(10.68 kg CO2eq) used for the hose, the hose reel and the casing of the canister. Note that ABS is also the 
most relevant material of the VC in terms of mass (section 3.2). Other components having a GWP impact 
higher than 3 % in relation to the manufacturing are copper, steel and PCB. 

The  manufacturing  phase  dominates  the  Abiotic Depletion  category,  being  responsible  of  more  than 
95 % of the overall impact (1.21 g Sb eq.). The most relevant components for the ADP are the motor and 
the printed circuit board. In particular, the greatest impact is due to the content of copper (in the rotor, 
stator and in the  cables), even  if the content of copper is less  than  10 %  of the motor mass  —  section 
4.2.1.2. Indeed, note that the PCB mass contribution is lower than 0.5 %, and that the major contribution 
of its impact is to be associated to the printing wiring board (5.45E-05 kg Sb eq.) and transistor (2.84E-05 
k g Sb eq.).Concerning the human toxicity (cancer effect), the major contribution is related to the life-cycle 
impact of the copper in the motor and the electric cables. Also in this case, ABS contribute to the Human 
Toxicity manufacturing impact for more than 30 %, while the steel and PCB contributions are higher than 
5 %. 

GWP [kg CO2 eq.] 

AbioticDepletion [kg Sb eq] 

Copper, 
1.12E+00, 
4.10% 

Energy 
consumptio
n, 
4.73E+00, 
17.38% 

ABS, 
1.07E+01, 
39.22% 

Others, 
7.66E+00, 
28.13% 

Copper, 
9.49E-04, 
78.36% 

Others, 
1.38E-04, 
11.39% 

PCB, 
1.24E-04, 
10.25% 

STEEL, 
2.02E+00, 
7.44% 

PCB, 
1.02E+00, 
3.73% 

Human Toxicity [CTUh] 

Others, 
6.12E-08, 
28.83% 

Copper, 
5.56E-08, 
26.19% 

PCB, 1.31E-
08, 6.16% 

STEEL, 
1.19E-08, 
5.58% 

ABS, 7.06E-
08, 33.23% 

Figure 26: Contribution of the canister’s materials to the overall impact of the canister vacuum cleaner 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
In order to take into account the technology development during the lifetime of VC, the environmental 
burdens associated to the production of a new and more technologically advanced product (B) have been 
considered. The main assumption is about the technological development of the printed circuit board as 
more complex PCB are already used in vacuum cleaners available on the market. 

Figure 27: PCB of the dismantled vacuum cleaner and example of a more recent PCB (74) 

Few  data  are  available  about  the  composition  of  PCB  in  VCs.  However,  even  from  a  not  detailed 
analysis it is possible to observe that modern VCs included much more complex PCB (see e.g. Figure 27). 
Therefore  the  sensitivity  analysis  was  realised  assuming  a  varied  impact  of  the  PCB,  according  to  a 
parameter : 

𝐼𝑃𝐶𝐵′ = 𝛾 ∙ 𝐼𝑃𝐶𝐵 

, 

0 ≤ 𝛾 

In  order  to  define  the  range  of    variation,  a  more  complex  PCB  is  modelled  (differences  are 
substantially related to the amount of many components, ANNEX 1). Except for three impact categories 
(i.e. human toxicity non-cancer effects, ionising radiation and ozone depletion), the environmental impact 
of the more recent PCB is higher than that of the base-case VC. Substituting the new PCB into the LCA 
model,  it’s  to  be  noted  that  higher  variation  of  the  overall  impact  is  to  be  associated  to  the  abiotic 
depletion (more than 10 %), while almost all the impact categories don’t vary their environmental impact 
for more than 1 % (Figure 28). 

Therefore, the  parameter has been varied between 90 % and 140 %. Results are illustrated in  Table 
29.  The  LCIA  results  prove  that  the  substitution  of  the  PCB  with  a  more  complex  one  could  cause 
variation for the life-cycle impacts that are generally lower than 5 %. Higher differences can be found just 
for abiotic depletion and human toxicity (cancer effects) but only in correspondence to high -values. 

(74) 

http://longoodpcba.en.ec21.com/PCB_Assembly_for_Vacuum_Cleaner—5761729_5774978.html (accessed March 2015) 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
115%

110%

105%

100%

95%

90%

PCB (base-case VC)

PCB (more recent)

Figure 28: Comparison between the LCIAs of VC with two different PCBs. 

Table 29: Percentage difference between the environmental impacts of the VC on varying -values and the base-
case VC  

90 % 

100 % 

110 % 

120 % 

130 % 

140 % 

 

ADP-res  -0.97 % 
-0.09 % 

AP 
FET 
EPf 
HT-C 
HT-nC 
IR 

GWP 
Epm 
ODP 
PMF 
POCP 
PEn 

EPt 
FC 

-0.04 % 
-0.36 % 
-0.39 % 
-0.22 % 
-0.01 % 
-0.07 % 

-0.11 % 
-0.02 % 
-0.17 % 
-0.12 % 
-0.05 % 
-0.13 % 

0.00 % 
0.00 % 

0.00 % 
0.00 % 
0.00 % 
0.00 % 
0.00 % 
0.00 % 

0.00 % 
0.00 % 
0.00 % 
0.00 % 
0.00 % 
0.00 % 

0.97 % 
0.09 % 

0.04 % 
0.36 % 
0.39 % 
0.22 % 
0.01 % 
0.07 % 

0.11 % 
0.02 % 
0.17 % 
0.12 % 
0.05 % 
0.13 % 

1.95 % 
0.18 % 

0.07 % 
0.73 % 
0.78 % 
0.44 % 
0.02 % 
0.14 % 

0.22 % 
0.03 % 
0.35 % 
0.25 % 
0.09 % 
0.27 % 

2.92 % 
0.27 % 

0.11 % 
1.09 % 
1.17 % 
0.66 % 
0.02 % 
0.20 % 

0.33 % 
0.05 % 
0.52 % 
0.37 % 
0.14 % 
0.40 % 

3.90 % 
0.36 % 

0.14 % 
1.46 % 
1.56 % 
0.87 % 
0.03 % 
027 % 

0.44 % 
0.06 % 
0.70 % 
0.50 % 
0.19 % 
0.54 % 

-0.05 % 

0.00 % 

0.05 % 

0.11 % 

0.16 % 

0.21 % 

4.4.2.  Use phase 

The use  phase  is affected  by both the  consumption of electricity  and materials (filter and dust-bags). 
The results of the impact assessment make evident the large impact of the electricity for the GWP and the 
minor relevance for human toxicity and abiotic depletion. 

In  order  to  take  into  account  the  energy  efficiency  standards  in  force  from  1  September  2017,  the 
average values of each energy efficiency class have been considered based on (EU 2013b), so the energy 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
consumption  of  the  VC  ranges  between  7  [kWh/y]  and  43  [kWh/y].  It’s  to  be  noted  that  the 
environmental burdens of the electricity usage decrease with the increasing of the energy efficiency of the 
ErPs (Figure 29). 

Figure 30 shows the contribution for the main life-cycle phases to the environmental impact of VC for 
three different energetic classes: A+++, A and D. These graphs demonstrate the decreasing contribution 
of the energy consumption  in  respect to the overall  impact, and this is particularly  evident for life-cycle 
GWP and human toxicity (even if lower). Indeed, concerning abiotic depletion, the contributions of the 
different phases to the VC life-cycle impact don’t change, whichever energetic class is considered. 

Vacuum cleaner environmental impact for different Energy Efficiency Classes 

160%

140%

120%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

A+++ - 7 kWh/y

A++ - 13 kWh/y

A+ - 19 kWh/y

A - 25 kWh/y

B - 31 kWh/y

C - 37 kWh/y

D - 43 kWh/y

Figure 29: Sensitivity analysis of the energy consumption (related to VC of different energy Efficiency Classes) 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Class A+++ scenario 

Class A scenario 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

01-EoL

Use phase (Energy
consumption)

Use phase (ordinary
maintenance)

Manufacturing

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

ADP-res

HT-C

GWP

ADP-res

HT-C

GWP

01-EoL

Use phase (Energy
consumption)

Use phase (ordinary
maintenance)

Manufacturing

Class D scenario 

01-EoL

Use phase (Energy
consumption)

Use phase (ordinary
maintenance)

Manufacturing

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

ADP-res

HT-C

GWP

Figure 30: Contribution of the main LC phases to the environmental impact of vacuum cleaner 
for different Energy Efficiency Classes to the impact categories: Abiotic Depletion Potential, mineral resources 
(ADP-res), Human Toxicity non-cancer effects (HT-nc) and Global Warming Potential (GWP)

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5. CHAPTER 5 
Environmental assessment of durability issues 

5.1.  Method for the environmental assessment of durability of 

energy-using products 

The  environmental  assessment  of  the  durability  of  energy-using  products  is  based  on  the  method 
developed  by  Ardente  et  al.  (2012).  The  environmental  assessment  of  durability  refer  to  two  different 
scenarios: the first is a base-case scenario, meaning a standard product (A) at the end of its operating life is 
substituted by a new product (B), while the second one is the Durable scenario, meaning an extension (X) 
of the lifetime of product (A) is considered. 

As  defined  by  Ardente  et  al.  (2012),  the  durability  index  (Dn)  for  a  general  impact  category  ‘n’  is 

illustrated in Formula 1. 

Formula 1: 

𝑃𝐵,𝑛
𝑇𝐵

∙ 𝑋 +

∙ 𝑋 + (𝑈𝐵,𝑛 − 𝑈𝐴,𝑛) ∙ 𝑋 − 𝑅𝐴,𝑛

𝐸𝐵,𝑛
𝑇𝐵
𝑃𝐴,𝑛 + 𝑈𝐴,𝑛 ∙ 𝑇𝐴 + 𝐸𝐴,𝑛

𝐷𝑛 =

∙ 100 [ %] 

Where: 

-  Dn  = Durability index for the impact category ‘n’ [ %]; 
-  PB,n  =  Environmental  impact  for  category  ‘n’  for  the  production  of  product  (B)  (including  the 

production of raw materials and manufacturing) [unit]; 

-  TB  = Average operating time of product (B) [hour]; 
-  X  = Extension of operating time of product (A) [hour]; 
-  EB,n  = Environmental impact for category ‘n’ for the EoL treatments of product (B) [unit]; 
-  UB,n   =  Environmental  impact  per  unit  of  time  for  category  ‘n’  for  the  use  of  product  (B) 

[unit/hour]; 

-  UA,n   =  Environmental  impact  per  unit  of  time  for  category  ‘n’  for  the  use  of  product  A 

[unit/hour]; 

-  RA,n   =  Environmental  impact  per  unit  of  time  for  category  ‘n’  for  additional  treatments  (e.g. 

repairing, refurbishment) necessary for the extension of operating time TA [unit]; 

-  PA,n  =  Environmental  impact  for  category  ‘n’  for  the  production  of  product  (A)  (including  the 

production of raw materials and manufacturing) [unit]; 

-  EA,n  = Environmental impact for category ‘n’ for the EoL treatments of product (A) [unit]. 

This  durability  index  has  been  successively  revised  to  include  additional  parameters,  as  hereinafter 

illustrated. 

80 

 
 
 
5.1.1.  Revision of the method: impacts of auxiliary materials and of replacing 

product 

Concerning  the  use  phase,  its  environmental  impact  is  to  be  mainly  associated  to  the  energy 
consumption of the ErP under evaluation. But it’s to be noted that some ErPs need auxiliaries’ materials 
for accomplishing their duties. Hence, the environmental impact Un can be expressed as: 

Formula 2:   

Where: 

𝑈𝑛 = 𝐴𝑛 + 𝑢𝑛 

-  An  = Environmental impact for category ‘n’ for the auxiliaries’ materials consumption [unit/hour]; 
-  un   =  Environmental  impact  for  category  ‘n’  for  the  energy  consumption  during  the  use  phase 

[unit/hour]. 

The  environmental  impact  per  unit  of  time  for  the  use  of  product  (B)  can  be  expressed  as  a  certain 

percentage () of the environmental impact per unit of time for the use of product (A). 

Formula 3:   

𝑢𝐵 = δ ∙ 𝑢𝐴 

As  discussed  in  Ardente  &  Mathieux  (2014),  it  is  always  environmentally  convenient  to  prolong  the 
lifetime of a product if UB> UA  (75). Therefore the analysis focuses on the case that the product (B) is more 
energy efficient than product (A), i.e. when: 

0 < 𝛿 < 1 

For the calculation of the durability  index, it is also necessary to estimate the impacts  on production 
(PB,n) when replacing product (B). These should also take into account the technological progress of the 
product  and  changes  of  manufacturing  processes.  Ardente  and  Mathieux  (2012a)  didn’t  consider  the 
technology  evolution,  so  it  was  assumed  that  the  two  products  had  the  same  impacts  (i.e.  PA   =  PB). 
Indeed, PB can be expressed as a function of the impact for the manufacturing of product (A) taking into 
account a parameter () (76): 

Formula 4:   

𝑃𝐵,𝑛 = γ ∙ 𝑃𝐴,𝑛, 0 < 𝛾 

Moreover, the factor ‘E’ takes into account the EoL of the product. Unless big changes in the product 
and its EoL treatments are expected, it’s plausible to affirm that environmental impacts at the EoL are the 
same  for  both  products  (EA   =  EB).  Note  that  for  the  sake  of  completeness,  the  recycling/incineration 
environmental benefits (77) of products (A) and (B) should also be considered in the factor ‘E’. However, 
the introduction of these benefits would have the effect of enlarging the complexity of the analysis (due to 
an  expansion  of  the  system  boundaries),  and  in  addition  the  mixing  of  environmental  benefits  due  to 
durability with other environmental benefits due to the EoL. Therefore in order to keep the focus on the 
assessment of the impacts/benefits of durability, potential benefits derived by the EoL are not included. 

(75)  Considering  the  technological  progress,  it  is  plausible  to  assume  that  the  environmental  impact  for  the  use  of  product  (B)  would  be  lower  than  the 
environmental  impact  for  the  use  of  product  (A).  However,  sometimes  modern  products  can  consume  more  energy  due,  for  example,  to  additional 
functions implemented. 

(76)  Values of 0 < 𝛾 < 1 imply that impact to manufacture product (B) are lower than those of product (A) (e.g. due to dematerialisation of the product); 
values 𝛾>1 imply that impact to manufacture product (B) are higher than those of product (A) (e.g. due to increased complexity of the product and its 
electronic components). 

(77)  Environmental benefits could be assumed due to the production of secondary materials substituting primary materials and/or energy recovered from 

waste that is substituting conventional energy sources (Ardente & Mathieux 2014). 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Based on Ardente and Mathieux (2014), the two products are not characterised by rapid technological 

changes, and their lifetime can be assumed as the same (TA  = TB). 

Under these considerations, the durability index could be expressed as illustrated in Formula 5. 

Formula 5: 

Where: 

𝛾 ∙ 𝑃𝐴,𝑛
𝑇

∙ 𝑋 +

′ =

𝐷𝑛

∙ 𝑋 − (1 − δ) ∙ 𝑈𝐴,𝑛 ∙ 𝑋 − 𝑅𝐴,𝑛

𝐸𝑛
𝑇
𝑃𝐴,𝑛 + 𝑈𝐴,𝑛 ∙ T + 𝐸𝑛

∙ 100 [ %] 

- 

  = Percentage representing variation of the impacts due to the manufacturing of the new product 
(B) substituting the product (A) [%]; 

-     =  Percentage  representing  the  higher  energy  efficiency  of  the  new  product  substituting  the 

product (A) [%] 

(other symbols as in Formula 1). 

5.1.2.  Revision of the method: additional impacts of durable product 

The method developed so far assumed that impacts of product (A) are the same in both the scenarios 

and that the lifetime extension is reached thanks to repair and maintenance activities. 

However, as discussed in various studies, the design of more durable products could imply additional 
burdens  for  example  due  to  the  use  of  additional/higher  quality  materials  (Kostecki,  1998;  Mora,  2007; 
AEA Energy & Environment 2009). Although less relevant, some additional impacts of durable products 
could  be  related  to  other  aspects  as:  longer  design  processes,  development  of  innovative  machineries, 
more tight testing, etc. 

For  example  the  Preparatory  study  on  VCs  identified  as  a  possible  option  to  increase  the  product 
lifetime by 50 %, which is ‘likely to impinge on the need to improve the durability of the vacuum cleaner 
itself’ (i.e. increased weights of materials to strengthen items) (AEA Energy & Environment 2009). The 
study  suggests  that  more  materials  and  thus  more  environmental  impacts  are  involved  in  the 
manufacturing of the more durable product. However, the report did not detail how this was modelled in 
the Ecoreport tool and how many additional materials have been accounted for. 

In order to take into account these factors (i.e. additional burdens for the durable products), previous 
formulas can be revised by including an additional factor. Similarly to the accounting of the impacts due to 
the repair or due to manufacturing of the replacing product, impacts of durable products  manufacturing 
(P’A,n) can be expressed as a function of the impact for the manufacturing of product (A) (PA,n), as: 

Formula 6:   

or analogously: 

Formula 7:   

where: 

𝑃′𝐴,𝑛 = (1 + α) ∙ 𝑃𝐴,𝑛 

(𝑃′𝐴,𝑛 − 𝑃𝐴,𝑛) = α ∙ 𝑃𝐴,𝑛 

-  𝑃′𝑎,𝑛  = Environmental  impact for category  ‘n’ to make  product (A) more  durable  (including all 

the impacts for the production of raw materials and manufacturing) [unit]; 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
-  α  = Percentage representing the higher impact to make product (A) more durable [%]. 

For example, a value of (α = 10 %) implies that 10 % additional impacts are necessary to make base-

case product more durable. 

In order to account for factor α, previous formula in section 5.1.1 is modified as: 

Formula 8: 

′ =

𝐷𝑛

Or analogously: 

Formula 9: 

𝛾 ∙ 𝑃𝐴,𝑛
𝑇

∙ 𝑋 −

α ∙ 𝑃𝐴,𝑛
𝑇

∙ 𝑋 +

𝐸𝑛
𝑇

∙ 𝑋 − (1 − δ) ∙ 𝑈𝐴,𝑛 ∙ 𝑋 − 𝑅𝐴,𝑛

𝑃𝐴,𝑛 + 𝑈𝐴,𝑛 ∙ T + 𝐸𝑛

∙ 100 [ %] 

(γ − α) ∙ 𝑃𝐴,𝑛
𝑇

∙ 𝑋 +

𝐸𝑛
𝑇

∙ 𝑋 − (1 − δ) ∙ 𝑈𝐴,𝑛 ∙ 𝑋 − 𝑅𝐴,𝑛

𝑃𝐴,𝑛 + 𝑈𝐴,𝑛 ∙ T + 𝐸𝑛

′ =

𝐷𝑛

∙ 100 [ %] 

5.2. 

Environmental assessment of durability of EuPs: the case-study 

of vacuum cleaners 

The  following  sections  illustrate  the  environmental  assessment  of  the  durability  of  the  case-study 
vacuum  cleaner.  The  durability  index  is  calculated  for  all  the  impact  categories  included  in  ILCD/PEF 
recommendations as discussed  in  section  4.1.  All  the results are illustrated in ANNEX 3.  However, the 
analysis illustrated in this chapter will be restricted to only three exemplary impact categories: 

-  Global Warming Potential (GWP), as dominated by the energy consumption; 
-  Abiotic Depletion Potential, mineral resource, as dominated by the manufacturing phase; 
-  Human toxicity non-canc. Effects, equally influenced by both manufacturing and use phase. 

The following assumptions have been introduced in the analysis. 

In  order  to  consider  the  variation  of  the  durability  index  and  to  assess  the  environmental 
performance  of products with different  lifetimes, the average  operating time considered  for the  canister 
vacuum  cleaner  is  500  h.  The  extension  of  the  operative  time  (X)  is  assumed  ranging  from  0  to  300 
hours (78), in line with values discussed in the literature (section 2 and table 15). This wide range of values 
allows  to  assess  the  durability  index  (Dn)  according  to  different  product  lifetimes,  including  lifetime 
requirements introduced by the Ecodesign implementing measures on VC (EU 2013a), and also in relation 
to additional lifetime extension. 

The case-study product is assumed to belong to the energy class ‘A’ (79), with a yearly consumption of 

25 [kWh/year] (80). 

(78)  Consistent with the literature, motors without carbon brushes could have longer lifetime, and some VCs have been tested for more than 1 000 operating 

hours (section 3.3.1). 

(79)  As discussed in section 3.3, the majority of VCs currently put into the market belongs to energy class ‘A’ and ‘B’. The present study is centred on the 
assessment  of the  durability  of  VCs, with  a  particular  focus  on  the  on  lifetime  extension  as  introduced  by  implementing measures  and  in  force from 
September  2017.  It  is  therefore  expected  that,  at  that  time,  the  large  majority  of  VCs  will  be  of  class  ‘A’  or  higher.  Therefore,  the  present  analysis 
considered as base-case a VC of energy class ‘A’. 

(80)  This value corresponds to the average consumption for the energy efficiency class ‘A’. 

83 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Moreover, it is assumed that the two products (A) and (B) use the same amount of dust-bags during the 
operation.  This  implies  that,  in  the  durability  index,  only  impacts  due  to  the  energy  consumption  are 
considered: 

Formula 10:  

𝑢𝑛 = 𝑈𝑛 

Concerning the manufacturing and the ordinary maintenance, the same assumptions in chapter 3.5 are 
adopted  here.  In  order  to  account  the additional  impacts  of  a  more  complex  manufacturing  of  product 
(B), it is supposed that the  parameter (as in Formula 4), varies in four different scenarios as:   = 100 % 
(meaning PA  = PB),   = 110 %,   = 120 % and   = 130 %. 

In order to account for the impacts of possible repair intervention (to grant additional extensions of the 
lifetime), the parameter (RA,n) is considered, including the impacts due to the repair or substitution of some 
vacuum cleaner components. As there are no data available on this in the literature, the analysis has been 
subdivided  into  two  scenarios:  a  ‘low-repair  scenario’  (LRS)  and  a  ‘high-repair  scenario’  (HRS).  
The HRS scenario assumes that some parts of the VC would be substituted. It is noticed that the key parts 
for the durability of the vacuum cleaner are the hose and the operational motor (EC 2013; AEA Energy & 
Environment 2009). As discussed in chapter 3.3.3, the motor is usually not substituted because of its high 
price. Indeed, the hose breakdown represents one of the most common repair treatments for the vacuum 
cleaner (section 1.3). Other possible problems relate to the loss of suction and breakdown of the casing 
and power cables. The LCIA (section 4.3) of the canister vacuum cleaner demonstrates that substitution of 
some of these components would imply additional impacts, depending on the considered impact category. 
In  particular,  the  most  important  variations  in  terms  of  environmental  impact  are  related  to  the 
substitution of the cables (due to the presence of copper) or the PCB, while the substitution of the hose or 
the nozzle plate have a lower relevance for all the analysed impact categories. Moreover, some breakdowns 
are related to components that don’t affect the functioning of the vacuum cleaner, for instance the hose 
reel  of  the  casing.  Therefore,  for  this  analysis,  the  LRS  takes  into  account  minor  repair  operations  that 
don’t affect the overall environmental impact of the product. Indeed, concerning the HRS, it is supposed 
that at least one of the components mentioned above is substituted, increasing the final impact. The most 
important  component  in  terms  of  impact  variation  are  the  PCB  and  the  hose,  thus  they  are  used  as 
reference to establish the RA value for the HRS. In this perspective, depending of the impact categories, RA 
can be represented by a variable percentage of the manufacturing impact: 

-  From 0 % to 1 % for the impact categories: ecotoxicity for aquatic fresh water, ionising radiation, 

particulate matter, ozone depletion and total freshwater consumption (81); 

-  From  1 %  to  3 %  for  the  impact  categories:  acidification,  freshwater,  marine  and  terrestrial 
eutrophication, human toxicity (non-cancer effects), IPCC Global Warming, photochemical ozone 
formation and primary energy from non-renewable resources (82); 

-  Higher  than  3 %  for  the  impact  categories:  abiotic  depletion  and  human  toxicity  (cancer 

effects) (83). 

(81)  HRS is assumed to be 1 % of the manufacturing impact. 
(82)  HRS is assumed to be 3 % of the manufacturing impact. 
(83)  HRS is assumed to be 5 % of the manufacturing impact. 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
5.3. 

Analysis of the durability index 

The main assumptions for the analysis are summarised in Table 30. Table 31 summarises the results of 
the  LCA  applied  to  the  case-study  VC.  Note  that,  consistent  with  the  hypotheses  of  technological 
development and the results of the LCIA and the sensitivity analysis (sections 4.3 and 4.4), the adopted  
for calculating the durability index is 105 % for all the impact categories except for abiotic depletion, for 
which   = 110 %. The values of the durability index are depicted in Table 32, Figure 31 and Figure 32. 

Table 30: Summary of the assumptions for the calculation of the durability index 

Product ‘A’ 

Average operating time 
Yearly energy consumption until 500 hours 
Extension of the lifetime 

TA 

X 

[hours] 
[kWh/y] 
[hours] 

500 
25 
0 300 

Product ‘B’ 

Variation of the manufacturing impact of 
product ‘B’ compared to ‘A’ 

Variation of the energy consumption impact 
of product ‘B’ compared to ‘A’ 





[ %] 

 = 105 % 
(  = 110 % for 
ADP) 

[ %] 

70 %< < 100 % 

Table 31: Summary of the life-cycle impacts of canister vacuum cleaners (section 4.3) 

IPCC global warming, excl 
biogenic carbon 

2.72E+01 [kg CO2-Equiv.] 

Human toxicity canc. 
effects, USEtox 
(recommended) 
2.11E-07 [CTUh] 

Abiotic Depletion, mineral 
resources 

1.21E-03 [kg Sb-Equiv.] 

1.59E+00 [kg CO2-Equiv.] 

4.99E-09 [CTUh] 

9.16E-07 [kg Sb-Equiv.] 

2.37E-01 [kg CO2-Equiv./hour] 

20.3E-10 [CTUh/hour] 

1.22E-07 [kg Sb-Equiv./hour] 

LRS 
HRS 

0.0E+00 
8.17E-01 

LRS 
HRS 

0.0E+00 
1.06E-08 

LRS 
HRS 

0.00E+00 
6.06E-05 

PA,n  

En 

UA,n 

RA,n 

The obtained results show that the extension of the lifetime ensures environmental benefits for all the 
assessed impact categories, and that the introduction of more ambitious  durability requirements into the 
Ecodesign implementing measures for VC (EU 2013a) would generate environmental benefits in the EU-
27, whichever impact category is taken into account. For instance, for a lifetime extension of 100 hours, 
the  life-cycle  GWP  compared  to  the  replacement  of  the  VC  with  a  new  one  15 %  more  efficient (84)  is 
reduced by 1.69 %. It is worthy that, for some of the assessed impact categories, the Durability Index is 
negative  for  low  values  of  -parameter,  i.e.  benefits  related  to  the  lifetime  extension  of  the  VC  strictly 
depend  on  the  energy  efficiency  of  the  new  product  (B).  This  is  particularly  evident  for  those  impact 
categories dominated by energy consumption (Table 32). 

The environmental assessment of durability depicts that the extension of the lifetime of vacuum cleaner 
generally produces relevant environmental benefits from a life-cycle point of view. This is true even if the 
replacing product is more energy efficient. Based on this analysis, it is observed that 

(84)  The value of 15 % energetically more efficient is corresponding to about one energy efficient class higher. 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
-  The higher the lifetime extension the higher the environmental benefit in terms of life-cycle GWP: 
in fact,  a lifetime  extension of 250  h can reduce  the life-cycle  GWP of  4.23 %  compared to the 
replacement of the old product with a new one 15 % more efficient, while a lifetime extension of 
100 h, under same hypothesis, can reduce the life-cycle GWP of 1.69 %; 

-  Concerning the impact categories dominated by energy consumption, the base-case Scenario (i.e. 
the  substitution  of  the  VC  with  a  new  more  energy  efficient  product)  discloses  some 
environmental benefits for low values of the  parameter. This is the case of acidification, GWP, 
ozone  depletion,  particular  matter,  photochemical  ozone  formation  and  total  freshwater 
consumption. For instance, in terms of life-cycle GWP, the Durability Index (Dn) is negative when 
the  new  product  is  26 %  more  efficient  than  the  replaced  one  (that  means  the  replacing  VC  is 
almost two energy efficiency classes higher than the replaced one); 

-  The environmental benefits are more relevant for the human toxicity and abiotic depletion impact 
categories. The extension of the lifetime of the vacuum cleaner of 100 h can reduce the life-cycle 
human  toxicity  of  more  than  12.35 %  whatever  the  energy  efficiency  increase  of  the  replacing 
product. Similarly, the 100 h lifetime extension can reduce the life-cycle abiotic depletion of more 
than 20.66. The accounting of additional environmental impacts due to repairing (HRS scenarios) 
implies  lower  environmental  benefits,  especially  for  low  values  of  the  lifetime  extension.  This 
difference is negligible for the life-cycle GWP and human toxicity, while is more relevant for the 
abiotic depletion impact category. This is consistent with the HRS hypotheses illustrated in chapter 
3: the replacement of the components doesn’t cause great variations for the life-cycle GWP, as this 
impact category is dominated by the energy consumption, differently for  the human toxicity and 
abiotic depletion. 

It is highlighted that the LCA is affected by uncertainties due to the assumptions illustrated in chapter 4 

that also affect the durability assessment. 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 32: Example of Durability Index (Dn) results (lifetime extension of 100 hours) 

s
e
r
-
P
D
A

P
A

T
E
F

f

P
E

-

C
T
H

C
n
-
T
H

R
I

P
W
G

m
p
E

P
D
O

F
M
P

P
C
O
P

n
E
P

t
P
E

C
F

100 %  20.95 %  3.37 %  40.09 % 22.10 % 14.27 % 28.83 % 11.74 %  4.10 %  19.57 %  8.66 %  7.44 %  8.98 %  4.73 %  9.39 %  7.58 % 

99 %  20.94 %  3.20 %  40.07 % 21.91 % 14.20 % 28.71 % 11.65 %  3.94 %  19.35 %  8.34 %  7.11 %  8.66 %  4.57 %  9.08 %  7.25 % 

98 %  20.93 %  3.03 %  40.05 % 21.72 % 14.14 % 28.58 % 11.56 %  3.78 %  19.14 %  8.03 %  6.78 %  8.35 %  4.42 %  8.77 %  6.93 % 

97 %  20.92 %  2.87 %  40.03 % 21.53 % 14.08 % 28.46 % 11.48 %  3.62 %  18.93 %  7.71 %  6.45 %  8.03 %  4.26 %  8.46 %  6.60 % 

96 %  20.91 %  2.70 %  40.02 % 21.34 % 14.01 % 28.33 % 11.39 %  3.46 %  18.71 %  7.39 %  6.13 %  7.72 %  4.11 %  8.15 %  6.27 % 

95 %  20.90 %  2.53 %  40.00 % 21.15 % 13.95 % 28.21 % 11.30 %  3.30 %  18.50 %  7.07 %  5.80 %  7.41 %  3.96 %  7.84 %  5.94 % 

94 %  20.89 %  2.36 %  39.98 % 20.97 % 13.89 % 28.08 % 11.21 %  3.14 %  18.29 %  6.76 %  5.47 %  7.09 %  3.80 %  7.53 %  5.62 % 

93 %  20.88 %  2.19 %  39.96 % 20.78 % 13.82 % 27.95 % 11.13 %  2.98 %  18.08 %  6.44 %  5.14 %  6.78 %  3.65 %  7.22 %  5.29 % 

92 %  20.87 %  2.03 %  39.94 % 20.59 % 13.76 % 27.83 % 11.04 %  2.82 %  17.86 %  6.12 %  4.81 %  6.46 %  3.49 %  6.90 %  4.96 % 

91 %  20.86 %  1.86 %  39.93 % 20.40 % 13.69 % 27.70 % 10.95 %  2.66 %  17.65 %  5.81 %  4.48 %  6.15 %  3.34 %  6.59 %  4.63 % 

90 %  20.85 %  1.69 %  39.91 % 20.21 % 13.63 % 27.58 % 10.86 %  2.50 %  17.44 %  5.49 %  4.15 %  5.83 %  3.18 %  6.28 %  4.31 % 

89 %  20.84 %  1.52 %  39.89 % 20.02 % 13.57 % 27.45 % 10.78 %  2.33 %  17.22 %  5.17 %  3.82 %  5.52 %  3.03 %  5.97 %  3.98 % 

88 %  20.83 %  1.36 %  39.87 % 19.83 % 13.50 % 27.33 % 10.69 %  2.17 %  17.01 %  4.85 %  3.49 %  5.21 %  2.87 %  5.66 %  3.65 % 

87 %  20.82 %  1.19 %  39.85 % 19.64 % 13.44 % 27.20 % 10.60 %  2.01 %  16.80 %  4.54 %  3.17 %  4.89 %  2.72 %  5.35 %  3.32 % 

86 %  20.81 %  1.02 %  39.83 % 19.45 % 13.37 % 27.08 % 10.51 %  1.85 %  16.58 %  4.22 %  2.84 %  4.58 %  2.56 %  5.04 %  3.00 % 

]

%

[



85 %  20.80 %  0.85 %  39.82 % 19.26 % 13.31 % 26.95 % 10.43 %  1.69 %  16.37 %  3.90 %  2.51 %  4.26 %  2.41 %  4.73 %  2.67 % 

84 %  20.79 %  0.68 %  39.80 % 19.07 % 13.25 % 26.83 % 10.34 %  1.53 %  16.16 %  3.58 %  2.18 %  3.95 %  2.25 %  4.42 %  2.34 % 

83 %  20.78 %  0.52 %  39.78 % 18.88 % 13.18 % 26.70 % 10.25 %  1.37 %  15.94 %  3.27 %  1.85 %  3.63 %  2.10 %  4.11 %  2.01 % 

82 %  20.77 %  0.35 %  39.76 % 18.69 % 13.12 % 26.58 % 10.16 %  1.21 %  15.73 %  2.95 %  1.52 %  3.32 %  1.94 %  3.80 %  1.69 % 

81 %  20.77 %  0.18 %  39.74 % 18.50 % 13.05 % 26.45 % 10.08 %  1.05 %  15.52 %  2.63 %  1.19 %  3.01 %  1.79 %  3.49 %  1.36 % 

80 %  20.76 %  0.01 %  39.73 % 18.32 % 12.99 % 26.33 %  9.99 %  0.89 %  15.30 %  2.32 %  0.86 %  2.69 %  1.63 %  3.18 %  1.03 % 

79 %  20.75 % -0.15 % 39.71 % 18.13 % 12.93 % 26.20 %  9.90 %  0.73 %  15.09 %  2.00 %  0.53 %  2.38 %  1.48 %  2.87 %  0.70 % 

78 %  20.74 % -0.32 % 39.69 % 17.94 % 12.86 % 26.07 %  9.81 %  0.57 %  14.88 %  1.68 %  0.21 %  2.06 %  1.32 %  2.56 %  0.38 % 

77 %  20.73 % -0.49 % 39.67 % 17.75 % 12.80 % 25.95 %  9.73 %  0.41 %  14.66 %  1.36 %  -0.12 %  1.75 %  1.17 %  2.25 %  0.05 % 

76 %  20.72 % -0.66 % 39.65 % 17.56 % 12.73 % 25.82 %  9.64 %  0.24 %  14.45 %  1.05 %  -0.45 %  1.43 %  1.01 %  1.94 %  -0.28 % 

75 %  20.71 % -0.83 % 39.63 % 17.37 % 12.67 % 25.70 %  9.55 %  0.08 %  14.24 %  0.73 %  -0.78 %  1.12 %  0.86 %  1.63 %  -0.61 % 

74 %  20.70 % -0.99 % 39.62 % 17.18 % 12.61 % 25.57 %  9.46 %  -0.08 % 14.03 %  0.41 %  -1.11 %  0.81 %  0.70 %  1.32 %  -0.93 % 

73 %  20.69 % -1.16 % 39.60 % 16.99 % 12.54 % 25.45 %  9.38 %  -0.24 % 13.81 %  0.10 %  -1.44 %  0.49 %  0.55 %  1.01 %  -1.26 % 

72 %  20.68 % -1.33 % 39.58 % 16.80 % 12.48 % 25.32 %  9.29 %  -0.40 % 13.60 % -0.22 %  -1.77 %  0.18 %  0.39 %  0.70 %  -1.59 % 

71 %  20.67 % -1.50 % 39.56 % 16.61 % 12.41 % 25.20 %  9.20 %  -0.56 % 13.39 % -0.54 %  -2.10 %  -0.14 %  0.24 %  0.39 %  -1.92 % 

70 %  20.66 % -1.66 % 39.54 % 16.42 % 12.35 % 25.07 %  9.11 %  -0.72 % 13.17 % -0.86 %  -2.43 %  -0.45 %  0.08 %  0.08 %  -2.24 % 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
]

%

[

x
e
d
n

I

y
t
i
l
i

b
a
r
u
D

]

%

[

x
e
d
n

I

y
t
i
l
i

b
a
r
u
D

]

%

[

x
e
d
n

I

y
t
i
l
i

b
a
r
u
D

Durability Index for GWP (= 105%) 

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Variation o fthe energy consumption '' of the replacing product [%] 

Durability Index for Human Toxicity, cancer effects (= 105%) 

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Variation o fthe energy consumption '' of the replacing product [%] 

Durability Index for Abiotic Depletion (= 110%) 

15%

12%

9%

6%

3%

0%

-3%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

X = 300 h
X = 250 h
X = 200 h
X = 150 h
X = 100 h

X = 300 h
X = 250 h
X = 200 h
X = 150 h
X = 100 h

X = 300 h
X = 250 h
X = 200 h
X = 150 h
X = 100 h

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Variation of the energy consumption '' of the replacing product [%] 

Figure 31: Durability index for the canister vacuum cleaner (LRS scenario) 

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
]

%

[

x
e
d
n

I

y
t
i
l
i

b
a
r
u
D

]

%

[

x
e
d
n

I

y
t
i
l
i

b
a
r
u
D

]

%

[

x
e
d
n

I

y
t
i
l
i

b
a
r
u
D

Durability Index for GWP (= 105%) 

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Variation of the energy consumption '' of the replacing product [%] 

Durability Index for Human Toxicity, cancer effects (= 105%) 

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Variation of the energy consumption '' of the replacing product [%] 

Durability Index for Abiotic Depletion (= 110%) 

X = 300 h
X = 250 h
X = 200 h
X = 150 h
X = 100 h

X = 300 h
X = 250 h
X = 200 h
X = 150 h
X = 100 h

X = 300 h
X = 250 h
X = 200 h
X = 150 h
X = 100 h

15%

12%

9%

6%

3%

0%

-3%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Variation of the energy consumption '' of the replacing product [%] 

Figure 32: Durability index for the canister vacuum cleaner (HRS scenario) 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.3.1. 

Sensitivity analysis 

With the aim of assessing the influence due to the variation of the manufacturing impacts associated to 
the replacing product (B) compared to the manufacturing impact of the product (A), the parameter   in 
Formula  4  was  varied  between  103 %  and  107 %  for  all  the  impact  categories  except  for  Abiotic 
Depletion, for which the range is between 105 % and 115 %. The results in Figure 33 are illustrated for 
a lifetime extension of 250 h. It is observed that, considering the higher impacts of the replacing product, 
the  benefits are increasing, particularly for those  categories dominated by the manufacturing phase. The 
greatest variation is noticed for the Abiotic Depletion: a value of   = 115 % implies about 5 % additional 
benefits respect to   = 105 %. 

Note  that  the  Durability  Index  has  been  calculated  for  all  the  selected  15  impact  categories.  All  the 

results are reported in ANNEX 3. 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
Durability Index for GWP (X = 250 h) 

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Variation of the energy consumption '' of the replacing product [%] 

Durability Index for Human Toxicity, non-cancer effects (X = 250 h) 

12%

9%

6%

3%

0%

-3%

39%

37%

35%

33%

31%

29%

27%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Variation of the energy consumption '' of the replacing product [%] 

Durability Index for Abiotic Depletion (X = 250 h) 

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

=107%

=105%

=103%

=107%

=105%

=103%

=90%

=110%

=130%

]

%

[

x
e
d
n

I

y
t
i
l
i

b
a
r
u
D

]

%

[

x
e
d
n

I

y
t
i
l
i

b
a
r
u
D

]

%

[
x
e
d
n

I
y
t
i
l
i

b
a
r
u
D

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Variation of the energy consumption '' of the replacing product [%] 

Figure 33: Durability Index for the canister vacuum cleaner on varying -values (LRS scenario) 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.3.2.  Revision of the method: additional impacts of durable product 

The  design  of  more  durable  products  may  imply  additional  burdens,  as  illustrated  in  section  5.1.2. 
According to this more comprehensive scenario, the Durability Index have been calculated considering an 
additional  percentage  of  impacts  necessary  to  make  product  (A)  more  durable.  This  additional  impacts 
could be related to e.g. higher amounts of materials (or the use of higher quality materials). This aspect is 
accounted  through  the  parameter  ‘’  (see  Formula  7).  Considering  the  hypothesis  illustrated  within  the 
Preparatory study (85), a higher mass of materials have been considered (86). It is observed that this increase 
in  terms  of  input  mass  does  not  considerably  affect  the  LCIA  of  the  VC.  The  greatest  variations 
correspond  to  the  Human  toxicity  cancer  effects  (+ 7.49 %  compared  to  the  base-case  VC),  while  an 
increase  lower  than  1.5 %  compared  to  the  base-case  VC  has  been  observed  for  the  following  impact 
categories: ADPres, Acidification, Ecotoxicity for aquatic fresh water, Ionising radiation, Ozone depletion, 
Particulate matter and Total freshwater consumption. 

For the calculation of the Durability Index in this new scenario (Formula 9), it was assumed that the 

parameter  varies within the following ranges: 

-  3 % <  < 5 % for Abiotic Depletion; 
-  5 % <  < 7 % for Human Toxicity (cancer effects); 
-   < 3 % for GWP. 

Considering the higher impacts for more durable products, the environmental benefits are decreasing 
for all the assessed impact categories. However, these differences do not significantly affect the values of 
the  durability  index.  For  instance  Figure  34  illustrates  the  values  of  the  Durability  index  for  the  three 
impact categories for a lifetime extension of 250 h. The greater variation corresponds to the ADPres impact 
category:  for     =  5 %,  benefits  are  around  1 %  lower  than  the  benefits  corresponding  to     =  0 % 
(independently from the considered value of ). 

Under  these  assumptions,  it  can  be  concluded  that  additional  impacts  due  to  the  manufacturing  of 

more durable products do not significantly affect the benefits of extending the lifetime of the VC. 

(85)  The ‘increased product lifetime’ option (i.e. option 8) considered by the Preparatory Study assumed that  ‘increased weights of materials to strengthen 

items’ could be plausible for those product having a longer lifetime. 

(86)  The  Preparatory  study  does  not  provide  details  on  the  assumption  for  extra  materials  needed  for  durable  products.  In  the  present  study  it  has  been 
assumed that more durable hose, canister casing, nozzle and wheels would require up to 20 % more mass than the base-case scenario and motor and 
cables would require up to 5 % more mass than the base-case scenario (see section 4.2.1). 

92 

 
 
 
                                                 
Durability Index for GWP (X = 250 h) 

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Variation of the energy consumption '' of the replacing product [%] 

Durability Index for Human Toxicity, non-cancer effects (X = 250 h) 

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Variation of the energy consumption '' of the replacing product [%] 

Durability Index for Abiotic Depletion (X = 250 h) 

=0%

=1%

=2%

=6%

=7%

=8%

=3%

=4%

=5%

12%

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%

-2%

-4%

35%

34%

33%

32%

31%

30%

29%

28%

27%

26%

25%

55%

53%

51%

49%

47%

45%

]

%

[

x
e
d
n

I

y
t
i
l
i

b
a
r
u
D

]

%

[

x
e
d
n

I

y
t
i
l
i

b
a
r
u
D

]

%

[

x
e
d
n

I

y
t
i
l
i

b
a
r
u
D

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Variation of the energy consumption '' of the replacing product [%] 

Figure 34: Durability Index for the canister vacuum cleaner by varying -values (LRS scenario) 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6. CHAPTER 6 
Durability assessment through Ecoreport Tool 

The  previous  sections  illustrated  the  environmental  assessment  of  durability  of  VCs,  based  on  the 
results of the  LCA performed  via a common software in use  by the scientific community. This chapter 
presents the assessment of durability based on the results of the Ecoreport tool (87) as developed within the 
‘Methodology  for  Ecodesign  of  Energy-related  Products’.  In  particular,  the  version  3.06  as  modified  in 
2013 has been used to take into account the lifetime parameter [BIO Intelligence Service (2013a)]. 

The Ecoreport tool gives the possibility to calculate the environmental impacts of products by using a 
database including 43 materials and 12 components (split into 7 categories). It also allows the adding of 
extra materials not available in the database (BIO Intelligence Service 2013d). 

As a first step input data used for the LCA of the case-study VC (as illustrated in section 4.2) have been 
implemented in the Ecoreport tool, and results have been compared with the LCIA results (section 3.5). 
Note  that,  since  not  all  the  input  materials  were  available  in  the  tool,  some  extra  materials  have  been 
inserted ad hoc; this is the case of (BMC-GF) and POM (used in the manufacturing of canister case and 
motor  parts).  Concerning  the  maintenance,  the  Ecoreport  tool  models  the  use  of  dust-bags  as  auxiliary 
materials, but not the filters; thus, these have been inserted among the input materials list as part of the 
manufacturing. 

The EoL scenario has been modelled similarly to what illustrated in section 3.3.4 and ANNEX 1. The 
Ecoreport tool model the EoL of materials according to macro-groups (88) and not by product component. 
Therefore it was not possible to differentiate the EoL scenario for each material. For the present analysis it 
was considered an average ‘recycling rate’ for the materials belonging to a specific group (89). 

The results obtained with the Ecoreport tool are illustrated in Table 33. These results refer to the life-
cycle of a vacuum cleaner with a lifetime of 500 hours. The Ecoreport tool also allowed to calculate the 
‘Life-cycle Impact per product per year of use’ obtained as illustrated in Table 34 (calculated as the ‘Life-
cycle Impact per product’ divided by the number of years of lifetime). 

(87)  The Ecoreport tool is available at http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sustainable-business/ecodesign/methodology/index_en.htm (accessed March 

(88) 
(89) 

2015). 
For example, plastics are grouped into Bulk plastics and Tec Plastic. 
For example, for bulk plastics, it was calculated a recycling rate as average of the amount of recycled LD-PE, HD-PE, LLD-PE, PP, PS, EPS, HI-PS, 
PVC, SAN, PET, ABS. 

94 

 
 
 
                                                 
Table 33: LC Impact assessment of the canister vacuum cleaner (results refer to the overall product lifetime) — 

Ecoreport tool 

Table 34: LC Impact assessment of the canister vacuum cleaner (impacts refer to 1-year of use) — Ecoreport tool 

95 

Life Cycle phases -->DISTRI-USETOTALResources Use and EmissionsMaterialManuf.TotalBUTIONDisposalRecycl.StockMaterialsunit1Bulk Plasticsg4.244,1742,440,000,000,004.286,612TecPlasticsg0,000,000,000,000,000,003Ferrog981,509,8249,57941,750,000,004Non-ferrog383,343,8319,36367,810,000,005Coatingg0,000,000,000,000,000,006Electronicsg12,000,120,000,000,0012,127Misc.g1.200,0012,000,000,000,001.212,008Extrag309,000,000,000,000,00309,009Auxiliariesg0,002.800,000,000,000,002.800,0010Refrigerantg0,000,000,000,000,000,00Total weightg7.130,002.868,2168,921.309,560,008.619,73see note!Other Resources & Wastedebetcredit11Total Energy (GER)MJ487,60179,05666,66168,062.301,350,22-24,293.111,9912of which, electricity (in primary MJ) MJ36,78106,84143,620,142.253,160,00-0,062.396,8613Water (process)ltr1.206,301,751.208,050,0012,060,00-0,591.219,5314Water (cooling)ltr27.828,0650,7527.878,810,00378,280,00-1,3628.255,7415Waste, non-haz./ landfillg768,19561,331.329,52134,921.275,434,18-140,642.603,4116Waste, hazardous/ incineratedg55,450,0555,502,6836,120,00-0,0694,23Emissions (Air)17Greenhouse Gases in GWP100kg CO2 eq.17,719,9627,6712,2098,950,00-1,48137,3518Acidification, emissionsg SO2 eq.153,0943,07196,1736,12436,150,04-33,00635,4719Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)g202,470,04202,511,0952,280,00-0,05255,8320Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP)ng i-Teq8,420,298,710,765,350,00-3,1811,6521Heavy Metalsmg  Ni eq.18,920,6819,606,8722,990,02-7,0142,4722PAHsmg  Ni eq.16,500,0916,594,835,420,00-4,2422,6023Particulate Matter (PM, dust)g26,886,7333,61164,639,280,07-6,14201,46Emissions (Water)24Heavy Metalsmg Hg/2021,570,0221,590,219,920,00-5,6326,1025Eutrophicationg PO42,880,112,990,001,360,00-0,034,33PRODUCTIONEND-OF-LIFELife Cycle phases -->DISTRI-USETOTALResources Use and EmissionsMaterialManuf.TotalBUTIONDisposalRecycl.StockMaterialsunit1Bulk Plasticsg42440004292TecPlasticsg0000003Ferrog981594004Non-ferrog380237005Coatingg0000006Electronicsg1000017Misc.g12010001218Extrag310000319Auxiliariesg028000028010Refrigerantg000000Total weightg71328771310862see note!Other Resources & Wastedebetcredit11Total Energy (GER)MJ491867172300-231112of which, electricity (in primary MJ) MJ4111402250024013Water (process)ltr1210121010012214Water (cooling)ltr2.78352.788038002.82615Waste, non-haz./ landfillg7756133131280-1426016Waste, hazardous/ incineratedg60604009Emissions (Air)17Greenhouse Gases in GWP100kg CO2 eq.213110001418Acidification, emissionsg SO2 eq.154204440-36419Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)g2002005002620Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP)ng i-Teq1010100121Heavy Metalsmg  Ni eq.202120-1422PAHsmg  Ni eq.2020100223Particulate Matter (PM, dust)g3131610-120Emissions (Water)24Heavy Metalsmg Hg/20202010-1325Eutrophicationg PO400000000PRODUCTIONEND-OF-LIFE* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  results  show  that  the  manufacturing  and  use  phase  have  a  high  contribution  to  almost  all  the 
impact  categories  considered.  The  EoL  and  the  distribution  (i.e.  packaging)  can  be  considered  as 
negligible, except for the Particulate Matter’s impact category (Figure 35). 

It was also noticed that the impacts due to the distribution seems not being affected by the values in the 
cell  ‘No.   of km  over  Product-Life’.  On  the  other  hand,  impacts  due  to  distribution  seem  to  be  solely 
dependent  on  the  volume  of  the  packaging.  Therefore  it  was  not  possible  to  model  the  impacts  due  to 
transport  as  previously  done  in  the  LCE  software  (e.g.  by  defining  the  transport  distance  and  type  of 
vehicle). 

140%

120%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

-20%

-40%

EoL

Distribution

Use

Production

Figure 35: Percentage contribution to the overall impact of the canister vacuum cleaner LC phases (Ecoreport tool) 

In  order  to  compare  results  from  the  different  tools  (impact  categories  have  to  be  consistent). 
Therefore  it  has  been  carried  out  an  analysis  of  which  impact  categories,  among  those  commonly 
implemented  into  software  for  the  LCA,  can  be  consistent  with  the  categories  used  by  the  Ecoreport 
tool (90). The results of this consistency check are showed in Table 35. However, for some of the impact 
categories available in the Ecoreport tool it was not possible to identify an analogous category in the LCA 
software. In this case, the impact category has been not considered for the next step of the analysis. 

(90)  A detail of the impact categories used in the Ecoreport tool is available in (Kemna 2011b; Kenma et al. 2005; Kemna 2011a). 

96 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 35: LC Impact assessment of the canister vacuum cleaner 

Impact category 
(Ecoreport 
Tool) 

Unit of 
Measure 

Impact category 
(LCA software) 

Unit of 
Measure 

Comments 

Total Energy 
(GER) 

[MJ] 

Primary energy 
demand from non ren. 
resources (gross cal. 
value) 

[MJ] 

Methods are consistent 

Water (process) 

[l] 

Inventory water flow 

[l] 

Water (cooling) 

Waste, non-haz / 
landfill 
Waste, hazardous 
/ incinerated 

[l] 

[g] 

[g] 

Greenhouse Gases 
in GWP100 

[kg CO2 eq.] 

Acidification, 
emissions  

[g SO2 eq.] 

Volatile Organic 
Compounds  

[g VOC] 

Persistent Organic 
Pollutants (POP) 

[ng i-Teq] 

Heavy Metals  

[mg Ni eq.] 

PAHs 

[mg Ni eq.] 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

ILCD/PEF 
Recommendation — 
IPCC global warming, 
excl biogenic carbon  
CML2001 — Apr. 
2013, Acidification 
Potential (AP)  

ReCiPe 1.08 Midpoint 
(H) — Photochemical 
oxidant formation 

[kg NMVOC] 

Inventory NMVOC to 
air 

[kg NMVOC] 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

The Ecoreport category refers to water from public grid, ‘used in a 
process and then usually disposed off through the sewage system or as 
vapor air’. Hence, the total amount of life-cycle water flows used within 
the system boundaries has been considered for the comparison. 
The Ecoreport category refers to ‘water from a nearby river that is used 
to cool an oven or another process and then returned to the same 
river’. As the disaggregation of the cooling water from the results by 
the LCA software is difficult, this comparison has been not performed. 

Since there are no impact categories available in the LCA software 
related to waste, this comparison has been not performed. 

[kg CO2 Equiv.]  Methods are consistent  

[kg SO2 eq] 

For the comparison it has been selected the CML2001 Acidification 
Potential (AP) because both are based on the same units of measure. 

The Ecoreport tool accounts for the amount of Non-Methane VOC 
emitted, without characterization factors (Kemna 2011a; Kemna 
2011b). 
For the comparison it was decided to use both the ReCiPe method and 
also the quantity of ‘NMVOC to air’ as contained in the life-cycle 
inventory. 

The environmental assessment of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) 
in the Ecoreport tool is expressed as the total concentration equivalent 
of tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (ng i-Teq). No impact has been identified 
in the LCA software that accounts the impacts POPs with the same 
unit of measure. 

The MEEUP method made a subdivision of organic toxins (as 
carcinogenic PAHs, CO and benzene) and the real metals (Cd, Hg, As, 
Cu, Cr, Pb and Zn) measured with the same unit of measure is (Ni 
equivalent). No impact has been identified in the LCA software that 
accounts PAHs and HMs with the same unit of measure. 

Particulate Matter  

[g PM, dust] 

ReCiPe 1.07 Midpoint 
(H) — Particulate 
matter formation  

[kg PM10 eq] 

The MEErP indicator is PM 10 equivalent, and the characterisation 
factors used are 2 for PM2, and 1 for PM10 and for PM in general. For 
the comparison it has been selected the ReCiPe 1.08 Midpoint (H) — 
Particulate matter formation impact category (in this method, the 
characterization factor of PM2.5 is the same as for PM10, equal to 1). 

Eutrophication  

[g PO4] 

CML2001 — Apr. 
2013, Eutrophication 
Potential (EP)  

[kg Phosphate 
Equiv.] 

The CML Eutrophication Potential (EP) impact category was used as a 
reference by MEEUP report for creating the characterization factors 
for emissions to water.  

97 

 
 
 
 
Comparison  of  results  from  the  LCA  software  and  those  from  the  Ecoreport  tool  for  the  selected 
impact category is showed in Table 36.  It is noticed that impacts from  the Ecoreport tool are generally 
lower, except for the Total Energy and the Volatile Organic Compounds. 

Note  that  for  the  GER  and  GWP  the  difference  doesn’t  exceed  10 %,  while  the  most  relevant 
differences  correspond  to  ‘water  (process)’  and  ‘eutrophication’.  For  other  impact  categories,  the 
divergence of results is much higher. 

Concerning VOC and water consumption the environmental impact calculated by the Ecoreport tool are 
much lower than the chosen impact category for the comparison. 

It is worth to note that the extra materials added into the Ecoreport tool, such as the glass  fibre (BMC-
GF)  and  the  polyoxymethylene  (POM) (91),  have  a  high  contribution  to  ‘water  (process)’  and  to  VOC 
emissions. 

6.1. 

Analysis of durability with results from Ecoreport tool 

Based  on  these  considerations,  the  durability  index  has  been  calculated  only  concerning  the  GWP 
impact  category.  Note  that  the  impacts  associated  to  the  LRS  have  been  calculated  as  the  difference 
between the LCIA results illustrated in  

Table 37 and the LCIA results calculated without filters as input. The Ecoreport tool also includes the 
potential  environmental  credits  for  the  recycling  of  VC  at  the  EoL.  These  credits  have  been  not 
considered for the calculation of the Durability Index, consistently with formulas illustrated in Chapter 5. 
Input data for the calculation of the Durability Index are illustrated in  

Table 38. 

The  values  of  the  Durability  Index  ‘Dn’  (Figure  36  and  Figure  37)  resulted  very  similar  to  those 
obtained in chapter 5.3. In particular, the estimated environmental benefits due to the lifetime extension of 
VC as calculated with values of the Ecoreport tool are slightly higher than those illustrated in the previous 
chapters,  whatever  lifetime  extension  is  assumed.  For  instance,  in  the  analysis  in  section  5.3  it  was 
estimated that the extension of the lifetime  of the  vacuum  cleaner  by 100 h in the  LRS  scenario would 
reduce the GWP of 1.69 % (92). Calculating the Durability Index with the Ecoreport tool under the same 
assumptions it results that the benefit in terms of GWP reduction is 3.7 %. 

Similarly to the results in section 5.3, the variation between the LRS and the HRS is not relevant, as the 

GWP impact category is not largely influenced by impacts of repair. 

Impacts of (BMC-GF) have been modelled as illustrated in section 4.2 and ANNEX 1. 

(91) 
(92)  Value calculated compared to the replacement of the old product with a new one 15 % more efficient. 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 36: Difference between the life-cycle impacts obtained by the Ecoreport Tool 2013 and those calculated by 

an LCA software with the impact categories selected in Table 35 

Impact category 

Total Energy (GER) 
Water (process) 
Greenhouse Gases in 
GWP100 
Acidification, 
emissions 
Volatile Organic 
Compounds (VOC) 

Particulate Matter 
(PM, dust) 

Impacts from 
Ecoreport tool 
3 112[MJ] 
1 219.5 [l] 

LCIA obtained via 
LCA software 
2,923 [MJ] 
451,336 [l] 

Variation (93) 

6.07 % 
-36.909 % 

137.3 [kg CO2 eq.] 

149.3 [kg CO2 eq.] 

-8.7 % 

0.64 [kg SO2 eq.] 

0.71 [kg SO2 eq.] 

0.26 [kg VOC] 

0.32 [kg NMVOC] 
0.03 [kg NMVOC] 

0.20 [kg PM, dust] 

0.17 [kg PM10 eq] 

-11.3 % 

-24.46 % 
87.18 % 

-13.48 % 

-904.34 % 

Eutrophication 

4.33E-03 [kg PO4] 

4.35E-02 [kg 
Phosphate Equiv.] 

Table 37: Summary of the assumptions for the calculation of the Durability Index — Ecoreport tool 2013 

Average operating time 
Yearly energy consumption until 500 hours 
Extension of the lifetime 

TA 

X 

[hours] 
[kWh/y] 
[hours] 

500 
25 
0 300 

Product ‘A’ 

Product ‘B’ 

Variation of the manufacturing impact of 
product ‘B’ compared to ‘A’ 
Variation of the energy consumption impact 
of product ‘B’ compared to ‘A’ 





[ %] 

 = 105 % 

[ %] 

70 %< < 100 % 

Table 38: Life-cycle impacts of canister vacuum cleaner for the calculation of the Durability Index ‘Dn’ (as derived 

from the Ecoreport tool 2013) 

PA,n  

En 

UA,n 

RA,n 

GWP 100 

3.92E+01 [kg CO2-Equiv.] 

-1.48E+00 [kg CO2-Equiv.] 

1.92E-01 [kg CO2-Equiv./hour] 

LRS 

HRS 

0.00E+00 
1.18E+00 

(93)  Calculated as: (Ecoreport — LCIA)/ Ecoreport [%]. 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Durability index for GWP ( = 105%) 

X = 300 h

X = 250 h

X = 200 h

X = 150 h

X = 100 h

21%

18%

15%

12%

9%

6%

3%

0%

]

%

[

x
e
d
n

I

y
t
i
l
i

b
a
r
u
D

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Variation of the energy consumption "" of the replacing product  [%] 

Figure 36: Durability index for the canister vacuum cleaner (LRS scenario), Ecoreport tool 

Durability index for GWP (= 105%) 

]

%

[
x
e
d
n

I
y
t
i
l
i

b
a
r
u
D

18%

15%

12%

9%

6%

3%

0%

X = 300 h

X = 250 h

X = 200 h

X = 150 h

X = 100 h

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Variation of the energy consumption "" of the replacing product  [%] 

Figure 37: Durability Index for the canister vacuum cleaner (HRS scenario), Ecoreport tool 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6.2. 

Concluding remarks 

In  conclusion,  the  analysis  performed  in  the  present  chapter  illustrate  that  the  durability  index  as 
developed in (Ardente & Mathieux 2012) and revised in the current report can be implemented/calculated 
with  the  values  derived  from  the  Ecoreport  tool,  although  some  difficulties  and  limitations  occurred 
(mainly  related  to  the  modelling  of  maintenance  and  repair,  which  are  relevant  for  the  durability 
assessment). 

The results values of the Durability Index as calculated via the Ecoreport tool and LCA software were 
very  similar  for  the  GWP  impact  category.  The  comparison  was  not  performed  for  other  impact 
categories.  In  particular,  the  analysis  highlighted  that  the  Ecoreport  tool  uses  impact  categories  that  are 
generally  not  consistent  with  those  used  by  common  LCA  software.  This  aspect  causes  some  problems 
when  introducing  ‘extra  materials’  into  the  Ecoreport  tool  database.  This  aspect  has  been  previously 
evidenced in the literature also by BIO Intelligence Service (2013a). 

It is finally highlighted that the Ecoreport tool 2013 calculate, compared to the previous tool’s versions, 
the additional table about the environmental ‘impact per year of use’. These correspond to the impacts of 
the  life-cycle  divided  by  the  lifetime  (years)  of  the  product.  However,  it  is  not  immediately  possible  to 
model via the Ecoreport tool particular events occurring in a specific year (e.g. a precise repair operation) 
as the corresponding impact will be spread out over all the years of use. These results per year, although 
relevant for other purposes, cannot be used for the assessment of the Durability Index. 

101 

 
 
 
 
7. CHAPTER 7 
Economic assessment of durability issues 

The acquisition, operating and maintenance costs of household appliances strongly influence the user 
decision regarding the substitutions or, instead, their maintenance/repair to prolong their durability. This 
chapter  presents  a  method  to  assess  the  life-cycle  costs  and/or  benefits  of  using  more  durable  energy 
using  products  compared  to  their  substitution  with  more  energy  efficient  ones.  The  proposed  method 
follows  an  approach  similar  to  that  one  employed  for  the  environmental  assessment  of  durability  of 
products (Ardente & Mathieux 2012). 

In order to compare the life-cycle costs of these options, two scenarios are considered (Figure 38). 

The first scenario assumes that the product (A) is used  for a certain lifetime  (TA), and afterward it is 
supposed to be replaced by a new product (B) with the same functions. The new product is supposed to 
be more energy efficient, i.e. with lower energy consumption. Lower energy consumption results in lower 
energy cost during the use phase, depending on the costs of the electricity. 

The  second  scenario  (Durability  Scenario)  considers  the  extension  of  the  lifetime  of  the  product  (A) 
from  the  base-case  scenario  (T’A   =  TA + X,  where  X  represents  the  extension  of  the  lifetime).  This 
scenario  can  include  some  additional  expenditure  (R)  for  extraordinary  maintenance  and  repairing  to 
prolong the lifetime. 

The  aim  of  the  analysis  is  to  compare  the  overall  costs  of  the  two  scenarios  and  to  assess  if  one 
scenario is preferable than the other under different assumptions.  Therefore the difference  between  the 
costs in the two scenarios has been calculated. Successively the sensitivity analysis of the key parameters is 
assessed. 

Figure 38: Setting of scenarios to be compared in the assessment of durability 

102 

 
 
 
 
The time frame for the economic assessment of durability is set from the time 0 (starting of the use of 
product A) up the time ‘TA + X’. Thus, the expenditure occurring every year, as well as the purchase price 
of product (B), the maintenance of both products (MA and MB), and the repair costs should be discounted 
(using discount rate (i) (94)) in order to evaluate their present value (PV) (95). 

In the base-case Scenario, the purchase price of the new product have to be distributed proportionally 
to the average operating time of product (B) (TB); this is related to the fact that products are used for more 
than one year and it facilitates the comparison of the two scenarios. This way, it is possible to consider the 
product acquisition and maintenance costs also during the extension of the lifetime. 

The  economic  analysis  is  performed  at  the  design  stage  of  products.  Therefore  there  are  various 
uncertainties (due to lack of data, prices variability, long lifetime of products, etc.) for some of the above-
mentioned cost items. 

The equations settled for the two scenarios are illustrated in Formula 11 and  

X
𝑇𝐵

Formula 12: 

Formula 11: Base-case scenario: 

𝑇𝐴

𝐶𝑇𝑂𝑇,𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑒  =  𝐶𝐴 + ∑[PVF𝑡𝐵,𝑖(𝐸𝐴t + 𝑀𝐴t + 𝐴𝐴t)]

+ (PVF𝑡,𝑖𝐶𝐵) ∙

t=1

𝑋

+ ∑[PVF𝑡𝐵,𝑖(𝐸𝐵t + 𝑀𝐵t + 𝐴𝐵t)]

t=1

Where: 

-  PVF  = Present Value Factor of the cash flow stream considered [-]; 

- 

i  = Discount rate [%]; 

t  = Generic period of time for which the cost is calculated [y] 

- 
-  𝐶𝐴  = Acquisition costs of the product A [€]; 
-  𝑇𝐴  = Operating lifetime of product A [h]; 
-  𝐸𝐴  = Operating costs associated to the product (A) [€/y]; 
-  𝑀A =Maintenance costs associated to the product (A) [€/y]; 
-  𝐴A  = Auxiliaries components costs associated to the product (A) [€/y]; 
-  𝐶𝐵  = Acquisition costs of the product (B) [€]; 
-  X  = Extended lifetime [hours]; 
-  𝑇𝐵  = Operating lifetime of product (B) [h]; 
-  𝐸𝐵  = Operating costs associated to the product (B) [€]; 
-  𝑀B =Maintenance costs associated to the product (B) [€/y]; 
-  𝐴𝐵  = Auxiliaries components costs associated to the product (B) [€/y]; 

(94)  The discount rate is the rate of return used in a discounted cash flow analysis to determine the present value of future cash flows. 
(95)  The Present Value is the value of an expected cash flow stream determined as of the date of valuation, meaning discounted at  the discount rate. The 

higher the discount rate, the lower the present value of the future cash flows. 

103 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Formula 12: Durable scenario: 

𝑇𝐴+𝑋

𝐶𝑇𝑂𝑇,durable = 𝐶𝐴 + ∑ [PVF𝑡A,𝑖(𝐸𝐴t + 𝑀𝐴t + 𝐴𝐴t)]

+ PVF𝑡,𝑖(𝑅

) 

𝐴

t=1

Where: 

-  𝐶𝐴  = Acquisition costs of the product A’ [€]; 
-  𝑇𝐴 + 𝑋  = Operating lifetime of the durable product A’ [h]; 
-  𝐸𝐴t  = Operating costs associated to the product (A) [€/y]; 
-  𝑀𝐴t =Maintenance costs associated to the product (A) [€/y]; 
-  𝐴𝐴t  = Auxiliaries components costs associated to the product (A) [€/y]; 
-  𝑅𝐴  = Repair cost associated to the durable product A’ [€]. 

The comparison of the durable scenario with the base-case is calculated as the difference between the 

life-cycle costs in the two scenarios (Formula 13) (96). 

Formula 13: 

𝑇𝐴

∆𝐶𝑇𝑂𝑇  =   𝐶𝑇𝑂𝑇,𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑒 − 𝐶𝑇𝑂𝑇,durable 

∆𝐶𝑇𝑂𝑇= ∑[PVF𝑡𝐵,𝑖(𝐸𝐴t + 𝑀𝐴t + 𝐴𝐴t)]

+ (PVF𝑡,𝑖𝐶𝐵) ∙

t=1

𝑇𝐴+𝑋

− ∑ [PVF𝑡A,𝑖(𝐸𝐴t + 𝑀𝐴t + 𝐴𝐴t)]

− PVF𝑡,𝑖(𝑅

) 

𝐴

X
𝑇𝐵

𝑋

+ ∑[PVF𝑡𝐵,𝑖(𝐸𝐵t + 𝑀𝐵t + 𝐴𝐵t)]

t=1

∆𝐶𝑇𝑂𝑇= (PVF𝑡,𝑖𝐶𝐵) ∙

t=1

X
𝑇𝐵

− PVF𝑡,𝑖(𝑅

Where: 

𝑋

𝑇𝐴+𝑋

+ ∑ [PVF𝑡𝐵,𝑖(𝐸𝑡𝐵 + 𝑀𝑡𝐵 + 𝐴𝑡𝐵)]

− ∑ [PVF𝑡A,𝑖(𝐸𝑡A + 𝑀𝑡A + 𝐴𝑡A)]

𝑡𝐵=1
) 

𝐴

𝑡1=𝑇𝐴+1

CTOT   =  difference  between  the  life-cycle  costs  between  the  durable  scenario  and  the  base-case 

scenario. 

There  are  economic  benefits  when  the  difference  between  the  life-cycle  costs  between  the  two 
scenarios is positive (CTOT > 0), i.e. when the life-cycle costs of the base-case Scenario are higher than the 
total costs of the durable Scenario (CTOT,base-case >CTOT,durable). Note that the CTOT is independent from the 
purchase price of the product (A) (as it is the same in both scenarios). The  CTOT depends on: the new 
product  price,  the  energy  price,  the  maintenance  and  the  auxiliaries  components  during  the  lifetime 

(96) 

104 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
extension,  the  repair  costs  and  to  the  discount  rate.  Note  that  all  of  these  aspects  are  variables  of  the 
analysis. 

Additional assumptions are needed about the energy consumption costs associated with the product (B) 
(𝐸𝑡𝐵 ),  the  purchase  cost  of  the  product  (B)  (CB)  and  the  maintenance  costs  of  product  (B)  (𝑀𝑡𝐵 ).  In 
general,  the  cost  related  to  the  energy  consumption  of  the  product  is  the  product  of  the  energy 
consumption (en) and the cost per [kWh] (En). The energy consumption of the new product (eB) can be 
assumed  to be lower than  of product A (eA), which follows from the  initial assumptions.  Therefore  the 
costs  of  energy  consumption  of  new  product  could  be  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  costs  for  the 
energy consumption of the old products: 

Formula 14:  

𝑒𝐵
𝑒𝐴

= 𝛿 

In a specific year, the energy cost of the product (B) can be expressed as: 

Formula 15:  

𝐸𝑡𝐵 = 𝑒𝐵 ∙ 𝐸𝑡  =  𝛿 ∙ 𝑒𝐴 ∙ 𝐸𝑡,  0 ≤ 𝛿 

Similarly,  assumptions  are  made  about  the  purchase  price  and  the  maintenance  costs  of  product  (B) 
because  actual  data  are  not  available  due  to  many  different  factors  influencing  the  price  evolution 
(technology  development,  performances,  materials,  market  trends,  availability  of  products,  etc.).  The 
purchase  price  of  the  new  product  (CB)  could  be  expressed  as  a  function  of  the  purchase  prive  of  the 
product  (A)  (CA)  as  well  as  the  maintenance  of  the  new  product  (MB)  as  a  function  of  maintenance  of 
product (A) (MA) and the auxiliaries components of the new product (AB) as a function of the auxiliaries 
components of the product (A) (AA): 

Formula 16:  

Formula 17:  

Formula 18:  

𝐶𝐵 = (1 + 𝛽) ∙ 𝐶𝐴 

𝑀𝐵 = ρ ∙ 𝑀𝐴 

𝐴𝐵 = σ ∙ 𝐴𝐴 

Finally, the CTOT can be written as in Formula 19. 

Formula 19: 

∆𝐶𝑇𝑂𝑇= (PVF𝑡,𝑖𝐶𝐵) ∙

X
𝑇𝐵
𝑇𝐴+𝑋

𝑋

+ ∑{PVF𝑡𝐵,𝑖[(𝛿 ∙ 𝑒𝐴,𝑡 ∙ 𝐸𝑡) + (ρ ∙ 𝑀𝐴,𝑡) + (σ ∙ 𝐴𝐴,𝑡)]}

t=1

− ∑ [PVF𝑡A,𝑖(𝑒𝐴,𝑡 ∙ 𝐸𝑡 + 𝑀A,t + 𝐴A,t)]

− PVF𝑡,𝑖(𝑅

) 

𝐴

𝑡1=𝑇𝐴+1

105 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7.1. 

Assumptions for the economic assessment of the durability of 

vacuum cleaners 

The method illustrated in section 4.5.1 is applied to a specific case-study: the canister vacuum cleaner 

analysed in the previous chapters. 

Following  the  previous  environmental  analysis,  it  is  assumed  that  the  average  usage  of  the  vacuum 
cleaner  is  50  hours  per  year,  while  the  potential  lifetime  extension  (X)  of  the  vacuum  cleaner  ranges 
between 0 and 300 hours; moreover, the base-case product (A) has an initial lifetime of 10 years (97). 

Consistent with the assumptions for the environmental assessment of durability (chapter 5.2 and with 
the  energy  efficiency  class  A  in  force  from  01/09/2017  (EU  2013b;  EU  2013a),  the  yearly  energy 
consumption of product (A) is assumed to be 25 [kWh]. In order to assess the importance of the energy 
consumption within the life-cycle costs, its variation () associated to the product (B) has ranged between 
0 % and 30 %. 

According  to  the  Eurostat  statistics,  the  average  electricity  price  for  households  in  2014  was  0.205 
[€/kWh]; moreover, based on (EC 2014b), the growth rate of household electricity prices is 4 % a year in 
the period 2008-2012 (98). Finally, the Preparatory study on Ecodesign of VCs assumed a discount rate of 
5 %,  while  the  draft  Report  of  Ricardo-AEA  Ltd  (Iraldo  &  Facheris  2015)  3 %.  For  this  study,  the 
discount rate for the base-case VC has been set at 3 %, but a sensitivity analysis has been performed for 
the values between 1 % and 5 %. Note that inflation is not taken into account and so, the nominal and the 
real discount rate are assumed to be equal (99). 

There are no actual data available for the purchase price of product (B), therefore CB is a variable in this 
analysis (Formula 16), where  is assumed to vary between -15 % and 25 %. This means that the product 
(B)  could  cost  up  to  25 %  more  than  product  (A)  but  also  that  the  product  (B)  could  have  a  lower 
purchase  price  of  the  product  (A).  However,  for  the  base-case  scenario  it  is  assumed  that  CB  is  20 % 
higher than CA. 

Similarly,  as  data  about  repair  cost  are  not  available  in  literature,  based  on  the  price  on  some 
components  (mainly  hose  and  nozzle  plate)  available  on  the  market,  the  RA  value  is  assumed  to  be  a 
certain percentage of the purchase price of the product A; in particular, a value equal to 20 % of CA was 
considered for the analysis (100). 

Both  the  scenarios  have  additional  costs  due  to  use  of  auxiliary  materials  and  ordinary  maintenance. 
However,  it  is  assumed  that  these  cost  items  equally  affect  both  the  scenarios,  independently  from  the 
considered lifetime. Since the aim of the analysis is to calculate the difference of the life-cycle costs in the 
two scenarios, these additional costs are not influencing the results and have been excluded.   

(97) 
(98) 

For calculation reasons, 10 years correspond to 500 operating hours. 
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Electricity_and_natural_gas_price_statistics#Electricity_prices_for_household_consumers 
(accessed March 2015). 

(99)  The real discount rate is the difference between the nominal discount rate and the inflation rate. Consistent with the Preparatory study, the inflation was 

not considered. 

(100)  This value is lower than the ‘Repair and maintenance costs’ assumed by the Preparatory study, in which this item is about 30 % of the purchase price of 
the longer lasting VC. However, a sensitivity analysis has been performed make varying the repair cost item between 0 and 40 % of the purchase price of 
the product (A). 

106 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
7.2. 

Analysis of the difference between the life-cycle costs of the two 

scenarios (CTOT) 

The main assumptions on vacuum  cleaner characteristics and market prices are summarised  in  Table 

39. 

Figure  39  shows  the  difference  between  the  base-case  scenario  and  the  durable  scenario,  with  the 
lifetime extended up to 11 years (550 hours). According to (EU 2013a), it is assumed that the minimum 
operating  life  of  the  vacuum  cleaner  motor  is  500  h,  and  therefore  the  repair  costs  until  500h  are  zero 
(R   =  0  €).  Based  on  these  assumptions,  the  extension  of  the  lifetime  up  to  550  hours  is  reasonable 
regardless  of  the  energy  efficiency  of  the  new  vacuum  cleaner.  This  gain  is  of  about  EUR  11-13, 
depending on . 

When repair costs are included in the analysis for longer than 1-year lifetime extension, results slightly 

change as illustrated in Figure 40. It is observed that: 

-  The  repair  costs  to  prolong  the  lifetime  beyond  500  hours  of  operating  time  make  the  durable 

scenario less viable from the economic point of view. 

-  Despite the repair costs, the durable scenario has economic benefits when the lifetime is increased 

by more than 1 year: the higher the extension of the lifetime the higher the benefits. 

Table 39: Summary of the assumptions for the calculation of the CTOT 

Parameter 

Lifetime 
Lifetime extension 
Price of product A (101) 

Price of product (B) 

Yearly consumption until 500 hours 

Price of electricity 
Variation of the energy consumption of 
product ‘B’ compared to ‘A’ 
Growth rate of electricity price 

Discount rate 
Repair costs  (102) 

Unit of 
measure 
[hours] 
[hours] 
[€] 

[€] 

[kWh] 

[€/kWh] 

[ %] 

[-] 

[-] 
[€] 

TA  = TB 
X 
CA 

CB 

eA 
𝐸𝑙𝑡1 

 

i 
R 

Amount 

500 
0  300 
150 
(1+β)* CA 
—15 % ≤ β ≤ 25 % 
25 

0.205 

70 % ≤  ≤ 100 % 

4 % 
3 % 
20 % * CA 

(101)  http://www.cnet.com/topics/vacuum-cleaners/buying-guide/, 

http://www.altroconsumo.it/confronta-
scegli/elettrodomestici/aspirapolvere/guida-all-acquisto-dell-aspirapolvere  (accessed  March  2015).  This  is  also  consistent  to  the  purchase  price 
considered by the Preparatory study, after 10 years and with a discount rate of 3 %. 

(accessed 

March 

2015), 

(102)  The repair expenditures will occur after 11 years lifetime of product (A). 20 % has been assumed as a rough estimation for the analysis, however this 
assumption has been modelled later in the sensitivity analysis (section 7.2.2.3). Finally, for this analysis has been assumed that no repair operations occur 
before 500 hours of VC lifetime. 

107 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
CTOT ( = 20%) 

14

13

12

11

]
€
[

T
O
T
C


10

70%

X = 1 y (550 h)

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Variation of the energy consumption "" of the replacing product [%] 

Figure 39: CTOT for the canister vacuum cleaners with a lifetime of 500 h and 550 h 

CTOT ( = 20%) 

]
€
[

T
O
T
C


70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

X = 300 hours

X = 250 hours

X = 200 hours

X = 150 hours

X = 100 hours

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Variation of the energy consumption "" of the replacing product [%] 

Figure 40: CTOT for the canister vacuum cleaners (on varying X-values) 

With the purpose of checking the importance of some of the parameter of the analysis, the total costs 

of the two scenarios have been calculated and a sensitivity analysis has been performed. 

7.2.1. 

Life Cycle Costs 

In  order  to  evaluate  the  life-cycle  costs,  the  price  associated  to  auxiliaries  (i.e.  bags)  and  ordinary 
maintenance (i.e. filters) has been assumed based on available information on the market and consistent 
with assumptions adopted for the environmental assessment of durability  (section 5.2). In particular, the 

108 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
replacement of 7 dust-bags and one set of filters per year are assumed (103). In terms of expenses, the price 
of one dust-bag is supposed to be EUR 1.75; concerning filters, the replacement of one set of filter means 
an  average  replacement  of  two  filters  per  year  with  a  price  of  EUR  2  per  set  of  filters.  Note  that  these 
costs strictly depend on the quality of the bags and filters as well as on the type of the filter. 

The  results  in  (Figure  41)  prove  that  the  longer  lasting  vacuum  cleaner  represents  the  most  viable 
option: despite the higher energy efficiency of the new product. After 550 hours (corresponding to 1 year 
of lifetime extension), the repair cost occurs: in fact the total cost increase of about EUR 22. In any case, 
the total cost of the durable scenario is always lower than the base-case ones, consistent with the previous 
discussion (Figure 40). 

LCC ( = 85%)  

 600

 500

 400

 300

 200

 100

 -

Repair

Maintenance

Auxiliaries

Electricity

Purchase

50

100

150

200

250

300

Lifetime extension [hours] 

Figure 41: LCC of the base-case (first column) and the durable scenario (second column) 

The distribution of the main cost items in the life-cycle costs proves that the purchase price of the VC 
is most important item for both scenarios. At the same time, even though the new product (B) is more 
efficient, the electricity price has almost the same contribution (between 16 % and 18 % of the life-cycle 
costs)  irrespective  of  the  lifetime  extension  options  or  the  price  growth  of  the  new  product.  It  is 
interesting to note that the contribution of the auxiliaries and the filters replacement is always higher than 
35 % of the life-cycle costs. 

Concerning  the  durable  scenario,  the  higher  lifetime  extension  the  higher  is  the  contribution  of  the 
electricity and the dust-bags/filter items, while the contributions of the purchase  price of product (A) is 
lower. Note that the repair costs, not included in the base-case scenario, represent less than  6 % of life-
cycle costs (Table 40). 

(103)  Assumptions  about  maintenance  are  based  on  information  available  at:  http://hoover.com/parts/category/filters/  (accessed  March  2015), 
http://www.ebay.com/itm/34174012-Hoover-Canister-Replacement-Vacuum-Cleaner-Secondary-Filter-Windtunnel-/181510501303  (accessed  March 
2015). 

109 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 40: Cost item distribution within the canister vacuum cleaner LCC 

X 
[hours] 

TOT 

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

300 

+ 9 % 

+ 18 % 

+ 27 % 

+ 36 % 

+ 44 % 

+ 53 % 

=100%
P  E  A  M  TOT 
46 
% 
46 
% 
46 
% 
46 
% 
46 
% 
46 
% 
46 
% 

33 
%  5 % 
33 
%  5 %  + 9 % 
32 
%  5 %  + 18 % 
32 
%  5 %  + 26 % 
32 
%  5 %  + 35 % 
32 
%  5 %  + 43 % 
32 
%  5 %  + 52 % 

16 
% 
17 
% 
17 
% 
17 
% 
17 
% 
17 
% 
18 
% 

  46 
% 
46 
% 
46 
% 
46 
% 
46 
% 
46 
% 
46 
% 

BASE-CASE SCENARIO 

=90%
P  E  A  M  TOT 

=80%
P  E  A  M  TOT 

=70%
P  E  A  M  TOT 

DURABLE SCENARIO 

16 
% 
16 
% 
16 
% 
17 
% 
17 
% 
17 
% 
17 
% 

33 
%  5 % 
33 
%  5 %  + 9 % 
32 
%  5 %  + 17 % 
32 
%  5 %  + 26 % 
32 
%  5 %  + 34 % 
32 
%  5 %  + 43 % 
32 
%  5 %  + 51 % 

  46 
% 
46 
% 
46 
% 
46 
% 
46 
% 
46 
% 
46 
% 

16 
% 
16 
% 
16 
% 
16 
% 
16 
% 
16 
% 
16 
% 

33 
%  5 % 
33 
%  5 %  + 9 % 
33 
%  5 %  + 17 % 
32 
%  5 %  + 25 % 
32 
%  5 %  + 34 % 
32 
%  5 %  + 42 % 
32 
%  5 %  + 50 % 

  46 
% 
46 
% 
46 
% 
46 
% 
46 
% 
47 
% 
47 
% 

16 
% 
16 
% 
16 
% 
16 
% 
16 
% 
16 
% 
16 
% 

 +5 % 

33 
%  5 % 
33 
%  5 % 
33 
%  5 %   + 17 % 
33 
%  5 %   + 21 % 
32 
%  5 %  + 26 % 
32 
%  5 %  + 31 % 
32 
%  5 %  + 35 % 

P  E  A  M  R 
33 
%  5 %  0 % 
34 
%  6 %  0 % 
33 
%  5 %  6 % 
34 
%  5 %  6 % 
34 
%  6 %  5 % 
35 
%  6 %  5 % 
36 
%  6 %  5 % 

16 
% 
17 
% 
17 
% 
18 
% 
18 
% 
19 
% 
20 
% 

  46 
% 
43 
% 
39 
% 
38 
% 
36 
% 
35 
% 
34 
% 

TOT  = increase of the total costs respect to X  = 0P  = Purchase 
E  = Electricity costs 
M  = Costs for Maintenance 
M  = Costs for Auxiliaries components 
R  = Repair costs 

110 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7.2.2. 

Sensitivity analysis 

The parameters assessed in the sensitivity analysis are 

-  Purchase price of the base-case product (CA); 
-  Purchase price of the replacing product (CB); 
-  Repair costs (R); 
-  Auxiliaries costs (A); 
-  Maintenance costs (M); 
-  Discount rate (i); 
-  Electricity price growth rate. 

For  the  sensitivity  analysis,  it  is  assumed  a  value  of     =  85 %,  corresponding  with  a  product  (B) 
belonging to one energy efficiency class higher than the base-case product (A) (yearly consumption lower 
of 6 [kWh/y], section 1.2). 

7.2.2.1.  Purchase price of the base-case product (CA) 

The  purchase  price  of  the  base-case  product  is  made  ranging  between  EUR  100  and  EUR  200.  It  is 
worthy to note that this variation doesn’t only affect the purchase price item but also the purchase price of 
the replacing product (CB) and the repair costs (R). 

Figure 42 proves that the higher the purchase price of the base-case product, the higher the economic 
benefits associated to the durable scenario. Moreover, these benefits increase at increasing of the lifetime 
extension. 

Hence, the purchase price of the base-case product (CA) has a relevant effect on the LCC of the VC. 
This sensitivity analysis has assumed a wide range of variation of CA-values to reflect the uncertainties on 
the initial assumption on the purchase prices. 

CTOT ( = 85%) 

]
€
[

T
O
T
C


80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

100

150

200

250

300

Lifetime extension [h] 

Figure 42: CTOT for the canister vacuum cleaner (on varying CA-values) 

CA = 200 € 

CA = 175 € 

CA = 150 € 

CA = 125 € 

CA = 100 € 

111 

 
 
 
 
 
 
7.2.2.2.  Purchase price of the replacing product (CB) 

The considered range of -values is between -15 % and 25 %. Figure 43 shows that the increase on the 
new  product  price  doesn’t  relevantly  affect  the  life-cycle  cost  of  the  vacuum  cleaner.  Higher  economic 
benefits are related to higher lifetime extension. The difference between the scenario with   = -15 % and 
  = 25 % is lower than EUR 27. Note that for lower value of lifetime extension, the durable VC does not 
have economic benefits, particularly for low -values. Indeed, the durable option is always favourable after 
a lifetime extension of 130 h. 

Hence, the purchase price of the replacing product (CB) has a relevant effect on  the LCC of the VC. 
This sensitivity analysis has assumed a wide range of variation of -values to reflect the uncertainties on 
the initial assumption on the purchase prices. 

CTOT ( = 85%) 

]
€
[

T
O
T
C


60

50

40

30

20

10

0

-10

=25%

=20%

=15%

=10%

=5%

=0%

=5%

=10%

=15%

100

150

200

250

300

Lifetime extension [h] 

Figure 43: CTOT for the canister vacuum cleaner (on varying -values) 

7.2.2.3.  Repair costs (R) 

The repair costs (R) of product (A) are assumed to vary between 0 % and 40 % of the purchasing price 
(CA). The results show that the repair cost can affect the economic convenience of the durable scenario 
compared  to  the  base-case,  when  low  lifetime  extensions  are  considered.  For  instance,  for  R   =  30 %, 
there is an economic benefits when the lifetime extension is higher than 130 hours, while for R  = 40 % 
this value is higher (175 hours). 

112 

 
 
 
 
 
 
]
€
[

T
O
T
C


80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

-10

-20

CTOT ( = 85%) 

R = 40%

R = 30%

R = 20%

R = 10%

R = 0%

100

150

200

250

300

Lifetime extension [h] 

Figure 44: CTOT for the canister vacuum cleaners (on varying R-values) 

7.2.2.4.  Auxiliaries costs (A) 

Costs  occurring  for  the  replacement  of  the  dust-bags  have  varied  between  EUR  1.5/bag  and  EUR 

2/bag. The amount of replacements during the lifetime of VC is always the same (i.e. 7 bags per year). 

Results in Figure 45 depicts that the increase of the auxiliaries cost doesn’t significantly affect the life-
cycle  costs  of  the  VC.  The  difference  between  the  cheaper  option  (i.e.  EUR  1.5/bag)  and  the  more 
expensive options (i.e. EUR 2/bag) is lower than EUR 35, about 10 % of the LC costs. 

LCC ( = 85%, X = 100 hours)  

107.65 € 

107.65 € 

125.59 € 

125.59 € 

143.54 € 

143.54 € 

Repair

Maintenance

Auxiliaries

Electricity

Purchase

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Figure 45: Cost items contribution to the LCC of the Base-case and the Durable Scenario (on varying A-values) 

113 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7.2.2.5.  Maintenance costs (M) 

Due  to  the  uncertainty  of  the  filter  price,  the  sensitivity  analysis  corresponding  to  this  parameter 
includes a higher range of variation respect to the previous one. The M-parameter varies between EUR 2 
and EUR 10 per set of filters, supposing to change 1 set of filters per year. 

Results in Table 41 prove that the higher are the maintenance costs the higher is the variation of the 
life-cycle  costs.  For  both  the  Base-case  Scenario  and  the  Durable  Scenario,  the  higher  variation 
corresponds to the higher lifetime extension. 

Table 41: Maintenance contribution to the LCC (on varying M parameter) 

BASE-CASE SCENARIO 

M = 
2 €/filter 
5 % 
5 % 
5 % 

M = 
5 €/filter 
12 % 
12 % 
12 % 

M = 
8 €/filter 
18 % 
18 % 
18 % 

M = 
11 €/filter 
24 % 
24 % 
24 % 

M = 
14 €/filter 
28 % 
28 % 
28 % 

5 % 
5 % 
5 % 
5 % 

51 % 
12 % 
12 % 
12 % 

18 % 
18 % 
18 % 
18 % 

23 % 
23 % 
23 % 
23 % 

28 % 
28 % 
28 % 
28 % 

DURABLE SCENARIO 

M = 
2 €/filter 
5 % 
5 % 
5 % 
5 % 
6 % 
6 % 

M = 
5 €/filter 
12 % 
12 % 
12 % 
52 % 
13 % 
13 % 

M = 
8 €/filter 
17 % 
18 % 
18 % 
19 % 
19 % 
20 % 

M = 
11 €/filter 
22 % 
23 % 
24 % 
24 % 
25 % 
25 % 

M = 
14 €/filter 
27 % 
28 % 
28 % 
29 % 
29 % 
30 % 

6 % 

13 % 

20 % 

25 % 

30 % 

X [h] 

0 

50 
100 
150 
200 
250 
300 

X [h] 

0 
50 
100 
150 

200 
250 
300 

LCC ( = 85%, X = 100 hours)  

100%

20.51 € 

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

20.51 € 

82.02 € 

82.02 € 

143.54 € 

143.54 € 

Repair

Maintenance

Auxiliaries

Electricity

Purchase

Figure 46: Cost items contribution to the LCC of the Base-case and the Durable Scenario (on varying M-values) 

114 

 
 
 
 
 
It is noticed that in the case of bagless VCs the contribution of the auxiliaries would be null. However, 

the costs of filters prices could be higher than the range considered in this analysis. 

7.2.2.6.  Discount rate (i) 

The discount  rate  is  supposed  to vary between 1 %  and 5 % (EC 2013; Davis 2008; AEA Energy & 

Environment 2009). 

The results confirm that the lower is the discount rate the higher is the difference between the base-
case and the durable scenario, meaning higher economic benefits. In any case, the variation of the discount 
rate  doesn’t  cause  great  changes  on  the  results.  In  fact,  the  difference  between  the  CTOT,i=3 %  and 
CTOT=1 % and CTOT=5 % is always lower than EUR 11 (Figure 47). 

Table 42: CTOT on varying i-values 

CTOT,i 

X  = 50 h 

X  = 100 h  X  = 150 h  X  = 200 h  X  = 250 h  X  = 300 h 

i  = 1 % 
i  = 3 % 
i =5 % 

15.27 
12.55 

10.35 

3.34 
2.76 

2.29 

18.54 
15.29 

12.66 

33.71 
27.82 

23.03 

48.85 
40.33 

33.41 

63.95 
52.83 

43.79 

CTOT ( = 85 %) 

]
€
[

T
O
T
C


70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

i =5%

i = 3%

i = 1%

100

150

200

250

300

Lifetime extension [h] 

Figure 47: CTOT for the canister vacuum cleaners (on varying i-values) 

7.2.2.7.  Electricity price 

The influence of the electricity price growth rate to the final economic assessment of durability can be 
considered  as  negligible  for  the  case  study,  as  previously  anticipated  by  the  distribution  of  cost  items. 
Varying the growth rate of the electricity price between 1 % and 7 %, the difference between the life-cycle 
costs remain substantially unchanged (Figure 48). 

115 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
]
€
[

T
O
T
C


60

50

40

30

20

10

0

CTOT ( = 85%) 

growth rate = 1%

growth rate = 2.5%

growth rate = 4%

growth rate = 5.5%

growth rate = 7%

100

150

200

250

300

Lifetime extension [h] 

Figure 48: CTOT for the canister vacuum cleaners (on varying the growth rate values) 

116 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Context 

8. Conclusions 

This report aimed at assessing the durability of the Vacuum Cleaners (VCs) product group from both 

an environmental and economic point of view. 

The starting point of the analysis was the analysis of existing ecodesign requirements on durability of 
VCs (104), complemented with the analysis of the scientific literature. This analysis showed that few studies 
have been so far developed on LCA of VC and even less specifically on the durability assessment. VCs are 
generally  recognised  as  a  ‘use-phase  dominant’  product,  since  the  majority  of  the  impacts  relates  to  the 
energy  consumption  during  their  operations.  Manufacturing  is  also  relevant  for  some  life-cycle  impacts. 
However,  studies  in  the  literature  differ  in  several  assumptions,  as  for  example  the  average  lifetime (105), 
user behaviour (including number of operating hours per year) and power consumption. 

Life Cycle Assessment 

A  Life  Cycle  Assessment  (LCA)  has  been  performed  on  a  case-study  VC (106).  The  functional  unit, 
consistent with the Preparatory Study on VCs, is a bagged canister VC with an operating time of 10 years 
and  an  energy  consumption  of  25  [kWh/y].  The  analysis,  performed  through  a  LCA  software  tool 
confirmed that the VC is a use-dominant product: the energy consumption accounts between 30 % and 
80 %  of  almost  all  the  impact  categories;  the  impact  of  manufacturing  range  from  15 %  (for  the 
‘Acidification’  impact  category)  up  to  95 %  (for  the  ‘Abiotic  Depletion  Potential’);  the  contribution  of 
auxiliaries (i.e. dust-bags) and maintenance (i.e. filters) never exceeds 20 % of the impacts (higher values 
concerns the ‘Freshwater Eutrophication’); the contribution of End-of-Life (107) (EoL) is always lower than 
7 % for all the considered impact categories. The analysis also identified the relevant contribution to some 
impacts  due  to  the  manufacturing  of  the  printed  circuit  board  (PCB),  the  manufacturing  of  copper and 
steel parts, and of some plastic parts (in acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene — ABS). 

A  sensitivity  analysis  has  been  implemented  considering  potential  changes  in  the  manufacturing  (e.g. 
the use of a more complex PCB). This would affect mainly the ADP (with an increase up to 14 %) and 
‘Human  Toxicity’  (up  to 4 %)  impact  categories, while  not affecting  much  other  categories.  Concerning 
the use-phase, the energy consumption of the VC has been varied between 7 [kWh/y] and 43 [kWh/y]. 
The Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) proves that the higher is the energy efficiency class, the lower 
is the life-cycle environmental impact, with particular significance for the impact categories dominated by 
energy  consumption  (as  ‘Global  Warming  Potential  (GWP)’,  ‘Acidification’  and  ‘Primary  Energy 
Consumption’). 

Durability Assessment (environmental perspective) 

Successively, the environmental benefits/impacts due to the extensions of the lifetime of VC have been 
analysed  by  applying  the ‘Durability  Index’ as developed within the ‘REAPro’ method. The method has 
been revised from original formulas as illustrated in Ardente et al. (2012), in order to capture new aspects 
of the durability (including the assessment of the impacts of auxiliary materials used during the operation, 

(104)  The  requirements,  in  force  starting  from  the  1  September  2017,  request  that  the  hose  shall  be  useable  after  40  000  oscillations  under  strain;  and 

operational motor shall be working for at least 500 hours. 
It has been observed that the average lifetime of VCs ranges between 5 and 9 years, although some reference considered values up to 20 years. 

(105) 
(106)  Bill of Materials refers to a product dismantled with overall mass of 5.7 kg, complemented with information from the literature. 
(107)  The modelling of EoL did not include potential impacts and benefits related to the production of secondary materials. 

117 

 
 
 
                                                 
the  impacts  due  to  the  manufacturing  of  a  more  durable  product,  and  the  impacts  of  the  potential 
substituting product). The ‘Durability Index’ is based on the comparison between a base-case scenario (108) 
and a durable scenario (109).  The index has been  calculated assuming a variation of the lifetime  from 500 
hours up to 800 hours. 

The  analysis  proved  that  the  environmental  benefits  are  depending  on  the  energy  efficiency  of  the 
potential  replacing  product and the considered  impact category. Higher benefits are estimated for those 
impact categories more influenced by the manufacturing. Considering the GWP indicator, extending the 
lifetime of the VC by 100 h (i.e. 2 years) saves around 1.5 % of GWP compared to its replacement with a 
15 %  more  efficient  product.  Alternatively,  the  same  lifetime  extension  generates  higher  benefits  (up  to 
20 %) for other impact category (as the ‘Abiotic Depletion Potential’ (ADP)). The analysis proves also that 
higher benefits can be obtained for higher extension of the lifetime. For instance, in comparison to the 
replacement of the VC with a new one 15 % more efficient, a lifetime extension of 300 hours can reduce 
the GWP impact by 5 %. 

The  analysis  has  also  included  the  modelling  of  possible  environmental  impacts  due  to  repair 
operations. It has been observed that the introduction of repairing implies lower environmental benefits, 
nevertheless  the  durable  option  resulted  environmentally  in  the  large  majority  of  scenarios  considered. 
Finally, a sensitivity analysis has been performed by varying the impact due to the manufacturing of the 
replacing  product  and  by  accounting  for  extra  impacts  due  to  the  manufacturing  of  a  more  durable 
product. However, these variations did not affect much the previous results. 

In order to perform a comprehensive assessment of durability, the analysis of durability has been also 
performed  by  using  the  Ecoreport tool  2013 (110).  The  life-cycle  impacts  of  the  case-study  VC  have  been 
calculated based on the same assumptions of the previous chapters and used to calculate the new values of 
the  ‘Durability  index’.  It  was  noticed  that  the  Ecoreport  tool  uses  impact  categories  that  are  not  fully 
consistent with those used in the previous analysis (i.e. the ILCD/PEF impact categories as implemented 
in the LCA software) and this limited the comparability of the results. The analysis nonetheless concluded 
that: 

- 

The life-cycle impacts calculated according to the two tools (Ecoreport tool and LCA software) differ by 
about 10 % for the GER and GWP impact categories, between 10 % and 15 % for Acidification and Particulate 
Matter,  about  25 %  for  Volatile  Organic  Compounds  (VOC),  more  than  100 %  for  water  consumption,  and 
Eutrophication.  For  some  impact  categories  (i.e.  cooling  water,  hazardous  and  non-hazardous  wastes,  persistent 
organic pollutants, heavy metals and Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon) a comparison between the results of the two 
tools was not possible. 

- 

The  2013  version  of  the  Ecoreport  tool  takes  into  account  durability  aspects  through  the  lifetime 
parameter. The ‘product life’ input ([years]) permits the calculation of the ‘Life-cycle Impact per product per year 
of use’ (111). However the result is aggregated and it is not possible to assess the relevance of specific operations 
occurring, for instance, repair or maintenance operations. 

- 

The study demonstrated the applicability of the ‘Durability index’ through the Ecoreport tool, even though 
some  limitations  have  been  observed.  For  example,  the  Ecoreport  tool  has  a  limited  set  of  input 
materials/components. The tool allows the inclusion of new materials, but it was not possible to introduce some 

(108)  The base-case scenario refers to the replacement of base-case product after a certain time (Ardente et al. 2012). 
(109)  The durable scenario refers to the extension of the lifetime of the base-case time (Ardente et al. 2012). 
(110)  The version considered for this analysis was the v.3.06 as modified in 2013 to take into account the lifetime parameter [BIO Intelligence Service (2013a)]. 
(111)  This is obtained by dividing the ‘Life Cycle Impact per product’ by the number of years of lifetime. 

118 

 
 
 
                                                 
impact categories for new inventory data due to the previously mentioned inconsistency among impact categories 
considered in the two tools. 

-  Moreover,  some  life-cycle  aspects  in  the  Ecoreport  tool  are  modelled  through  aggregated  sections. 
Therefore some key aspects of durability (as repairing and maintenance) as included in the REAPro were difficult 
to be modelled via the Ecoreport tool. 

- 

Finally the ‘Durability index’ has been calculated with the Ecoreport tool only for the GWP impact. The 
results obtained via Ecoreport tool revealed to be similar to those previously obtained via the LCA software. For 
instance, compared to the replacement of a new VC 15 % more efficient, extending the VC by 100 h instead than 
replacing it with a new product 15 % more energy efficient, would reduce the by 3.7 % (compared to the 1.5 % 
previously calculated with the LCA software). 

Durability Assessment (economic perspective) 

Finally, authors enlarged the method to assess also the potential economic benefits/costs related to the 
extension of the lifetime of VCs. Similarly to the environmental assessment of durability, this assessment is 
based on the comparison between two different scenarios concerning the lengths of the lifetime (in a life-
cycle  perspective)  of  a  VC  and  its  potential  replacement  with  a  more  energy  efficient  one.  Taking  into 
account  the  overall  costs  occurring  during  the  VCs  lifetime,  the  outcomes  proved  for  example  that  the 
lifetime  extension  of  100  h  brings  a  life-cycle  saving  of  about  EUR  11-13,  depending  on  the  energy 
efficiency  class  of  the  replacing  VC.  Moreover,  higher  lifetime  extensions  could  entail  higher  economic 
benefits.  Even  assuming  some  repair  costs  to  prolong  the  lifetime  beyond  500  h,  the  extension  of  the 
lifetime  resulted  beneficial  in  the  large  majority  of  the  scenarios.  A  sensitivity  analysis  has  been  also 
performed within this economic assessment. This pointed out that the variation of the discount rate and 
of the growth rate of electricity do not affect the final outcomes, while the variation of the purchase price 
of both the base-case VC and the new VC, as well as the repair cost, are more relevant. 

Conclusions 

In  conclusion,  the  report  demonstrates  the  economic  and  environmental  benefits  of  extending  the 
lifetime of VCs in the large majority of scenarios considered. These results could be used to promote the 
design of more durable VCs, e.g. via more ambitious ecodesign measures. The report also highlights the 
relevance of reparability from both environmental and economic points of view. Repairability of products 
could be promoted for instance through a proper ‘design for repairing’ of products but also the availability 
of information and tools for the repair and/or replacement of some VCs components. It is also confirmed 
the relevance of a proper use and maintenance of the VC during the use-phase and to avoid the loss of 
energy  efficiency  throughout  the  lifetime.  The  report  also  highlighted  that  more  detailed  information 
about durability aspects of VCs would improve the awareness of consumers and drive them towards more 
sustainable  behaviour  and  choices,  for  instance  regarding  the  proper  maintenance  of  the  VC  or  the 
preference of repairing the product versus its replacement with a new one. 

119 

 
 
 
 
 
 
9. Acknowledgments 

This report had been  developed  within the project  ‘Environmental Footprint and Material Efficiency 

Support for Product Policy’ funded by DG Environment (070307/2012/ENV.C1/635340). 

We  would like to thank  the Joint Research Centre  - Institute for Prospective  Technological Studies - 
Sustainable  Production  and  Consumption  Unit  –  for  the  review  of  this  report  and  for  the  valuable 
comments provided to improve it. 

120 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex 1 — Life Cycle Inventory of the canister vacuum 
cleaner 

As  underlined  by  Chiu  &  Chu  (2012),  the  major  difficulties  about  the  LCI  data  collection  should  be 

associated to the availability of reliable database of both materials and processes. 

For modelling the canister vacuum cleaner Gabi6 software and GaBi Professional database have been 
used.  In  some  cases,  some  Ecoinvent  2.2  processes  have  been  used  (as  for  cables  and  paper  for  the 
instruction manual). 

Consistent  with  the  goal  of  the  study,  except  for  the  hose  and  the  operational  motor,  all  the  other 

components of the vacuum cleaner have been grouped. 

For  clarity,  Table  43  illustrates  the  detail  of  the  processes  used  in  the  analysis.  Note  that  for  the 

assessment of the impacts of the manufacturing of components, the following processes have been used: 

injection moulding for all the plastics components; 

- 
-  die-casting for aluminium; 
- 

stamping and bending for steel. 

Table 43: Inventory data used for the LCA of canister vacuum cleaner 

MATERIAL 

NAME OF THE PROCESS 

SOURCE 

ABS 

Aluminum 

PE-HD 

PE-LD 

PP 

PVC 

Rubber 

Steel 

Acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene granulate (ABS) 

DE: Plastic injection moulding part (unspecific) PE 

EU-27: Aluminium ingot mix PE 

DE: Aluminium die-cast part PE 

DE: Polyethylene High Density Granulate (HDPE/PE-HD) Mix PE 

DE: Plastic injection moulding part (unspecific) PE 

EU-27: Polyethylene Linear Low Density Granulate (LLDPE/PE-LLD) PE 

DE: Plastic injection moulding part (unspecific) PE 

Polypropylene granulate (PP) 

DE: Plastic injection moulding part (unspecific) PE 

DE: Polyvinyl Chloride Granulate (Suspension; S-PVC) Mix PE 

DE: Plastic injection moulding part (unspecific) PE 

Styrene-butadiene-rubber (SBR) 

DE: Plastic injection moulding part (unspecific) PE 

DE: Steel cold rolled coil PE 

GLO: Steel sheet stamping and bending (5 % loss) PE 

GaBi 
GaBi 

GaBi 
GaBi 

GaBi 
GaBi 

GaBi 
GaBi 

GaBi 
GaBi 

GaBi 
GaBi 

GaBi 
GaBi 

GaBi 
GaBi 

121 

 
 
 
 
 
 
For some materials (ABS.PP; BMC-GF; POM) life-cycle inventory data were not available in the two 

aforesaid databases. For these materials a life-cycle inventory has been created as following.  

ABS.PP (Acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene - Polypropylene) 

It is supposed that 90 % of the material is made up of ABS, and the remaining 10 % of PP. Injection 

moulding process has been considered for the impact of the manufacturing. 

BMC-GF (Bulk moulding compound — Glass Fibre) 

The  average  composition  of  the  polyester  fiberglass  resin  has  been  extrapolated  based  on  literature 

data. 

Polyoxymethylene (POM) 

The  assessment  of  the  composition  of  polyoxymethylene  has  been  based  on  a  technical  sheet  of  an 
engineering  group  leading  with  specific  polymer  chemical  intermediates ( 112 ).  Note  that  the  only 
intermediate modelled with Ecoinvent v2.2 was the ‘RER: 2-butanol, at plant’. 

The hose 

The inventory data used for the hose model are showed in Table 44. 

Table 44: Inventory data used for the LCA of canister vacuum cleaner’s hose 

SOURCE 

MATERIAL  MASS [kg] 
ABS 
PE 
PP 
Rubber 

0.461  GaBi 
0.214  GaBi 
0.018  GaBi 
0.003  GaBi 

(112)  www.shafaghsenowbar.com, POM_550JnSHu (accessed January 2015) 

122 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Motor 

The total weight of the motor is 1.862 kg, which means more than 30 % of the vacuum cleaner weight. 

Note that in the inventory, 13 g were not defined. 

Table 45: Inventory data used for the LCA of canister vacuum cleaner’s motor 

MATERIAL 

NAME OF THE PROCESS 

Aluminum 

Brass  

Copper  

Copper windings  

BMC-GF  
Graphite  
Polyethylene granulate (PE)  
Polypropylene granulate (PP) 
Rubber sealing compound  
Steel  

See Table 43 

EU-27: Brass (CuZn20) PE 

CN: Copper sheet PE 
EU-27: Copper Wire Mix DKI/ECI 
Steel (see Table 43) 
Aluminum (see Table 43) 
See Table 43 
RER: graphite, at plant 
See Table 43 
See Table 43 
See Table 43 
See Table 43 

MASS 
[kg] 

0.042 

SOURCE 

0.025  GaBi 

0.124  GaBi 
GaBi 
0.0326 
0.271 
0.0579 
0.267 
0.007  Ecoinvent  
0.016 
0.259 
0.133 
0.614 

For  almost  all  the  materials  it  was  possible  to  find  the  corresponding  life-cycle  inventory  data  in  the 
GaBi  database (113).  About  the  winding  assembly,  an  average  composition  has  been  estimated  based  on 
literature data (De Almeida et al. 2008; De Almeida et al. 2013; Olivetti et al. 2012). 

Canister 

According  to  the  gal  and  scope  of  the  study  and  to  chapter  4.1.3,  all  the  other  components  of  the 

vacuum cleaner have been grouped. 

(113)  http://www.gabi-software.com/databases/  

123 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 46: Inventory data used for the LCA of canister vacuum cleaner’s canister 

COMPONENT  MATERIAL 

NAME OF THE PROCESS 

Canister case 

Hose Reel 

Attachment cord 

Nozzle plate 

Filter 
Wheels 

Cables 

Cables 

PCB 

ABS 

POM 

Rubber 
Steel 
Brass 
ABS 
PE 
Rubber 
Steel 
PVC 
Copper 
ABS.PP 
PE-HD 
PP 
Steel 
PE-HD 
PP 
Brass 
PE 
PVC 
Wires 
Brass 
PVC 
Wires 

PCB 

Steel 

See Table 43 

See Table 43 

See Table 43 
See Table 43 
EU-27: Brass (CuZn20) PE 

See Table 43 
See Table 43 
See Table 43 
See Table 43 
See Table 43 
EU-27: Copper Wire Mix DKI/ECI 
See Table 43 
See Table 43 
See Table 43 
See Table 43 

See Table 43 
See Table 43 
EU-27: Brass (CuZn20) PE 
See Table 43 
See Table 43 
EU-27: Copper Wire Mix DKI/ECI 
See Table 43 
See Table 43 
EU-27: Copper Wire Mix DKI/ECI 
GLO: printed wiring board, power 
supply unit desktop PC, Pb free, at 
plant 
See Table 43 

SOURCE 

MASS 
[kg] 

2 

0.042 

0.002 
0.004 
0.004  GaBi 
0.142 
0.021 
0.002 
0.052 
0.194 
0.089  DKI/ECI 
0.052 
0.020 
0.219 
0.019 
0.017 
0.209 
0.002  GaBi 
0.015 
0.011 
0.005  DKI/ECI 
0.001 
0.002 
0.002  DKI/ECI 

0.012  Ecoinvent 

0.014 

124 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Packaging 

To model the packaging, both the cardboard for the box and the paper for the instruction manual have 
been considered. Moreover, a small percentage of plastic (PE-LD) has been included. Data are based on a 
waste material declaration of Philips’ canister vacuum cleaner. 

Table 47: Inventory data used for the LCA of canister vacuum cleaner’s packaging 

MATERIAL 

PE-LD 

Paper 

NAME OF THE PROCESS 

See Table 43 

RER: paper, woodfree, uncoated, at regional storage 

Cardboard 

Corrugated board (2012) 

MASS 
[kg] 

0.06 

SOURCE 

0.10  Ecoinvent 

1.10  PE/FEFCO 

Transports 

The  manufacturing  phase  of  any  product  should  comprehend  the  transports  for  the  raw  material 
retrieval but also those one associated to the product delivery. As is not possible to standardise these data, 
some assumptions have been done in order to take in account also the transport contribution to the final 
environmental impact of the product. 

The  factory  is  supposed  to  be  settled  within  the  European  Union,  and  in  particular  in  the  United 
factory 

(Cambuslang,  South  Lanarkshire),  where 

is  a  Hoover 

in  effect 

there 

Kingdom 
(http://www.hoover.co.uk/about-us/). 

The  main  assumptions  for  the  procurement  of  raw  materials  is  that  plastic  parts  cover  a  distance  of 
about 100 km, while all the other materials, 200 km. About packaging, a transport on a lorry for 100 km 
has been included. Concerning delivery, it was hypothesized that from UK vacuum cleaners are delivered 
around  the  European  Union.  Thus,  an  average  distance  of  1 000 km  has  been  considered.  Finally,  the 
transports associated to the end-of-life are assumed to be about 100 km for one canister vacuum cleaner. 

Table 48: Inventory data used for the LCA of canister vacuum cleaner’s transports 

TRANSPORTED 
MATERIAL 

DISTANCE [km] 

MASS*DISTANCE 
[kgkm] 

plastics 
metals 
packaging 
delivery  

EoL 

      100  
      200  
      100  
     1 000  

      100  

    432.32  
    279.57  
    126.00  
    6 981.00  

    698.10  

125 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
End of Life 

Mainly based on the IEC/TR 62635, the recycling and recovery rate of product parts inclined towards 

the separation process used in the LCA modelling are illustrated hereinafter (Table 49). 

Table 49: Inventory data used for the LCA of canister vacuum cleaner’s EoL 

MATERIAL 

MASS [g] 

RECYCLING 
RATE 

AMOUNT 
RECYCLED [g] 

ABS 

Al 

BMC-GF 

brass 

copper 

graphite 

PCB 

PE 

POM 

PP 
PVC (incineration) 
Rubber 

Steel 

Cardboard 
LDPE 

Paper  

2 653.80  

99.92  

267.00  

30.00  

253.42  

7.00  

12.00  

303.00  

42.00  

710.20  
207.17  
140.00  

974.50  

1 100.00 
60.00 

100.00 

74 % 

91 % 

0 % 

100 % 

100 % 

0 % 

0 % 

90 % 

0 % 

90 % 
100 % 
90 % 

94 % 

90 % 
90 % 

90 % 

1 990.35  

90.93  

267.00  

30.00  

253.42  

0.00  

0.00  

272.70  

0.00  

639.18  
207.17  
126.00  

916.03  

990.00  
54.00  

0.90  

It was assumed the entire plastic fraction not recycled is incinerated (except PVC that is all incinerated), 
while all other fractions are sent to a landfill. A transport of about 100 km has been considered for taking 
the vacuum cleaner until the treatment plant. 

Moreover,  based  on  (Huysman  et  al.  n.d.)  transport,  energy  and  chemical  elements  necessary  for  the 

treatment processes have been considered: 

Table 50: Inventory data used for the LCA of canister vacuum cleaner’s EoL 

MATERIAL 

NAME OF THE PROCESS 

QUANTITY 

SOURCE 

Carbon black 

Limestone 

Electricity 

DE: Carbon black (furnace black; general 
purpose) PE 

CH: limestone, milled, packed, at plant 

EU-27: Electricity grid mix PE 

Chemicals organic 

GLO: chemicals organic, at plant 

Magnetite 

Transports 

GLO: magnetite, at plant 

EU-27: Lorry transport PE 

0.079 

kg 

GaBi 

0.348 

kg 

10.298  MJ 

0.118 

kg 

Ecoinvent 

Ecoinvent 

Ecoinvent 

0.054 

9.029 

GaBi 
kg 
kgkm  GaBi 

126 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex 2 — LCIA for the environmental durability assessment 

Table 51: Life-cycle impacts for the calculation of the Durability index ‘Dn’ 

l
a
r
e
n
m

i

,
l
a
i
t
n
e
t
o
P
n
o
i
t
e
l
p
e
D
c
i
t
o
b
A

i

s
e
c
r
u
o
s
e
r

i

]
.
v
u
q
E
-
b
S

g
k
[

e
c
n
a
d
e
e
c
x
e

d
e
t
a
l
u
m
u
c
c
a

,

n
o
i
t
a
c
i
f
i
d
i
c
A

+
H

f
o

e
l
o
M

[

]
.
q
e

,
r
e
t
a
w
h
s
e
r
f

c
i
t
a
u
q
a

r
o
f

y
t
i
c
i
x
o
t
o
c
E

)
d
e
d
n
e
m
m
o
c
e
r
(

x
o
t
E
S
U

]
e
U
T
C

[

D
N
E
R
T
U
E

,

n
o
i
t
a
c
i
h
p
o
r
t
u
e

r
e
t
a
w
h
s
e
r
F

i

e
P
C
e
R

,
l
e
d
o
m

]
q
e
P
g
k
[

x
o
t
E
S
U

,
s
t
c
e
f
f
e

r
e
c
n
a
c

y
t
i
c
i
x
o
t
n
a
m
u
H

)
d
e
d
n
e
m
m
o
c
e
r
(

]
h
U
T
C

[

,
s
t
c
e
f
f
e

.
c
n
a
c
-
n
o
n
y
t
i
c
i
x
o
t
n
a
m
u
H

)
d
e
d
n
e
m
m
o
c
e
r
(

x
o
t
E
S
U

]
h
U
T
C

[

t
c
e
f
f
e
h
t
l
a
e
h
n
a
m
u
h

,

n
o
i
t
a
i
d
a
r

g
n
i
s
i
n
o
I

i

e
P
C
e
R

,
l
e
d
o
m

]
q
e

5
3
2
U
g
k
[

c
i
n
e
g
o
b

i

l
c
x
e

,

i

g
n
m
r
a
w

n
o
b
r
a
c

l
a
b
o
l
g
C
C
P
I

-
2
O
C
g
k
[

i

]
.
v
u
q
E

D
N
E
R
T
U
E

,

n
o
i
t
a
c
i
h
p
o
r
t
u
e

e
n
i
r
a

M

i

e
P
C
e
R

,
l
e
d
o
m

i

e
P
C
e
R

,
l
e
d
o
m
O
M
W

,

n
o
i
t
e
l
p
e
d

e
n
o
z
O

y
r
o
t
a
r
i
p
s
e
R
/
r
e
t
t
a
m
e
t
a
l
u
c
i
t
r
a
P

l
l

o
P
k
s
i
R

,
s
c
i
n
a
g
r
o
n

i

i

]
.
v
u
q
E
N
g
k
[

-

1
1
-

C
F
C
g
k
[

]
q
e

,

-
5
2
M
P
g
k
[

i

]
.
v
u
q
E

e
l
b
a
w
e
n
e
r
n
o
n
m
o
r
f

y
g
r
e
n
e

y
r
a
m

i
r
P

)
e
u
l
a
v

.
l
a
c

t
e
n
(

s
e
c
r
u
o
s
e
r

]
J

M

[

d
e
t
a
l
u
m
u
c
c
a

,

n
o
i
t
a
c
i
h
p
o
r
t
u
e

l
a
i
r
t
s
e
r
r
e
T

e
c
n
a
d
e
e
c
x
e

N

f
o

e
l
o
M

]
.
q
e

,

n
o
i
t
a
m
r
o
f

e
n
o
z
o

l
a
c
i
m
e
h
c
o
t
o
h
P

i

e
P
C
e
R

,
l
e
d
o
m
S
O
R
U
E
-
S
O
T
O
L

]

C
O
V
M
N
g
k
[

i

g
n
d
u
l
c
n

i

,

n
o
i
t
p
m
u
s
n
o
c

r
e
t
a
w
h
s
e
r
f

l
a
t
o
T

y
t
i
c
r
a
c
s
o
c
E
s
s
i
w
S

,
r
e
t
a
w
n
i
a
r

]

P
B
U

[

PA,n 

En 

UA,n* 

RA,n 

1.21E-03  1.20E-01  7.39E+01  1.61E-04  2.11E-07  6.22E-06  2.77E+01  2.72E+01  4.29E-03  2.11E-08  8.17E-03  6.39E-02  5.84E+02  2.37E-01  2.57E+01 

9.16E-07  8.64E-03  1.22E-01  4.17E-06  4.99E-09  4.92E-08  3.68E+00  1.59E+00  2.53E-04  1.82E-09  5.71E-04  3.10E-03  3.01E+01  1.25E-02  1.66E+00 

1.22E-07  1.34E-03  7.05E-03  2.97E-07  2.03E-10  5.72E-09  4.89E-02  2.37E-01  1.04E-05  1.76E-10  8.08E-05  4.92E-04  4.21E+00  1.72E-03  2.48E-01 

0.00E+00  0.00E+00  0.00E+00  0.00E+00  0.00E+00  0.00E+00  0.00E+00  0.00E+00  0.00E+00  0.00E+00  0.00E+00  0.00E+00  0.00E+00  0.00E+00  0.00E+00 

6.06E-05  3.60E-03  7.39E-01  4.83E-06  1.06E-08  1.87E-07  2.77E-01  8.17E-01  1.29E-04  2.11E-10  8.17E-05  1.92E-03  1.75E+01  7.10E-03  2.57E-01 

UA,n *: Impact per unit of hour 

127 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 3 — Durability index of canister vacuum cleaner 
case-study 

Durability Index of the canister vacuum cleaner for the ‘Low Repairing Scenario (LRS)’ and the ‘High Repairing 

Scenario (HRS)’ 

Dn [Abiotic Depletion] – 
LRS scenario 
‘X’ [hours] 

Dn [Abiotic Depletion] – 
HRS scenario 
‘X’ [hours] 

0 h 

100 h  150 h  200 h  250 h  300 h 

0 h  100 h  150 h  200 h  250 h  300 h 

100 %  0.00  20.95  31.42  41.89  52.37  62.84 
0.00  20.94  31.41  41.87  52.34  62.81 
99 % 
0.00  20.93  31.39  41.86  52.32  62.78 
98 % 
0.00  20.92  31.38  41.84  52.30  62.75 
97 % 
0.00  20.91  31.36  41.82  52.27  62.73 
96 % 

0.00  20.90  31.35  41.80  52.25  62.70 
0.00  20.89  31.33  41.78  52.22  62.67 
0.00  20.88  31.32  41.76  52.20  62.64 
0.00  20.87  31.31  41.74  52.18  62.61 
0.00  20.86  31.29  41.72  52.15  62.58 
0.00  20.85  31.28  41.70  52.13  62.55 

-4.76  16.19  26.66  37.14  47.61  58.08 
-4.76  16.18  26.65  37.12  47.59  58.05 
-4.76  16.17  26.63  37.10  47.56  58.03 
-4.76  16.16  26.62  37.08  47.54  58.00 
-4.76  16.15  26.61  37.06  47.51  57.97 

-4.76  16.14  26.59  37.04  47.49  57.94 
-4.76  16.13  26.58  37.02  47.47  57.91 
-4.76  16.12  26.56  37.00  47.44  57.88 
-4.76  16.11  26.55  36.98  47.42  57.85 
-4.76  16.10  26.53  36.96  47.39  57.83 
-4.76  16.09  26.52  36.95  47.37  57.80 

0.00  20.84  31.26  41.68  52.10  62.53 
0.00  20.83  31.25  41.66  52.08  62.50 
0.00  20.82  31.23  41.65  52.06  62.47 

-4.76  16.08  26.51  36.93  47.35  57.77 
-4.76  16.07  26.49  36.91  47.32  57.74 
-4.76  16.07  26.48  36.89  47.30  57.71 

0.00  20.81  31.22  41.63  52.03  62.44 

-4.76  16.06  26.46  36.87  47.28  57.68 

0.00  20.80  31.21  41.61  52.01  62.41 
0.00  20.79  31.19  41.59  51.99  62.38 

-4.76  16.05  26.45  36.85  47.25  57.65 
-4.76  16.04  26.43  36.83  47.23  57.62 

0.00  20.78  31.18  41.57  51.96  62.35 
0.00  20.77  31.16  41.55  51.94  62.32 
0.00  20.77  31.15  41.53  51.91  62.30 
0.00  20.76  31.13  41.51  51.89  62.27 
0.00  20.75  31.12  41.49  51.87  62.24 
0.00  20.74  31.10  41.47  51.84  62.21 

0,00  20,73  31,09  41,45  51,82  62,18 
0,00  20,72  31,08  41,44  51,79  62,15 
0,00  20,71  31,06  41,42  51,77  62,12 
0,00  20,70  31,05  41,40  51,75  62,10 
0,00  20,69  31,03  41,38  51,72  62,07 
0.00  20.68  31.02  41.36  51.70  62.04 

-4.76  16.03  26.42  36.81  47.20  57.60 
-4.76  16.02  26.40  36.79  47.18  57.57 
-4.76  16.01  26.39  36.77  47.16  57.54 
-4.76  16.00  26.38  36.75  47.13  57.51 
-4.76  15.99  26.36  36.74  47.11  57.48 
-4.76  15.98  26.35  36.72  47.08  57.45 

-4,76  15,97  26,33  36,70  47,06  57,42 
-4,76  15,96  26,32  36,68  47,04  57,40 
-4,76  15,95  26,30  36,66  47,01  57,37 
-4,76  15,94  26,29  36,64  46,99  57,34 
-4,76  15,93  26,28  36,62  46.96  57.31 
-4.76  15.92  26.26  36.60  46.94  57.28 

0.00  20.67  31.00  41.34  51.67  62.01 

-4.76  15.91  26.25  36.58  46.92  57.25 

0.00  20.66  30.99  41.32  51.65  61.98 

-4.76  15.90  26.23  36.56  46.89  57.22 

128 

]

%

[



95 % 
94 % 
93 % 
92 % 
91 % 
90 % 

89 % 
88 % 
87 % 

86 % 

85 % 
84 % 

83 % 
82 % 
81 % 
80 % 
79 % 
78 % 

77 % 
76 % 
75 % 
74 % 
73 % 
72 % 

71 % 

70 % 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dn [Acidification] – 
LRS scenario 
‘X’ [hours] 

Dn [Acidification] – 
HRS scenario 
‘X’ [hours] 

0 h 

100 h  150 h  200 h  250 h  300 h 

0 h  100 h  150 h  200 h  250 h  300 h 

3.37 
3.20 
3.03 
2.87 

2.70 
2.53 
2.36 
2.19 
2.03 
1.86 

1.69 
1.52 
1.36 
1.19 

1.02 

0.85 

0.68 
0.52 
0.35 
0.18 
0.01 
-0.15 

-0.32 
-0.49 
-0.66 
-0.83 
-0.99 
-1.16 

-1.33 
-1.50 

5.05 
4.80 
4.55 
4.30 

4.05 
3.80 
3.54 
3.29 
3.04 
2.79 

2.54 
2.29 
2.03 
1.78 

1.53 

1.28 

1.03 
0.78 
0.52 
0.27 
0.02 
-0.23 

-0.48 
-0.74 
-0.99 
-1.24 
-1.49 
-1.74 

-1.99 
-2.25 

6.74 
6.40 
6.07 
5.73 

5.40 
5.06 
4.73 
4.39 
4.05 
3.72 

3.38 
3.05 
2.71 
2.38 

2.04 

1.70 

1.37 
1.03 
0.70 
0.36 
0.03 
-0.31 

-0.64 
-0.98 
-1.32 
-1.65 
-1.99 
-2.32 

-2.66 
-2.99 

8.42  10.11 
9.61 
8.00 
9.10 
7.58 
8.60 
7.17 

6.75 
6.33 
5.91 
5.49 
5.07 
4.65 

4.23 
3.81 
3.39 
2.97 

2.55 

2.13 

1.71 
1.29 
0.87 
0.45 
0.03 
-0.39 

-0.81 
-1.23 
-1.64 
-2.06 
-2.48 
-2.90 

-3.32 
-3.74 

8.09 
7.59 
7.09 
6.58 
6.08 
5.58 

5.07 
4.57 
4.07 
3.56 

3.06 

2.56 

2.05 
1.55 
1.05 
0.54 
0.04 
-0.46 

-0.97 
-1.47 
-1.97 
-2.48 
-2.98 
-3.48 

-3.99 
-4.49 

-0.45 
-0.45 
-0.45 
-0.45 

-0.45 
-0.45 
-0.45 
-0.45 
-0.45 
-0.45 

-0.45 
-0.45 
-0.45 
-0.45 

-0.45 

-0.45 

-0.45 
-0.45 
-0.45 
-0.45 
-0.45 
-0.45 

-0.45 
-0.45 
-0.45 
-0.45 
-0.45 
-0.45 

2.92 
2.75 
2.58 
2.42 

2.25 
2.08 
1.91 
1.74 
1.58 
1.41 

1.24 
1.07 
0.91 
0.74 

0.57 

0.40 

0.23 
0.07 
-0.10 
-0.27 
-0.44 
-0.60 

-0.77 
-0.94 
-1.11 
-1.28 
-1.44 
-1.61 

-0.45  -1.,78 
-1.95 
-0.45 

4.60 
4.35 
4.10 
3.85 

3.60 
3.35 
3.09 
2.84 
2.59 
2.34 

2.09 
1.83 
1.58 
1.33 

1.08 

0.83 

0.58 
0.32 
0.07 
-0.18 
-0.43 
-0.68 

-0.93 
-1.19 
-1.44 
-1.69 
-1.94 
-2.19 

-2.44 
-2.70 

6.29 
5.95 
5.62 
5.28 

4.95 
4.61 
4.27 
3.94 
3.60 
3.27 

2.93 
2.60 
2.26 
1.93 

1.59 

1.25 

0.92 
0.58 
0.25 
-0.09 
-0.42 
-0.76 

-1.09 
-1.43 
-1.77 
-2.10 
-2.44 
-2.77 

-3.11 
-3.44 

8.42 
8.00 
7.58 
7.17 

6.75 
6.33 
5.91 
5.49 
5.07 
4.65 

4.23 
3.81 
3.39 
2.97 

2.55 

2.13 

1.71 
1.29 
0.87 
0.45 
0.03 
-0.39 

-0.81 
-1.23 
-1.64 
-2.06 
-2.48 
-2.90 

-3.32 
-3.74 

9.66 
9.15 
8.65 
8.15 

7.64 
7.14 
6.64 
6.13 
5.63 
5.13 

4.62 
4.12 
3.62 
3.11 

2.61 

2.11 

1.60 
1.10 
0.60 
0.09 
-0.41 
-0.91 

-1.42 
-1.92 
-2.42 
-2.93 
-3.43 
-3.93 

-4.44 
-4.94 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 

100 %  0.00 
0.00 
99 % 
0.00 
98 % 
0.00 
97 % 

]

%

[



96 % 
95 % 
94 % 
93 % 
92 % 
91 % 

90 % 
89 % 
88 % 
87 % 

86 % 

85 % 

84 % 
83 % 
82 % 
81 % 
80 % 
79 % 

78 % 
77 % 
76 % 
75 % 
74 % 
73 % 

72 % 
71 % 

70 % 

0.00 

-1.66 

-2.50 

-3.33 

-4.16 

-4.99 

-0.45 

-2.12 

-2.95 

-3.78 

-4.16 

-5.44 

129 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dn [Ecotoxicity for aquatic fresh water] – 
LRS scenario 

‘X’ [hours] 

  Dn [Ecotoxicity for aquatic fresh water] 

— HRS scenario 
‘X’ [hours] 

0 h  100 h  150 h  200 h  250 h  300 h 

0 h 

100 h  150 h  200 h  250 h  300 h 

100 %  0.00  20.04  30.07  40.09  50.11  60.13 
0.00  20.04  30.05  40.07  50.09  60.11 
99 % 
0.00  20.03  30.04  40.05  50.07  60.08 
98 % 

97 % 
96 % 
95 % 
94 % 
93 % 
92 % 

91 % 
90 % 
89 % 
88 % 
87 % 

0.00  20.02  30.03  40.03  50.04  60.05 
0.00  20.01  30.01  40.02  50.02  60.02 
0.00  20.00  30.00  40.00  50.00  60.00 
0.00  19.99  29.98  39.98  49.97  59.97 
0.00  19.98  29.97  39.96  49.95  59.94 
0.00  19.97  29.96  39.94  49.93  59.91 

0.00  19.96  29.94  39.93  49.91  59.89 
0.00  19.95  29.93  39.91  49.88  59.86 
0.00  19.94  29.92  39.89  49.86  59.83 
0.00  19.94  29.90  39.87  49.84  59.81 
0.00  19.93  29.89  39.85  49.82  59.78 

-0.95 
-0.95 
-0.95 

-0.95 
-0.95 
-0.95 
-0.95 
-0.95 
-0.95 

-0.95 
-0.95 
-0.95 
-0.95 
-0.95 

19.09  29.11  39.14  49.16  59.18 
19.08  29.10  39.12  49.14  59.15 
19.07  29.09  39.10  49.11  59.13 

19.06  29.07  39.08  49.09  59.10 
19.06  29.06  39.06  49.07  59.07 
19.05  29.05  39.04  49.04  59.04 
19.04  29.03  39.03  49.02  59.02 
19.03  29.02  39.01  49.00  58.99 
19.02  29.00  38.99  48.98  58.96 

19.01  28.99  38.97  48.95  58.93 
19.00  28.98  38.95  48.93  58.91 
18.99  28.96  38.94  48.91  58.88 
18.98  28.95  38.92  48.89  58.85 
18.97  28.94  38.90  48.86  58.83 

86 % 

0.00  19.92  29.88  39.83  49.79  59.75 

-0.95 

18.96  28.92  38.88  48.84  58.80 

85 % 
84 % 
83 % 
82 % 
81 % 
80 % 

79 % 
78 % 
77 % 
76 % 
75 % 
74 % 

73 % 
72 % 
71 % 

0.00  19.91  29.86  39.82  49.77  59.72 
0.00  19.90  29.85  39.80  49.75  59.70 
0.00  19.89  29.83  39.78  49.72  59.67 
0.00  19.88  29.82  39.76  49.70  59.64 
0.00  19.87  29.81  39.74  49.68  59.62 
0.00  19.86  29.79  39.73  49.66  59.59 

0.00  19.85  29.78  39.71  49.63  59.56 
0.00  19.84  29.77  39.69  49.61  59.53 
0.00  19.84  29.75  39.67  49.59  59.51 
0.00  19.83  29.74  39.65  49.57  59.48 
0.00  19.82  29.73  39.63  49.54  59.45 
0.00  19.81  29.71  39.62  49.52  59.42 

0.00  19.80  29.70  39.60  49.50  59.40 
0.00  19.79  29.68  39.58  49.47  59.37 
0.00  19.78  29.67  39.56  49.45  59.34 

-0.95 
-0.95 
-0.95 
-0.95 
-0.95 
-0.95 

18.96  28.91  38.86  48.82  58.77 
18.95  28.90  38.84  48.79  58.74 
18.94  28.88  38.83  48.77  58.72 
18.93  28.87  38.81  48.75  58.69 
18.92  28.85  38.79  48.73  58.66 
18.91  28.84  38.77  48.70  58.63 

18.90  28.83  38.75  48.68  58.61 
-0.95 
18.89  28.81  38.74  48.66  58.58 
-0.95 
18.88  28.80  38.72  48.64  58.55 
-0.95 
-0.95 
18.87  28.79  38.70  48.61  58.53 
-0.95  18,.86  28.77  38.68  48.59  58.50 
18.86  28.76  38.66  48.57  58.47 
-0.95 

-0.95 
-0.95 
-0.95 

18.85  28.75  38.65  48.54  58.44 
18.84  28,.73  38.63  48.52  58.42 
18.83  28.72  38.61  48.50  58.39 

70 % 

0.00  19.77  29.66  39.54  49.43  59.32 

-0.95 

18.82  28.70  38.59  48.48  58.36 

]

%

[



130 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
]

%

[



97 % 
96 % 
95 % 
94 % 
93 % 
92 % 

91 % 
90 % 
89 % 
88 % 
87 % 

86 % 

85 % 
84 % 
83 % 
82 % 
81 % 
80 % 

79 % 
78 % 
77 % 
76 % 
75 % 
74 % 

73 % 
72 % 
71 % 

70 % 

Dn [Freshwater eutrophication] – 
LRS scenario 

‘X’ [hours] 

Dn [Freshwater eutrophication] — 
HRS scenario 
‘X’ [hours] 

0 h  100 h  150 h  200 h  250 h  300 h 

0 h 

100 h  150 h  200 h  250 h  300 h 

100 %  0.00  11.05  16.58  22.10  27.63  33.15 
0.00  10.96  16.43  21.91  27.39  32.87 
99 % 
0.00  10.86  16.29  21.72  27.15  32.58 
98 % 

0.00  10.77  16.15  21.53  26.92  32.30 
0.00  10.67  16.01  21.34  26.68  32.02 
0.00  10.58  15.87  21.15  26.44  31.73 
0.00  10.48  15.72  20.97  26.21  31.45 
0.00  10.39  15.58  20.78  25.97  31.16 
0.00  10.29  15.44  20.59  25.73  30.88 

0.00  10.20  15.30  20.40  25.50  30.60 
0.00  10.10  15.16  20.21  25.26  30.31 
0.00  10.01  15.01  20.02  25.02  30.03 
9.91  14.87  19.83  24.79  29.74 
0.00 
9.82  14.73  19.64  24.55  29.46 
0.00 

-1.54 
-1.54 
-1.54 

-1.54 
-1.54 
-1.54 
-1.54 
-1.54 
-1.54 

-1.54 
-1.54 
-1.54 
-1.54 
-1.54 

9.51  15.03  20.56  26.09  31.61 
9.42  14.89  20.37  25.85  31.33 
9.32  14.75  20.18  25.61  31.04 

9.23  14.61  19.99  25.38  30.76 
9.13  14.47  19.80  25.14  30.47 
9.04  14.33  19.61  24.90  30.19 
8.94  14.18  19.42  24.67  29.91 
8.85  14.04  19.24  24.43  29.62 
8.75  13.90  19.05  24.19  29.34 

8.66  13.76  18.86  23.96  29.06 
8.56  13.62  18.67  23.72  28.77 
8.47  13.47  18.48  23.48  28.49 
8.37  13.33  18.29  23.25  28.20 
8.28  13.19  18.10  23.01  27.92 

0.00 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 

9.73  14.59  19.45  24.31  29.18 

-1.54 

8.18  13.05  17.91  22.77  27.64 

9.63  14.45  19.26  24.08  28.89 
9.54  14.30  19.07  23.84  28.61 
9.44  14.16  18.88  23.60  28.32 
9.35  14.02  18.69  23.37  28.04 
9.25  13.88  18.50  23.13  27.76 
9.16  13.74  18.32  22.89  27.47 

9.06  13.59  18.13  22.66  27.19 
8.97  13.45  17.94  22.42  26.91 
8.87  13.31  17.75  22.18  26.62 
8.78  13.17  17.56  21.95  26.34 
8.68  13.03  17.37  21.71  26.05 
8.59  12.88  17,.18  21.47  25.77 

8.50  12.74  16.99  21.24  25.49 
8.40  12.60  16.80  21.00  25.20 
8.31  12.46  16.61  20.77  24.92 

-1.54 
-1.54 
-1.54 
-1.54 
-1.54 
-1.54 

-1.54 
-1.54 
-1.54 
-1.54 
-1.54 
-1.54 

-1.54 
-1.54 
-1.54 

8.09  12.91  17.72  22.54  27.35 
8.00  12.76  17.53  22.30  27.07 
7.90  12.62  17.34  22.06  26.78 
7.81  12.48  17.15  21.83  26.50 
7.71  12.34  16.96  21.59  26.22 
7.62  12.20  16.77  21.35  25.93 

7.52  12.05  16.59  21.12  25.65 
7.43  11.91  16.40  20.88  25.36 
7.33  11.77  16.21  20.64  25.08 
7.24  11.63  16.02  20.41  24.80 
7.14  11.49  15.83  20.17  24.51 
7.05  11.34  15.64  19.93  24.23 

6.95  11.20  15.45  19.70  23.95 
6.86  11.06  15.26  19.46  23.66 
6.77  10.92  15.07  19.22  23.38 

8.21  12.32  16.42  20.53  24.63 

-1.54 

6.67  10.78  14.88  18.99  23.09 

131 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
97 % 
96 % 
95 % 
94 % 
93 % 
92 % 

]

%

[



91 % 
90 % 
89 % 
88 % 
87 % 

86 % 

85 % 
84 % 
83 % 
82 % 
81 % 
80 % 

79 % 
78 % 
77 % 
76 % 
75 % 
74 % 

73 % 
72 % 
71 % 

70 % 

Dn [Human toxicity cancer effects] – 
LRS scenario 

‘X’ [hours] 

  Dn [Human toxicity cancer effects] — 

HRS scenario 
‘X’ [hours] 

0 h  100 h  150 h  200 h  250 h  300 h 

0 h 

100 h  150 h  200 h  250 h  300 h 

100 %  0.00  14.27  21.40  28.54  35.67  42.81 
99 % 
0.00  14.20  21.31  28.41  35.51  42.61 
98 % 
0.00  14.14  21.21  28.28  35.35  42.42 
0.00  14.08  21.12  28.15  35.19  42.23 

0.00  14.01  21.02  28.03  35.03  42.04 
0.00  13.95  20.92  27.90  34.87  41.85 
0.00  13.89  20.83  27.77  34.71  41.66 
0.00  13.82  20.73  27.64  34.55  41.46 
0.00  13.76  20.64  27.51  34.39  41.27 
0.00  13.69  20.54  27.39  34.23  41.08 

0.00  13.63  20.44  27.26  34.07  40.89 
0.00  13.57  20.35  27.13  33.91  40.70 
0.00  13.50  20.25  27.00  33.75  40.50 
0.00  13.44  20.16  26.88  33.59  40.31 

-3.32  10.95  18.08  25.22  32.35  39.48 
-3.32  10.88  17.98  25.09  32.19  39.29 
-3.32  10.82  17.89  24.96  32.03  39.10 
-3.32  10.75  17.79  24.83  31.87  38.91 

-3.32  10.69  17.70  24.70  31.71  38.72 
-3.32  10.63  17.60  24.58  31.55  38.52 
-3.32  10.56  17.51  24.45  31.39  38.33 
-3.32  10.50  17.41  24.32  31.23  38.14 
-3.32  10.43  17.31  24.19  31.07  37.95 
-3.32  10.37  17.22  24.06  30.91  37.76 

-3.32  10.31  17.12  23.94  30.75  37.57 
-3.32  10.24  17.03  23.81  30.59  37.37 
-3.32  10.18  16.93  23.68  30.43  37.18 
-3.32  10.11  16.83  23.55  30.27  36.99 

0.00  13.37  20.06  26.75  33.43  40.12 
0.00  13.31  19.96  26.62  33.27  39.93 

-3.32  10.05  16.74  23.42  30.11  36.80 
9.99  16.64  23.30  29.95  36.61 
-3.32 

0.00  13.25  19.87  26.49  33.11  39.74 
0.00  13.18  19.77  26.36  32.95  39.55 
0.00  13.12  19.68  26.24  32.79  39.35 
0.00  13.05  19.58  26.11  32.63  39.16 
0.00  12.99  19.48  25.98  32.47  38.97 
0.00  12.93  19.39  25.85  32.31  38.78 

0.00  12.86  19.29  25.72  32.15  38.59 
0.00  12.80  19.20  25.60  31.99  38.39 
0.00  12.73  19.10  25.47  31.83  38.20 
0.00  12.67  19.01  25.34  31.68  38.01 
0.00  12.61  18.91  25.21  31.52  37.82 
0.00  12.54  18.81  25.08  31.36  37.63 

0.00  12.48  18.72  24.96  31.20  37.43 
0.00  12.41  18.62  24.83  31.04  37.24 

-3.32 
-3.32 
-3.32 
-3.32 
-3.32 
-3.32 

-3.32 
-3.32 
-3.32 
-3.32 
-3.32 
-3.32 

-3.32 
-3.32 

9.92  16.55  23.17  29.79  36.41 
9.86  16.45  23.04  29.63  36.22 
9.80  16.35  22.91  29.47  36.03 
9.73  16.26  22.78  29.31  35.84 
9.67  16.16  22.66  29.15  35.65 
9.60  16.07  22.53  28.99  35.46 

9.54  15.97  22.40  28.83  35.26 
9.48  15.87  22.27  28.67  35.07 
9.41  15.78  22.15  28.51  34.88 
9.35  15.68  22.02  28.35  34.69 
9.28  15.59  21.89  28.19  34.50 
9.22  15.49  21.76  28.03  34.30 

9.16  15.39  21.63  27.87  34.11 
9.09  15.30  21.51  27.71  33.92 

0.00  12.35  18.53  24.70  30.88  37.05 

-3.32 

9.03  15.20  21.38  27.55  33.73 

132 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dn [Human toxicity non-canc. effect] – 
LRS scenario 

‘X’ [hours] 

  Dn [Human toxicity non-canc. effect] 

— HRS scenario 
‘X’ [hours] 

0 h  100 h  150 h  200 h  250 h  300 h 

0 h 

100 h  150 h  200 h  250 h  300 h 

100 %  0.00  14.42  21.62  28.83  36.04  43.25 
99 % 
0.00  14.35  21.53  28.71  35.88  43.06 
98 % 
0.00  14.29  21.44  28.58  35.73  42.87 
0.00  14.23  21.34  28.46  35.57  42.68 

97 % 
96 % 
95 % 
94 % 
93 % 
92 % 

]

%

[



91 % 
90 % 
89 % 
88 % 
87 % 

86 % 

85 % 
84 % 
83 % 
82 % 
81 % 
80 % 

79 % 
78 % 
77 % 
76 % 
75 % 
74 % 

73 % 
72 % 
71 % 

70 % 

0.00  14.17  21.25  28.33  35.41  42.50 
0.00  14.10  21.15  28.21  35.26  42.31 
0.00  14.04  21.06  28.08  35.10  42.12 
0.00  13.98  20.97  27.95  34.94  41.93 
0.00  13.91  20.87  27.83  34.79  41.74 
0.00  13.85  20.78  27.70  34.63  41.56 

0.00  13.79  20.68  27.58  34.47  41.37 
0.00  13.73  20.59  27.45  34.32  41.18 
0.00  13.66  20.50  27.33  34.16  40.99 
0.00  13.60  20.40  27.20  34.00  40.80 

0.00  13.54  20.31  27.08  33.85  40.62 
0.00  13.48  20.21  26.95  33.69  40.43 

0.00  13.41  20.12  26.83  33.53  40.24 
0.00  13.35  20.03  26.70  33.38  40.05 
0.00  13.29  19.93  26.58  33.22  39.86 
0.00  13.23  19.84  26.45  33.06  39.68 
0.00  13.16  19.74  26.33  32.91  39.49 
0.00  13.10  19.65  26.20  32.75  39.30 

0.00  13.04  19.56  26.07  32.59  39.11 
0.00  12.97  19.46  25.95  32.44  38.92 
0.00  12.91  19.37  25.82  32.28  38.74 
0.00  12.85  19.27  25.70  32.12  38.55 
0.00  12.79  19.18  25.57  31.97  38.36 
0.00  12.72  19.09  25.45  31.81  38.17 

0.00  12.66  18.99  25.32  31.65  37.98 
0.00  12.60  18.90  25.20  31.50  37.80 

-2.04  12.37  19.58  26.79  34.00  41.20 
-2.04  12.31  19.49  26.66  33.84  41.02 
-2.04  12.25  19.39  26.54  33.68  40.83 

-2.04  12.18  19.30  26.41  33.53  40.64 
-2.04  12.12  19.20  26.29  33.37  40.45 
-2.04  12.06  19.11  26.16  33.21  40.26 
-2.04  12.00  19.02  26.04  33.06  40.08 
-2.04  11.93  18.92  25.91  32.90  39.89 
-2.04  11.87  18.83  25.79  32.74  39.70 

-2.04  11.81  18.73  25.66  32.59  39.51 
-2.04  11.75  18.64  25.53  32.43  39.32 
-2.04  11.68  18.55  25.41  32.27  39.14 
-2.04  11.62  18.45  25.28  32.12  38.95 
-2.04  11.56  18.36  25.16  31.96  38.76 

-2.04  11.49  18.26  25.03  31.80  38.57 

-2.04  11.43  18.17  24.91  31.65  38.38 
-2.04  11.37  18.08  24.78  31.49  38.20 
-2.04  11.31  17.98  24.66  31.33  38.01 
-2.04  11.24  17.89  24.53  31.18  37.82 
-2.04  11.18  17.79  24.41  31.02  37.63 
-2.04  11.12  17.70  24.28  30.86  37.44 

-2.04  11.06  17.61  24.16  30.71  37.26 
-2.04  10.99  17.51  24.03  30.55  37.07 
-2.04  10.93  17.42  23.91  30.39  36.88 
-2.04  10.87  17.32  23.78  30.24  36.69 
-2.04  10.81  17.23  23.65  30.08  36.50 
-2.04  10.74  17.14  23.53  29.92  36.32 

-2.04  10.68  17.04  23.40  29.77  36.13 
-2.04  10.62  16.95  23.28  29.61  35.94 
-2.04  10.55  16.85  23.15  29.45  35.75 

0.00  12.54  18.80  25.07  31.34  37.61 

-2.04  10.49  16.76  23.03  29.30  35.56 

133 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
97 % 
96 % 
95 % 
94 % 
93 % 
92 % 

]

%

[



91 % 
90 % 
89 % 
88 % 
87 % 

86 % 

85 % 
84 % 
83 % 
82 % 
81 % 
80 % 

79 % 
78 % 
77 % 
76 % 
75 % 
74 % 

73 % 
72 % 
71 % 

70 % 

Dn [Ionising radiation, human health effect] – 
LRS scenario 

‘X’ [hours] 

  Dn [Ionising radiation, human health 

effect] — HRS scenario 
‘X’ [hours] 

0 h  100 h  150 h  200 h  250 h  300 h 

0 h 

100 h  150 h  200 h  250 h  300 h 

100 %  0.00  11.74  17.61  23.48  29.35  35.22 
99 % 
0.00  11.65  17.48  23.30  29.13  34.96 
98 % 
0.00  11.56  17.35  23.13  28.91  34.69 
0.00  11.48  17.22  22.95  28.69  34.43 

0.00  11.39  17.08  22.78  28.47  34.17 
0.00  11.30  16.95  22.60  28.25  33.91 
0.00  11.21  16.82  22.43  28.04  33.64 
0.00  11.13  16.69  22.25  27.82  33.38 
0.00  11.04  16.56  22.08  27.60  33.12 
0.00  10.95  16.43  21.90  27.38  32.86 

0.00  10.86  16.30  21.73  27.16  32.59 
0.00  10.78  16.16  21.55  26.94  32.33 
0.00  10.69  16.03  21.38  26.72  32.07 
0.00  10.60  15.90  21.20  26.50  31.80 

-0.50  11.24  17.11  22.98  28.85  34.72 
-0.50  11.16  16.98  22.81  28.63  34.46 
-0.50  11.07  16.85  22.63  28.42  34.20 
-0.50  10.98  16.72  22.46  28.20  33.94 

-0.50  10.89  16.59  22.28  27.98  33.67 
-0.50  10.81  16.46  22.11  27.76  33.41 
-0.50  10.72  16.33  21.93  27.54  33.15 
-0.50  10.63  16.19  21.76  27.32  32.88 
-0.50  10.54  16.06  21.58  27.10  32.62 
-0.50  10.46  15.93  21.41  26.88  32.36 

-0.50  10.37  15.80  21.23  26.66  32.10 
-0.50  10.28  15.67  21.06  26.45  31.83 
-0.50  10.19  15.54  20.88  26.23  31.57 
-0.50  10.11  15.41  20.71  26.01  31.31 

0.00  10.51  15.77  21.03  26.28  31.54 
0.00  10.43  15.64  20.85  26.07  31.28 

-0.50  10.02  15.27  20.53  25.79  31.05 
9.93  15.14  20.36  25.57  30.78 
-0.50 

0.00  10.34  15.51  20.68  25.85  31.02 
0.00  10.25  15.38  20.50  25.63  30.75 
0.00  10.16  15.25  20.33  25.41  30.49 
0.00  10.08  15.11  20.15  25.19  30.23 
9.99  14.98  19.98  24.97  29.97 
0.00 
9.90  14.85  19.80  24.75  29.70 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 

9.81  14.72  19.63  24.53  29.44 
9.73  14.59  19.45  24.31  29.18 
9.64  14.46  19.28  24.10  28.91 
9.55  14.33  19.10  23.88  28.65 
9.46  14.19  18.93  23.66  28.39 
9.38  14.06  18.75  23.44  28.13 

9.29  13.93  18.58  23.22  27.86 
9.20  13.80  18.40  23.00  27.60 

0.00 

9.11  13.67  18.23  22.78  27.34 

-0.50 
-0.50 
-0.50 
-0.50 
-0.50 
-0.50 

-0.50 
-0.50 
-0.50 
-0.50 
-0.50 
-0.50 

-0.50 
-0.50 

-0.50 

9.84  15.01  20.18  25.35  30.52 
9.75  14.88  20.01  25.13  30.26 
9.67  14.75  19.83  24.91  29.99 
9.58  14.62  19.66  24.69  29.73 
9.49  14.49  19.48  24.48  29.47 
9.40  14.36  19.31  24.26  29.21 

9.32  14.22  19.13  24.04  28.94 
9.23  14.09  18.96  23.82  28.68 
9.14  13.96  18.78  23.60  28.42 
9.05  13.83  18.61  23.38  28.16 
8.97  13.70  18.43  23.16  27.89 
8.88  13.57  18.25  22.94  27.63 

8.79  13.44  18.08  22.72  27.37 
8.70  13.30  17.90  22.50  27.11 

8.62  13.17  17.73  22.29  26.84 

134 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dn [GWP, excl. biogenic carbon] – 
LRS scenario 

‘X’ [hours] 

  Dn [GWP, excl. biogenic carbon] — 

HRS scenario 
‘X’ [hours] 

0 h  100 h  150 h  200 h  250 h  300 h 

0 h  100 h  150 h  200 h  250 h  300 h 

100 %  0.00 
99 % 
0.00 
98 % 
0.00 
0.00 

97 % 
96 % 
95 % 
94 % 
93 % 
92 % 

8.21  10.26  12.31 
9.86  11.83 
7.89 
9.46  11.35 
7.56 
9.05  10.86 
7.24 

4.10 
3.94 
3.78 
3.62 

3.46 
3.30 
3.14 
2.98 
2.82 
2.66 

2.50 
2.33 
2.17 
2.01 

1.85 
1.69 

1.53 
1.37 
1.21 
1.05 
0.89 
0.73 

6.16 
5.91 
5.67 
5.43 

5.19 
4.95 
4.71 
4.47 
4.23 
3.98 

3.74 
3.50 
3.26 
3.02 

2.78 
2.54 

2.30 
2.06 
1.81 
1.57 
1.33 
1.09 

6.92 
6.60 
6.28 
5.96 
5.63 
5.31 

4.99 
4.67 
4.35 
4.03 

3.71 
3.38 

3.06 
2.74 
2.42 
2.10 
1.78 
1.45 

0.57 
0.41 
0.24 
0.08 
-0.08 
-0.24 

-0.40 
-0.56 

0.85 
0.61 
0.37 
0.13 
-0.12 
-0.36 

-0.60 
-0.84 

1.13 
0.81 
0.49 
0.17 
-0.15 
-0.48 

-0.80 
-1.12 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 

8.65  10.38 
9.90 
8.25 
9.42 
7.85 
8.93 
7.45 
8.45 
7.04 
7.97 
6.64 

6.24 
5.84 
5.44 
5.03 

4.63 
4.23 

3.83 
3.43 
3.02 
2.62 
2.22 
1.82 

1.42 
1.01 
0.61 
0.21 
-0.19 
-0.60 

-1.00 
-1.40 

7.49 
7.00 
6.52 
6.04 

5.56 
5.08 

4.59 
4.11 
3.63 
3.15 
2.66 
2.18 

1.70 
1.22 
0.73 
0.25 
-0.23 
-0.71 

-1.20 
-1.68 

]

%

[



91 % 
90 % 
89 % 
88 % 
87 % 

86 % 

85 % 
84 % 
83 % 
82 % 
81 % 
80 % 

79 % 
78 % 
77 % 
76 % 
75 % 
74 % 

73 % 
72 % 
71 % 

70 % 

-0.56 
-0.56 
-0.56 

-0.56 
-0.56 
-0.56 
-0.56 
-0.56 
-0.56 

-0.56 
-0.56 
-0.56 
-0.56 
-0.56 

-0.56 

-0.56 
-0.56 
-0.56 
-0.56 
-0.56 
-0.56 

-0.56 
-0.56 
-0.56 
-0.56 
-0.56 
-0.56 

-0.56 
-0.56 
-0.56 

3.55 
3.39 
3.23 

3.07 
2.91 
2.74 
2.58 
2.42 
2.26 

2.10 
1.94 
1.78 
1.62 
1.46 

1.30 

1.14 
0.98 
0.81 
0.65 
0.49 
0.33 

5.60 
5.36 
5.12 

4.88 
4.64 
4.39 
4.15 
3.91 
3.67 

3.43 
3.19 
2.95 
2.71 
2.46 

2.22 

1.98 
1.74 
1.50 
1.26 
1.02 
0.78 

7.65 
7.33 
7.01 

6.69 
6.37 
6.04 
5.72 
5.40 
5.08 

4.76 
4.44 
4.11 
3.79 
3.47 

3.15 

2.83 
2.51 
2.18 
1.86 
1.54 
1.22 

0.17 
0.01 
-0.15 
-0.31 
-0.47 
-0.63 

-0.79 
-0.95 
-1.11 

0.53 
0.29 
0.05 
-0.19 
-0.43 
-0.67 

-0.91 
-1.15 
-1.39 

0.90 
0.58 
0.26 
-0.07 
-0.39 
-0.71 

-1.03 
-1.35 
-1.67 

9.70  11.76 
9.30  11.27 
8.90  10.79 

8.50  10.31 
9.83 
8.10 
9.34 
7.69 
8.86 
7.29 
8.38 
6.89 
7.90 
6.49 

6.09 
5.68 
5.28 
4.88 
4.48 

4.08 

3.67 
3.27 
2.87 
2.47 
2.07 
1.66 

1.26 
0.86 
0.46 
0.06 
-0.35 
-0.75 

-1.15 
-1.55 
-1.95 

7.41 
6.93 
6.45 
5.97 
5.48 

5.00 

4.52 
4.04 
3.55 
3.07 
2.59 
2.11 

1.63 
1.14 
0.66 
0.18 
-0.30 
-0.79 

-1.27 
-1.75 
-2.23 

0.00 

-0.72 

-1.08 

-1.44 

-1.80 

-2.16 

-0.56 

-1.28 

-1.64 

-2.00 

-2.36 

-2.72 

135 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dn [Marine eutrophication] – 
LRS scenario 

‘X’ [hours] 

  Dn [Marine eutrophication] — HRS 

scenario 
‘X’ [hours] 

0 h  100 h  150 h  200 h  250 h  300 h 

0 h  100 h  150 h  200 h  250 h  300 h 

100 %  0.00 
99 % 
0.00 
98 % 
0.00 
0.00 

97 % 
96 % 
95 % 
94 % 
93 % 
92 % 

9.78  14.68  19.57  24.46  29.35 
9.68  14.52  19.35  24.19  29.03 
9.57  14.36  19.14  23.93  28.71 
9.46  14.20  18.93  23.66  28.39 

9.36  14.04  18.71  23.39  28.07 
9.25  13.88  18.50  23.13  27.75 
9.14  13.72  18.29  22.86  27.43 
9.04  13.56  18.08  22.59  27.11 
8.93  13.40  17.86  22.33  26.79 
8.82  13.24  17.65  22.06  26.47 

8.72  13.08  17.44  21.79  26.15 
8.61  12.92  17.22  21.53  25.83 
8.50  12.76  17.01  21.26  25.51 
8.40  12.60  16.80  21.00  25.19 

8.29  12.44  16.58  20.73  24.87 
8.18  12.28  16.37  20.46  24.55 

8.08  12.12  16.16  20.20  24.24 
7.97  11.96  15.94  19.93  23.92 
7.87  11.80  15.73  19.66  23.60 
7.76  11.64  15.52  19.40  23.28 
7.65  11.48  15.30  19.13  22.96 
7.55  11.32  15.09  18.86  22.64 

7.44  11.16  14.88  18.60  22.32 
7.33  11.00  14.66  18.33  22.00 
7.23  10.84  14.45  18.06  21.68 
7.12  10.68  14.24  17.80  21.36 
7.01  10.52  14.03  17.53  21.04 
6.91  10.36  13.81  17.27  20.72 

6.80  10.20  13.60  17.00  20.40 
6.69  10.04  13.39  16.73  20.08 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 

0.00 

6.59 

9.88  13.17  16.47  19.76 

]

%

[



91 % 
90 % 
89 % 
88 % 
87 % 

86 % 

85 % 
84 % 
83 % 
82 % 
81 % 
80 % 

79 % 
78 % 
77 % 
76 % 
75 % 
74 % 

73 % 
72 % 
71 % 

70 % 

-1.32 
-1.32 
-1.32 

-1.32 
-1.32 
-1.32 
-1.32 
-1.32 
-1.32 

-1.32 
-1.32 
-1.32 
-1.32 
-1.32 

8.46  13.35  18.24  23.14  28.03 
8.35  13.19  18.03  22.87  27.71 
8.25  13.03  17.82  22.60  27.39 

8.14  12.87  17.60  22.34  27.07 
8.03  12.71  17.39  22.07  26.75 
7.93  12.55  17.18  21.80  26.43 
7.82  12.39  16.96  21.54  26.11 
7.71  12.23  16.75  21.27  25.79 
7.61  12.07  16.54  21.00  25.47 

7.50  11.91  16.33  20.74  25.15 
7.39  11.75  16.11  20.47  24.83 
7.29  11.59  15.90  20.20  24.51 
7.18  11.43  15.69  19.94  24.19 
7.07  11.27  15.47  19.67  23.87 

-1.32 

6.97  11.11  15.26  19.41  23.55 

-1.32 
-1.32 
-1.32 
-1.32 
-1.32 
-1.32 

-1.32 
-1.32 
-1.32 
-1.32 
-1.32 
-1.32 

-1.32 
-1.32 
-1.32 

-1.32 

6.86  10.95  15.05  19.14  23.23 
6.75  10.79  14.83  18.87  22.91 
6.65  10.63  14.62  18.61  22.59 
6.54  10.47  14.41  18.34  22.27 
6.44  10.31  14.19  18.07  21.95 
6.33  10.15  13.98  17.81  21.63 

6.22 
6.12 
6.01 
5.90 
5.80 
5.69 

5.58 
5.48 
5.37 

5.26 

9.99  13.77  17.54  21.31 
9.83  13.55  17.27  20.99 
9.68  13.34  17.01  20.67 
9.52  13.13  16.74  20.35 
9.36  12.91  16.47  20.03 
9.20  12.70  16.21  19.71 

9.04  12.49  15.94  19.39 
8.88  12.28  15.68  19.08 
8.72  12.06  15.41  18.76 

8.56  11.85  15.14  18.44 

136 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
100 %  0.00 
99 % 
0.00 
98 % 
0.00 
0.00 

97 % 
96 % 
95 % 
94 % 
93 % 
92 % 

Dn [Ozone depletion] – 
LRS scenario 

‘X’ [hours] 

  Dn [Ozone depletion] — HRS scenario 

‘X’ [hours] 

0 h  100 h  150 h  200 h  250 h  300 h 

0 h 

100 h  150 h  200 h  250 h  300 h 

4.33 
4.17 
4.01 
3.85 

3.70 
3.54 
3.38 
3.22 
3.06 
2.90 

2.74 
2.59 
2.43 
2.27 

2.11 
1.95 

1.79 
1.63 
1.48 
1.32 
1.16 
1.00 

0.84 
0.68 
0.52 
0.36 
0.21 
0.05 

6.50 
6.26 
6.02 
5.78 

5.54 
5.31 
5.07 
4.83 
4.59 
4.35 

4.12 
3.88 
3.64 
3.40 

3.16 
2.93 

2.69 
2.45 
2.21 
1.97 
1.74 
1.50 

1.26 
1.02 
0.79 
0.55 
0.31 
0.07 

8.66  10.83  12.99 
8.34  10.43  12.51 
8.03  10.03  12.04 
9.64  11.56 
7.71 

7.39 
7.07 
6.76 
6.44 
6.12 
5.81 

5.49 
5.17 
4.85 
4.54 

4.22 
3.90 

3.58 
3.27 
2.95 
2.63 
2.32 
2.00 

1.68 
1.36 
1.05 
0.73 
0.41 
0.10 

9.24  11.09 
8.84  10.61 
8.45  10.14 
9.66 
8.05 
9.18 
7.65 
8.71 
7.26 

6.86 
6.46 
6.07 
5.67 

5.27 
4.88 

4.48 
4.08 
3.69 
3.29 
2.89 
2.50 

2.10 
1.71 
1.31 
0.91 
0.52 
0.12 

8.23 
7.76 
7.28 
6.80 

6.33 
5.85 

5.38 
4.90 
4.43 
3.95 
3.47 
3.00 

2.52 
2.05 
1.57 
1.09 
0.62 
0.14 

-0.11 
-0.27 

-0.17 
-0.40 

-0.22 
-0.54 

-0.28 
-0.67 

-0.33 
-0.81 

-0.19 
-0.19 
-0.19 

-0.19 
-0.19 
-0.19 
-0.19 
-0.19 
-0.19 

-0.19 
-0.19 
-0.19 
-0.19 
-0.19 

-0.19 

-0.19 
-0.19 
-0.19 
-0.19 
-0.19 
-0.19 

-0.19 
-0,19 
-0.19 
-0.19 
-0.19 
-0.19 

-0.19 
-0.19 
-0.19 

4.14 
3.98 
3.82 

3.66 
3.51 
3.35 
3.19 
3.03 
2.87 

2.71 
2.55 
2.39 
2.24 
2.08 

1.92 

1.76 
1.60 
1.44 
1.28 
1.13 
0.97 

0.81 
0.65 
0.49 
0.33 
0.17 
0.02 

6.30 
6.07 
5.83 

5.59 
5.35 
5.11 
4.88 
4.64 
4.40 

4.16 
3.93 
3.69 
3.45 
3.21 

2.97 

2.74 
2.50 
2.26 
2.02 
1.78 
1.55 

1.31 
1.07 
0.83 
0.59 
0.36 
0.12 

8.47  10.63  12.80 
8.15  10.24  12.32 
9.84  11.85 
7.84 

7.52 
7.20 
6.88 
6.57 
6.25 
5.93 

5.61 
5.30 
4.98 
4.66 
4.35 

4.03 

3.71 
3.39 
3.08 
2.76 
2.44 
2.13 

1.81 
1.49 
1.17 
0.86 
0.54 
0.22 

9.45  11.37 
9.05  10.90 
8.65  10.42 
9.94 
8.26 
9.47 
7.86 
8.99 
7.46 

7.07 
6.67 
6.27 
5.88 
5.48 

5.08 

4.69 
4.29 
3.89 
3.50 
3.10 
2.70 

2.31 
1.91 
1.51 
1.12 
0.72 
0.33 

8.52 
8.04 
7.57 
7.09 
6.61 

6.14 

5.66 
5.19 
4.71 
4.23 
3.76 
3.28 

2.81 
2.33 
1.86 
1.38 
0.90 
0.43 

-0.14 
-0.30 
-0.46 

-0.12 
-0.36 
-0.59 

-0.10 
-0.41 
-0.73 

-0.07 
-0.47 
-0.86 

-0.05 
-0.52 
-1.00 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 

]

%

[



91 % 
90 % 
89 % 
88 % 
87 % 

86 % 

85 % 
84 % 
83 % 
82 % 
81 % 
80 % 

79 % 
78 % 
77 % 
76 % 
75 % 
74 % 

73 % 
72 % 
71 % 

70 % 

0.00 

-0.43 

-0.64 

-0.86 

-1.07 

-1.28 

-0.19 

-0.62 

-0.83 

-1.05 

-1.26 

-1.47 

137 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dn [Particulate matter/Respiratory inorganics] – 
LRS scenario 

‘X’ [hours] 

Dn [Particulate matter/Respiratory 
inorganics] — HRS scenario 
‘X’ [hours] 

0 h  100 h  150 h  200 h  250 h  300 h 

0 h  100 h  150 h  200 h  250 h  300 h 

100 %  0.00 
99 % 
0.00 
98 % 
0.00 
0.00 

97 % 
96 % 
95 % 
94 % 
93 % 
92 % 

3.72 
3.56 
3.39 
3.23 

3.06 
2.90 
2.73 
2.57 
2.41 
2.24 

2.08 
1.91 
1.75 
1.58 

1.42 
1.25 

1.09 
0.93 
0.76 
0.60 
0.43 
0.27 

5.58 
5.33 
5.09 
4.84 

4.59 
4.35 
4.10 
3.85 
3.61 
3.36 

3.11 
2.87 
2.62 
2.37 

2.13 
1.88 

1.63 
1.39 
1.14 
0.89 
0.65 
0.40 

7.44 
7.11 
6.78 
6.45 

6.13 
5.80 
5.47 
5.14 
4.81 
4.48 

4.15 
3.82 
3.49 
3.17 

2.84 
2.51 

2.18 
1.85 
1.52 
1.19 
0.86 
0.53 

9.30  11.16 
8.89  10.67 
8.48  10.18 
9.68 
8.07 

7.66 
7.25 
6.84 
6.42 
6.01 
5.60 

5.19 
4.78 
4.37 
3.96 

3.55 
3.14 

2.72 
2.31 
1.90 
1.49 
1.08 
0.67 

9.19 
8.70 
8.20 
7.71 
7.22 
6.72 

6.23 
5.74 
5.24 
4.75 

4.26 
3.76 

3.27 
2.78 
2.28 
1.79 
1.30 
0.80 

0.10 
-0.06 
-0.23 
-0.39 
-0.55 
-0.72 

-0.88 
-1.05 

0.15 
-0.09 
-0.34 
-0.59 
-0.83 
-1.08 

-1.33 
-1.57 

0.21 
-0.12 
-0.45 
-0.78 
-1.11 
-1.44 

-1.77 
-2.10 

0.26 
-0.15 
-0.57 
-0.98 
-1.39 
-1.80 

-2.21 
-2.62 

0.31 
-0.18 
-0.68 
-1.17 
-1.66 
-2.16 

-2.65 
-3.14 

-0.17 
-0.17 
-0.17 

-0.17 
-0.17 
-0.17 
-0.17 
-0.17 
-0.17 

-0.17 
-0.17 
-0.17 
-0.17 
-0.17 

-0.17 

-0.17 
-0.17 
-0.17 
-0.17 
-0.17 
-0.17 

-0.17 
-0.17 
-0.17 
-0.17 
-0.17 
-0.17 

-0.17 
-0.17 
-0.17 

3.55 
3.39 
3.23 

3.06 
2.90 
2.73 
2.57 
2.40 
2.24 

2.07 
1.91 
1.75 
1.58 
1.42 

1.25 

1.09 
0.92 
0.76 
0.59 
0.43 
0.27 

5.42 
5.17 
4.92 

4.68 
4.43 
4.18 
3.94 
3.69 
3.44 

3.19 
2.95 
2.70 
2.45 
2.21 

1.96 

1.71 
1.47 
1.22 
0.97 
0.73 
0.48 

7.28 
6.95 
6.62 

6.29 
5.96 
5.63 
5.30 
4.97 
4.64 

4.32 
3.99 
3.66 
3.33 
3.00 

2.67 

2.34 
2.01 
1.68 
1.36 
1.03 
0.70 

9.14  11.00 
8.72  10.50 
8.31  10.01 

7.90 
7.49 
7.08 
6.67 
6.26 
5.85 

5.44 
5.02 
4.61 
4.20 
3.79 

3.38 

2.97 
2.56 
2.15 
1.74 
1.32 
0.91 

9.52 
9.02 
8.53 
8.04 
7.54 
7.05 

6.56 
6.06 
5.57 
5.08 
4.58 

4.09 

3.60 
3.10 
2.61 
2.12 
1.62 
1.13 

0.10 
-0.06 
-0.23 
-0.39 
-0.56 
-0.72 

-0.89 
-1.05 
-1.21 

0.23 
-0.01 
-0.26 
-0.51 
-0.75 
-1.00 

-1.25 
-1.49 
-1.74 

0.37 
0.04 
-0.29 
-0.62 
-0.95 
-1.28 

-1.60 
-1.93 
-2.26 

0.50 
0.09 
-0.32 
-0.73 
-1.14 
-1.55 

-1.96 
-2.38 
-2.79 

0.64 
0.14 
-0.35 
-0.84 
-1.34 
-1.83 

-2.32 
-2.82 
-3.31 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 

]

%

[



91 % 
90 % 
89 % 
88 % 
87 % 

86 % 

85 % 
84 % 
83 % 
82 % 
81 % 
80 % 

79 % 
78 % 
77 % 
76 % 
75 % 
74 % 

73 % 
72 % 
71 % 

70 % 

0.00 

-1.21 

-1.82 

-2.43 

-3.03 

-3.64 

-0.17 

-1.38 

-1.99 

-2.59 

-3.20 

-3.80 

138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dn [Photochemical ozone formation] – 
LRS scenario 

‘X’ [hours] 

  Dn [Photochemical ozone formation] 

— HRS scenario 
‘X’ [hours] 

0 h  100 h  150 h  200 h  250 h  300 h 

0 h  100 h  150 h  200 h  250 h  300 h 

100 %  0.00 
99 % 
0.00 
98 % 
0.00 
0.00 

97 % 
96 % 
95 % 
94 % 
93 % 
92 % 

4.49 
4.33 
4.17 
4.02 

3.86 
3.70 
3.55 
3.39 
3.23 
3.07 

2.92 
2.76 
2.60 
2.45 

2.29 
2.13 

1.97 
1.82 
1.66 
1.50 
1.35 
1.19 

1.03 
0.87 
0.72 
0.56 
0.40 
0.25 

6.73 
6.50 
6.26 
6.03 

5.79 
5.55 
5.32 
5.08 
4.85 
4.61 

4.38 
4.14 
3.90 
3.67 

3.43 
3.20 

2.96 
2.73 
2.49 
2.25 
2.02 
1.78 

1.55 
1.31 
1.08 
0.84 
0.60 
0.37 

8.98  11.22  13.47 
8.66  10.83  12.99 
8.35  10.44  12.52 
8.03  10.04  12.05 

7.72 
7.41 
7.09 
6.78 
6.46 
6.15 

5.83 
5.52 
5.21 
4.89 

4.58 
4.26 

3.95 
3.63 
3.32 
3.01 
2.69 
2.38 

2.06 
1.75 
1.43 
1.12 
0.81 
0.49 

9.65  11.58 
9.26  11.11 
8.86  10.64 
8.47  10.17 
9.69 
8.08 
9.22 
7.69 

7.29 
6.90 
6.51 
6.11 

5.72 
5.33 

4.94 
4.54 
4.15 
3.76 
3.36 
2.97 

2.58 
2.18 
1.79 
1.40 
1.01 
0.61 

8.75 
8.28 
7.81 
7.34 

6.87 
6.39 

5.92 
5.45 
4.98 
4.51 
4.04 
3.56 

3.09 
2.62 
2.15 
1.68 
1.21 
0.74 

0.09 
-0.07 

0.13 
-0.10 

0.18 
-0.14 

0.22 
-0.17 

0.26 
-0.21 

-0.61 
-0.61 
-0.61 

-0.61 
-0.61 
-0.61 
-0.61 
-0.61 
-0.61 

-0.61 
-0.61 
-0.61 
-0.61 
-0.61 

-0.61 

-0.61 
-0.61 
-0.61 
-0.61 
-0.61 
-0.61 

-0.61 
-0.61 
-0.61 
-0.61 
-0.61 
-0.61 

-0.61 
-0.61 
-0.61 

3.88 
3.72 
3.56 

3.40 
3.25 
3.09 
2.93 
2.78 
2.62 

2.46 
2.30 
2.15 
1.99 
1.83 

1.68 

1.52 
1.36 
1.20 
1.05 
0.89 
0.73 

6.12 
5.88 
5.65 

5.41 
5.18 
4.94 
4.71 
4.47 
4.23 

4.00 
3.76 
3.53 
3.29 
3.06 

2.82 

2.58 
2.35 
2.11 
1.88 
1.64 
1.41 

0.58 
0.42 
0.26 
0.10 
-0.05 
-0.21 

-0.37 
-0.52 
-0.68 

1.17 
0.93 
0.70 
0.46 
0.23 
-0.01 

-0.24 
-0.48 
-0.72 

8.36  10.61  12.85 
8.05  10.22  12.38 
9.82  11.91 
7.74 

7.42 
7.11 
6.79 
6.48 
6.16 
5.85 

5.54 
5.22 
4.91 
4.59 
4.28 

3.96 

3.65 
3.34 
3.02 
2.71 
2.39 
2.08 

1.76 
1.45 
1.14 
0.82 
0.51 
0.19 

9.43  11.44 
9.04  10.97 
8.64  10.50 
8.25  10.02 
9.55 
7.86 
9.08 
7.47 

7.07 
6.68 
6.29 
5.89 
5.50 

5.11 

4.72 
4.32 
3.93 
3.54 
3.14 
2.75 

2.36 
1.96 
1.57 
1.18 
0.79 
0.39 

8.61 
8.14 
7.67 
7.20 
6.72 

6.25 

5.78 
5.31 
4.84 
4.37 
3.89 
3.42 

2.95 
2.48 
2.01 
1.54 
1.07 
0.59 

-0.12 
-0.44 
-0.75 

0.00 
-0.39 
-0.79 

0.12 
-0.35 
-0.82 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 

]

%

[



91 % 
90 % 
89 % 
88 % 
87 % 

86 % 

85 % 
84 % 
83 % 
82 % 
81 % 
80 % 

79 % 
78 % 
77 % 
76 % 
75 % 
74 % 

73 % 
72 % 
71 % 

70 % 

0.00 

-0.23 

-0.34 

-0.45 

-0.57 

-0.68 

-0.61 

-0.84 

-0.95 

-1.07 

-1.18 

-1.29 

139 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dn [Primary energy from non renewable resources 
(gross cal. value)] – 
LRS scenario 

‘X’ [hours] 

Dn [Primary energy from non 
renewable resources (gross cal. 
value)] — HRS scenario 
‘X’ [hours] 

0 h  100 h  150 h  200 h  250 h  300 h 

0 h  100 h  150 h  200 h  250 h  300 h 

100 %  0.00 
99 % 
0.00 
98 % 
0.00 
97 % 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

96 % 
95 % 
94 % 
93 % 
92 % 
91 % 

4.73 
4.57 
4.42 
4.26 
4.11 
3.96 

3.80 
3.65 
3.49 
3.34 
3.18 
3.03 

2.87 
2.72 

2.56 
2.41 
2.25 
2.10 

1.94 
1.79 
1.63 
1.48 
1.32 
1.17 

1.01 
0.86 
0.70 
0.55 
0.39 
0.24 

7.09 
6.86 
6.63 
6.40 
6.16 
5.93 

5.70 
5.47 
5.24 
5.00 
4.77 
4.54 

4.31 
4.07 

3.84 
3.61 
3.38 
3.15 

2.91 
2.68 
2.45 
2.22 
1.98 
1.75 

1.52 
1.29 
1.05 
0.82 
0.59 
0.36 

9.46  11.82  14.19 
9.15  11.44  13.72 
8.84  11.05  13.26 
8.53  10.66  12.79 
8.22  10.27  12.33 
9.89  11.87 
7.91 

7.60 
7.29 
6.98 
6.67 
6.36 
6.05 

5.74 
5.43 

5.12 
4.81 
4.50 
4.19 

3.88 
3.57 
3.26 
2.95 
2.64 
2.34 

2.03 
1.72 
1.41 
1.10 
0.79 
0.48 

9.50  11.40 
9.11  10.94 
8.73  10.47 
8.34  10.01 
9.54 
7.95 
9.08 
7.56 

7.18 
6.79 

6.40 
6.02 
5.63 
5.24 

4.85 
4.47 
4.08 
3.69 
3.31 
2.92 

2.53 
2.14 
1.76 
1.37 
0.98 
0.60 

8.61 
8.15 

7.68 
7.22 
6.75 
6.29 

5.83 
5.36 
4.90 
4.43 
3.97 
3.50 

3.04 
2.57 
2.11 
1.64 
1.18 
0.72 

-0.64 
-0.64 
-0.64 
-0.64 
-0.64 
-0.64 

-0.64 
-0.64 
-0.64 
-0.64 
-0.64 
-0.64 

-0.64 
-0.64 

-0.64 
-0.64 
-0.64 
-0.64 

-0.64 
-0.64 
-0.64 
-0.64 
-0.64 
-0.64 

-0.64 
-0.64 
-0.64 
-0.64 
-0.64 
-0.64 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

]

%

[



90 % 
89 % 
88 % 
87 % 

86 % 

85 % 

84 % 
83 % 
82 % 
81 % 
80 % 
79 % 

78 % 
77 % 
76 % 
75 % 
74 % 
73 % 

72 % 
71 % 

70 % 

4.09 
3.93 
3.78 
3.62 
3.47 
3.31 

3.16 
3.00 
2.85 
2.69 
2.54 
2.38 

2.23 
2.07 

1.92 
1.76 
1.61 
1.45 

1.30 
1.14 
0.99 
0.83 
0.68 
0.52 

6.45 
6.22 
5.99 
5.75 
5.52 
5.29 

5.06 
4.82 
4.59 
4.36 
4.13 
3.89 

3.66 
3.43 

3.20 
2.97 
2.73 
2.50 

2.27 
2.04 
1.80 
1.57 
1.34 
1.11 

8.81  11.18  13.54 
8.50  10.79  13.08 
8.20  10.40  12.61 
7.89  10.02  12.15 
9.63  11.69 
7.58 
9.24  11.22 
7.27 

8.86  10.76 
8.47  10.29 
9.83 
8.08 
9.36 
7.69 
8.90 
7.31 
8.43 
6.92 

6.96 
6.65 
6.34 
6.03 
5.72 
5.41 

5.10 
4.79 

4.48 
4.17 
3.86 
3.55 

3.24 
2.93 
2.62 
2.31 
2.00 
1.69 

6.53 
6.15 

5.76 
5.37 
4.99 
4.60 

4.21 
3.82 
3.44 
3.05 
2.66 
2.28 

7.97 
7.50 

7.04 
6.58 
6.11 
5.65 

5.18 
4.72 
4.25 
3.79 
3.32 
2.86 

2.39 
1.93 
1.47 
1.00 
0.54 
0.07 

0.37 
0.21 
0.06 
-0.10 
-0.25 
-0.41 

0.88 
0.64 
0.41 
0.18 
-0.05 
-0.29 

1.38 
1.07 
0.76 
0.45 
0.14 
-0.17 

1.89 
1.50 
1.11 
0.73 
0.34 
-0.05 

0.00 

0.08 

0.13 

0.17 

0.21 

0.25 

-0.64 

-0.56 

-0.52 

-0.48 

-0.43 

-0.39 

140 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dn [Terrestrial eutrophication] – 
LRS scenario 

‘X’ [hours] 

  Dn [Terrestrial eutrophication] — HRS 

scenario 
‘X’ [hours] 

0 h  100 h  150 h  200 h  250 h  300 h 

0 h 

100 h  150 h  200 h  250 h  300 h 

100 %  0.00 
99 % 
0.00 
98 % 
0.00 
0.00 

97 % 
96 % 
95 % 
94 % 
93 % 
92 % 

4.69 
4.54 
4.38 
4.23 

4.07 
3.92 
3.76 
3.61 
3.45 
3.30 

3.14 
2.99 
2.83 
2.68 

2.52 
2.37 

2.21 
2.06 
1.90 
1.75 
1.59 
1.43 

1.28 
1.12 
0.97 
0.81 
0.66 
0.50 

0.35 
0.19 

7.04 
6.81 
6.58 
6.34 

6.11 
5.88 
5.64 
5.41 
5.18 
4.95 

4.71 
4.48 
4.25 
4.01 

3.78 
3.55 

3.32 
3.08 
2.85 
2.62 
2.39 
2.15 

1.92 
1.69 
1.45 
1.22 
0.99 
0.76 

0.52 
0.29 

9.39  11.73  14.08 
9.08  11.35  13.62 
8.77  10.96  13.15 
8.46  10.57  12.68 

8.15  10.18  12.22 
9.79  11.75 
7.84 
9.41  11.29 
7.53 
9.02  10.82 
7.22 
8.63  10.36 
6.90 
9.89 
8.24 
6.59 

6.28 
5.97 
5.66 
5.35 

5.04 
4.73 

4.42 
4.11 
3.80 
3.49 
3.18 
2.87 

2.56 
2.25 
1.94 
1.63 
1.32 
1.01 

0.70 
0.39 

7.85 
7.47 
7.08 
6.69 

6.30 
5.92 

5.53 
5.14 
4.75 
4.36 
3.98 
3.59 

3.20 
2.81 
2.42 
2.04 
1.65 
1.26 

0.87 
0.48 

9.43 
8.96 
8.49 
8.03 

7.56 
7.10 

6.63 
6.17 
5.70 
5.24 
4.77 
4.30 

3.84 
3.37 
2.91 
2.44 
1.98 
1.51 

1.05 
0.58 

-0.64 
-0.64 
-0.64 

-0.64 
-0.64 
-0.64 
-0.64 
-0.64 
-0.64 

-0.64 
-0.64 
-0.64 
-0.64 
-0.64 

-0.64 

-0.64 
-0.64 
-0.64 
-0.64 
-0.64 
-0.64 

-0.64 
-0.64 
-0.64 
-0.64 
-0.64 
-0.64 

-0.64 
-0.64 
-0.64 

4.06 
3.90 
3.75 

3.59 
3.43 
3.28 
3.12 
2.97 
2.81 

2.66 
2.50 
2.35 
2.19 
2.04 

1.88 

1.73 
1.57 
1.42 
1.26 
1.11 
0.95 

0.80 
0.64 
0.49 
0.33 
0.18 
0.02 

6.40 
6.17 
5.94 

5.70 
5.47 
5.24 
5.01 
4.77 
4.54 

4.31 
4.07 
3.84 
3.61 
3.38 

3.14 

2.91 
2.68 
2.45 
2.21 
1.98 
1.75 

1.51 
1.28 
1.05 
0.82 
0.58 
0.35 

8.75  11.10  13.44 
8.44  10.71  12.98 
8.13  10.32  12.51 

7.82 
7.51 
7.20 
6.89 
6.58 
6.27 

5.96 
5.65 
5.34 
5.02 
4.71 

4.40 

4.09 
3.78 
3.47 
3.16 
2.85 
2.54 

2.23 
1.92 
1.61 
1.30 
0.99 
0.68 

9.93  12.05 
9.54  11.58 
9.16  11.12 
8.77  10.65 
8.38  10.18 
9.72 
7.99 

7.60 
7.22 
6.83 
6.44 
6.05 

5.66 

5.28 
4.89 
4.50 
4.11 
3.72 
3.34 

2.95 
2.56 
2.17 
1.78 
1.40 
1.01 

9.25 
8.79 
8.32 
7.86 
7.39 

6.93 

6.46 
5.99 
5.53 
5.06 
4.60 
4.13 

3.67 
3.20 
2.74 
2.27 
1.80 
1.34 

-0.13 
-0.29 
-0.45 

0.12 
-0.12 
-0.35 

0.37 
0.06 
-0.25 

0.62 
0.23 
-0.16 

0.87 
0.41 
-0.06 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 

]

%

[



91 % 
90 % 
89 % 
88 % 
87 % 

86 % 

85 % 
84 % 
83 % 
82 % 
81 % 
80 % 

79 % 
78 % 
77 % 
76 % 
75 % 
74 % 

73 % 
72 % 
71 % 

70 % 

0.00 

0.04 

0.06 

0.08 

0.10 

0.11 

-0.64 

-0.60 

-0.58 

-0.56 

-0.54 

-0.52 

141 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dn [Total freshwater consumption] – 
LRS scenario 

‘X’ [hours] 

  Dn [Total freshwater consumption] — 

HRS scenario 
‘X’ [hours] 

0 h  100 h  150 h  200 h  250 h  300 h 

0 h  100 h  150 h  200 h  250 h  300 h 

100 %  0.00 
99 % 
0.00 
98 % 
0.00 
0.00 

97 % 
96 % 
95 % 
94 % 
93 % 
92 % 

3.79 
3.63 
3.46 
3.30 

3.14 
2.97 
2.81 
2.64 
2.48 
2.32 

2.15 
1.99 
1.83 
1.66 

1.50 
1.33 

1.17 
1.01 
0.84 
0.68 
0.52 
0.35 

5.69 
5.44 
5.20 
4.95 

4.70 
4.46 
4.21 
3.97 
3.72 
3.48 

3.23 
2.98 
2.74 
2.49 

2.25 
2.00 

1.76 
1.51 
1.26 
1.02 
0.77 
0.53 

7.58 
7.25 
6.93 
6.60 

6.27 
5.94 
5.62 
5.29 
4.96 
4.63 

4.31 
3.98 
3.65 
3.32 

3.00 
2.67 

2.34 
2.01 
1.69 
1.36 
1.03 
0.70 

9.48  11.37 
9.07  10.88 
8.66  10.39 
9.90 
8.25 

7.84 
7.43 
7.02 
6.61 
6.20 
5.79 

5.38 
4.97 
4.56 
4.16 

3.75 
3.34 

2.93 
2.52 
2.11 
1.70 
1.29 
0.88 

9.41 
8.92 
8.43 
7.93 
7.44 
6.95 

6.46 
5.97 
5.48 
4.99 

4.49 
4.00 

3.51 
3.02 
2.53 
2.04 
1.55 
1.06 

0.19 
0.02 
-0.14 
-0.30 
-0.47 
-0.63 

-0.79 
-0.96 

0.28 
0.04 
-0.21 
-0.46 
-0.70 
-0.95 

-1.19 
-1.44 

0.38 
0.05 
-0.28 
-0.61 
-0.93 
-1.26 

-1.59 
-1.92 

0.47 
0.06 
-0.35 
-0.76 
-1.17 
-1.58 

-1.99 
-2.40 

0.56 
0.07 
-0.42 
-0.91 
-1.40 
-1.89 

-2.38 
-2.88 

-0.17 
-0.17 
-0.17 

-0.17 
-0.17 
-0.17 
-0.17 
-0.17 
-0.17 

-0.17 
-0.17 
-0.17 
-0.17 
-0.17 

-0.17 

-0.17 
-0.17 
-0.17 
-0.17 
-0.17 
-0.17 

-0.17 
-0.17 
-0.17 
-0.17 
-0.17 
-0.17 

-0.17 
-0.17 
-0.17 

3.62 
3.46 
3.29 

3.13 
2.97 
2.80 
2.64 
2.47 
2.31 

2.15 
1.98 
1.82 
1.66 
1.49 

1.33 

1.16 
1.00 
0.84 
0.67 
0.51 
0.35 

5.52 
5.27 
5.03 

4.78 
4.53 
4.29 
4.04 
3.80 
3.55 

3.31 
3.06 
2.81 
2.57 
2.32 

2.08 

1.83 
1.59 
1.34 
1.09 
0.85 
0.60 

7.41 
7.08 
6.76 

6.43 
6.10 
5.77 
5.45 
5.12 
4.79 

4.46 
4.14 
3.81 
3.48 
3.15 

2.83 

2.50 
2.17 
1.84 
1.52 
1.19 
0.86 

9.31  11.20 
8.90  10.71 
8.49  10.22 

8.08 
7.67 
7.26 
6.85 
6.44 
6.03 

5.62 
5.21 
4.80 
4.39 
3.99 

3.58 

3.17 
2.76 
2.35 
1.94 
1.53 
1.12 

9.73 
9.24 
8.75 
8.26 
7.76 
7.27 

6.78 
6.29 
5.80 
5.31 
4.82 

4.32 

3.83 
3.34 
2.85 
2.36 
1.87 
1.38 

0.18 
0.02 
-0.15 
-0.31 
-0.47 
-0.64 

-0.80 
-0.96 
-1.13 

0.36 
0.11 
-0.13 
-0.38 
-0.63 
-0.87 

-1.12 
-1.36 
-1.61 

0.53 
0.21 
-0.12 
-0.45 
-0.78 
-1.10 

-1.43 
-1.76 
-2.09 

0.71 
0.30 
-0.11 
-0.52 
-0.93 
-1.34 

-1.75 
-2.16 
-2.57 

0.89 
0.39 
-0.10 
-0.59 
-1.08 
-1.57 

-2.06 
-2.55 
-3.05 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 

]

%

[



91 % 
90 % 
89 % 
88 % 
87 % 

86 % 

85 % 
84 % 
83 % 
82 % 
81 % 
80 % 

79 % 
78 % 
77 % 
76 % 
75 % 
74 % 

73 % 
72 % 
71 % 

70 % 

0.00 

-1.12 

-1.68 

-2.24 

-2.81 

-3.37 

-0.17 

-1.29 

-1.85 

-2.41 

-2.98 

-3.54 

142 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
10.  References 

ABB group, Critical switchgear requires critical spares & expert service personnel. Available at: 

https://library.e.abb.com/public/14b854d26fdb581885257bd7006134b9/Critical switchgear requires 
critical spares and expert service_2GNM110137.pdf [Accessed February 3, 2015]. 

Abele, E., Anderl, R. & Birkhofer, H., 2005. Environmentally-Friendly Product Development Methods and Tools 

Springer, ed., 

AEA Energy & Environment, 2009. Work on Preparatory Studies for Eco-Design Requirements of EuPs (II) Lot 17 

Vacuum Cleaners, Oxfordshire. Available at: www.aea-energy-and-environment.co.uk. 

Allenby, B.R., 2006. Improvement Plan of Recycling rate of the Electronic & Electrical Equipment with 

Considering of Economics; Case study of Vacuum Cleaner. In Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE 
International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, 2006. Ieee, pp. 336–339. Available at: 
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=1650087. 

Ardente, F. & Mathieux, F., 2014. Environmental assessment of the durability of energy-using products: 

method and application. Journal of Cleaner Production, 74, pp.62–73. Available at: 
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959652614002807 [Accessed January 11, 2015]. 

Ardente, F. & Mathieux, F., 2012. Integration of resource efficiency and waste management criteria in European product 

policies — Second phase — report 3: Refined methods and Guidance documents for the calculation of indices 
concerning Reusability / Recyclability / Recoverability, Recycle, JRC — Joint Reasearch Centre, Ispra, Italy. 

Ardente, F., Mathieux, F. & Forner, J.S., 2012. Integration of resource efficiency and waste management criteria in 
European product policies — Second phase — Report 1: Analysis of Durability, JRC — Joint Reasearch 
Centre, Ispra, Italy. 

Baitz, M. et al., 2004. Final Report — Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of PVC and of principal competing materials, 

Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/chemicals/files/sustdev/pvc-
final_report_lca_en.pdf. 

Barba-Gutiérrez, Y., Adenso-Díaz, B. & Lozano, S., 2008. Eco-Efficiency of Electric and Electronic 

Appliances: A Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). Environmental Modeling & Assessment, 14(4), 
pp.439–447. Available at: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10666-007-9134-2 [Accessed January 
29, 2015]. 

BigGreen Commercial, BG78 User’s guide. Available at: 
https://ralik.ca/fiches/Bissell/FT/BIAS78V9.pdf. 

BIO Intelligence Service, 2013a. Material-efficiency Ecodesign Report and Module to the Methodology for the Ecodesign 
of Energy-related Products (MEErP), Part 1: material Efficiency for Ecodesign — Draft Final Report. Prepared for: 
European Commission — DG Enterprise and Industry, 

BIO Intelligence Service, 2013b. Material-efficiency Ecodesign Report and Module to the Methodology for the 

Ecodesign of Energy-related Products (MEErP), Part 1: Material Efficiency for Ecodesign — Draft Final Report. 
Prepared for:European Commission — DG Enterprise and Industry, 

BIO Intelligence Service, 2013c. Material-efficiency Ecodesign Report and Module to the Methodology for the Ecodesign 
of Energy-related Products (MEErP), Part 2 — Enhancing MEErP for Ecodesign. Prepared for: European 
Commission — DG Enterprise and Industry, 

143 

 
 
 
BIO Intelligence Service, 2013d. Material-efficiency efficiency Ecodesign Report and Module to the Methodology for the 

Ecodesign of Energy-related Energy related Products (MEErP), Stakeholder Consultation, 

Boulos, S., Sousanoglou, A. & Evans, L., 2014. The Durability of Products: Task 1 Report. Standard assessment for 

the circular economy under the Eco-Innovation Action Plan, Didcot — UK. 

Boustani, A. et al., 2010. Appliance Remanufacturing and Life Cycle Energy and Economic Savings. In 
Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Sustainable Systems & Technology, IEEE. 
Arlington. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/71146. 

Brook Crompton, 2009. Spare parts, installation and maintenance of ac motors. 

Bundgaard, A.M., Remmen, A. & Zacho, K.O., 2014. Ecodesign Directive — From Energy Efficiency to Resource 

Efficiency, Miljøstyrelsen — German Environmental Protection Angency, Copenhagen. 

CENELEC, 2012. En 60335-1:2012 — Household and similar electrical appliances — Safety, European 

Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization, Brussels. 

Chiu, M.-C. & Chu, C.-H., 2012. Review of sustainable product design from life-cycle perspectives. 

International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing, pp.1259–1272. Available at: 
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12541-012-0169-1 [Accessed November 27, 2014]. 

Cooper, T., 2012. Product longevity. In Network Conference on Product Life Extension: Knowledge Transfer between 

Clothing and Consumer Electronics — Oslo 27th-28th March 2012. Oslo. 

Cooper, T., 2005. Slower Consumption. Reflections on Product Life Spans and the ‘Throwaway Society.’ 

Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9. 

Davis, L.W., 2008. Durable Goods and Residential Demand for Energy and Water: Evidence from a Field 

Trial. The RAND Journal of Economics, 39(2), pp.530–546. 

De Almeida, A., Falkner, H. & Fong, J., 2013. EuP Lot 30: Electric Motors and Drives — Task 4: Technical 

analysis existing products, 

De Almeida, A.T., 2007. Electric Motors — Preliminary Technical Analysis. In Energy Usig Product (EuP) 

Directive Preparatory study. AP6 Workshop. Beijing. 

De Almeida, A.T. et al., 2008. EUP Lot 11 Motors Final Report, Coimbra. 

DEFRA, 2011. Public understanding of product lifetimes and durability, UK Department for Environment, Food 

and Rural Affairs by Brook Lyndhurst, London. 

DEFRA, 2007. Trial to establish waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) protocols, UK Dartment for 

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by Brook Lyndhurst, London. 

EC, 2014a. Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Commission Delegated Regulation 

(EU) No 665/2013 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with 
regard to energy labelling of vacuum cleaners and of, 2014/C 272/06. 

EC, 2013. Commission staff working document impact assessment Accompanying the documents: Commission Regulation 

implementing Directive 2009/125/EC and Directive 2010/30/EU, SWD(2013)240. 

144 

 
 
 
EC, 2014b. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, the Council, the 

Euroopean economic and social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Energy prices and costs in Europe, 
SWD(2014) 20 final. 

EC, 2008. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Establishment of the 

working plan for 2009-2011 under the Ecodesign Directive, COM(2008) 660 final. 

EC, 2005. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and 

So cial Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM(2005)670 final. 

EC, 2011a. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A resource-efficient Europe — Flagship initiative under the 
Europe 2020, COM(2011) 21. 

EC, 2011b. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 

Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe, COM(2011) 571. 

EC, 2001. Green Paper on Integrated Product Policy, COM(2001) 68 final. 

Ecoinvent Centre (2011): Ecoinvent LCI Database, Version 2.2, http://www.ecoinvent.org/database/. 

Ernzer, M. & Birkhofer, H., 2003. How to carry out life cycle design? Methodical support for product 
developers. TRIZ Journal. Available at: http://www.triz-journal.com/application-axiomatic-design-
triz-ecodesign/. 

EU, 2009a. Commisison Regulation (EU) No 244/2009 of 18 March 2009 implementing Directive 2005/32/EC of 

the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign requirements for non-directional household lamps, 

EU, 2013a. Commisison Regulation (EU) No 666/2013 of 8 July 2013 implementing Directive 2009/125/EC of the 

European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign requirements for vacuum cleaners, 

EU, 2013b. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 of 3 May 2013 supplementing Directive 

2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of vacuum cleaners, 

EU, 1992. Council Directive 92/75/EEC of 22 September 1992 on the indication by labelling and standard product 

information of the consumption of energy and other resources by household appliances, 

EU, 2009b. Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a 

framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products, 

EU, 2010. Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 19 May 2010 on the indication by 
labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products, 

EU, 2012. Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on waste electrical and 

electronic equipment (WEEE), 

EU, 2000. Regulation (EC) No 1980/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 on a 

revised Community eco-label award scheme, 

EU, 2008. Regulation No 106/2008 of the European parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 on a 

Community energy-efficiency labelling programme for office equipment, 

145 

 
 
 
European Alliance for SMC/BMC, 2011. Sustainability aspects of SMC / BMC based products. Available 

at: http://www.smc-alliance.com/files/7713/1037/8065/Positioning_paper.pdf. 

European Commission — Joint Research Centre — Institute for Environment and Sustainability, 2010. 
ILCD Handbook: Analysis of existing Environmental Impact Assessment methodologies for use in 
Life Cycle Assessment. 

FEFCO, 2011. European Database for Corrugated Board Life Cycle Studies, Available at: 

http://www.fefco.org/content/european-database-corrugated-board-life-cycle-studies. 

Gandy, S., Dolley, P. & Parry, G., 2012. Developing an evidence base on flushing toilets and urinals — Final Report, 

JRC, IPTS, AEA. 

Horie, Y.A., 2004. Life Cycle Optimization of Household Refrigerator-Freezer Replacement. Master of Science 

(Natural Resources and Environment) — University of Michigan. 

Huisman, J. et al., 2012. The dutch WEEE flows — 2011 dutch E-waste quantification, United Nations 

University, ISP — SCYCLE — Bonn, Germany. 

Hur, T. et al., 2005. Simplified LCA and matrix methods in identifying the environmental aspects of a 

product system. Journal of environmental management, 75(3), pp.229–37. Available at: 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15829365 [Accessed February 11, 2015]. 

Huysman, S. et al., Recyclability benefit rate indicator upgraded for open-loop recycling and applied for 

estimation of resource benefit of plastic waste management in Flanders. 

IEC, 2011. IEC 60312 — Vacuum clenaers for household use — part 1: Dry vacuum cleaners — Methods for 

measuring the performance, International Ectrotechnical Commission, Geneva. 

IEC, 2012. IEC/TR 62635 — Guidelines for end-of-life information provided by manufacturers and recyclers and for 
recyclability of electrical and electronic equipment, International Ectrotechnical Commission, Geneva. 

Iraldo, F. & Facheris, C., 2015. DRAFT Report. The Durability of Products — Standard assessment for the circular 
economy under the Eco-Innovation Action Plan. Task 4 — Cost Benefit Analysis of Using More Durable Products, 
Didcot — UK. 

Johansson, J.G. & Björklund, A.E., 2010. Reducing Life Cycle Environmental Impacts of Waste Electrical 
and Electronic Equipment Recycling. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 14(2), pp.258–269. Available at: 
http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2009.00191.x [Accessed January 20, 2015]. 

Johnston, K., 2013. The Life Expectancy Of Appliances. Available at: 

http://activerain.trulia.com/blogsview/4181872/the-life-expectancy-of-appliances [Accessed 
February 3, 2015]. 

Kemna, R., 2011a. MEErP 2011 — Methodology Report. Part 1: Methods, Van Holsteijn en Kemna B.V. 

(VHK) — Brussels/Delft. 

Kemna, R., 2011b. MEErP 2011 — Methodology Report. Part 2: Environmental policies & data, Van Holsteijn en 

Kemna B.V. (VHK) — Brussels/Delft. 

Kemna, R. et al., 2005. Methodology Study Eco-design of Energy-using Products — MEEUP Product Cases Report, 

Van Holsteijn en Kemna B.V. (VHK) — Brussels/Delft. 

146 

 
 
 
Kenma, R. et al., 2005. MEEUP Methodology Report, Van Holsteijn en Kemna B.V. (VHK) — 

Brussels/Delft. 

Kobayashi, Y. et al., 2005. A Practical Method for Quantifying Eco-efficiency Using Eco-design Support 

Tools. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9(4), pp.131–144. Available at: 
http://doi.wiley.com/10.1162/108819805775247990. 

Kostecki, M., (Editor), 1998. The Durable Use of Consumer Products: New Options For Business And 

Consumption. Kluwer Academic Publishers. 

Kota, S. & Chakrabarti, A., 2007. Use of DFE methodologies and tools — major barriers and challenges. 

In International conference on engineering design, ICED’07 — 28-31/08/2007. Paris. 

Lee, P., Top Five Best Vacuum Cleaners for 2014. Available at: 

http://executivecatering.hubpages.com/hub/Top-Five-Vacuum-Cleaners [Accessed February 3, 
2015]. 

Maurer, S., 2010. Consumer interests in possible ecodesign and energy labelling requirements for vacuum cleaners, ANE 

— the European Association for the Co-ordination of Consumer Representation in Standardisation, 
BEUC — the European Consumers’ Organisation, Brussels. 

Monier, V. et al., 2013. Study on the quantification of waste of electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) in France, 

BIO Intelligence Service S.A.S. 

Mora, E.P., 2007. Life cycle, sustainability and the transcendent quality of building materials. Building 

and Environment, 42, 1329–1334. 

Murakami, S. et al., 2010. Lifespan of Commodities, Part I. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 14(4), pp.598–612. 
Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2010.00250.x [Accessed March 27, 2015]. 

Van Nes, N. & Cramer, J., 2006. Product lifetime optimization: a challenging strategy towards more 

sustainable consumption patterns. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(15-16), pp.1307–1318. Available at: 
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959652605000995 [Accessed February 12, 2015]. 

Oguchi, M. et al., 2010. Lifespan of Commodities, Part II. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 14(4), pp.613–626. 
Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2010.00251.x [Accessed March 27, 2015]. 

Olivetti, E.A., Duan, H. & Kirchain, R.E., 2012. Exploration into the environmental assessment of 

electrical products. Available at: http://www.nema.org/Policy/Environmental-
Stewardship/Documents/Exploration of Carbon Footprint of Electrical Products-June 2013.pdf. 

Österreichisches Normungsinstitut, 2006. ONR 192102 — Sustainability label for electric and electronic appliances 

designed for easy repair (white and brown goods), Austrian Standards Institute — Vienna. 

Thinkstep, 2015. GaBi 6, LCA Software, Germany. Available at: www.gabi-software.com 

Rose, C.M., 2000. Design for environment: a method for formulating product end-of-life strategies. Department of 

mechanical engineering of the Stanford University. 

Sam, D., Steven, D.M. & Jo, D., 2014. Resource efficiency indicators en case studies, Leuven. 

147 

 
 
 
Wong, Y.L., 2009. An integrated environmental product assessment model on ecodesign for electrical products and electronic 

appliances. Department of Industrial and System Engineering of the Hong Kong Polytechnic 
University. 

WRAP, 2013a. Buying Specifications for Durability and Repair, WRAP — Waste & Resources Action 

Pogramme. 

WRAP, 2010. Environmental assessment of consumer electronic products, WRAP — Waste & Resources Action 

Pogramme. 

WRAP, 2013b. Product design review of a Vacuum Cleaner, WRAP — Waste & Resources Action Pogramme. 

WRAP, 2011. Specifying durability and repair in vacuum cleaners, WRAP — Waste & Resources Action 

Pogramme. 

148 

 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union 
Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 
(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed. 

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. 
It can be accessed through the Europa server  http://europa.eu. 

How to obtain EU publications 

Our publications are available from EU bookshop (http://publications.europa.eu/howto/index_en.htm), 
where you can place an order with the sales agent of your choice. 

The Publications Office has a worldwide network of sales agents. 
You can obtain their contact details by sending a fax to (352) 29 29-42758. 

European Commission 
EUR 27512 EN – Joint Research Centre – Institute for Environment and Sustainability 

Title: Technical support for Environmental Footprinting, material efficiency in product policy and the 
European Platform on LCA – Durability assessment of vacuum cleaners. 

Authors: Silvia Bobba, Fulvio Ardente, Fabrice Mathieux 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union 
2015 – 149 pp. – 21.0 x 29.7 cm 

EUR – Scientific and Technical Research series – ISSN 1831-9424 (online) 

ISBN 978-92-79-52710-4 

doi:10.2788/563222 

149 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
L
B
-
N
A
-
2
7
5
1
2
-
E
N
N

-

JRC Mission 

As the Commission’s  
in-house science service,  
the Joint Research Centre’s  
mission is to provide EU  
policies with independent,  
evidence-based scientific  
and technical support  
throughout the whole  
policy cycle. 

Working in close  
cooperation with policy  
Directorates-General,  
the JRC addresses key  
societal challenges while  
stimulating innovation  
through developing  
new methods, tools  
and standards, and sharing  
its know-how with  
the Member States,  
the scientific community  
and international partners. 

Serving society  
Stimulating innovation  
Supporting legislation 

doi:10.2788/563222 

ISBN 978-92-79-52710-4 
150