Tap water or bottled water? A review of LCA studies supporting a campaign for

sustainable consumption

V. Fantin, P. Masoni, S. Scalbi

ENEA - LCA & Ecodesign Laboratory

SETAC Europe 17th LCA Case Study Symposium

Budapest, 28th February 2011

Why a campaign on drinking water?

• Access to drinkable water is a

human right;

• In many regions this right is far to be

assured;

• In developed countries market of

bottled water is rising, increasing

the concerns on the associated

environmental impacts;

• Water industry is reducing the

impacts by addressing the

packaging (recycled materials,

reduced quantity of materials) and

adopting environmental product

declarations.

Drinking water consumption in Italy and in Europe/world

Bottled water Italy

Tap water

• About 250 litres/person*year in Italy for

household activities (only 2 litres are for

drinking)

• 165 litres/person*year in Europe for

household activities (only 8 litres are for

cooking and drinking)

Goals of the study

• To provide a scientific background for a campaign on sustainable

consumption addressed to consumers on environmental impacts of

tap water versus bottled water.

• GWP (kg CO2 eq. emitted in the water life cycle) selected as proxy

of the overall environmental impacts.

• Method: meta analysis of available studies

�Survey of 26 LCA studies (based on ISO 14040), including

project reports, reviews, peer-reviewed articles,

Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs);

�Harmonisation of the studies.

Data sources were:

•Scopus and Google Scholar;

•Performers of the studies.

Organization of collected data

• 9 articles were rejected because they were not in accordance with

the aim of the survey or the results were not suitable for the fixed

goals;

• For bottled water we focused only on water bottled in PET

• Open problem: comparability of the different studies.

• Several differences among the LCA studies were found during the

review: functional unit, system boundaries and the travelled

distance for bottled water distribution.

Main information collected from each article/paper

• Aim of the study

• Name of the requesting the study

• Functional unit

• Goal and scope

• System boundaries

• Geographical location

• Type of technologies used

• Primary data sources

• Databases used

• Impact Assessment

• GWP results

Harmonisation

To compare the studies it was necessary to perform some

calculations in order to make the studies consistent

Functional unit for tap and bottled water =

100 l of drinking water100 l of drinking water (not refrigerated) distributed to

the final consumer in Italy

Harmonisation of system boundaries

Treatment

Extraction

Storage

Distribution

Wastewater

treatment

Tap waterTap water

Bottling

Extraction

Distribution

End life of PET

bottled

Bottled waterBottled water

In some studies

distribution phase was

not included

Literature GWP data

were added

The types of transport and the travelled distances were different

An average GWP result was calculated for the distribution of

100 l of water transported on a truck, considering an average

distance of 100 km (as requested by the customer)

The contribution of each actual distribution was subtracted

from total GWP results and this average result was added

Table with harmonised GWP results

LCA studies on tap waterLCA studies on tap waterLCA studies on tap waterLCA studies on tap water LCA studies on bottled waterLCA studies on bottled waterLCA studies on bottled waterLCA studies on bottled water

References Country kgCO2 eq./100l References Country kgCO2 eq./100l

Tarantini 2003 Italy Max. Europe 0,09 Botto 2009, water 1 Italy (North) 16,85

Botto 2009 Italy 0,06 Botto 2009, water 2 Italy (North) 19,07

Barrios 2008 Italy Min. W.+EU 0,02 Botto 2009, water 3 Italy (Centre) 16,25

Jungbluth 2006 Netherlands 0,04 Botto 2009, water 4 Italy (Centre) 16,13

Jungbluth 2006 Switzerland 0,04 Botto 2009, water 5 Italy (Centre) 15,35

Jungbluth 2006Switzerland (country) 0,04 Botto 2009, water 6 Italy (South) 16,49

Geerken 2006Switzerland

(urban) 0,02 EPD Cerelia 2008 PET Italy 15,79

Vince 2008 Belgium 0,06 EPD San Benedetto 2010 PET 0,5 Italy 23,50Friedrich 2002, chemical-

physical treat. South Africa 0,04 EPD San Benedetto 2010 PET 1l Italy 17,86

Friedrich 2002, Membrane South Africa 0,03 EPD San Benedetto 2010 PET 1,5l Italy 13,53

Friedrich 2009, carbon footprint South Africa 0,04 Norda (customer’ s study) Italy (North) 13,26

Friedrich E. 2009 CML South Africa 0,04 SEM (customer’ s study ) Italy (Centre) 12,21

Dettore 2006 USA 0,05 Hanssen 2007 Norway Min. Europe 8,50Peters 2005, desal. Lake South Australia 0,13 Jungbluth 2006 Switzerland 17,8

Peters 2005, desal. Sea South Australia Max. world 0,67 Jungbluth 2006, carbonated Switzerland 19,8

Peters 2005, pipeline 700km South Australia 0,22 Jungbluth 2006 Europe Max 42,5

Homaki,2003 boiled water Vietnam 0,10 Franklin Association 2009 media USA-Oregon 8,67

Homaki,2003 efficient water Vietnam 0,02 Franklin Association 2010, best USA-Oregon Min 6,52

Franklin Association 2011 worst USA-Oregon 31,24

Dettore 2006, PET virgin USA 21,31

Dettore 2006, PET recycling USA 18,96

Dettore 2006, 3, H2O municipal USA 19,38

Dettore 2006, tran. 1520 miles USA 18,96

Dettore 2006, tran. 4920 miles USA 18,96

Dettore 2006, tran. 6328 miles USA 21,31

Tap water

0.01

0.11

0.21

0.31

0.41

0.51

0.61

0.71

Italy Italy Netherlands Switzerland Switzerland

(country)

Switzerland

(urban)

Belgium Europe Europe South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa USA South

Australia

South

Australia

South

Australia

Vietnam Vietnam

Tarantini

2003

Botto 2009 Barrios

2008

Jungbluth

2006

Jungbluth

2006

Jungbluth

2006

Geerken

2006

Jungbluth

2006

Vince 2008 Friedrich

2002,

chem.-phys.

Treat.

Friedrich

2002,

Membrane

Friedrich

2009,

carbon

footprint

Friedrich E.

2009 CML

Dettore

2006,

Gregory

2005, desal.

Lake

Gregory

2005, desal.

Sea

Gregory

2005,

pipeline

700km

Homaki,2003

boiled water

Homaki,2003

efficient

water

kgCO2eq/100l

Results kgCO2eq/100l Harmonised results kgCO2eq/100l

Graph with GWP results-1

Gregory 2005

Dettore 2006

Homaki 2003

Graph with GWP results-2

Dettore 2006

Franklin 2009

Jungbluth 2006

Hanssen 2007

Bottled water

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00

Italy

(North)

Italy

(North)

Italy

(Center)

Italy

(Center)

Italy

(Center)

Italy

(South)

Italy Italy Italy Italy Italy

(North)

Italy

(Center)

Norway Switzerland Switzerland Europe USA-

Oregon

USA-

Oregon

USA-

Oregon

USA USA USA USA USA USA

Botto 2009,

water 1

Botto 2009,

water 2

Botto 2009,

water 3

Botto 2009,

water 4

Botto 2009,

water 5

Botto 2009,

water 6

EPD

Cerelia

2008 PET

EPD San

Benedetto

2010 PET

0.5

EPD San

Benedetto

2010 PET

1l

EPD San

Benedetto

2010 PET

1,5l

Norda

2008

(customer's

study)

SEM 2008

(customer's

study)

Hanssen

2007

Jungbluth

2006

Jungbluth

2006,

carbonated

Jungbluth

2006

Franklin

Association

2009

average

Franklin

Association

2010, best

Franklin

Association

2011 worst

Dettore

2006, PET

virgin

Dettore

2006, PET

recycling

Dettore 2006,

H2Omunicipal

Dettore

2006, tran.

1520 miles

Dettore

2006, tran.

4920 miles

Dettore

2006, tran.

6328 miles

kgCO2eq/100l

Results kgCO2eq/100l Harmonised results kgCO2eq/100l

Tap water versus bottled waterTap water:•The results show a large variability (up to 33 as ratio between the worst and the

best GWP results) mainly due to different technologies for drinking water

treatment;

•Gregory 2005 has a very high GWP result due to the production and distribution of

water in desert region (Australia) with desalinisation technologies that have high

energy consumption;

•Dettore 2006 uses microfiltration, reverse osmosis and ozone treatment;

•Homaki 2003 considers also the boiling of water for drinking.

Bottled water:

• Harmonised GWP results are quite aligned (the ratio between the worst and the

best is 4,5);

•Data on distribution were not available in Hanssen 2007;

•Jungbluth 2006 reported the transport distances (50km and 1000km) but does not

show the GWP results for the distribution phase;

•Franklin 2009 shows the worst and the best GWP results of water bottled in

different types of PET;

•In Dettore 2006 transport distances are very high (>1500 miles)

Conclusions

• The survey of these LCA studies showed that tap water always

presents the best environmental performance for GWP;

• The European studies showed that the best GWP of bottled water

is 94,4 times higher than the worst GWP of tap water;

• Even in the case of very particular situations (tap water in desert

with the use of desalinisation technologies) bottled water has a

GWP 9,7 times higher than the GWP of tap water;

• The survey of these LCAs also confirmed that the reduction of both

packaging and distribution distances are the two main strategies to

decrease the GWP of bottled water;

• The campaign invites consumers to use tap water, or bottled water

from local producers.

Contacts

Valentina Fantin

ENEA

LCA & Ecodesign unit

e-mail: valentina.fantin@enea.it

Tel: +39 051 6098 427

Thank you for your attention