Combined application of LCA and eco-design for the sustainable production of wood boxes for wine bottles storage

  • Sara González-GarcíaEmail author
  • Francisco Javier Silva
  • María Teresa Moreira
  • Rosario Castilla Pascual
  • Raúl García Lozano
  • Xavier Gabarrell
  • Joan Rieradevall i Pons
  • Gumersindo Feijoo



The main objective of this study is to combine the environmental evaluation of a basic wood box used to store wine bottles by means of the integration of two environmental methodologies: a quantitative methodology known as life cycle assessment (LCA) and a qualitative methodology which is useful in integrating environmental aspects into design, that is, the design for the environment (DfE). The LCA study covers the life cycle of wood box production from a cradle-to-gate perspective. A wood processing company located in Galicia (NW, Spain) was analysed in detail, dividing the process chain into five stages: cogeneration unit, material assembling, painting, packaging and distribution to clients.


Abiotic depletion (AD), acidification, eutrophication, global warming, ozone layer depletion (OD), photochemical oxidant formation (PO), human toxicity (HT) and toxicological impact categories (HT, fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity, marine aquatic ecotoxicity and terrestrial ecotoxicity) were the impact categories analysed in the LCA study. According to the environmental results, the assembling stage contributed more than 57% to all impact categories, followed by the cogeneration unit and packaging. Contributions from packaging are mainly due to transoceanic transport activities related to the rope distribution and wood-based materials production. In addition, it is interesting to remark that all energy requirements were produced by on-site cogeneration boilers using a non-renewable fossil fuel. Several processes were identified as hot spots in this study: medium density fibreboards (MDF) production (with large contribution to ecotoxicity categories), energy production (with contributions to AD, GW and OD) and finally, the transportation of jute fibres (the main contributor to all the impact categories). Concerning the results from the DfE, the proposed eco-design strategies were evaluated from a technological, economic and social point of view by an interdisciplinary team of researchers and enterprise’s workers. The results show that the strategies with more viability of improvement were: reduction of resources used, multifunctional design, substitution of MDF by plywood, substitution of jute fibres, alternatives to the ink, optimization of energy requirement, transport alternatives for the final product and inputs distribution and definition of a protocol for disassembling the product.


The results obtained in this work allow forecasting the importance of the chosen raw materials as well as their origin for the environmental burdens associated with the wood-based box manufacture. Future work will focus on the manufacturing of a prototype eco-designed wood-based box.


Design for environment Eco-design Environmental performance Wine sector Life cycle assessment (LCA) Wood box Wood sector 



This work has been partially financed by the Xunta de Galicia (Project Reference PGIDIT08MDS005CT). Dr. S. González-García would like to express her gratitude to the Spanish Ministry of Education for financial support (Grant reference AP2005-2374).


  1. Althaus HJ, Chudacoff M, Hischier R, Jungbluth N, Osses M, Primas A (2007a) Life cycle inventories of Chemicals. Ecoinvent report No. 8, v2.0 EMPA. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, DübendorfGoogle Scholar
  2. Althaus HJ, Dinkel F, Stettler C, Werner F (2007b) Life cycle inventories of renewable materials. Ecoinvent report No. 21, v2.0 EMPA. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, DübendorfGoogle Scholar
  3. Asif M, Davidson A, Muneer T (2002) Life cycle of window materials—A comparative assessment. Millenium Fellow School of Engineering, Napier University, Edinburgh. Available at:
  4. Baumann H, Tillman AM (2004) The Hitch Hilker’s guide to LCA. An orientation in life cycle assessment methodology and application. ISBN 9144023642, Studentlitteratur, Lund, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhamra TA (2004) Eco-design: the search for development new strategies in product. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part B. Int J Eng Sci 218(5):557–569Google Scholar
  6. Borsboom T (1991) The environment’s influence on design. Des Manage J 2:42–47Google Scholar
  7. Bovea MD, Gallardo A (2006) The influence of impact assessment methods on materials selection for eco-design. Mater Des 27(3):209–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boyd CW, Koch P, McKean HB, Morschauer CR, Preston SB, Wangaard EF (1976) Wood for structural and architectural purposes. For Prod J 27:10–20Google Scholar
  9. Brezet H, Van Hemel C (1997) Eco-design: a promising approach to sustainable production and consumption. Rathenau Institute, TU Delft & UNEP, ParisGoogle Scholar
  10. Dones R, Bauer C, Bolliger R, Burger B, Faist Emmenegger M, Frischknecht R, Heck T, Jungbluth N, Röder A, Tuchschmid M (2007) Life cycle inventories of energy systems: results for current systems in switzerland and other UCTE countries. Ecoinvent report No. 5. Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, DübendorfGoogle Scholar
  11. Echevenguá Teixeira C, Sartori L, Rodrigues Finotti A (2010) Comparative environmental performance of semi-trailer load boxes for grain transport made of different materials. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:212–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. European Commission (2010). Available at: (cited March, 2010)
  13. Ferrao P, Amaral J (2006) Design for recycling in the automobile industry: new approaches and new tools. J Eng Des 5:447–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gasol CM, Farreny F, Gabarrell X, Rieradevall J (2008) Life cycle assessment comparison among different reuse intensities for industrial wooden containers. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:421–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gilbertson A (2006) Briefing: measuring the value of design. In: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Municipal Engineer 159 Pro: 125–128Google Scholar
  16. González-García S, Feijoo G, Widsten P, Kandelbauer A, Zikulnig-Rusch E, Moreira MT (2009) Environmental performance assessment of hardboard manufacture. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:456–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guinée JB, Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, de Koning A, van Oers L, Wegener A, Suh S, Udo de Haes HA (2001) Life cycle assessment. An operational guide to the ISO standards. Centre of Environmental Science, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  18. Hischier R (2007) Life cycle inventories of packagings and graphical papers. Ecoinvent report No. 11, v2.0 EMPA. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, DübendorfGoogle Scholar
  19. IDEMAT Database (2001) Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering of Delft University of Technology. The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  20. ISO 14044 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. ISO, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  21. Jungmeier G, Werner F, Jarnehammar A, Hohenthal C, Ritcher K (2002) Allocation in LCA of Wood-based products. Experiences of Cost Action E9. Part I. Methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7(5):290–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kellenberger D, Althaus HJ, Jungbluth N, Künniger T, Lehmann M, Thalmann P (2007) Life cycle inventories of building products. Ecoinvent report No. 7, v2.0 EMPA. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, DübendorfGoogle Scholar
  23. Larsen HF, Birkved M, Hauschild M, Pennington D, Guinée J (2004) Evaluation of selection methods for toxicological impacts in LCA—recommendations for OMNIITOX. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(5):307–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McDonough W, Braungart M, Anastas PT, Zimmer JB (2003) Applying the principles of green engineering to cradle-to-cradle design. Environ Sci Technol 37:434A–441AGoogle Scholar
  25. Muñoz I, Rieradevall J, Domenech X, Gazulla C (2006) Using LCA to assess eco-design in the automotive sector—case study of a polyolefinic door panel. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(5):323–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nebel B, Zimmer B, Wegener Z (2006) Life cycle assessment of wood floor coverings. A representative study for the German flooring industry. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(3):172–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Petersen AK, Solberg B (2003) Substitution between floor constructions in wood and natural stone: comparison of energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and costs over the life cycle. Can J For Res 33:1061–1075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. PRé Consultants (2008). Available at: Accessed March 2010
  29. Puy N, Tábara D, Bartrolí Molins J, Bartroli Almera J, Rieradevall J (2007) Integrated assessment of forest bioenergy systems in Mediterranean basin areas: the case of Catalonia and the use of participatory IA-focus groups. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 12:1451–1464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ressel J (1986) Energy analysis of the wood industry in the Federal Republic of Germany (in German). Bundesministerium für Forschung und Technologie (BMFT), HamburgGoogle Scholar
  31. Richter K, Gugerli H (1996) Wood and wood products in comparative life cycle assessment. Holz Roh Werkst 54:225–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rivela B, Moreira MT, Bornhardt C, Méndez R, Feijoo G (2004) Life cycle assessment as a tool for the environmental improvement of the tannery industry in developing countries. Environ Sci Technol 38(6):1901–1909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rivela B, Hospido A, Moreira MT, Feijoo G (2006) Life cycle inventory of particleboard: a case study in the wood sector. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:106–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rivela B, Moreira MT, Feijoo G (2007) Life cycle inventory of medium density fibreboard. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Smith J, Wyatt R (2006) Project inception: A performance brief approach. Proceedings of CRIOCM 2006 Internatioanl Research Symposium on Advancement of Construction Management and Real Estate 1&2:29–38Google Scholar
  36. Spielmann M, Bauer C, Dones R, Tuchschmid M (2007) Transport services. Ecoinvent report No. 14. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, DübendorfGoogle Scholar
  37. Taylor J, van Langenberg K (2003) Review of the environmental impact of wood compared with alternative products used in the production of furniture. CSIRO Forestry and Forest Products Research and Development Corporation, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  38. Todd J, Brown E, Wells E (2003) Ecological design applied. Ecol Eng 20(5):421–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Werner F (2001) Recycling of used wood—inclusion of end-of-life options in LCA. In: Jungmeier G (ed) Life cycle assessment of forestry and forest products; achievements of COST Action E9 working group 3 ‘End of life: recycling, disposal and energy generation’. Joanneum, Institute of Energy Research, Graz, 6/1–24Google Scholar
  40. Werner F, Richter K (2007) Wooden building products in comparative LCA. A literature review. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:470–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Werner F, Althaus HJ, Richter K, Scholz RW (2007). Post-consumer waste wood in attributive product LCA - Context specific evaluation of allocation procedures in a functionalistic conception of LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:160–72.Google Scholar
  42. Zust R, Wirnmer W (2004) Eco-design pilot - Methods and tools to improve the environmental performance in product design. Tools and Methods of competitive Engineering 1&2: 67-72Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sara González-García
    • 1
    Email author
  • Francisco Javier Silva
    • 3
  • María Teresa Moreira
    • 1
  • Rosario Castilla Pascual
    • 4
  • Raúl García Lozano
    • 2
  • Xavier Gabarrell
    • 2
  • Joan Rieradevall i Pons
    • 2
  • Gumersindo Feijoo
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Chemical Engineering, School of EngineeringUniversity of Santiago de CompostelaSantiago de CompostelaSpain
  2. 2.SosteniPrA (UAB-IRTA-Inèdit), Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA)Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), School of Engineering, Campus de la UABBarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.FINSASantiago de CompostelaSpain
  4. 4.Innovation and Technology AreaCIS MADEIRA, Galician Park of TechnologyOurenseSpain

Personalised recommendations