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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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 quality
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):439
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):1336–1344
Berger M, Finkbeiner M (2013) Methodological challenges in volumetric and impact-oriented water footprints. J Ind Ecol 17(1):79–89
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):4091–4099
Boulay A-M, Bouchard C, Bulle C, Deschênes L, Margni M (2011a) Categorizing water for LCA inventory. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(7):639–651
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):8948–8957
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):139–160
Bulle C, Margni M, Humbert S, Rosenbaum RK, Jolliet O (2014) Impact World +. http://www.impactworldplus.org/en/
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (2007) Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines
CIRAIG (2012a) Water Tool. http://www.ciraig.org/fr/watertool.php
CIRAIG (2012b) Impacts from water use in LCA—Google Earth Layers. http://www.ciraig.org/fr/wateruseimpacts.php
Department of Water Affairs Forestry (2011) South African Water Quality Guidelines. Volume 7
Detergent Ingredients Database (2007) DID list 2007
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, Switzerland
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 policy
Eurostat (2013) Population connected to wastewater collection and treatment systems
Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N (2004) Ecoinvent: overview and methodology. Ecoinvent Center, p 75
Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N (2007) Ecoinvent: overview and methodology. vol. ecoinvent. Ecoinvent Center
Frischknecht R, Steiner R, Braunschweig A, Egli N, Hildesheimer G (2008) Swiss ecological scarcity method: the new version 2006
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 report
Growing Blue (2012) Water Impact Index tool. http://growingblue.com/footprint-tools/water-impact-index/
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):5272–5278
Hoekstra AY, Chapagain AK, Aldaya MM, Mekonnen MM (2011) The water footprint assessment manual. Setting the global standard. Earthscan Ltd, London. ISBN 978-1-84971-279-8
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
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):803–818
ISO 14046 (2014) Water footprint—principles, requirements and guidelines
Jeswani HK, Azapagic A (2011) Water footprint: methodologies and a case study for assessing the impacts of water use. J Clean Prod 19(12):1288–1299
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):324–330
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 18:707–721
LC-Impact (2013) [Online]. Available: www.lc-impact.eu
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 14:28–42
Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China (2002) Environmental quality standard for surface water
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 3–6
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):65–73
Oceanographic Commission UNESCO’s Intergovernmental (IOC) (2008) Global NEWS Datasets
Pfister S, Koehler A, Hellweg S (2009) Assessing the environmental impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA. Environ Sci Technol 43(11):4098–4104
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):4206–4216
Quantis (2012) Quantis Water Database. http://www.quantis-intl.com/microsites/waterdatabase.php-contact: sebastien.humbert@quantis-intl.com
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):532–546
Tox-Train Project (2012) www.toxtrain.eu
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):629–635
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):7608
Water Footprint Network (2011) WaterStat. Enschede, Netherlands
UNEP Global Environment Monitoring System (GEMS) Water Programme (2009) GEMStat
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):720–728
www.usetox.org (2014) USEtox
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible editor: Annette Koehler
Analysis of water use impact assessment methods
This paper is divided into two parts and aims to broaden the understanding of existing water use impact assessment methods and their applicability within a water footprint study. Part A (Boulay et al. 2015) focuses on identifying relevant modeling choices to analyze the main differences between water impact assessment methods and assess their overall variability and model uncertainty. Part B illustrates the applicability of water footprint methods through a case study and discusses the methods’ consistency, reliability, and limitations for decision making. Sensitivity analyses on the case study were selected based on relevant modeling choices determined in part A (Boulay et al. 2015).
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
ESM 1
(DOCX 119 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Boulay, AM., Bayart, JB., Bulle, C. et al. Analysis of water use impact assessment methods (part B): applicability for water footprinting and decision making with a laundry case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20, 865–879 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0868-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0868-9