Advertisement

Analysis of water use impact assessment methods (part B): applicability for water footprinting and decision making with a laundry case study

  • Anne-Marie Boulay
  • Jean-Baptiste Bayart
  • Cecile Bulle
  • Helen Franceschini
  • Masaharu Motoshita
  • Ivan Muñoz
  • Stephan Pfister
  • Manuele Margni
WATER USE IN LCA

Abstract

Purpose

The integration of different water impact assessment methods within a water footprinting concept is still ongoing, and a limited number of case studies have been published presenting a comprehensive study of all water-related impacts. Although industries are increasingly interested in assessing their water footprint beyond a simple inventory assessment, they often lack guidance regarding the applicability and interpretation of the different methods available. This paper aims to illustrate how different water-related methods can be applied within a water footprint study of a laundry detergent and discuss their applicability.

Methods

The concept of water footprinting, as defined by the recently published ISO Standard (ISO 2014), is illustrated through the case study of a load of laundry using water availability and water degradation impact categories. At the midpoint, it covers scarcity, availability, and pollution indicators such as eutrophication, acidification, human, and eco-toxicity. At the endpoint, impacts on human health and ecosystems are covered for water deprivation and degradation. Sensitivity analyses are performed on the most sensitive modeling choices identified in part A of this paper.

Results and discussion

The applicability of the different methodologies and their interpretation within a water footprint concept for decision making is presented. The discussion covers general applicability issues such as inventory flow definition, data availability, regionalization, and inclusion of wastewater treatment systems. Method-specific discussion covers the use of interim ecotoxicity factors, the interaction of scarcity and availability assessments and the limits of such methods, and the geographic coverage and availability of impact assessment methods. Lastly, possible double counting, databases, software, data quality, and integration of a water footprint within a life cycle assessment (LCA) are discussed.

Conclusions

This study has shown that water footprinting as proposed in the ISO standard can be applied to a laundry detergent product but with caveats. The science and the data availability are rapidly evolving, but the results obtained with present methods enable companies to map where in the life cycle and in the world impacts might occur.

Keywords

Water availability Water degradation Water footprint Water scarcity Water use impacts 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Anna Kounina for her contribution in the original work of the case study and Samuel Vionnet for his support on the case study. We acknowledge the financial support of the industrial partners in the International Chair in Life Cycle Assessment (a research unit of CIRAIG): Arcelor Mittal, Bombardier, le Mouvement Desjardins, Hydro-Québec, LVMH, Michelin, Nestlé, RECYC-QUÉBEC, RONA, SAQ, Solvay, Total, Umicore, and Veolia Environnement.

Supplementary material

11367_2015_868_MOESM1_ESM.docx (119 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 119 kb)

References

  1. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (2000) Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water qualityGoogle Scholar
  2. Bayart J-B, Margni M, Bulle C, Deschênes L, Pfister S, Koehler A, Vince F (2010) Framework for assessment of off-stream freshwater use within LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(5):439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bayart J-B, Worbe S, Grimaud J, Aoustin E (2014) The Water Impact Index: a simplified single-indicator approach for water footprinting. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(6):1336–1344Google Scholar
  4. Berger M, Finkbeiner M (2013) Methodological challenges in volumetric and impact-oriented water footprints. J Ind Ecol 17(1):79–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berger M, Warsen J, Krinke S, Bach V, Finkbeiner M (2012) Water footprint of European cars: potential impacts of water consumption along automobile life cycles. Environ Sci Technol 46(7):4091–4099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boulay A-M, Bouchard C, Bulle C, Deschênes L, Margni M (2011a) Categorizing water for LCA inventory. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(7):639–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boulay A-M, Bulle C, Bayart J-B, Deschenes L, Margni M (2011b) Regional characterization of freshwater use in LCA: modeling direct impacts on human health. Environ Sci Technol 45(20):8948–8957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boulay A-M, Motoshita M, Pfister S, Bayart J-B, Franceschini H, Muñoz I, Bulle C, Margni M (2015) Water use impact assessment methods (Part A): Methodological and quantitative comparison of scarcity and human health impacts models. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(1):139–160Google Scholar
  9. Bulle C, Margni M, Humbert S, Rosenbaum RK, Jolliet O (2014) Impact World +. http://www.impactworldplus.org/en/
  10. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (2007) Canadian Environmental Quality GuidelinesGoogle Scholar
  11. CIRAIG (2012a) Water Tool. http://www.ciraig.org/fr/watertool.php
  12. CIRAIG (2012b) Impacts from water use in LCA—Google Earth Layers. http://www.ciraig.org/fr/wateruseimpacts.php
  13. Department of Water Affairs Forestry (2011) South African Water Quality Guidelines. Volume 7Google Scholar
  14. Detergent Ingredients Database (2007) DID list 2007Google Scholar
  15. Doka G (2009) Life cycle inventories of waste treatment services. In: Final report ecoinvent v2.1 no. 13. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  16. European Parliament (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policyGoogle Scholar
  17. Eurostat (2013) Population connected to wastewater collection and treatment systemsGoogle Scholar
  18. Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N (2004) Ecoinvent: overview and methodology. Ecoinvent Center, p 75Google Scholar
  19. Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N (2007) Ecoinvent: overview and methodology. vol. ecoinvent. Ecoinvent CenterGoogle Scholar
  20. Frischknecht R, Steiner R, Braunschweig A, Egli N, Hildesheimer G (2008) Swiss ecological scarcity method: the new version 2006Google Scholar
  21. Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver A, Struijs J, van Zelm R (2012) ReCiPe 2008—a life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. RIVM reportGoogle Scholar
  22. Growing Blue (2012) Water Impact Index tool. http://growingblue.com/footprint-tools/water-impact-index/
  23. Hanafiah MM, Xenopoulos MA, Pfister S, Leuven RSEW, Huijbregts MAJ (2011) Characterization factors for water consumption and greenhouse gas emissions based on freshwater fish species extinction. Environ Sci Technol 45(12):5272–5278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hoekstra AY, Chapagain AK, Aldaya MM, Mekonnen MM (2011) The water footprint assessment manual. Setting the global standard. Earthscan Ltd, London. ISBN 978-1-84971-279-8Google Scholar
  25. Hoekstra AY, Mekonnen MM, Chapagain AK, Mathews RE, Richter BD (2012) Global monthly water scarcity: blue water footprints versus blue water availability. PLoS ONE 7(2):e32688. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0032688 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hoof G, Schowanek D, Franceschini H, Muñoz I (2011) Ecotoxicity impact assessment of laundry products: a comparison of USEtox and critical dilution volume approaches. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(8):803–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. ISO 14046 (2014) Water footprint—principles, requirements and guidelinesGoogle Scholar
  28. Jeswani HK, Azapagic A (2011) Water footprint: methodologies and a case study for assessing the impacts of water use. J Clean Prod 19(12):1288–1299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles R, Humbert S, Payet J, Rebitzer G (2003) Presenting a new method IMPACT 2002 + : a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(6):324–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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, van 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 18:707–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. LC-Impact (2013) [Online]. Available: www.lc-impact.eu
  32. Milà i Canals L, Chenoweth J, Chapagain AK, Orr S, Antón A, Clift R (2009) Assessing freshwater use impacts in LCA: part I—inventory modelling and characterisation factors for the main impact pathways. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:28–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China (2002) Environmental quality standard for surface waterGoogle Scholar
  34. Motoshita M, Itsubo N, Inaba A (2010a) Damage assessment of water scarcity for agricultural use 1. In: Proceedings of 9th international conference on EcoBalance, pp 3–6Google Scholar
  35. Motoshita M, Itsubo N, Inaba A (2010b) Development of impact factors on damage to health by infectious diseases caused by domestic water scarcity. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(1):65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Oceanographic Commission UNESCO’s Intergovernmental (IOC) (2008) Global NEWS DatasetsGoogle Scholar
  37. Pfister S, Koehler A, Hellweg S (2009) Assessing the environmental impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA. Environ Sci Technol 43(11):4098–4104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pfister S, Bayer P, Koehler A, Hellweg S (2011) Projected water consumption in future global agriculture: scenarios and related impacts. Sci Total Environ 409(20):4206–4216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rosenbaum R, Bachmann T, Gold L, Huijbregts M, Jolliet O, Juraske R, Koehler A, Larsen H, MacLeod M, Margni M, McKone T, Payet J, Schuhmacher M, van de Meent D, Hauschild M (2008) USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(7):532–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tox-Train Project (2012) www.toxtrain.eu
  41. van Zelm R, Schipper AM, Rombouts M, Snepvangers J, Huijbregts MAJ (2011) Implementing groundwater extraction in life cycle impact assessment: characterization factors based on plant species richness for The Netherlands. Environ Sci Technol 45(2):629–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Verones F, Hanafiah MM, Pfister S, Huijbregts MAJ, Pelletier GJ, Koehler A (2011) Characterization factors for thermal pollution in freshwater aquatic environments. Environ Sci Technol 45(17):7608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Water Footprint Network (2011) WaterStat. Enschede, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  44. UNEP Global Environment Monitoring System (GEMS) Water Programme (2009) GEMStatGoogle Scholar
  45. Wernet G, Hellweg S, Hungerbühler K (2012) A tiered approach to estimate inventory data and impacts of chemical products and mixtures. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(6):720–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. www.usetox.org (2014) USEtox

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne-Marie Boulay
    • 1
  • Jean-Baptiste Bayart
    • 2
  • Cecile Bulle
    • 1
  • Helen Franceschini
    • 3
  • Masaharu Motoshita
    • 4
    • 6
  • Ivan Muñoz
    • 3
  • Stephan Pfister
    • 5
  • Manuele Margni
    • 1
  1. 1.CIRAIGEcole Polytechnique of MontrealMontrealCanada
  2. 2.QuantisLausanneSwitzerland
  3. 3.Safety and Environmental Assurance CentreUnileverColworthUK
  4. 4.National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and TechnologyTsukubaJapan
  5. 5.Institute for Environmental EngineeringETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  6. 6.Department of Environmental TechnologyTechnical University of BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations