Page 326 - Materials Chemistry, Second Edition

310 4 Life Cycle Impact Assessment

Results of the Normalisation
The diagram of indicator results normalised by resident equivalents for
selected scenarios show which impact categories contribute more ore less
to the related total values in Germany. This implies that within impact
categories with the highest specific values a reduction of environmental
loads of regarded packaging systems would have a particularly strong effect
on an environmental improvement in Germany.
The reading of differences between the scenarios measured in REQ is
exemplified by the example of the greenhouse effect in Figure 4.5.

With reference to Germany the beverage carton obtained 25212 REQ and
the PET system 67358 REQ. Assuming that the total annual consumption
of fruit juices and fruit nectars in Germany were exclusively packed in
1000 ml carton or 1000 ml PET-bottles, a saving of GWP, equivalent to
42146 statistical inhabitants, would result if only the carton alternative is
considered.

4.6.5
Grouping

In the stage, grouping, value-based elements are integrated (see also Section
4.3.3.2). The example study refers to the ranking of environmental problem
fields concerning their ecological priority which was compiled by the federal
environmental office (UBA). 384)
This study does not work out in an own grouping system. As an alternative,
reference is made to the ranking of impact categories according to the classi-
fication developed by the environmental protection agency (UBA Germany)
and used for beverage packaging LCAs by UBA (Table 4.31).

Table 4.31 Classification of ecological priorities developed by environmental protection
agency (UBA Germany) and used by UBA in beverage packaging LCAs UBA (2000).

Impact category Ecological priority (UBA, 2000)

Greenhouse effect Very large ecological priority
Fossil resource demand Large ecological priority
Eutrophication (terrestrial) Large ecological priority
Acidification Large ecological priority
Summer smog (∼ surface-near ozone formation) Large ecological priority
Eutrophication (aquatic) Average ecological priority
Land use, forest Average ecological priority

384) Schmitz and Paulini (1999).