Hexamoll Report Internet Label

1

Non-Phthalate Plasticizers for PVC: Hexamoll® DINCH® December 1st, 2011

Eco-Efficiency Analysis, SEEBALANCE® BASF, October, 2010 2

Summary

This eco-efficiency analysis compares various non-phthalate plasticizers for use in PVC applications in the German market. Plasticizers that were examined included Hexamoll® DINCH® (diisononylcyclohexane dicarboxylate), acetyltributyl citrate (ATBC), an acetylated castor oil derivative, alkylsulphonic phenyl ester (ASE), and diethylhexylterephthalate (DEHTP).

Hexamoll® DINCH® is the most eco-efficient plasticizer, with the lowest overall environmental impact. DEHTP has a slight cost advantage, but is less eco-efficient primarily due to a greater environmental impact. ATBC has an intermediate eco-efficiency. Acetylated castor oil derivative and ASE have the lowest but similar eco-efficiency, even though their costs and environmental impact differ significantly from each other.

The results hold not only for toy balls (base case), but also for garden hoses and medical tubing. While these have somewhat different compositions, the eco-efficiency relationships remain essentially unchanged compared to the base case.

Hexamoll® DINCH® is the most eco-efficient non-phthalate plasticizer for PVC applications such as balls, garden hose and medical tubing. It offers significant toxicological advantages over the complete life cycle, especially considering consumer exposure.


The Eco-Efficiency Label Requirements Requirements

1. Accomplished Eco-Efficiency Analysis according to the methodology certified

by TÜV Rheinland, Germany.

2. Verification of the investigated product to be more eco-efficient for the defined customer benefit than other alternatives as result of the analysis.

3. Presentation of a third party evaluation (so-called Peer Review according ISO 14040 & 14044.).

4. Publication of the results via internet on website www.oeea.de, which is referred to on the label.

5. Payment of the license fee for the duration of three years.

http://www.oeea.de/


Eco-Efficiency Label Certificate


Eco-Efficiency Label Hexamoll® DINCH®

The Eco-Efficiency label can be awarded to the listed PVC products using Hexamoll® DINCH® as a plasticizer. It was shown that they are more eco-efficient than the alternative systems.


Expert Opinion: Critical Review TÜV Rheinland 2007

Critical Reviewers: Dr. Christoph Lutermann, TÜV Rheinland BioTech GmbH Bernhard Priesemuth, TÜV Rheinland Cert GmbH After critical review of the report titled ‘Non-Phthalate Platicizers for PVC Applications: Hexamoll® DINCH®’ and the supporting inventory and impact assessment calculations, the main conclusions of the critical reviewers are as follows: the input data is detailed and up-to-date and is treated according to the methodology following

DIN ISO 14040 et seq.

the system boundaries are appropriate and the alternatives are clearly and sufficiently modelled.

the analysis shows that Hexamoll® DINCH® is the most eco-efficient plasticizer for the described applications, having the lowest total environmental impact.

Excerpt: „Die Prozessketten und die dafür erforderlichen Input-Daten wurden detailliert erfasst und gemäß dem Bewertungsverfahren aufbereitet... Die verwendeten Datenquellen sind ausreichend und aktuell... Entsprechend der vorgesehenen Anwendung und der getroffenen Annahmen wurden die Systemgrenzen richtig gesetzt, das System ausreichend und deutlich beschrieben und die erhaltenen Daten entsprechend der Methode aggregiert. Durchgeführte Sensitivitätsbetrachtungen stützen das vorliegende Ergebnis... Im Ergebnis zeigt sich, dass Hexamoll® DINCH® der ökoeffizienteste Weichmacher für die vorgesehenen Anwendungen, mit den niedrigsten gesamten Umweltauswirkungen, ist.“

7

Non-Phthalate Plasticizers for PVC: Hexamoll® DINCH® Update of 2007 Study

October 20th, 2011 Dr. Anahí Grosse-Sommer GU/NE Dr. Peter Saling GU/NE In cooperation with: Markus Effinger E-CPI/MB Rainer Otter GUP/PB Jochen Wagner E-CPI/MT Co-Authors of 2007 Study: Heidrun Goth, Felix Richter, Thomas Schäfer


Methodology

The study is based on the eco-efficiency methodology, developed by BASF to assess the life cycle of all materials and energy required to fulfill a defined customer benefit (functional unit).

The environmental analysis follows the ISO norms 14040 and 14044 for life cycle assessment. The BASF eco-efficiency methodology goes beyond the norms by including life cycle costs and weighting to derive an environmental fingerprint as well as an overall environmental impact.

The methodology has been validated by the German TÜV in 2002 and by the US NSF in 2009.

This methodology was used by the "Öko-Institut” (Institute for Applied Ecology)" in Freiburg, Germany in different Plastics Europe (formerly APME) studies. Öko-Institut uses a similar methodology with a different weighting system ("Ecograde"). TNO in the Netherlands uses the BASF standard method with a different weighting system. The Wuppertal Institute on the method: “Basically, the large number of indicators used in the eco-efficiency analysis of BASF make relatively reliable statements possible …“. The method was initially developed by BASF and Roland Berger Consulting, Munich.


User Benefit and Alternatives

User Benefit: Production and use of 1000 toy balls in the German market

Hexamoll® DINCH®

Acetyltributyl citrate (ATBC)

Diethylhexylterephthalate (DEHTP)

Acetylated castor oil

Alkylsulphonic phenyl ester (ASE)


System Boundaries

Production Use Recycling/Disposal

Ca/Zn stabilizer

plasticizer

Non-rigid PVC

ancillary

additives

PVC pellets*

production of toy balls

use of toy balls

incineration of balls

*Note that only the differences in PVC material among alternatives are considered, not the absolute amounts used.


Abbreviations and Trademarks

UB user benefit (functional unit) that serves as basis for the comparison

Hexamoll® DINCH® Both Hexamoll and DINCH® are registered trademarks of BASF referring to 1,2-cyclohexane dicarboxylic acid diisononyl ester

DEHTP diethylhexylterephthalate

ASE alkylsulphonic phenyl ester

ATBC acetyltributyl citrate

12

Overall Results


Environmental Fingerprint

0,00

energy use

emissions

toxicity potential

occup.illnesses & accidents

resource use

land use Hexamoll® DINCH

ASE

ATBC

acet.castor oil deriv.

DEHTP

®


Costs Summary

-

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Hexamoll® DINCH ASE ATBC acet.castor oil deriv. DEHTP

disposal

PVC

other

plasticizer

cost

sEU

R/U

B

Costs shown are based only on material prices (average for 4/2010 – 4/2011).

®


Eco-Efficiency Portfolio (Base Case)

Base Case: Production and use of 1000 toy balls in the German market

0,2

1,0

1,80,21,01,8

envi

ronm

enta

l bur

den

(nor

m.)

costs (norm.)

Hexamoll® DINCH

ASE

ATBC

acet.castor oil deriv.

DEHTP

®


Eco-Efficiency Portfolio (Base Case): Comments

The eco-efficiency of Hexamoll® DINCH® balls is highest, followed closely by DEHTP balls. ATBC balls have an intermediate eco-efficiency, while balls plasticized with acetylated castor oil or ASE demonstrate a significantly lower eco-efficiency.

The differences in eco-efficiency are primarily due to environmental performance differences, while costs are similar for most alternatives. An exception is the ball made with acetylated castor oil; it is characterized by both higher environmental impact as well as higher costs.


Significant Environmental and Economic Factors

COSTS - high price for acetylated castor oil derivative

ENVIRONMENT - high energy use, material use and emissions associated with phenolsulfonic

acid for ASE production - high toxicity potential of acet. castor oil derivative during end consumer use - agricultural process necessary for castor oil derivative production is

associated with high land use

18

Life Cycle Assessment Results


Energy Consumption Calculation Factor: 18%

-2000

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000


MJ/

UB

disposal

Ca/Zn stabilizer

PVC

plasticizer

®


Resource Use Calculation Factor: 14%

0,00

0,05

0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25


kg S

ilver

-equ

ival

ents

/UB

disposal

Ca/Zn stabilizer

PVC

plasticizer

®


Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculation Factor: 3%

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000


g C

O2

equi

vale

nts/

UB

disposal

Ca/Zn stabilizer

PVC

plasticizer

®


Acidification Potential (AP) Calculation Factor: 4%

®


Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (POCP) Calculation Factor: 3%

®

®


Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP) Calculation Factor: 1%

-0,05

0,00

0,05

0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25

0,30


g C

FC11

-equ

ival

ents

/UB

disposal

Ca/Zn stabilizer

PVC

plasticizer

®


Water Emissions Calculation Factor: 6%

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000


Gre

y w

ater

[l d

ilute

d w

ater

eq.

] / U

B

disposal

Ca/Zn stabilizer

PVC

plasticizer

®


Solid Wastes Calculation Factor: 2%

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25


kg M

unic

ipal

Was

te-e

quiv

alen

ts/U

B

disposal

Ca/Zn stabilizer

PVC

plasticizer

®


Land Use Calculation Factor: 20%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350


disposalCa/Zn stabilizerPVCplasticizerm

2a/U

B

®


Toxicity Potential: Determination (1)

•exposure of professionals •based on R-phrases (incl. educts) •weighting 10%

•exposure of professionals •based on R-phrases •weighting 20%

•exposure of public •based on expert ranking •weighting 70%

production of plasticizer and other substances

use of plasticizer (production of consumer product)

use of consumer products

The toxicity potential was determined by considering all substances involved in the life cycle of the balls. Exposure of the public to a toxic substance was weighted more heavily than exposure of professionals (see scheme below) since the latter have better training and equipment to deal with critical substances. For all production steps, the R-phrases (from EU safety data sheets) were used as a measure of toxicity. For the consumer use of the ball, an expert ranking of various toxicological and ecotoxicological values (see next page) was used to compare the various plasticizers.


Toxicity Potential: Determination (2)

Toxicity ranking of the five plasticizer alternatives during consumer use (i.e. of the ball). Ranking was performed by Dr. Rainer Otter based on EFSA reports and other publicly available data.

Ranking: -10 (worst) to +10 (best)


Toxicity Potential Calculation Factor: 20%

-

0,20

0,40

0,60

0,80

1,00

Hexamoll® DINCH

ASE ATBC acet.castor oil deriv.

DEHTP

consumer exposure

plasticizer use

Ca/Zn stabilizer

PVC

plasticizer productionNor

m. t

oxic

ity p

oint

s

®


Toxicity Potential: Comments Acetylated castor oil derivative is the worst alternative in terms of toxicity potential. While all plasticizers have a roughly similar prechain, acet. castor oil derivative has a considerably more critical ranking associated with consumer exposure. Particularly eye and skin irritation are of concern. ASE, while showing a lower toxicity potential than acet. castor oil derivative, is significantly more critical than the Hexamoll® DINCH®, ATBC and ASE.


Occupational Illnesses & Accidents Calculation Factor: 10%

-0,2

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0


norm

aliz

ed a

nd w

eigh

ted

disposalESOLoxiolCa/Zn stabilizerLipinol OPVCplasticizer

®

33

Scenario-Analysis

Scenario 1: Garden Hose

Scenario 2: Medical Tubing


Scenario 1: Garden Hose

Base Case: Production and use of 1000 m garden hose in the German market

®


Scenario 2: Medical Tubing

Base Case: Production and use of 1000 m medical tubing in the German market

®

36

Contact

If you have questions regarding this study, please contact:

Markus Effinger [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

Hexamoll Report Internet Label