Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of washing detergent Ariel “Actif à froid”

Posted by Richard Felix H...
Contact: 
Procter & Gamble, Brussels Innovation Center (BIC)
Type: 
Full LCA available on the web
Comparative: 
yes
Publication year: 
2006
Language: 
English
Code: 
Cleaning
Product: 
Ariel “Actif à froid” (2006), a laundry detergent that allows to wash at colder wash temperatures
Quality and sources
Is the study a: 
Detailed LCA
Was a critical review performed?: 
Yes
Is the study compliant with ISO 14044?: 
Yes
Sponsor name(s): 
Procter & Gamble (P&G) - BIC
Sponsor type: 
Company
Practitioner(s): 
Joost Dewaele (P&G - BIC)
Practitioner(s): 
Rana Pant (P&G - BIC)
Practitioner(s): 
Diederik Schowanek (P&G - BIC)
Practitioner(s) type: 
Company
Summary
Functional unit: 
Ariel “Actif à froid” (2006) calculated for 1 laundry job
Goal and scope of the summary: 
Goal: This LCA study quantifies potential environmental impacts of the Ariel "Actif a froid" laundry detergent product and associated consumer wash habit scenarios in 2006 in France. Ariel "Actif a froid" is compared with the traditional Ariel laundry detergent products and inherent consumer habits of 1998 and 2001. Scope: This comparative study focuses on the dilute liquid and regular powder detergent variants which represented 70% of the French laundry detergent market. It evaluates the expected energy savings in the use phase and puts them into a life cycle perspective with the objective to identify the key environmental impact potentials related to changes in product formulation and use. Another important driver for this study is to evaluate if the Ariel "Actif a froid" (coolclean) detergent ingredients had any negative impacts, e.g. via emissions into water.

Conclusion: The results of the base case scenario show that “Actif à froid”, when compared to Ariel 1998 and Ariel 2001, leads to significant saving in total primary energy consumption (27% savings vs. Ariel 2001) and other environmental indicators strongly related to energy use (e.g. 18% savings for climate change vs. Ariel 2001), and importantly, has no significant downsides regarding the 11 evaluated environmental indicators, including the aquatic eco-toxicity potential.
On the functional wash unit, the primary energy saving obtained when comparing the ”cool wash” scenario (base scenario) vs. The 2001 scenario corresponds to a saving of 3.91MJ/wash, which translates into electricity saving equivalent to 0.36kwh electricity/wash.

Material impact(s): 
Toxicity / Eco-toxicity
Raw material impact level: 
Low
Manufacturing impact(s): 
Acidification
Toxicity / Eco-toxicity
Manufacturing impact level: 
Low
Shipping impact(s): 
Ozone layer depletion
Global warming
Shipping impact level: 
Low
Usage impact(s): 
Ozone layer depletion
Global warming
Toxicity / Eco-toxicity
Usage impact level: 
Medium
End of life impact(s): 
Acidification
Water consumption
Toxicity / Eco-toxicity
End of life impact level: 
Low

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.



Recent comments


Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 22 guests online.

Who's new

  • mattieszioquklapxi
  • teodorosifuentes
  • chericategmqnoc
  • orlandocreechompgx
  • joannehardeeaqojytv