IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i22p6233-d284382.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Life Cycle Assessment of Three Safe Drinking-Water Options in India: Boiled Water, Bottled Water, and Water Purified with a Domestic Reverse-Osmosis Device

Author

Listed:
  • Tirma Garcia-Suarez

    (Safety and Environmental Assurance Centre, Unilever, Sharnbrook, Bedford MK44 1LQ, UK)

  • Michal Kulak

    (Safety and Environmental Assurance Centre, Unilever, Sharnbrook, Bedford MK44 1LQ, UK)

  • Henry King

    (Safety and Environmental Assurance Centre, Unilever, Sharnbrook, Bedford MK44 1LQ, UK)

  • Julia Chatterton

    (Safety and Environmental Assurance Centre, Unilever, Sharnbrook, Bedford MK44 1LQ, UK)

  • Arunima Gupta

    (Mumbai Hindustan Unilever Research Centre (HURC), I C T Road Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 099, India)

  • Skand Saksena

    (Mumbai Hindustan Unilever Research Centre (HURC), I C T Road Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 099, India)

Abstract

Indian households connected to improved water sources still need to purify their water before drinking. In this study, environmental impacts of three purification options in urban India were compared: (a) boiling water, (b) bottled, purified water, and (c) purifying the water with a domestic reverse-osmosis (RO) device. Primary data for the manufacture, distribution, and the use of the RO device were obtained directly from the manufacturer. Standard, attributional Life Cycle Assessment was performed using a suite of impact assessment methods from ReCiPe v 1.8. In addition, blue and green water consumptions were quantified using the Quantis water database. Bottled water was found to be associated with the highest impacts for all impact categories considered, mainly due to the production and the transportation of bottles. The preference between the other two systems depends on the considered impact category. Water boiled using the liquefied petroleum gas (current practice of urban consumers in India) was found to have higher impacts on climate change and fossil resource use than water from a domestic RO device. The use of the device; however, was found to have higher impacts on water resources than boiling, both in terms of quality (freshwater eutrophication) and availability (water consumption).

Suggested Citation

  • Tirma Garcia-Suarez & Michal Kulak & Henry King & Julia Chatterton & Arunima Gupta & Skand Saksena, 2019. "Life Cycle Assessment of Three Safe Drinking-Water Options in India: Boiled Water, Bottled Water, and Water Purified with a Domestic Reverse-Osmosis Device," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-17, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:22:p:6233-:d:284382
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/22/6233/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/22/6233/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Troy R. Hawkins & Bhawna Singh & Guillaume Majeau‐Bettez & Anders Hammer Strømman, 2013. "Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Electric Vehicles," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 17(1), pages 53-64, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Geir Wæhler Gustavsen & Atle Wehn Hegnes, 2020. "Turning the Tap or Buying the Bottle? Consumers’ Personality, Understanding of Risk, Trust and Conspicuous Consumption of Drinking Water in Norway," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-15, September.
    2. Valentina Zúñiga & Sofía Leiva & Cristian Riquelme & Gloria Gómez & Gladys Vidal & Patricio Neumann, 2023. "Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Household Water Supply: A Case Study Considering Consumption Patterns within a Life-Cycle Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-13, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nelson, Ewan & Warren, Peter, 2020. "UK transport decoupling: On track for clean growth in transport?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 39-51.
    2. Ghotge, Rishabh & van Wijk, Ad & Lukszo, Zofia, 2021. "Off-grid solar charging of electric vehicles at long-term parking locations," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    3. Marit Mohr & Jens F. Peters & Manuel Baumann & Marcel Weil, 2020. "Toward a cell‐chemistry specific life cycle assessment of lithium‐ion battery recycling processes," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 24(6), pages 1310-1322, December.
    4. Christian Wankmüller & Maximilian Kunovjanek & Robert Gennaro Sposato & Gerald Reiner, 2020. "Selecting E-Mobility Transport Solutions for Mountain Rescue Operations," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-19, December.
    5. Shi, Xiao & Pan, Jian & Wang, Hewu & Cai, Hua, 2019. "Battery electric vehicles: What is the minimum range required?," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 352-358.
    6. Rajan Varadarajan, 2017. "Innovating for sustainability: a framework for sustainable innovations and a model of sustainable innovations orientation," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 14-36, January.
    7. Nenming Wang & Guwen Tang, 2022. "A Review on Environmental Efficiency Evaluation of New Energy Vehicles Using Life Cycle Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-35, March.
    8. Anders Skonhoft & Bjart Holtsmark, 2014. "The Norwegian support and subsidy of electric cars. Should it be adopted by other countries?," Working Paper Series 15814, Department of Economics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
    9. Huang, Hai-chao & He, Hong-di & Peng, Zhong-ren, 2024. "Urban-scale estimation model of carbon emissions for ride-hailing electric vehicles during operational phase," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 293(C).
    10. Onat, Nuri Cihat & Kucukvar, Murat & Tatari, Omer, 2015. "Conventional, hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicles? State-based comparative carbon and energy footprint analysis in the United States," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 36-49.
    11. Marmiroli, Benedetta & Venditti, Mattia & Dotelli, Giovanni & Spessa, Ezio, 2020. "The transport of goods in the urban environment: A comparative life cycle assessment of electric, compressed natural gas and diesel light-duty vehicles," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 260(C).
    12. Lefeng, Shi & Shengnan, Lv & Chunxiu, Liu & Yue, Zhou & Cipcigan, Liana & Acker, Thomas L., 2020. "A framework for electric vehicle power supply chain development," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    13. Perrine, Kenneth A. & Kockelman, Kara M. & Huang, Yantao, 2020. "Anticipating long-distance travel shifts due to self-driving vehicles," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    14. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Lipson, Matthew M. & Chard, Rose, 2019. "Temporality, vulnerability, and energy justice in household low carbon innovations," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 495-504.
    15. Johannes Morfeldt & Daniel J. A. Johansson, 2022. "Impacts of shared mobility on vehicle lifetimes and on the carbon footprint of electric vehicles," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-11, December.
    16. Viktor Slednev & Patrick Jochem & Wolf Fichtner, 2022. "Impacts of electric vehicles on the European high and extra high voltage power grid," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(3), pages 824-837, June.
    17. Yu, Biying & Ma, Ye & Xue, Meimei & Tang, Baojun & Wang, Bin & Yan, Jinyue & Wei, Yi-Ming, 2017. "Environmental benefits from ridesharing: A case of Beijing," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 141-152.
    18. Kalghatgi, Gautam, 2018. "Is it really the end of internal combustion engines and petroleum in transport?," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 225(C), pages 965-974.
    19. Wu, Geng & Inderbitzin, Alessandro & Bening, Catharina, 2015. "Total cost of ownership of electric vehicles compared to conventional vehicles: A probabilistic analysis and projection across market segments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 196-214.
    20. Lybbert, M. & Ghaemi, Z. & Balaji, A.K. & Warren, R., 2021. "Integrating life cycle assessment and electrochemical modeling to study the effects of cell design and operating conditions on the environmental impacts of lithium-ion batteries," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:22:p:6233-:d:284382. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.