LCA Methodology Floor Maintenance 1 © 2007 ecomed publishers (Verlagsgruppe Hüthig Jehle Rehm GmbH), D-86899 Landsberg and Tokyo • Mumbai • Seoul • Melbourne • Paris Int J LCA 2007 (OnlineFirst): 10 LCA Methodology Life Cycle Assessment of Water-based Acrylic Floor Finish Maintenance Programs * Lanka Thabrew 1 , Shannon Lloyd 2 , Christopher C. Cypcar 3 , John D. Hamilton 4 and Robert Ries 5 ** 1 Graduate Student, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA 2 Senior Project Engineer, Concurrent Technologies Corporation, Johnstown, PA, 15904, USA 3 Technical Group Leader, Floor Care Research, Development and Engineering, JohnsonDiversey, Inc., Sturtevant, WI 53177, USA 4 Director of Operations, Research, Development and Engineering, JohnsonDiversey, Inc., Sturtevant, WI 53177, USA 5 Assistant Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA ** Corresponding author (robries@pitt.edu) impact assessment (LCIA) categories was greater for the zinc- free floor finish system primarily due to the increased frequency of maintenance. Discussion. The impacts associated with operating the facility were orders of magnitude higher than those associated with pro- ducing or using floor care products, supplies, or equipment. This leads to the conclusion that for critical impacts, floor care prod- uct development should focus research efforts on innovative products that reduce application and maintenance time if sig- nificant reduction in these impacts is sought. Conclusions. Adopting a stochastic modeling approach enabled incorporation of parameter uncertainty and analysis of uncer- tainty in model results. In the scenario shown here, the magni- tude of overall impact in all LCIA categories was greater for the zinc-free floor finish system than the zinc-containing floor fin- ish system. Perspectives. Use of decision modeling software provided flex- ibility for developing scenarios and assessing floor maintenance programs under various operational and site-specific conditions. Abbreviations: CARB – California Air Resources Board; CBECS – Commercial building energy consumption survey; CDF – Cu- mulative distribution function; CF – Characterization factor; DALY– Disability adjusted life year; DF – Damage factor; HVAC – Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning; ISSA – International Sanitary Supply Association Keywords: Facility operations; floor maintenance; parameter uncertainty; water-based acrylic floor; zinc-free floor finish * ESS-Submission Editor: Dr. Andreas Ciroth (ciroth@greendeltatc.com) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2007.04.323 Please cite this paper as: Thabrew L, Lloyd S, Cypcar CC, Hamilton JD, Ries R (2007): Life Cycle Assessment of Water- based Acrylic Floor Finish Maintenance Programs. Int J LCA, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2007.04.323 Abstract Aim, Scope, and Background. Industrial and institutional (I and I) floor maintenance activities require regular use of chemical products and equipment. Different floor care systems require different maintenance products, activities, and frequencies which consume different levels of energy and material for product manufacturing, maintenance, and application. Therefore, select- ing between floor maintenance products and programs requires comprehensive analysis of the entire floor maintenance system as well as any site-specific factors that can influence human and environmental health. In this paper, a probabilistic model for comparing the environmental life cycle implications of I and I floor maintenance programs is presented. The primary interest is in comparing programs that use different water-based acrylic floor finishes and in particular, programs using zinc-containing floor finishes compared to zinc-free floor finish systems. Zinc, used in some acrylic polymers as a polymer cross-linking agent, is regulated in some communities to minimize its impact on the aquatic environment. Method. The life cycle assessment (LCA) model was developed in compliance with the ISO 14040 series of standards [1]. Fur- thermore, uncertain input variables were defined as probabilistic distributions and Latin Hypercube Sampling was used to propa- gate uncertainty through the model. The scope of the study in- cludes the full life cycle of the materials, supplies, equipment, and activities associated with performing floor maintenance. The ef- fects of maintaining higher lighting and temperature levels while performing floor maintenance are estimated using building en- ergy system analysis. The life cycle inventory (LCI) element of the LCA was developed using product-specific data, publicly available data, and established life cycle inventory databases. Life cycle impact assessment was conducted using the Eco-Indicator 99 [2] and Impact 2002+ impact [3,4] assessment methods. Results. Two floor maintenance scenarios were developed and analyzed to compare the environmental impact of programs using zinc-containing and zinc-free floor finishes. The results discussed herein are presented for a hypothetical retail store located in the Midwest region of the United States. Given the scenarios exam- ined, zinc-free floor finish systems reduced the release of zinc ions to the environment, but the overall impact in all life cycle Introduction Industrial and institutional (I and I) floor maintenance pro- grams, although conceptually similar, vary in actual prac- tice. Maintenance programs vary substantially in terms of types and frequencies of floor maintenance activities, com- position of cleaners, strippers, and finishes, and types and capacities of maintenance equipment. Energy, material, and human resources are required to perform floor maintenance. Efforts have been made to understand the risks from using and disposing floor care products. For example, Long and Baird [6] characterized the environmental impact of zinc introduced to the environment in wastewater streams from