## 4 Results
### Single Score Results  
In this study, we have converted the normalized results of the different impact categories by using numerical factors based on the relative importance of the considered impact categories.  
The environmental footprint assessment of the cosmetic cream, summarized as single score results, offers a holistic view of the product's environmental impact across various categories. The single score results, expressed in points (Pt), provide insight into the relative significance of each impact category, allowing for a comprehensive analysis.  
The highest impact category was resource use, minerals and metals, with a score of 0.140 Pt. This indicates a substantial environmental burden, due to the extraction and utilization of non-renewable mineral resources in production. It suggests a need for alternative materials, or more efficient use of existing resources to reduce this impact.  
Eutrophication, freshwater, was the next significant category, scoring 0.084 Pt. This reflects the nutrient pollution entering freshwater systems, causing ecosystem disruption. Mitigating strategies could include optimizing formulations to reduce nutrient-rich effluents and improving wastewater treatment processes.  
For resource use, fossils followed closely with a score of 0.080 Pt, underscoring the reliance on fossil fuels, contributing to resource depletion and associated emissions. Transitioning to renewable energy sources, or enhancing energy efficiency in manufacturing processes, can address this impact.  
Climate change had a notable score of 0.072 Pt, highlighting the contribution of greenhouse gas emissions to global warming. This emphasizes the need for carbon-footprint-reduction strategies, such as using low-carbon materials, and improving energy efficiency throughout the product's lifecycle.  
Acidification and ecotoxicity freshwater had scores of 0.033 Pt and 0.027 Pt, respectively. Acidification indicates emissions that lead to acidic conditions in ecosystems, affecting biodiversity. Reducing sulfur and nitrogen emissions can help mitigate this. Freshwater ecotoxicity points to releasing harmful substances into water bodies, requiring stringent control over toxic discharges.  
The lower impact categories included particulate matter (0.017 Pt), photochemical ozone formation, human health (0.013 Pt), and ionizing radiation, human health (0.011 Pt). While these impacts were less significant than the top categories, they still require attention to minimize human health risks and environmental damage.  
Human toxicity, non-cancer, also scored 0.011 Pt, reflecting potential health risks from exposure to harmful substances. Implementing safer chemical alternatives and better protective measures in production can alleviate this impact.  
Other categories, such as eutrophication, terrestrial (0.008 Pt), eutrophication marine (0.007 Pt), human toxicity, cancer (0.002 Pt), land use (0.001 Pt), water use (0.001 Pt), and ozone depletion (0.001 Pt), had relatively lower scores, indicating minor contributions to the overall environmental footprint. However, continuous improvement in these areas can enhance the product's sustainability profile further.  
The total environmental impact score for the cosmetic cream was 0.509 Pt. This aggregate score consolidates the individual impacts, providing a single metric for assessing the product's environmental performance. The results can guide hotspot analysis, identify key areas for improvement, optimize the product's environmental performance and support eco-design initiatives. When aligned with the Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCRs), the single score can be leveraged for marketing purposes and comparative assertions, demonstrating the product's environmental credentials to stakeholders and consumers.  
The single score results of the environmental footprint assessment of the cosmetic cream are presented in Figure 4 and Table 15.