ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

Introduction
/*------------------------------------------------------------------*/
Explain the study
[Reference]
/*------------------------------------------------------------------*/
The environmental implications of the different hand drying systems (i.e.
high-speed handsin dryers, standard warm air dryers, cotton roll towels, and
paper towels) are one of the most widely environmental issues covered by
the media [1 - 5]. As such, several studies address this problem. For
example:
A
comparison between different types of hand drying systems
conducted by MyClimate and commissioned by Dyson Ltd. in
Switzerland [7],
A life cycle assessment (in accordance with the requirements of the
ISO standards 14040 and 14044) produced by Excel Dryer that
compares a standard warm air dryer to its XLERATOR hand dryer
[14],
A streamlined life cycle assessment between standard warm air dryers
and paper towels produced by Airdri Ltd. [6],
A life cycle assessment of the Dyson Airblade hand dryer prepared
by Dyson Ltd. in accordance with the PAS 2050 standard [15],
A
life cycle assessment of different hand drying systems (in
accordance with the requirements of the ISO standards 14040 and
14044) conducted by the Materials Systems Laboratory of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and commissioned by Dyson Ltd.
[Reference]
Among all these studies, only the one prepared by the Materials Systems
Laboratory of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology compares all the
different hand drying systems on a consistent basis. Due to this fact, the
current environmental analysis is mainly based on the results of the life cycle
assessment conducted by the Materials Systems Laboratory of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
/*------------------------------------------------------------------*/
Recognise the main drawbacks of the study
/*------------------------------------------------------------------*/

Scope
/*------------------------------------------------------------------*/
Explain which systems are evaluated
/*------------------------------------------------------------------*/
The systems for drying hands considered in the current analysis () are:
1) A Dyson Airblade hand dryer with an aluminum cover (a highspeed
handsin dryer)
2) A Dyson Airblade hand dryer with a plastic cover (a highspeed
handsin dryer)
3) An Excel XLERATOR hand dryer (a highspeed handsunder dryer)
4) A generic standard warm air hand dryer (a handsunder dryer)
5) Generic cotton roll towels
6) Generic paper towels manufactured from virgin content
7) Generic paper towels manufactured from 100% recycled content

(a)
(b)
(c)
NOTE: Pictures are not shown with a consistent relative scale.
Figure 1: Drying systems considered in this study
a) Dyson Airblade hand dryer with a plastic cover.
b) Excel XLERATOR hand dryer
c) Generic standard warm air hand dryer
d) Generic cotton roll towels and dispenser
e) Generic paper towels and dispenser

(d)

System boundary
/*------------------------------------------------------------------*/
THIS SECTION IS CHECKED FOR PLAGIARISM
/*------------------------------------------------------------------*/

(e)

The current analysis considers all life cycle stages, from cradle to grave,
along with transportation between each stage. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, there are several important considerations:
In this study, the United States is the primary region considered for the
use of the different hand drying systems.
Because this analysis is a comparison between the performances of
the different hand drying systems, all the drying systems should be
considered under the same supply chain standpoint. Therefore, all
systems (with the exception of paper towels) are assumed to be
manufactured in China and used in the United States. China is a
common location for the manufacturing of technology products (such
as high-speed handsin dryers and standard warm air dryers). On the
other hand, paper towels are assumed to be manufactured and used in
the United States (industry standard for a product that it is
manufactured in a location where the raw materials are plentiful and
the production is not laborintensive).

(b
)

(c)

SOURCE:
Figure 2: Life cycle stages and corresponding locations assumptions for:
Hand dryer, cotton roll towel, and paper towel
a) Hand dryer
b) Cotton roll towel
c) Paper towel
/*------------------------------------------------------------------*/
Report results
Before reporting results, explain that these are not my results these are
taken for the study. With this, you do not have to cover all the process
explanations
/*------------------------------------------------------------------*/
Life cycle impact assessment
Life cycle impact assessment methodology
/*------------------------------------------------------------------*/
THIS SECTION IS CHECKED FOR PLAGIARISM
/*------------------------------------------------------------------*/
As previously mentioned, the following life cycle assessment is extracted
from the environmental analysis conducted by the Materials Systems
Laboratory of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In order to measure
the environmental impacts produced by the different hand drying systems,
the mentioned study employed three widely used life cycle impact
assessment (LCIA) methodologies: global warming potential (GWP), IMPACT
2002+, and cumulative energy demand (CED). In the indicated study, LCIA

calculations for the three different methodologies were performed using the
SimaPro 7 software package). No value choices or weighting were used in the
application of these impact assessment methodologies.
Global warming potential

/*------------------------------------------------------------------*/
THIS SECTION IS CHECKED FOR PLAGIARISM
/*------------------------------------------------------------------*/
Global warming potential (GWP) [48] is an impact assessment methodology
that estimates the potential future impacts of emissions of different gases.
This indicator (widely used for energy intensive products) is based on the
values published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
in 2007. The impacts of all gaseous emissions are evaluated in comparison
with carbon dioxide using characterization factors (based on a 100year time
frame) that convert the mass of each gas into an equivalent mass of carbon
dioxide (for example, 1 kg CH4 emitted into the atmosphere is equivalent to
25 kg CO2). These characterization factors are internationally accepted as
systematic ways to characterize greenhouse gas emissions.
Figure 3 shows the resulting GWP, broken down by life cycle stage,
associated with drying one pair of hands. [Figure 5]

SOURCE:
Figure 3: Global warming potential associated with drying a single pair of hands.
IMPACT 2002+
/*------------------------------------------------------------------*/
THIS SECTION IS CHECKED FOR PLAGIARISM
/*------------------------------------------------------------------*/
IMPACT 2002+ [50] is a multiindicator impact assessment method that
classifies environmental consequences into four main categories:
Resources, Climate change (global warming), Ecosystem quality and
ecosystem quality. These categories are calculated from 15 different factors
(formally called midpoint categories). Figure [] shows the 15 midpoint
categories involved in the IMPACT 2002+ methodology. Disability-adjusted life
year (DALY) units are employed to report the Damage to Human Health. Ecosystem
Quality is measured in units of potentially disappeared fraction of plant
species (PDFm2yr). Climate change is characterized in a similar way than
the Global warming potential (GWP), but employs characterization factors
based on a 500year time frame. Resources includes assessment of minerals
and fossil fuels in units of megajoules (MJ). All four damage categories can be
normalized and characterized using average European environmental
impacts, assigning 1000 points to the average environmental impact of a
European person in one year. It is important to point out that the human
health and the ecosystem quality are the only indicators to be reported. The
other two categories (climate change and resources) are not included,
because they are relatively similar to the GWP (global warming potential)
and the CED (cumulative energy demand) indicators. Therefore these
categories (climate change and resources) are considered redundant.
IMPACT 2002+ results, for the human health and the ecosystem quality, are
presented in Figure 6. Figure 10 shows the results of the normalization (using
average European environmental impacts) for all the four categories used in
the IMPACT 2002+ methodology: human health, ecosystem quality, climate
change, and resources.
[Figure 4] [Figure 6,10]

SOURCE:
Figure 4: Impact associated with drying a single pair of hands based on Impact 2002+
categories: Human Health and Ecosystem Quality.

SOURCE:
Figure 5: Normalized IMPACT 2002+ categories associated with drying a single pair of hands
Cumulative energy demand
/*------------------------------------------------------------------*/
THIS SECTION IS CHECKED FOR PLAGIARISM
/*------------------------------------------------------------------*/
Cumulative energy demand (CED) [48] is a life cycle impact assessment that
includes all energy consumption (direct and indirect) associated with defined
processes. Values for this indicator are measured in terms of energy (such as
kilojoules). It is important to note that CED is a proxy metric indicator (i.e.
indirect measure of a given variable or process). Nonetheless, CED is a
widely accepted assessment methodology. Moreover, energy consumption is
often recognized (by the public and by industry standards) as the
fundamental driver of environmental impact for consumer products
(especially electricityintensive products such as hand dryers).
The results for the Cumulative energy demand (CED) indicator are shown in
Figure [].

SOURCE:
Figure 6: Cumulative energy demand associated with drying a single pair of hands
/*------------------------------------------------------------------*/
Conclusions
/*------------------------------------------------------------------*/
Rank order comparison
For a more realistic and meaningful comparison, LCIA results for the different
drying systems are organized in ranking order (Table []). A few
generalizations can be made:
The plastic Dyson Airblade hand dryer has the lowest impact for all
the environmental indicators, followed by the aluminum Dyson
Airblade hand dryer and the XLERATOR hand dryer. `
The standard warm air dryer and the virgin paper towels drying
systems are consistently associated with the highest environmental
impact.
The environmental impacts produced by the cotton roll towels are, in
most cases, less than the impacts related to the virgin paper towels
and to the recycled paper towels.
It is important to point out that the LCIA results for the standard warm
air dryer and the towels (paper and cotton roll towels) are strongly
dependent on the impact assessment methodology (Table []) .

 In contrast, the ranking order of the top three products (i.e. highspeed
hands dryers) is nearly independent of the employed LCIA method.
TABLE 1: Rank order of environmental impact of the products for all of the impact
assessment metrics (1 = lowest impact, 7 = highest impact).
Global
Cumulative
Hand Drying
Ecosystem
warming
Human health
energy
systems
quality
potential
demand
Airblade,
1
1
1
1
aluminum
Airblade,
2
2
2
2
plastic
XLERATOR
3
3
3
3
Standard dryer
7
7
5
6
Cotton roll
4
4
6
4
towels
Paper towels,
5
5
7
7
virgin
Paper towels,
6
6
4
5
100% recycled
Conclusions
A. The results of this research indicate that the environmental impacts
associated with highspeed hand dryers (i.e. Dyson Airblade and
Excel XLERATOR hand dryers) are generally lower than those than
that of other handdrying systems (i.e. standard warm air hand dryer,
cotton roll towels and paper towels). However, the exact ranking order
is ultimately dependent on the LCIA (Life Cycle Impact Assessment)
methodology (Table 1). Nevertheless, the Dyson Airblade hands
drying system has the lowest environmental impact regardless of the
employed impact assessment metric (Table 1).
B. The results of this study show that the use stage is the most influential
factor for the environmental impact resulting from the different hands
drying systems (Figures *). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the
production stage is also a fundamental driver of hand drying systems
impact (especially for paper and cotton roll towels).
C. The key driver of environmental impact for hand dryers is the energy
consumed in the active use of the hand dryer.
D. The key driver of environmental impact for paper and cotton roll towels
are sensitive to the choice of impact assessment methodology. With
respect to paper towels, the manufacturing and the materials phases
are the most influential factors for environmental impact. Regarding

cotton roll towels, all life cycle stages, excluding endoflife, are
important for LCIA purposes.
/*------------------------------------------------------------------*/
Limitations
/*------------------------------------------------------------------*/
This research is heavily based on the life cycle assessment conducted by the
Materials Systems Laboratory of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
and commissioned by Dyson Ltd. As such, the current research has several
limitations:
A. The impact of data quality assumptions: Numerous assumptions
and inventory data decisions were made throughout the life cycle
assessment conducted by the Materials Systems Laboratory of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It has to be acknowledged that
the previously mentioned study does include a comprehensive
exploration of the impact of data quality assumptions. However, these
kind of analyses (sensitivity and uncertainty analyses) are beyond the
scope of the current research. Further studies could include sensitivity
and uncertainty analyses. For example, the impact of data quality
assumptions could be evaluated using a pedigree matrix approach.
B. Measured vs. reported dry times for hand dryers: For hand
dryers, the use intensity (amount of resources required for drying a
single pair of hands) is related to the time that users spend operating
the dryers. To ensure a consistent scientific basis, the current research
only includes dry times measured according to the NSF Protocol P335
[19], which defines hygienically dry hands to have less than 0.1 grams
of moisture remaining after drying. In spite of this useful
characterization, the use intensity should include also dry times
reported by the manufacturers.
C. European context of the IMPACT 2002+ methodology: In spite of
the fact that the focus region for the study conducted by the Materials
Systems Laboratory of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology was
the United States, a European-focused methodology (IMPACT 2002+)
was applied. According to the study, this was necessary because of
limited data availability for the US context and the international
acceptance of IMPACT 2002+ as LCIA methodology.
D. The lack of contribution analyses: Contribution analyses report life
cycle assessment results in the most informative way possible in order
to identify possible opportunities to reduce impact of the product(s) or
service(s) on the environment. Contribution analyses, as well as
sensitivity and uncertainty analyses, are beyond the scope of the

current research. Further studies could include these kind of analyses.

The lack of these interpretation analyses could affect the extent of the
current research.