Page 359 - Materials Chemistry, Second Edition

5.6 Illustration of the Component Interpretation Using an Example of Practice 343

that the reviewers and panel chairs should have. Clearly, the scientific and technical
background should be appropriate for the LCA study to be reviewed, but also the
expertise needed by the LCA as a method has to be taken into account.
According to the last working draft available, self-declarations will be requested
from the panel members. The spirit of the free critical reviewer groups (no
accreditation, individual invitation), so successful in the past, will be preserved. It
should be noted that a ‘verification’, which is often needed outside ISO 14040ff
(e.g. in ISO 14025), does not form part of the duties of critical reviewers. 37) On the
other hand, however, ISO 14071 will support the use of ISO 14040 + 44 in other
standards proposing a quality assurance for the base LCAs that may be used in
these other life cycle methods as a solid basis.

5.6
Illustration of the Component Interpretation Using an Example of Practice

As has been explained in Sections 5.2 and 5.3, data from the inventory analysis
and the impact assessment are analysed according to defined rules, restrictions
are precisely described, conclusions and recommendations are made. Just as the
38)
example study in the preceding chapters merely served as conceptual illustration,
in this chapter, the interpretation is not entirely reproduced. Sample excerpts of
the text should rather clarify on how elements of the interpretation described in
Sections 5.2 and 5.3 may be applied in praxis. Chapters of the quoted text refer to
the original study.

5.6.1
Comparison Based on Impact Indicator Results

The results of mandatory parts of the impact assessment provide the data basis for
this comparison. These data are therefore neither normalised nor weighted.

Comparison of beverage carton and PET bottle (juice, storage)

A system comparison of the beverage carton and Polyethylene terephthalate
(PET) bottle with reference to net results is included in Table 5.1. Illustrations
and table indicate significantly smaller indicator values within six of eight
regarded categories for the investigated beverage carton compared to the
PET bottle.

37) Grahl and Schmincke (2011).
38) IFEU (2006).