Page 367 - Materials Chemistry, Second Edition

5.6 Illustration of the Component Interpretation Using an Example of Practice 351

• Restrictions by selection of market segments:
• The results of this study for a comparison of beverage carton and PET bottles
are only valid for the examined market segments. A transfer of results to
other filling materials or packaging sizes cannot be easily made, owing to the
complexity of the context.
• The evaluation method used in the present study (normalisation and grouping
in the phase impact assessment) mainly considers the approach as applied in
the Beverage LCA II of the Federal Environmental Agency. 41)
• The presented results are valid using the data records described in Chapter 3.
If for individual processes other data bases are consulted, this could influence
comparative results of the examined packaging systems.
• The elaboration of packaging is constantly being developed. The packaging
specifications used in this study are valid for the average beverage carton of
the year 2005 as well as for typical PET bottles of this year.
• Restrictions concerning future developments: The statements of the present
LCA study are valid for the reference time only. Questions related to future
assessments of the examined packagings were not subject of the study.
• Restrictions concerning packaging specifications for PET bottles: The mass of
PET bottles examined in this study was adapted to market patterns regarded
as representative in sense of a median. Besides, the ecological profile of light
bottle types is determined in sensitivity scenarios. Bottles above an average
weight are, however, not examined.

5.6.8
Conclusions and Recommendations

In Section 2.3, the goal definition of the study was summarised. The results fol-
lowing the interpretation phase must now allow redemption of these goals. All the
issues that had been specified are discussed, and a series of proposals for optimisa-
tion were deduced from the results. However, these have not been discussed here,
as this would exceed the purely didactic purpose of the practical example.

5.6.9
Critical Review

Since in the example study, comparative assertions are defined to be made available
to the public, a critical review by interested parties was necessary. At the time of
the study, ISO 14040:1997 was still valid, asking for a minimum number of two
experts. Further ‘interested parties’ were not included, but an independent advisory
board was present to articulate their points of view in the study.
The reviewers were appointed by name and therefore provided a personal liability
concerning the quality of the study.

41) UBA (1999).