A hybrid life cycle assessment of water treatment chemicals: an Australian experience

  • Juan Pablo Alvarez-GaitanEmail author
  • Gregory M. Peters
  • Hazel V. Rowley
  • Stephen Moore
  • Michael D. Short



Life cycle assessment (LCA) of chemicals is usually developed using a process-based approach. In this paper, we develop a tiered hybrid LCA of water treatment chemicals combining the specificity of process data with the holistic nature of input–output analysis (IOA). We compare these results with process and input–output models for the most commonly used chemicals in the Australian water industry to identify the direct and indirect environmental impacts associated with the manufacturing of these materials.


We have improved a previous Australian hybrid LCA model by updating the environmental indicators and expanding the number of included industry sectors of the economy. We also present an alternative way to estimate the expenditure vectors to the service sectors of the economy when financial data are not available. Process-based, input–output and hybrid results were calculated for caustic soda, sodium hypochlorite, ferric chloride, aluminium sulphate, fluorosilicic acid, calcium oxide and chlorine gas. The functional unit is the same for each chemical: the production of 1 tonne in the year 2008.

Results and discussion

We have provided results for seven impact categories: global warming potential; primary energy; water use; marine, freshwater and terrestrial ecotoxicity potentials and human toxicity potential. Results are compared with previous IOA and hybrid studies. A sensitivity analysis of the results to assumed wholesale prices is included. We also present insights regarding how hybrid modelling helps to overcome the limitations of using IO- or process-based modelling individually.

Conclusions and recommendations

The advantages of using hybrid modelling have been demonstrated for water treatment chemicals by expanding the boundaries of process-based modelling and also by reducing the sensitivity of IOA to fluctuations in prices of raw materials used for the production of these industrial commodities. The development of robust hybrid life cycle inventory databases is paramount if hybrid modelling is to become a standard practice in attributional LCA.


EIO-LCA Hybrid LCA Price sensitivity Process LCA Water treatment chemicals 



This research was undertaken as part of an Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage Project (LP0991017) which provided the primary author with an Australian Postgraduate Award Industry PhD scholarship.

Supplementary material

11367_2013_574_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (1.7 mb)
ESM A (XLSX 1742 kb)
11367_2013_574_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (1.1 mb)
ESM B (XLSX 1112 kb)
11367_2013_574_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx (408 kb)
ESM C (XLSX 408 kb)


  1. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2011a) 4604.0—energy account, Australia, 2009–10. Accessed 7 Aug 2012
  2. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2011b) 5209.0.55.001—Australian national accounts: input–output tables—electronic publication, 2007–08. Accessed 7 Aug 2012
  3. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2011c) Producer price indexes. Accessed 10 Aug 2012
  4. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2012) 4610.0—water account, Australia, 2008–09. Accessed 7 Mar 2012
  5. Australian Greenhouse Emissions Information System (AGEIS) (2012) National inventory by economic sector. Accessed 20 Aug 2012
  6. Alvarez-Gaitan JP, Schulz M, Peters G (2011) Sustainability of water and wastewater treatment chemicals: development of Australian life cycle inventory data. Proceedings of the 7th Australian life cycle assessment conference—revealing the secrets of a green market, Melbourne, 9–10 March 2011Google Scholar
  7. Barrios R, Siebel M, van der Helm A, Bosklopper K, Gijzen H (2008) Environmental and financial life cycle impact assessment of drinking water production at Waternet. J Cleaner Prod 16(4):471–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carnegie Mellon University Green Design Institute (2012) Economic Input–Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA), US 2002 Industry Benchmark model [Internet]. Accessed 30 Jul 2012
  9. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPC) (2011) NPI facility data 2007/2008. Accessed 20 Sep 2011
  10. European Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Bureau (EIPPCB) (2011) Reference document on best available techniques in the chlor-alkali manufacturing industry. Accessed 16 Mar 2012
  11. Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Hellweg S, Koehler A, Pennington D, Suh S (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manage 91(1):1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Foran et al (2005) Balancing act: a triple bottom line analysis of the Australian economy. CSIRO. Accessed 23 Mar 2012
  13. Friedrich E (2002) Life-cycle assessment as an environmental management tool in the production of potable water. Water Sci Technol 46(9):29–36Google Scholar
  14. Hischier R, Hellweg S, Capello C, Primas A (2005) Establishing life cycle inventories of chemicals based on differing data availability. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(1):59–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (1995) Second assessment report. Accessed 13 Sep 2012
  16. Kounina A, Margni M, Bayart J-B, Boulay A-M, Berger M, Bulle C, Frischknecht R, Koehler A, Milà i Canals L, Motoshita M, Núñez M, Peters G, Pfister S, Ridoutt B, Zelm R, Verones F, Humbert S (2013) Review of methods addressing freshwater use in life cycle inventory and impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(3):707–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lenzen M, Crawford R (2009) The path exchange method for hybrid LCA. Environ Sci Technol 43(21):8251–8256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lenzen M, Murray J (2009) Pain-free scope 3, input into Greenhouse Gas Protocol Technical Working Group discussion on sectoral value chain mapping of emissions by purchasing categories. Centre for Integrated Sustainability Analysis, The University of Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  19. Leontief W (1970) Environmental repercussions and the economic structure: an input–output approach. Rev Econ Stat 52(3):262–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lundie S, Bligh M, Feitz A, Huijbregts M, Peters G, Helyar K, Dimova C (2001) Australian life cycle impact assessment final report. CRC Project 04–6003, Centre for Water and Waste Technology, University of New South WalesGoogle Scholar
  21. Lundie S, Peters GM, Beavis PC (2004) Life cycle assessment for sustainable metropolitan water systems planning. Environ Sci Technol 38(13):3465–3473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Majeau-Bettez G, Strømman AH, Hertwich EG (2011) Evaluation of process- and input–output-based life cycle inventory data with regard to truncation and aggregation issues. Environ Sci Technol 45(23):10170–10177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mohapatra PK, Siebel MA, Gijzen HJ, Van der Hoek JP, Groot CA (2002) Improving eco-efficiency of Amsterdam water supply: a LCA approach. J Water SRT - Aqua 51 (Compendex):217–227Google Scholar
  24. National Water Commission (NWC) (2009) Water and the electricity generation industry: implications of use. Accessed 17 Aug 2012
  25. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2011) 40 years of chemical safety at the OECD: quality and efficiency. Accessed 1 Sep 2012
  26. Plastics and Chemicals Industries Association (PACIA) (2011) Annual report. Accessed 13 Mar 2012
  27. PE International (2012) GaBi 5 softwareGoogle Scholar
  28. Racoviceanu AI, Karney BW, Kennedy CA, Colombo AF (2007) Life-cycle energy use and greenhouse gas emissions inventory for water treatment systems. J Infrastruct Syst 13(4):261–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Raluy RG, Serra L, Uche J (2005) Life cycle assessment of water production technologies—part 1: life cycle assessment of different commercial desalination technologies (MSF, MED, RO). Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(4):285–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rowley H, Lundie S, Peters G (2009) A hybrid life cycle assessment model for comparison with conventional methodologies in Australia. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(6):508–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stokes J, Horvath A (2010) Life-cycle assessment of urban water provision: tool and case study in California. J Infrastruct Syst 17(1):15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Suh S (2003) Input–output and hybrid life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(5):257–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Suh S, Huppes G (2005) Methods for life cycle inventory of a product. J Cleaner Prod 13(7):687–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Suh S, Lippiatt BC (2012) Framework for hybrid life cycle inventory databases: a case study on the building for environmental and economic sustainability (BEES) database. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(5):604–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. United States Geological Survey (USGS) (2011) Historical statistics for mineral and material commodities in the United States. Accessed 20 Aug 2012
  36. Vince F, Aoustin E, Bréant P, Marechal F (2008) LCA tool for the environmental evaluation of potable water production. Desalination 220(1–3):37–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Weidema B (2011) Steps toward a global hybrid database. International Society for Industrial Ecology (ISIE) meeting, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  38. Water Research Foundation (WRF) (2009) Supply of critical drinking water and wastewater treatment chemicals—a white paper for understanding recent chemical price increases and shortages. Accessed 23 Apr 2012

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juan Pablo Alvarez-Gaitan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gregory M. Peters
    • 1
    • 2
  • Hazel V. Rowley
    • 1
  • Stephen Moore
    • 3
  • Michael D. Short
    • 1
  1. 1.UNSW Water Research Centre, School of Civil and Environmental EngineeringThe University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Chemical and Biochemical EngineeringChalmers University of TechnologyGothenburgSweden
  3. 3.School of Civil and Environmental EngineeringThe University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations