Institut für Landtechnik Professur für Haushalts und Verfahrenstechnik Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Rainer Stamminger ______
Laboratory Investigation of Manual Dishwashing Habits and its Resource Consumptions: A Study of Consumer Panels in Seven Global Regions
I n a u g u r a l – D i s s e r t a t i o n zur Erlangung des Grades
Doktor der Ernährungs und Haushaltswissenschaft (Dr.oec.troph.)
der Hohen Landwirtschaftlichen Fakultät der Rheinischen Friedrich Wilhelms Universität Bonn
vorgelegt am TT.MM.JJJJ
von Petra Berkholz
aus Köln
Name des 1. Prüfer: Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Rainer Stamminger Name des 2. Prüfers: Prof. Dr. rer. pol. Michael Burkhard Piorkowsky
Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: ______
Abstract
Laboratory Investigation of Manual Dishwashing Habits and its Resource Consumptions: A Study of Consumer Panels in Seven Global Regions
Dishwashing is a mundane household task which needs to be done by consumers around the world on a daily basis. As such, it demands the usage of resources like water and energy. Thereby, the intensity of resource consumption very much depends on individual consumer habits. In order to achieve an effective saving of resource demand in the domestic sector, primarily one needs to understand consumer behaviour first. The aim of the present research is to contribute to a better understanding of global manual dishwashing habits.
Within a laboratory study, the resource consumption and cleaning results of manual dishwashing was compared with automatic dishwashing. Furthermore, consumers’ manual and automatic dishwashing behaviour and attitudes were analysed and effects of specific manual dishwashing practices on the resource consumption and the cleaning result were determined. A consumer panel with participants from 29 different countries was analysed. Each consumer had to wash up twelve soiled place settings based on both international and local performance test standards for automatic dishwashing. In order to replicate household conditions, country specific aspects such as tableware, food residues, variations of different washing up utensils and hand dishwashing liquids were considered. For each trial, resource consumption data were recorded and cleaning results were assessed visually. Individual consumer habits and attitudes on manual and automatic dishwashing were captured both by a written questionnaire and on video records in a non participating observation. In parallel, six country specific dishwasher models were tested in three programmes with the same soiled dish samples as used in the consumer study.
The study concludes that automatic dishwashing achieves a clear optimisation of the dishwashing process under the chosen test conditions with regard to a more efficient resource usage and an improvement in cleaning performance. Depending on the programme, highest gains in efficiency are achieved in total water usage per item by
up to 87% followed by total corrected energy consumption per item with savings up to 58%. Cleaning results are improved by up to 36%. The questionnaire reveals differences in attitudes and habits towards manual and automatic dishwashing between the countries. A lack of knowledge about the benefits of automatic dishwashing can be indentified. Furthermore, washing up in a filled sink is determined as the most resource saving manual dishwashing practice by achieving a similar cleaning result compared to other hand dishwashing practices.
Kurzfassung
Geschirrspülen ist eine alltägliche Haushaltstätigkeit, die tagtäglich weltweit von Verbrauchern verrichtet wird. Als solche bedingt sie den Einsatz von Ressourcen wie Wasser und Energie. Dabei ist die Intensität der Ressourcennutzung abhängig von den individuellen Verhaltensweisen der Verbraucher. Um eine Reduzierung des Ressourceneinsatzes im privaten Haushalt zu erreichen, muss zunächst das Verbraucherverhalten näher analysiert werden. Die vorliegende Arbeit möchte hierbei einen Beitrag zum besseren Verständnis von globalen manuellen Geschirrspülverhaltensweisen leisten.
Mittels einer Laborstudie wurden der Ressourcenverbrauch und das Reinigungsergebnis beim manuellen und maschinellen Geschirrspülen verglichen. Verhaltensweisen sowie Verbrauchereinstellungen zum manuellen und maschinellen Geschirspülen wurden analysiert sowie die Auswirkungen spezifischer Handspülmethoden auf den Ressourcenverbrauch und das Reinigungsergebnis erfasst. Ein Panel mit Verbrauchern aus 29 verschiedenen Regionen nahm an der Studie teil. Jedem Teilnehmer wurde zur Aufgabe gestellt, zwölf verschmutzte Maßgedecke, welche in Anlehnung an internationale und lokale Teststandards für Haushaltsgeschirrspüler zusammengestellt wurden, mit der Hand zu spülen. Um haushaltsnahe Bedingungen zu schaffen, wurden landestypische Aspekte wie Geschirr, Lebensmittelrückstände, verschiedene Spülutensilien und Handgeschirrspülmittel berücksichtigt. Die Erfassung von Verbrauchswerten sowie eine visuelle Beurteilung des Reinigungsergebnisses wurden für jeden einzelnen Versuch durchgeführt. Mittels Fragebogen und Videoanalyse im Rahmen einer nicht teilnehmenden Beobachtung wurden individuelle Verhaltensweisen sowie Einstellungen der Verbraucher zur Thematik erhoben. Des Weiteren wurden sechs landestypische Geschirrspüler in drei Programmen getestet. Hierzu wurde das gleiche Geschirr herangezogen, welches auch für die Verbraucherstudie verwendet wurde.
Die Studie kommt zu dem Schluss, dass das maschinelle Geschirrspülen unter den vorgegebenen Testbedingungen zu einer wesentlichen Optimierung des Spülprozesses im Hinblick auf Ressourceneinsatz und Reinigungsleistung beiträgt. In Abhängigkeit
vom gewählten Programm können Einsparungen des Wasserverbrauchs pro Geschirrteil von bis zu 87% und des Energieverbrauchs pro Geschirrteil von bis zu 58% erzielt werden. Das Reinigungsergebnis wird um bis zu 36% verbessert. Die Verbraucherbefragung zeigt deutliche Unterschiede hinsichtlich Einstellung und Verhaltensweisen zum Thema Geschirrspülen zwischen den Ländern. Dabei wird ein unzureichender Wissensstand über die Vorteile des maschinellen Geschirrspülens aufgedeckt. Hinsichtlich unterschiedlicher Handspülmethoden belegt die Studie, dass mit Hilfe des Handspülens im gefüllten Becken beste Ergebnisse im Bereich der Ressourceneinsparung erzielt werden ohne zu einer Verschlechterung des Reinigungsergebnisses zu führen.
Content
1 Introduction ...... 1
1.1 The concept of sustainable development ...... 2
1.2 Demographic and economic drivers of global resource demand ...... 4
1.3 Resource consumption in the residential sector ...... 6
1.3.1 Residential water demand ...... 6
1.3.2 Residential energy demand ...... 8
1.3.3 Methods to drive environmental decision making among consumers ...... 9
1.4 Dishwashing – A resource consuming household task ...... 13
2 Objectives ...... 17
3 Material and Methods ...... 19
3.1 Investigation of manual dishwashing ...... 20
3.1.1 Determination of the consumer sample ...... 20
3.1.2 Preparation of the tableware ...... 22
3.1.3 Description of the consumer behaviour analysis ...... 24
3.1.3.1 Written questionnaire design ...... 24
3.1.3.2 Non participant observation ...... 26
3.1.4 Description of the test workstation ...... 31
3.1.5 Data measurement and cleaning performance assessment ...... 33
3.2 Investigation of automatic dishwashing ...... 36
3.2.1 Characteristics of the tested dishwasher models ...... 36
3.2.2 Preparation of the tableware ...... 37
3.2.3 Automatic dishwashing detergent and additives ...... 40
3.2.4 Data measurement and cleaning performance assessment ...... 40
3.3 Statistical methods ...... 43
3.4 Systematic error ...... 43
4 Results ...... 45
4.1 Demographical characteristics of the consumer panels ...... 45
4.2 Manual dishwashing: Resource consumption and cleaning result ...... 47
4.3 Automatic dishwashing: Resource consumption and cleaning result ...... 56
4.4 Comparison of manual and automatic dishwashing regarding resource consumption and cleaning result ...... 62
4.5 Analysis of consumers’ attitudes and behaviour towards manual and automatic dishwashing ...... 65
4.6 Effect of specific manual dishwashing practices on the resource consumption and the cleaning result ...... 75
5 Discussion...... 79
5.1 Methodology ...... 79
5.2 Consumer sample ...... 80
5.3 Research findings ...... 82
5.3.1 Manual dishwashing: Resource consumption and cleaning results ...... 82
5.3.2 Automatic dishwashing: Resource consumption and cleaning results ...... 86
5.3.3 Comparison of manual and automatic dishwashing regarding resource consumption and cleaning result ...... 90
5.3.4 Analysis of consumers’ attitudes and behaviour towards manual and automatic dishwashing ...... 92
5.3.5 Effect of specific manual dishwashing practices on the resource consumption and cleaning result ...... 96
6 Conclusion ...... 99
References ...... 102
List of abbreviations ...... 111
List of figures ...... 115
List of tables ...... 117
Appendix ...... I
A. Place settings, serving pieces and soiling agents ...... I
B. Appendix Written questionnaire design ...... XI
C. Hand dishwashing detergents and utensils ...... XXVII
D. Video and technical equipment ...... XXXIII
E. Assessment sheet ...... XXXV
F. Statistical data ...... XXXVI
G. Statistical analysis ...... XXXIX
Acknowledgement ......
Curriculum vitae ......
Introduction 1
1 Introduction
Dishwashing has been part of everyday life since people started using tools for food preparation and food intake. Always, it has been a redundant household task that needs to be done – either manually or by using a household appliance to handle the job instead. Up to the present day, the usage of dishwashers has been well established on developed consumer markets demonstrated by high penetration levels and rising future prospects (ZVEI, 2011; CLASP, 2013).
However, manual dishwashing still remains a mundane task even in households owning and using a dishwasher. Recent investigations have revealed that a small number of dishes still get cleaned by hand, especially as a kind of pre treatment pattern before being loaded into and washed in a dishwasher. This leads to additional and unnecessary resource demand, and therefore to a less efficient use of automatic dishwashing machines (RICHTER , 2011). But also studies about manual dishwashing behaviour alone have concluded that dramatic differences in water and energy consumption are realised due to a high variation of dishwashing habits among consumers (STAMMINGER et al. , 2007a; BERKHOLZ et al., 2010).
The previous examples show that consumer behaviour has an impact on resource consumption. Regarding energy use, the residential sector is already today the most rapidly growing area after transportation (OECD, 2001c). This is due to various global developments affecting global water and energy demand. Demographic drivers such as a steadily increasing world population as well as economic factors like a rising middle class with a growing income stress natural and non renewable resources. Hence, investigations about consumer patterns are getting even more important and necessary. With a better understanding of consumer behaviour, consumer advice about the sustainable use of resources can be gained and specific consumer information can be created for campaigns to point consumer behaviour in a more sustainable direction.
The following chapter should give a brief introduction into the topic of the rising global resource demand, its drivers – especially for the residential sectors, as well as Introduction 2
further details about dishwashing as an example of a resource consuming household task.
1.1 The concept of sustainable development Sustainable development has become a term that has been well integrated in peoples’ daily life and is widely used in day to day communication. But this development has taken almost 50 years. First discussions about sustainable development started back in the late 1960s at a UNESCO conference where ecological aspects of this concept were part of the agenda (IISD, 2002). During the following 20 years, the focus on sustainable development became more intense at nationwide conferences, in research findings and political discussions. Various definitions and meanings have been established for sustainable development. But the most common one was popularised by the report “Our Common Future” which was published in 1987 by the United Nation’s World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). The Norwegian prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland chaired the commission and made the report famous under the name “Brundtland report”. Two main definitions of sustainability are named within this document:
1. “Sustainable development seeks to meet the needs and aspirations of the present
without compromising the ability to meet those of the future” (UNITED NATIONS , 1987, p. 51).
2. “In essence, sustainable development is a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological development, and institutional change are all in harmony and enhance both current and
future potential to meet human needs and aspirations” (UNITED NATIONS , 1987, p. 57).
As these definitions of the concept remained less concrete, further discussions on the international political platform lead to the development of the Agenda 21 a product of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992. It is a non binding, voluntarily implemented action plan to accelerate sustainable development within the support of national strategies, plans, policies and processes on international, national, regional and local levels. The Introduction 3 need for the agenda became crucial as disparities between and within nations still remained constant, poverty, hunger, illnesses and illiteracy was worsening, and the deterioration of the ecosystems continued. Hence, a global partnership between nations was seen as necessary to achieve a status of global well being (UNITED NATIONS , 1992).
Within the following years the achievement of sustainable development on a global level remained of high priority to all nations. Several publications of the United Nations like the United Nations Millennium Declaration and the Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development reaffirmed the commitment of achieving the goals of sustainable development through the implementation of the Agenda 21
(UNITED NATIONS , 2000; UNITED NATIONS , 2002). Furthermore, the concept of sustainable development was classified into three components as independent and mutually reinforcing pillars: economic development, social development and environmental protection (UNITED NATIONS, 2005). The need to further mainstream sustainable development at all levels by integrating economic, social and environmental aspects was lastly reaffirmed by the report of the United Nations
Conference on Sustainable Development in 2012 (UNITED NATIONS , 2012).
However, criticism of the concept of sustainable development has been voiced out since its establishment. For instance, one conflict is seen in the fact that the concept is too vague as its definition leads to different interpretations by people and organisations. Secondly, it does not provide any criteria or measures that could be used to distinguish between unsustainable and sustainable activities (ROBINSON , 2004). The three pillars of sustainability target multidimensional goals which partly have negative effects on each other, for example adequate provision of food and water for the poor might lead to a decrease of biodiversity (HARRIS , 2003). Furthermore, some of the less developed countries only see the concept as a kind of ideology introduced by industrialised countries to further impose stricter regulations on aid for developing countries. Criticism is also seen in the fact that the poor are given less support and attention although they suffer the most from environmental degradation. One major concern is related to the ideology of economic growth which has been seen as a new ideology of Introduction 4
neo liberalism which intensifies social and ecological problems and disparities instead
of solving them (EUR ACTIV , 2002).
1.2 Demographic and economic drivers of global resource demand Despite all efforts that have been made by politicians and organisations to further integrate sustainable development aspects into concrete action plans, the increasing effect of climate change and global warming has demonstrated that political achievements are still not impactful enough. Still, there is an increasing demand for resources worldwide which depends on a conglomerate of different factors.
A major aspect of these developments is the progressing growth of the world population. UN world population prospects estimated that the world population of 7.2 billion measured in 2013 is going to increase by another billion people within the next 12 years to reach a number of 8.1 billion people in 2025. A further increase is projected resulting in a world population of 9.6 billion in 2050 and even 10.9 in 2100. These estimations are based on a medium variant projection taking a decline in the global fertility rate into account. But still growth is expected to remain high for developing countries – mainly in Africa where fertility still remains on a high level – and for countries with large populations such as India, Indonesia, Pakistan, the
Philippines and the United States of America (UNITED NATIONS , 2013). In addition, life expectancy at birth is expected to be slightly higher in several countries. In contrast to that, population in developed countries is projected to change minimally or
even decline due to low levels of fertility (EUROSTAT , 2012; UNITED NATIONS , 2013).
An increasing population needs a higher amount of natural resources. This is reflected by the Ecological Footprint which “measures the amount of biologically productive land and water area required to produce all the resources an individual, population, or activity consumes, and to absorb the waste they generate, given prevailing technology
and resource management practices” (ERWING et al. , 2010, p. 8). This area can be then compared with the planet’s ecological capacity. In 2007, the Global Ecological Footprint accounted for 18.0 billion global hectares. But only 11.9 billion global hectares of biocapacity were available during that year. Hence, human demand was 50% higher than the earth could satisfy which means that the world population accounting Introduction 5 for 6.7 billion people in 2007 used the equivalent of 1.5 earths to support its consumption (ERWING et al. , 2010).
Beside a rising population, the shift from very low income classes to medium income classes can be seen as another driver for the increasing demand of natural resources. Projections estimate that per capita annual economic growth will show an increase by about 2.4% globally. However, emerging markets such as the BRIC group countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China), Philippines, and Indonesia will show an increase of 4% of per capita annual economic growth. This means that a larger part of the world population will have a higher amount of per capita income for their disposal on consumption which results in an increasing demand for raw materials and other resources such as water and energy. Projections estimate that 40% of global consumption will account for the emerging markets in 2050 compared to one third in
2012 (EUROMONITOR , 2013; HSBC, 2012; OECD 2008).
An increase in disposable income is often linked to a change in lifestyle. People are going to spend a higher amount of their money for services and products they can afford now which will lead to a higher demand for water and energy use to produce and process these non food goods (HSBC, 2012; WORLD WATER ASSESSMENT
PROGRAMME , 2009). A similar development can be recognised within the group of retirees. Due to a higher life expectancy this group has a higher level of disposable income and a larger amount of free time to spend their money (OECD, 2008).
Also, a positive development of economic growth often coincides with an increase in urbanisation. Rapid rates of urbanisation are expected to increase in cities especially in the emerging markets. Hence, accommodation will tend to become more sophisticated as people will spend their money on better furnishing and power appliances, heating and air conditioning (HSBC, 2012).
Another progress linked to a change in lifestyle is the development of household sizes. A growing urbanisation, a reduction in birth rates, an increase in life expectancy leads to a higher number of smaller households and more people living alone (EUROSTAT , 2009; OECD, 2001c; OECD, 2008). Introduction 6
Finally, the potential development in population growth linked with the increase in income and consumption will consequently result in higher energy demand, an increasing water use and waste generation. Regarding energy use, the residential sector is already today the most rapidly growing area after transportation (OECD, 2001c).
1.3 Resource consumption in the residential sector The previous chapter already described that a growing demand for natural resources such as water and energy very much depends on socio demographic variables such as population growth and the increasing number of single households as well as economic factors like the changes in per capita income. Especially the residential sector affects the environment through daily decisions by household members, regarding for example which goods and services to buy and to use, whether to recycle waste or not, and how much water and energy to consume for daily household tasks. For sure, the environmental impact from the industrial sector and public sector is higher compared to private households. However, it is the combined impact of private households which accounts for a number of environmental problems and makes the residential sector to an important contributor on air and water pollution, water and energy consumption as well as waste generation (OECD, 2001c).
1.3.1 Residential water demand Water is a basic element for life on earth. It plays an essential role in the economy but also within the climate regulation cycle. Fresh water resources are finite and not evenly distributed around the planet. Previously, fresh water distribution was mainly dominated by natural cycles such as freezing and thawing, fluctuations in precipitation, water runoff patterns and evapotranspiration. However, the distribution of water has additionally become more influenced by mankind which increases the pressure on
global water systems (WORLD WATER ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME , 2009). Many regions around the globe face water stress such as water shortages. Millions of people have neither access to safe drinking water nor sanitation. Flooding and water pollution which are also influenced and caused by climate change characterise many places worldwide (UNEP, 2004). As a consequence, water management has become one of
the cornerstones for global environmental protection policies (EUROSTAT , 2012). Introduction 7
World water demand has increased significantly over the last decades. Among all regions, OECD countries consume the highest amount of water with three times more water per person on average compared to inhabitants living in East Asia, Latin America, Africa or India. In addition, the water demand within the OECD area is expected to further increase by 12% in 2020 (OECD, 2001c). The increasing water demand is mainly driven by changes in lifestyle associated with changing consumption choices, and population growth as described in chapter 1.2.
Main users of freshwater resources are agriculture, industry and the domestic sector covering both households and services (EUROSTAT , 2012). Agriculture is the largest freshwater user. About 70% of all freshwater withdrawal accounts for irrigated agriculture. Main driver for this development is the increasing production of agricultural products to satisfy the steadily rising demand for food for a growing world population. Furthermore, the increase in disposable income especially in the emerging markets leads to a change in eating habits towards a diet with more variety. This further stimulates agricultural production and as a consequence water consumption
(WORLD WATER ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME , 2009). The second highest water demand accounts for the industry sector with 19%. Its freshwater demand is mainly concentrated on urban areas and has shown a decreasing trend in Europe within the last 30 years (FAO, 2012; UNEP, 2004). The smallest water consumption comes from the municipal sector which consumes about 12% of freshwater. However, current developments in water consumption within this sector and its resulting environmental impacts give good reason to pay more attention towards it (FAO, 2012; OECD, 2001c). The highest amount of water used in private households accounts for personal hygiene such as bathing and showering. OECD data revealed that 35% to 40% of household water is used for these purposes. 20% to 30% is consumed for toilet flushing and 10% to 20% for laundry washing. The smallest amount of water is used for food preparation and drinking (OECD, 2001c). This trend could also be confirmed by a survey about the average freshwater usage of private households in Germany. It also named water consumption data for facility cleaning, car maintenance and gardening which account for 6% of the total average water withdrawal in private households. 6% of the total average water consumption was named to be used for dishwashing (BDEW, 2013). As Introduction 8
there is very limited data available about the real domestic water consumption, a German study collected empirical data about water usage at the kitchen sink in four European countries. Thereby, the largest average water consumption in all countries was found to be by far manual dishwashing with an average water use of 10.9 litres per capita and day followed by cleaning procedures which accounted for 2.6 litres per capita and day on average. The third largest water withdrawal was needed for cooking procedures with 2.2 litres per capita and day on average. Drinking (1.5 litres) and washing hands (1.0 litre) were identified to be the two least water consuming
procedures per capita and day (RICHTER & STAMMINGER , 2012).
1.3.2 Residential energy demand The end users of energy can be split into the following sectors: (1) Transportation, (2) industry, and (3) private households. A European analysis showed that the share of final energy used by transport accounted for one third in the EU 27 in 2009, while the share for transport and households were approximately one quarter. Since 1999, the consumption of electricity in private households has increased by about 18.5% within
a period of ten years making them one of the largest energy consumers (EUROSTAT , 2012). On a global perspective, it is expected that the energy demand of the residential sector will increase by 1.4% per year in OECD countries until 2030. However, for non OECD countries an even more rapid development is estimated. Projections indicate that energy use of private households in non OECD countries will be 30% above the demand of OECD countries in 2030 with China and India accounting for one half of the total increase in residential energy use (IEA, 2006).
Various factors can be summarized that have contributed to a rise in energy demand in the residential sector. An increase in the number of households together with a decrease in household size has led to an increase in per capita dwelling area and with it to higher energy consumption for space heating and cooling. In addition, economic growth and technology have also influenced a steadily growing energy demand. Due to rising incomes and falling prices for appliances, consumers are now able to purchase more electric appliances. Furthermore, lifestyle changes such as longer working hours, time saving pressure, maximisation of leisure time etc., have accounted Introduction 9
for a higher ownership rate and a growing frequency of use of appliances (EUROSTAT ,
2012; OECD, 2001a; OECD, 2001c; STAMMINGER , MEBANE & ESPOSITO , 2007).
Due to these developments in recent years, the energy sector has become a key objective in EU policy. Only with a competitive, reliable and sustainable energy sector advanced economies are able to sustain and continue to grow. One key aspect of EU policy remains the promotion of energy efficiency to constrain energy consumption, both within the energy sector itself but also among end users. Therefore, a 2020 target
was set up to achieve a further improvement of energy efficiency by 20% (EUROSTAT , 2012). An increase in energy efficiency of appliances has already happened within the European Union. This was partly due to the active government policy to integrate standards and labels for energy efficiency for consumer durables that led to a boosting effect of technological improvements within the appliance sector. However, the energy efficiency effect could not offset the increasing demand and use for some appliances (OECD, 2001a). For example, although automatic dishwashers achieved an efficiency
gain of 49% within the EU 15 from 1968 to 2005 (STAMMINGER , MEBANE &
ESPOSITO , 2007), penetration level still remains behind other household appliances. In 2010, market penetration for automatic dishwashers accounted for 67% in Germany compared to washing machines which reached a penetration level of close to 100% (ZVEI, 2011). Nevertheless, future prospects estimate a rise in dishwasher ownership resulting in a rate of 60 % for EU 27 (CLASP, 2013).
1.3.3 Methods to drive environmental decision making among consumers As already highlighted in the previous chapters, an increase in resource consumption also depends on developments in the residential sector. Population growth, higher incomes and the decrease in household sizes are the main factors that have led to an increase in per capita dwelling area and a rising purchase of goods and services. As a result, the demand for water and energy has been rising continuously. In order to stop and even reduce the resource demand of private households, comprehensive measures are necessary to influence consumers towards an impactful sustainable behaviour.
In general, consumers are concerned about the environment and how their behaviour and actions affect it. Nevertheless, recent trends in resource demand have shown that Introduction 10 awareness of one’s own habits does not necessarily mean that is has been translated successfully into consequent actions to reduce consumption. Hence, different methodologies and tools have been implemented by policies and social organisations to promote water and energy savings (OECD, 2001b).
Methods to support higher water efficiency can be seen in water pricing taxes and metering. They have been used as important incentives. However, studies in OECD countries have demonstrated that the influence of water prices on a decrease of water use by consumers has been less effective than assumed. Only when prices per unit of water were higher than average, was a connection between price and consumption reflected (OECD, 2001c).
Furthermore, technological innovations have been implemented to increase the efficiency of water consuming devices such as low flush toilets, low flow showers and faucet aerators. But also water using appliances have benefit from technological innovations and have promoted water savings among consumers. For example dishwashers have experienced a reduction in water consumption by 22% from 1998 to 2005 and in addition a shift in sales for the benefit of models with a higher efficiency classes (STAMMINGER , MEBANE & ESPOSITO , 2007; WORLD WATER ASSESSMENT
PROGRAMME , 2009).
Labels can also be seen as a powerful tool to make consumers act in favour of the environment. They are one example of quality information which provide relevant and accurate information to the public on products and services regarding environmental factors and resource consumption measures. Their purpose is to both promote environmentally sustainable consumption and production of products and services and support consumers in their decision making process when purchasing goods or services (OECD, 2001b).
Water and energy efficiency labels are two examples of information tools promoted via the market that inform consumers about the resource consumption and efficiency of water and energy using devices and appliances respectively. They both exist as endorsement or comparative labels and can be either mandatory or voluntary. Introduction 11
Endorsement labels tell the consumers that the product meets certain standards while providing little or no comparative efficiency information. Instead, comparative labels indicate the ranking of the product based on efficiency classes and inform about the consumption values (HARRINGTON & DAMNICS , 2004). Labels to promote energy and water efficiency are used in many OECD countries, and the range of appliances and equipment they are applied to is expanding continuously (OECD, 2001c). One of the most well established water labels is the Australian Water Efficiency Labelling Scheme (WELS). It is a mandatory label that was introduced in 2006 under the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2005 (the WELS Act) and is the First Assistant Secretary of the Environment Quality Division in the Department of the Environment. Currently, plumbing ware, sanitary products and white goods such as clothes washing machines and automatic dishwashing need to have the Australian water efficiency label when sold on the Australian market. The label itself displays two important facts for consumers. First is a star rating indicating relative water efficiency. The more stars which are marked on the label, the higher the water efficiency is of the respective product. The second information on the label shows the water consumption of water flow figure of the product. With the implementation of the WELS in 2006, projections estimate that (1) domestic water use will be reduced by more than 100,000 megalitres each year, (2) more than 800,000 megalitres of water will be saved, and (3) total greenhouse gas output will be reduced by 400,000 tonnes each year which is equivalent to taking 90,000 cars off the road each year (THE
AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT , 2014 ). Energy efficiency labels and minimum energy performance standards (MEPS) are fast becoming commonplace throughout the world and are well established in over 50 countries. HARRINGTON and DAMNICS (2004) provide a detailed overview about the most common used efficiency labels and MEPS worldwide. One of the most well established energy efficiency labels is the mandatory European Energy Label. The European Commission made its usage compulsory in all member states in 1992 by the Directive 92/75/EEC for a range of household appliances. In 1995, the label became effective on the market. In 2010, Directive 92/75/EEC was replaced by Directive
2010/30/EU which widened the application to energy related products (EUROPEAN Introduction 12
COMMISSION , 2014; HARRINGTON & DAMNICS , 2004). Depending on the product group, energy efficiency classes are displayed from A+++ to G, and colours from dark green (high energy efficiency) to red (low energy efficiency). In addition, the energy consumption per year or cycle is displayed together with further product specific measures (CECED, n.d.).
Energy labels can have an impact on consumer decision making while purchasing large and high cost electronic appliances such as refrigerators, freezers, washing machines or dishwashers. SAMMER and WÜSTENHAGEN (2006) investigated within a survey among Swiss consumers whether labelling of household appliances had an influence on consumer behaviour. The product chosen in the study was a washing machine. The investigation revealed a significant willingness to pay for products with a high energy efficiency rating confirming the research’s hypothesis that the energy label positively influences consumers’ buying decision. Furthermore, the survey showed a high level of awareness of the energy label (SAMMER & WÜSTENHAGEN , 2006). Preparatory studies for eco design requirements of energy using products analysed European consumers’ decision making while purchasing a household appliance. In total, 2497 households in ten European countries were asked which source of information they would use before the purchase. More than 50% responded that they would rely on information provided on the energy label. Thereby, the energy efficiency class and the water consumption were seen as the most important information on the label by over 80% of respondents (STAMMINGER , 2007).
However, beside labels being a tool to inform consumers about resource consumption and efficiency of products during the purchasing phase, past and projected trends in household consumption demonstrated that there are further methods needed to promote resource saving and efficiency in the future (OECD, 2001c). One aspect is to further investigate consumer behaviour as it demonstrates an important factor when it comes to consumption patterns. With a deeper understanding of the background for certain behavioural tendencies, an answer might be found on the question of why environmental awareness among consumers is still not always translated into environmental friendly behaviour. Introduction 13
1.4 Dishwashing – A resource consuming household task As described in the previous chapters, the resource demand in the residential sector is projected to increase continuously within the following years due to various factors. Resource intensive household tasks contribute to the residential daily water and energy demand. Dishwashing still remains a redundant household task which needs to be done on a daily routine in most private households. Its resource consumption depends whether it is done by hand or by using a machine.
Official statistics report different numbers about how much resources are used for household tasks such as cleaning the dishes. The BDWE states that dishwashing accounted for 6% (7 litres) on average to the daily water usage per person and day in German households in 2012 (BDWE, 2013). Other resources quote similar figures for the UK where 8% of total water consumption per day is needed for washing up
(WATERWISE , n.d.). The European Environment Agency (EEA) states that about one third of the total water consumption in private households accounts for washing clothes and dishwashing based on average numbers for four European countries (EEA, 2001). However, information about the water consumption for household tasks remains quite rare and depends on either assumption or estimation and household questionnaires.
In order to get a detailed picture about more accurate resource consumption in the domestic sector for various household tasks and its dependency on individual consumer habits, several studies have been conducted focussing on the process of
dishwashing and its impact on water and energy demand. Early studies by SATER (1934) already focussed on a systematic comparison of different dishwashing methods: a hand method, a sink spray method, and a dishwasher method. The research especially investigated the factors time and costs needed to wash dishes with the different methods. The latter covered costs for equipment but also soap consumption,
energy and water demand. Also conclusions about sanitation were drawn (SATER , 1934). The study provided first insights into how different dishwashing methods can influence resource demand. However, results need to be considered critically as energy and water consumption measurements were not executed for all methods. Introduction 14
More recent discussions of different dishwashing processes provided a more detailed analysis on water and energy consumption but also put more emphasis on environmental effects and consumer habits. GUTZSCHEBAUCH et al. (1996) revealed that using an automatic dishwasher leads to reduced consumption of electricity by approximately 6% and water by 50%. Also, first insights about the usage of an automatic dishwasher were provided with special regard to the programme, load and detergent use. Consumer habit analysis for manual dishwashing mainly concentrated on the quantity of dishwashing processes per day, pre and post treatment habits as well as the usage of detergents (GUTZSCHEBAUCH et al., 1996).
However, tests depended mainly either on repeated measures design or survey results.
First consumer tests were investigated by LUECKE (1971) and GUDD , KIONKA and
SCHMITZ PLASKUDA (1994). Both investigations analysed resource consumption of manual and automatic dishwashing within a comparable approach.
A first ethnographical investigation of consumer behaviour towards the energy usage for different end use patterns such as dishwashing was done by WILHITE et al. (1996). Culture dependent differences were analysed in private households in Japan and Norway – two developed countries with similar levels and patterns of material culture, but with different cultural traditions. The research found significant contrasts in dishwashing habits. While it was not common to use hot water for manual dishwashing in Norway, Japanese households tended to adapt the water temperature depending on the season. Again, Norwegian households tended to wash up in a water filled sink with diluted soap. Japanese households left the water running instead while washing up as this was the most convenient way to clean dishes in a small kitchen area
(WILHITE et al. , 1996).
The first sophisticated analysis of both manual and automatic dishwashing habits and data measurements was done by STAMMINGER et al. (2007a). Within a panel of in total 113 participants from 10 European countries and regions respectively, preliminary insights should be gained on the water and energy consumption, time, detergent use and cleanliness when washing up dishes by hand in dependency on cultural patterns. All participants were provided with the identical amount of dirty dishes to be washed Introduction 15 manually. In addition, the same amount of dishes provided for the consumer tests were washed in an automatic dishwasher. The study concluded that dishwashers reached at least the same cleaning performance as almost any test person, but needed considerably less water. Variations among consumers for resource consumption and cleanliness data were explained by the presence of different washing up techniques and habits such as soaking, clever water management or application of mechanical action (STAMMINGER et al., 2007a).
Because the research of STAMMINGER et al. (2007a) was only based on a limited number of participants per country, BERKHOLZ et al. (2010) replicated the study but recruited a larger and fully representative consumer sample of the UK population. This study was able to confirm the findings of STAMMINGER et al., (2007a). Furthermore, survey results highlighted that less than one third of consumers considered energy, water and detergent savings as very important factors for cleaning dishes. This led to the conclusion that further consumer information is needed to educate people about the sustainable use of resources (BERKHOLZ et al. , 2010).
As both studies of STAMMINGER et al. (2007a) and BERKHOLZ et al. (2010) were done under laboratory conditions, RICHTER (2011) tried to fill the lack of information about dishwashing on the household level by conducting an in house consumer survey with two hundred households in four European countries. Manual dishwashing patterns as well as the usage of automatic dishwashers were analysed with the help of dishwashing diaries and pictures of loaded machines. Additionally, calculations of water and energy demand for manual dishwashing and pre treatment patterns for automatic dishwashing were conducted in 82 households supported by webcam observations. Also findings of this study supported the higher resource efficiency of a dishwasher compared to manual dishwashing. However, observed consumer behaviour revealed that an even more sustainable usage of the dishwasher was possible. Almost all households with a dishwasher pre treated their dishes before loading them into the machine which resulted in additional water use up to 20 litres on average per dishwasher cycle. In 20% of the dishwasher cycles, baskets were found to be only slightly filled. Consumers were mostly in favour of using programmes with higher Introduction 16 temperatures. Thereby, they were likely to use higher amounts of energy than stated on the energy label (RICHTER , 2011).
The conclusion of RICHTER (2011) that manual dishwashing is still done in households using a dishwasher could also be confirmed by other researches. Studies for Eco design requirements of automatic dishwashers also confirmed within an online survey among European consumers that still 3.3 manual dishwashing cycles per person and week on average are done in households owning a dishwasher (STAMMINGER , 2007). Also a Greek investigation about attitudes and behaviour of consumers regarding dishwashers highlighted that about 45% of dishwasher owners do pre rinse their dishes before loading them into the dishwasher which is close to the number for
Mediterranean countries such as Italy (42%) reported by RICHTER (2011). Reasons for pre rinsing are reported to be often just a matter of habit, but also an anticipation of a poor cleaning result if dishes are washed in a dishwasher without this pre treatment procedure. However, the problem is more to be seen on the consumers’ side as people still fail in maximising current dishwasher technologies to increase performance by reducing resource consumption at the same time (EMMEL , PARROTT & BEAMISH , 2003).
RICHTER (2011) showed that manual dishwashing is still part of daily life in private households that own a dishwasher. STAMMINGER et al. (2007a) and BERKHOLZ et al. (2010) demonstrated within their research that there is still potential to optimise manual dishwashing processes due to the different existing washing up patterns. Hence, research was needed on how to optimise manual dishwashing habits to achieve the best possible cleaning result with a minimum input of resources. In an experimental multi factorial laboratory study, FUSS and STAMMINGER (2010) developed a hand dishwashing process that achieved these requirements. It was concluded that a process consisting of soaking, main washing in one sink and rinsing in a second sink is the best practice to be carried out. Main influencing factors for the cleaning result are the number of water changes in both sinks as well as the detergent amount used (FUSS &
STAMMINGER , 2010). In the second part of the study, the experiment based knowledge was combined with already existing dishwashing tips to gain Best Practice Tips for Objectives 17 manual dishwashing. Task was to find out whether the Best Practice Tips are both applicable and acceptable by the consumer. Secondly, it should be investigated whether the Best Practice Tips lead to resource savings when applied by consumers compared to their everyday washing up patterns (FUSS & STAMMINGER , 2011). The research showed that resource savings are possible with the Best Practice Tips being applied by consumers when a large number of dishes need to be washed. Water consumption decreased by 38% and energy demand by 36% on average when applying the new practice. Cleanser use was reduced by on average 26%, and cleaning performance was improved by 60% on average. The factor time slightly increased by 3.2 min with the usage of the Best Practice Tips compared to when the everyday washing up behaviour was applied. Survey results showed an overall positive rating and acceptance of the Best Practice Tips by the consumers. The researches pointed out that further investigations need to be done on also developing Best Practice Tips when smaller amounts of dishes are washed (FUSS & STAMMINGER , 2011).
2 Objectives
The importance of sustainable behaviour in resource consumption still remains one of the most important topics worldwide due to a rising demand of water and energy. A significant proportion of this demand comes from the domestic sector due to a constant increasing change in peoples’ lifestyles and needs. Daily household routines like dishwashing play an important role when it comes to water and energy usage. They depend very much on individual habits and consumer beliefs but at the same time are less reconsidered by consumers. A low awareness in peoples’ mindset and a low responsibility about the impact of their behaviour is still present. To overcome the lack of knowledge and to increase awareness among consumers about their individual effect on resource consumption, a better understanding of consumer behaviour is necessary. Hence, investigations about household tasks such as manual and automatic dishwashing and the influence of human behaviour on it need to be done. Recent studies tried to fill this gap but mainly focussed on European consumers.
Task of the present study is to broaden the already existing research findings. Thereby, global manual and automatic dishwashing habits shall be investigated within a Objectives 18 comparative study by taking country specific and close to home conditions into account. A panel of consumers from 29 different countries and six country specific dishwasher models are analysed by pointing out the following objectives:
To compare the resource consumption and cleaning result of manual and automatic dishwashing in a laboratory test, To analyse consumer’s manual and automatic dishwashing behaviour and attitudes by using a written questionnaire, To determine the effect of specific manual dishwashing practices on the resource consumption and the cleaning result based on a non participating observation.
Material and Methods 19
3 Material and Methods
In order to investigate manual dishwashing habits and to compare their resource consumption with automatic dishwashing, the research design was divided into two main parts: (1) a consumer study and (2) a dishwasher study (Figure 3 1).
In the consumer study, a consumer panel of in total 289 consumers from seven worldwide regions were invited to participate. Within a laboratory test which was conducted at Bonn University, Germany and abroad, manual dishwashing behaviour was analysed both by using a written questionnaire and by conducting a non participant observation. In addition, the used resources of water, energy and detergent as well as the duration and cleaning result were measured to get an insight of the actual resource consumption for manual dishwashing.
For the dishwasher study, six country specific automatic dishwasher models were tested in a laboratory at Bonn University, Germany in parallel to the consumer study. Measurements of the water, energy and detergent consumption as well as the cycle time and the cleanliness were carried out.
The following chapter provides an overview about the consumer panel, the consumer behaviour analysis, and the test build up for both consumer and dishwasher study and the data measurements. Some parts have been published in BERKHOLZ , KOBERSKY and
STAMMINGER (2013) already. Material and Methods 20
Consumer study Dishwasher study
289 consumers 6 country specific 29 nationalities dishwasher models combined in 7 worldwide regions
Laboratory tests of Laboratory tests of manual dishwashing behaviour dishwasher performance
Germany Abroad Germany
Measurement of resource Measurement of resource consumption and consumption and cleaning result cleaning result
Behaviour analysis by questionnaire and observation
Fig. 3-1: Research design of the consumer study and the dishwasher study
3.1 Investigation of manual dishwashing The consumer study covered both a written questionnaire and a non–participant observation. Both research methods were chosen in order to get insights about consumer attitudes towards manual dishwashing and to understand and observe consumer behaviour by conducting a non participant observation within a laboratory test. In the following, the consumer study design is described in more detail.
3.1.1 Determination of the consumer sample To analyse the manual dishwashing behaviour of consumers worldwide, a consumer panel of in total 289 participants with 29 different nationalities was recruited. This high variety of different countries was chosen in order to assimilate people from all continents. Due to the low number of participants of the same national background, countries were aggregated into seven major regions as follows: (1) Australia/New Zealand, (2) Europe, (3) Asia, (4) Latin America, (5) Middle East, (6) Southern Africa, and (7) North America. The majority of tests were conducted in the laboratories of Material and Methods 21
Bonn University, Germany with a minimum of 20 consumers from each region. In addition, tests with the identical experimental design as done at Bonn University were performed in cities of three different countries: (1) South Africa (Johannesburg), (2) China (Beijing), and (3) USA (Montvale (NJ), Denver (CO), Houston (TX)) (Table 3 1). Because only one participant from Southern Africa could be recruited in Germany, the manual dishwashing tests were conducted mainly abroad with local consumers. The tests done abroad in China and the US were used in order to verify whether consumers participating in Germany were statistically of the same distribution compared to those participating locally. Results should give clarification whether consumers tested in Germany had already adopted and therefore changed their original dishwashing behaviour.
Tab. 3-1: Consumer panel: allocation of countries per region, nationality, number of consumers per test country and test location
Country No. of Among these Region Nationality abbreviation participants tested abroad
CN Chinese 30 10 Asia JP Japanese 20 KR Korean 20 Australia/ Australian 17 AU/NZ New Zealand New Zealand 3 DE German 20 HU Hungarian 20 Belorussian 1 Europe Georgian 4 RU Russian 10 Ukrainian 4 Uzbekistani 1 Argentine 1 Brazilian 5 Latin America LATAM Colombian 9 Mexican 4 Peruvian 1 Egyptian 2 Iranian 4 Jordanian 3 Omanis 1 Middle East ME Pakistani 2 Palestine 4 Syrian 2 Yemeni 2 North America US US American 80 60 Malagasy 1 1 Southern ZA Mosotho 1 1 Africa South African 17 17 Material and Methods 22
Beside the nationality background, three further criteria had to be matched by each participant in order to be a member in the requested target group. Each of the test persons should have had experience in washing up dishes by hand. The minimum age to participate was 18 years. For the tests done at Bonn University, consumers had to have lived in Germany for less than three years as a minimum criterion. This was in order limit the risk of people having already adopted any German behaviour and habits. Due to the small number of participants for each test country, the recruitment design did not aim to achieve a representative population of each country.
For the consumer study conducted in Germany, consumers were recruited in the cities Bonn and Cologne. Participants were selected through different channels: (1) by notes posted on the university campus in both cities, (2) via web based social networks, and (3) by using foreign country organisations. The same recruitment method was also used to target consumers in China. For tests conducted in South Africa and the USA, a panel for consumer research employed by the companies Reckitt Benckiser (Pty) Ltd, Reckitt Benckiser Inc. and BSH Home Appliances Corporation was utilised. These participants were recruited by phone through simple random sampling.
3.1.2 Preparation of the tableware For all manual dishwashing tests, the preparation of the tableware was done under uniform conditions following the international test standard IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) – Electric dishwasher for household use – methods for measuring the performance (IEC, 2009). For each test run, a total of 12 place settings were soiled with different food types. Six place settings were prepared similar to the IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) (IEC, 2009). The remaining six place settings were arranged according to the national test standard for household dishwashers of the country the participants came from. Table 3 2 gives an overview of the applied test standards per country panel with respective total amount of soil used per test standard.
Material and Methods 23
Tab. 3-2: Applied test standard with total amount of soil per country panel; consumer study
Total Country Region Test standard amount of abbr. soil in g CN IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) 130.0
JEMA HD 084:2008 & JEMA Asia JP HD 032:2007 / 50.9 IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) MKE’s Notification 2008 99 / KR 119.8 IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) Australia/ New AS/NZS 2007.1 / AU/NZ 124.2 Zealand IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) DE Europe HU IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) 130.0 RU
Latin America LATAM IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) 130.0
Middle East ME IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) 130.0 ANSI/AHAM 2005 DW 1 / North America US 241.5 IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) Southern ZA IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) 130.0 Africa The tableware consisted of a mixture of different dish items to reflect as close as possible what households usually have and use at home: a variety of different glasses, cups, saucers, various sized plates and bowls, serving dishes, cutlery and chopsticks. The amount of food residues to be applied on the tableware and the application method of the soiling agents on each dish item followed the applied test standards. Table 3 3 gives an overview of the test standards and the respective soiling agents.
Tab. 3-3: Applied soiling agents according to test standard; consumer study and dishwasher study
Test standard Soiling agents
AS/NZS 2007.1 / Black tea, egg yolk, infant cereal, margarine, spinach, IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) tomato juice JEMA HD 084:2008 / Curry rice, cutlet with sauce, egg sunny side up, green IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) tea, milk, miso soup, rice, tomato juice MKE’s Notification 2008 99 / Cayenne pepper, coffee, egg yolk, kimchi, margarine, IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) milk ANSI/AHAM 2005 DW 1 / Coffee, coffee ground, egg yolk, mashed potatoes, IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) minced meat, porridge, preserves, sweet corn, tomato Black tea, egg yolk, milk, minced meat, porridge, IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) spinach Material and Methods 24
Although high attention was paid to fulfil the standard requirements as well as possible, some deviations had to be accepted as not all dish items and soiling agents – especially for tests done abroad – were available. Appendix A gives a detailed overview of the dish items for each test load (Tables A 1 to A 6). A list of soiling agents plus their ingredients used for the preparation of the tableware can be also found in the Appendix (Appendix A, tables A 7 to A 11). Deviations from the applied test methods are highlighted in each table.
After the preparation procedure, the tableware had to air dry for two hours at a room temperature of 23°C ± 2°C and a relative humidity of 55% ± 5%, similar to the ambient conditions for the air dry method as described in the test standard
EN 50242:2008 (EUROPÄISCHES KOMITEE FÜR ELEKTROTECHNISCHE NORMUNG , 2008). The climate conditions were constantly monitored and regulated to comply with the required conditions.
3.1.3 Description of the consumer behaviour analysis To investigate consumers’ dishwashing behaviour, two different methods were used. In the first part of the qualitative research, a written questionnaire was used to identify peoples’ habits and attitudes towards manual and automatic dishwashing. In the second part, a non participant observation was conducted to first investigate the manual dishwashing behaviour within a laboratory test and second to see whether the participants acted in the same way corresponding to the answers that they had given in the questionnaire.
3.1.3.1 Written questionnaire design One method used to identify consumers’ attitudes and habits towards manual and automatic dishwashing was a written questionnaire each participant had to fill out individually before they were asked to participate in the manual dishwashing experiment. Additional assistance when filling out the questionnaire was provided if demanded by the participants. Each questionnaire was checked for completeness afterwards and – if necessary – participants were interviewed on missing questions again. Material and Methods 25
In total, 40 questions were asked within the survey. It collected information covering the following categories:
Questions about the general attitudes about doing the dishes at home: most important factors considered by consumers when it comes to dishwashing, household dishwasher ownership Questions about manual dishwashing habits: frequency and duration of manual dishwashing, usage of hand dishwashing detergent and washing up utensils, method of manual dishwashing, drying method, dissatisfaction about manual dishwashing Questions about doing the dishes by using a dishwasher (only to be filled out by participants who had a dishwasher at home): details of the owned appliance (age, size, brand, programmes), frequency of use, usage of automatic dishwashing detergents and additives, usage patterns of the appliance, satisfaction and problems Comparative questions between manual and automatic dishwashing: participants’ opinion about the cleaning result, resource consumption and hygiene aspects in manual and automatic dishwashing Personal details: age, gender, household size
The main part of the survey consisted of close ended questions. Because previous studies had already concluded that dishwashing habits consisted of a variety of different techniques (STAMMINGER et al. , 2007a; BERKHOLZ , et al., 2010) especially multiple choice questions were used when insights had to be captured about concrete manual dishwashing procedures and dishwasher usage. This was in order to provide participants with enough options to describe their behaviour in a more detailed way so that enough information about possible habits could be captured within the survey. Some of the questions were half close ended to give participants the opportunity to add further comments if their opinion was not captured by the given options of answers. In order to explore topics for which a huge variety of possible answers were assumed, open ended questions were used (KROMREY , 2009). This was the case for questions about the detergent used both for manual and automatic dishwashing and the brand of the owned dishwasher. A Likert type answer scale with rates from one to ten Material and Methods 26 was used so that the intensity of attitudes and attributes could be determined
(FRIEDRICHS , 1985). These scales were predominantly used for questions capturing satisfaction or dissatisfaction about manual or automatic dishwashing. For further analysis, Likert type answer scales with rates from one to ten were transferred into scales with a rating of one to five. The written questionnaire design can be looked up in Appendix B.
Before using the questionnaire in the actual study, a pre test was conducted with the German questionnaire design. Therefore, a sample of in total 20 Germans was asked to critically assess the questionnaire and to give their opinion in an interview afterwards. The pre test should disclose any unclarity in wording, difficulties in giving responses and also the duration of the survey (KROMREY , 2009).
The questionnaire was provided in five languages: (1) English, (2) German, (3) Japanese, (4) Korean, (5) Mandarin, and (6) Spanish. The evaluation of the collected data was done by using the software IBM SPSS Advanced Statistics 20.0 (IBM Corp.).
3.1.3.2 Non-participant observation Aim of the non participant observation was to determine a common daily household task – washing up dishes by hand – in a systematic way. Therefore, it was possible to capture the process and the importance of single actions done by the test persons and the connection of each activity. After each participant had filled out the questionnaire, they were brought to the manual dishwashing experiment in a laboratory room where the twelve air dried place settings were presented to them. The participant was then asked to wash up all items by hand at a kitchen like workplace (Figure 3 2) in the way he or she was used to from his or her own native country. No limitation was given to the consumer on the manual dishwashing practice and technique except that all participants had to towel dry the dishes by using linen tea towels. This decision was made because manual dishwashing should be compared to the automatic dishwashing process which also includes a drying step after the actual cleaning process. It was left to the participants to decide when they dried the dishes: either in several single steps during the manual dishwashing process or at the end after all dishes were washed up. Material and Methods 27
Each participant could choose between five country specific hand dishwashing detergents including both brands and private label products. The formulation of each product followed the composition of common hand dishwashing detergents as described in GUTZSCHEBAUCH et al. (1996). Tables C 1 to C 7 in Appendix C show a list of all hand dishwashing detergents provided in the manual dishwashing experiment. For those countries where no country specific hand dishwashing detergent could be supplied participants where asked to choose a product from a neighbouring country of the region they were assigned to. Countries for which this was applied were: (1) New Zealand, (2) Belarus, (3) Georgia, (4) Ukraine, (5) Uzbekistan, (6) Colombia, (7) Peru, (8) Madagascar, and (9) Lesotho. A variety of different hand dishwashing utensils could be used free of choice such as gloves, a dishwashing brush, a dish cloth, a sponge cloth, a scrub sponge, a spiral scourer, paper towels and differently sized draining racks. Scraps of food residues could be put into a common dust bin. An overview of the main items is shown in table C 8 in Appendix C. During the experiment, people were left alone in order to keep the impact of influencing factors as small as possible. Each of the test persons was recorded on video while washing up. To minimise the influencing effect of the video cameras all participants were briefed on the observation process in order to make them as comfortable as possible. They also had to sign a written agreement for the video records. The video set up was arranged in such a way that all areas – the double sink construction and the two drainers – were captured (see figure 3 2). Due to the limited space at the test locations abroad only one video camera was used. The recorded videos were stored on a desktop PC and immediately analysed by a trained laboratory assistant at the same time as the experiment took place. A list of the used video equipment can be found in table D 1, Appendix D.
An assessment sheet was created to record and code all captured observations. Table E 1 in Appendix E shows an example of an assessment sheet used for experiments in which the IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) load was used. The sheet demonstrates a matrix system. The manual dishwashing process is divided into seven segments which are defined as follows (Table 3 4): Material and Methods 28
Tab. 3-4: Definition of manual dishwashing segments used in the non-participant observation; consumer study
Manual dishwashing segment Main purpose Execution
To remove food Removal done by using residues from the • cutlery Rough soil removal surface of the dishes; • paper towels first step in the manual • running tap water dishwashing process • hands/gloves Soaking done • in a water filled sink To soak dishes with with/without hand food residues in order to dishwashing swell the residues and detergent Soaking to break their adhesion • by filling the dishes to the surface of the with water Pretreatment dishes; before pre/main with/without detergent wash • by pouring only detergent onto the surface of the dishes, Pre wash done • under running tap To remove abrasive water coarse or slightly • in a water filled sink sticking soil residues Pre wash • with the use of hand from the surface of the dishwashing utensils dishes; step before • with the use of hand main wash dishwashing detergent Main wash done • under running tap To remove all remaining water food residues from the • in a water filled sink Main wash surface of the dishes; • with the use of hand step before post dishwashing utensils wash/final rinse • with the use of hand dishwashing detergent
Material and Methods 29
Post wash done • under running tap To remove remaining water food residues from the • in a water filled sink Post wash surface of the dishes; • with the use of hand step after main wash dishwashing utensils and before final rinse • with the use of hand dishwashing detergent To rinse off foam and Final rinse done soil particles from the • under running tap Final rinse surface of the dishes, water step after main/post • in a water filled sink wash To remove any water Drying done by using a Drying from the surface of the tea towel dishes
In addition, it was recorded which type of tableware (e.g. for the IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) load: glasses, cups, saucers, cutlery, soup plates, dinner plates, desert plates, and serving dishes) was treated in which way during one of the described manual dishwashing segments. To analyse the individual water use habits for manual dishwashing the dishwashing steps of each participant were counted. A dishwashing step thereby is defined as one single manual washing up process which combines the cleaning of the same type of dishes in a row, e.g. glasses, cups, saucers, etc.. It was counted how many of these dishwashing steps had been done (1) under running tap water and (2) in a water filled sink respectively. Hence, participants who washed up more than 70% of dishwashing steps by using running tap water and only 30% in a water bath were considered as “running tap washers”, those who did less than 30% of dishwashing steps under running tap water and more than 70% in a water filled sink as “sink washers”. The group of participants who did 30% to 70% of dishwashing steps under running tap water and 70% to 30% of dishwashing steps in a water bath were called “mixed washers”.
For the manual dishwashing segments (1) pre wash, (2) main wash, and (3) post wash the usage of hand dishwashing utensils were recorded using different codes for every Material and Methods 30 item, but also when more than one item was used. The application of hand dishwashing detergent was categorized by using the following four categories (Table 3 5):
Tab. 3-5: Definition of the application method of the hand dishwashing detergent; consumer study
Application of hand dishwashing detergent Description
Hand dishwashing detergent is dosed into a Dosage sink water filled sink Hand dishwashing detergent is dosed onto a Dosage utensil hand dishwashing utensil Hand dishwashing detergent is dosed into a Dosage dilution separate water basin to create a water detergent dilution used for the manual dishwashing process Hand dishwashing detergent is dosed directly Dosage dish onto the surface of the dishes
Again, different codes were used to record which application method of the hand dishwashing detergent was used during the trial, but also when more than one application method was used. Similar to the water use habit, the behaviour of how the hand dishwashing detergent was used was analysed as well. Therefore, it was counted which detergent application method was applied for each dishwashing step (Table 3 5): (1) dosage sink, (2) dosage utensil, (3) dosage dilution, and (4) dosage dish.
Additional information that was noted:
(1) Water changes: • Number of additional water inlets into a water filled sink • Number of complete water changes of a water filled sink (2) Usage of the double sink: one or two sink usage (3) Cleaning of the sink and/or hand dishwashing utensils: With/without water or no cleaning of the sink and/or hand dishwashing utensils (4) Usage of gloves (5) Duration: Including both time for manual dishwashing and towel drying of the tableware Material and Methods 31
(6) Detergent: Name, used amount (7) Notes on uncommon observed dishwashing behaviour
After finishing the manual dishwashing experiment, each participant was interviewed by asking an open ended question. Aim was to get more background information about specific behavioural patterns that had been observed during the experiment.
Prior the start of the study, a pre test of the designed assessment sheet was conducted. Therefore, twenty video records of previous manual dishwashing investigations from the research of STAMMINGER et al. (2007a) were used to identify if all observed behaviours and manual dishwashing steps could be captured when using the observation sheet.
The evaluation of the collected data from the non participant observation was done by using the software IBM SPSS Advanced Statistics 20.0 (IBM Corp.).
3.1.4 Description of the test workstation For the manual dishwashing investigation, a test workstation was used with a similar build up close to a regular kitchen workplace. It consisted of a double sink construction with a maximum volume of 14 l for each sink. The workstation for the consumer tests conducted in Bonn, Germany, had a drainer on the left side of the sink. The workstation of the tests performed abroad allowed the participants to choose whether the drainer should be either on the left or right side of the double sink. This build up was chosen as it made the installation process of the workstation more adjustable to the different test locations abroad. Each sink could be filled with water by using a flexible mixture tap. Hot water was provided by a continuous flow heater which heated up the water to a maximum water temperature of 60°C. This temperature setting was chosen as it is the recommended temperature for central heating systems to avoid the growth of Legionellae (DVGW, 2004). Figure 3 2 shows the experimental set up of the workstation. Material and Methods 32
Video camera V 2
Video camera V1 Flexible mixed water tap
1
Heated up Cold water water Left Right drainer drainer
2 3 Right sink Left sink
4 1 Thermocouple NiCr Ni, Continuous flow mixed water temperature heater 5 2 Thermocouple NiCr Ni, Data logger warm water temperature
3 Thermocouple NiCr Ni, < cold water temperature 60°C 4 In line flow meter, warm water volume
5 In line flow meter, cold water volume
Fig. 3-2: Schematic diagram of the experimental set up of the workstation; consumer study
No special pre treatment of the water utilized for the manual dishwashing test was carried out. In all locations the local town water was used. The water hardness of the water was measured on a daily basis showing differences in the hardness level for the different test locations:
Bonn, Germany: 1.1 mmol/l Johannesburg, South Africa: 1.4 mmol/l Montvale (NJ), USA: 1.5 – 2.5 mmol/l Denver (CO), USA: 0.7 – 1.5 mmol/l Houston (TX), USA: 0.7 – 1.5 mmol/l Material and Methods 33
3.1.5 Data measurement and cleaning performance assessment To identify the resource consumption of manual dishwashing, (1) the total water consumption, (2) the warm and cold water consumption (3) the total corrected heat quantity consumption, (4) the detergent consumption, and (5) the duration were measured and calculated respectively for each participant.
During the manual dishwashing test, a calibrated data logging device measured and recorded the following data every second on an internal memory:
The cold and warm water volumes / were measured using calibrated in line flow meters with a measuring range of 2 to 40 l/min.
The cold and warm water temperatures / were taken using NiCr Ni thermocouples.
The cold respectively warm water consumption included all kind of water usages that were related to manual dishwashing, such as cleaning the dishes as well as cleaning the sink area or the used manual dishwashing utensil before, during or after the manual dishwashing process. After each consumer test, all data were transferred to a desktop PC for further calculation and analysis using the software MS Excel (Microsoft Corporation).
For the calculation of the heat quantity the following equation was used:
(1) = × × (∆ , + ∆ , ° )/3600 with:
= total corrected heat quantity of warm water in kWh
= volume of warm water in l
∆ , = difference in temperature between warm and cold water in K
∆ , ° = difference in temperature between cold water and 15°C in K
= specific heat capacity of water: 4.19 kJ/kgK Material and Methods 34
Because of the seasonal fluctuation of temperature within the year, the local cold water temperature varied in each manual dishwashing test. In order to keep test conditions for each participant as constant as possible and in order to compare the calculated total corrected heat quantities per participant, it was decided to follow the method of cold water energy correction according to IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) (IEC, 2009). Therefore, a constant cold water temperature of = 15° was used in equation (1). Again, the calculation of the total corrected heat quantity included all process steps that were related to manual dishwashing where warm water was consumed: cleaning the dish items, cleaning the sink area or the used manual dishwashing utensil before, during or after the manual dishwashing process. An overview of all technical devices for water heating and data measurement can be found in Appendix D, table D 2.
The detergent amount used per participant for the manual dishwashing was calculated by weighing the chosen hand dishwashing detergent bottle before and after each test using a calibrated analytical balance (Sartorius, model: I 12000s, readability: 0.1 g). The time measurement for the manual dishwashing experiment was done based on the video records. The measurement started after the participant was left alone and the door of the test room was closed. It ended once the participant finished the manual dishwashing experiment and left the laboratory room.
The resource consumption per item for each participant was calculated by dividing the total resource consumption value of each test person with the total number of items the participant washed up manually.
At the end of each experiment, the cleaning result of the washed up tableware was evaluated visually according to the test standard EN 50242:2008 (EUROPÄISCHES
KOMITEE FÜR ELEKTROTECHNISCHE NORMUNG , 2008). A single score for each dish was noted reflecting the specific cleaning result depending on the size of the total soiled area and/or the number of small dot shaped particles left on each washed up item (Table 3 6). Material and Methods 35
Tab. 3-6: Definition of the application method of the hand dishwashing detergent; consumer study
Score Number of small dot shaped particles ( n ) Total soiled area in mm² ( A )
5 N = 0 A = 0 4 0 < n ≤ 4 0 < A ≤ 4 3 4 < n ≤ 10 0 < A ≤ 4 2 10 < n 4 < A ≤ 50 1 Not Applicable 50 < A ≤ 200 0 Not Applicable 200 < A
The calculation of the total cleaning performance index of the manually washed tableware was done by using the following equations:
(2) = ∑ ×
with:
= sum of scores per dish segment z
= number of single items with score b
= score
(3) = ∑
with:
= number of total items
= number of items per dish segment z
= number of dish segments
The number of dish segments was depending on the test load (Table 3 7):
Material and Methods 36
Tab. 3-7: Number of dish segments according to applied test load; consumer study and dishwasher study
Test load No. of dish segments AS/NZS 2007.1 / IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) 15 JEMA HD 084:2008 & JEMA HD 032:2007 / IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) 16 MKE’s Notification 2008 99 / IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) 17 ANSI/AHAM 2005 DW 1 / IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) 16 IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) 8 (4) = ∑
with:
= single cleaning performance index (i) of washed dish load
After the cleaning result was assessed, all dishes were cleaned thoroughly in a professional dishwasher (Miele Professional G 7881, programme: SPECIAL 93°C 10’, Miele & Cie. KG, Gütersloh, Germany), so that each dish item achieved a cleaning score of 5.
3.2 Investigation of automatic dishwashing In parallel to the investigation of consumer behaviour on manual dishwashing, automatic dishwasher tests were performed in the laboratories of Bonn University, Germany. Overall, six country specific dishwasher models were tested for (1) total water consumption, (2) total corrected energy consumption, (3) duration of the dishwashing programmes, and (4) cleaning results in three different programmes: a quick, a normal, and an intensive programme.
3.2.1 Characteristics of the tested dishwasher models The automatic dishwashers under tests were all commonly available on each of the respective markets (Table 3 8).
Material and Methods 37
Tab. 3-8: Automatic dishwasher models under test according to test region and test standard with total amount of soil; dishwasher study
Abbr. of Total Country Region tested Brand/model no. Test standard amount of abbr. dishwasher soil in g CN EU Siemens/SN26M230EU IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) 130.0
JEMA HD 084:2008 & JEMA Asia JP JP National/NP 33S2 HD 032:2007 / 50.9 IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) MKE’s Notification 2008 99 / KR KR Siemens/SN25E230EA 119.8 IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) Australia/ AS/NZS 2007.1 / AU/NZ AU/NZ Bosch/SMI50E25AU 124.2 New Zealand IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) DE
Europe HU EU Siemens/SN26M230EU IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) 130.0
RU
Latin LATAM LATAM Bosch/SMS63M08MX IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) 130.0 America Middle East ME EU Siemens/SN26M230EU IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) 130.0
North ANSI/AHAM 2005 DW 1 / US US Bosch/SHE55M05UC 241.5 America IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) Southern ZA EU Siemens/SN26M230EU IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) 130.0 Africa All machines were free standing models except the Japanese dishwasher JP which was a counter top machine. The maximum load capacity of the machines differed between the models. Due to its smaller size, the Japanese dishwasher JP only captured five place settings. The US dishwasher had a maximum load capacity of twelve place settings compared to the Korean (KR), Latin American (LATAM) and European (EU) model which could be loaded with up to thirteen place settings. The largest load capacity had the Australian/New Zealand model (AU/NZ) with fourteen place settings. All machines were equipped with an upper and a lower basket as well as a cutlery basket in the lower basket. The models AU/NZ, KR, LATAM and EU had in addition a cutlery drawer on the left side of the upper basket.
3.2.2 Preparation of the tableware Each country specific dishwasher model was loaded with the same amount of dishes as used for the consumer study. Only the Japanese dishwasher model JP was tested with a smaller number of dishes due to its lower maximum load capacity of five place settings. Tables A 1 to A 6 in Appendix A can be used as a reference for a detailed Material and Methods 38 overview of the specific dish items for each test load. The preparation of the tableware was done exactly in the same way compared to the consumer study (see chapter 3.1.2). Before loading the dishwasher, all dishes had to dry for two hours at a room temperature of 23°C ± 2°C and a relative humidity of 55% ± 5%, similar to the ambient conditions for air dry method as described in the test standard EN 50242:2008
(EUROPÄISCHES KOMITEE FÜR ELEKTROTECHNISCHE NORMUNG , 2008). The climate conditions were constantly monitored and regulated. After the drying phase all dishwasher were loaded according to the loading plans shown in figure 3 3 to 3 8.
Fig. 3-3: Loading plan AU/NZ dishwasher: Lower basket (left), upper basket (right)
Fig. 3-4: Loading plan JP dishwasher: Lower basket (left), upper basket (middle), cutlery basket (right) Material and Methods 39
Fig. 3-5: Loading plan KR dishwasher: Lower basket (left), upper basket (right)
Fig. 3-6: Loading plan LATAM dishwasher: Lower basket (left), upper basket (right)
Fig. 3-7: Loading plan US dishwasher: Lower basket (left), upper basket (right) Material and Methods 40
Fig. 3-8: Loading plan EU dishwasher: Lower basket (left), upper basket (right)
3.2.3 Automatic dishwashing detergent and additives For each dishwasher programme the Reference Detergent Type B (Wfk, Testgewebe, Krefeld, Germany) and the Rinse Agent Formula III (Wfk, Testgewebe, Krefeld, Germany) were used following the requirements stated in the international standard IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) (IEC, 2009). Except for the Japanese dishwasher JP, each machine was tested with 30 g of Reference Detergent Type B. Due to its lower load capacity, only 12.5 g of Reference Detergent Type B was used in the Japanese dishwasher JP. The rinse aid dosage was left on the factory setting for each machine. Only the Japanese model JP was tested without rinse aid because it was not equipped with a rinse aid dispenser. No special salt was added to the machines. For those machines equipped with an ion exchanger unit the water softening setting was deactivated or adjusted on the lowest possible setting. Each machine was run with local town water from Bonn, Germany. The water hardness was measured on a daily basis and showed on average a water hardness of 1.1 mmol/l. According to EN 50242:2008, after every fifth test run, the test load was reconditioned in the respective test dishwasher with citric acid in a normal programme only
(EUROPÄISCHES KOMITEE FÜR ELEKTROTECHNISCHE NORMUNG , 2008).
3.2.4 Data measurement and cleaning performance assessment Each dishwasher was tested in three different programmes in order to reflect different consumer habits when using a dishwasher. Programmes under tests were a quick, normal and intensive programme. Each dishwasher was tested in the laboratories of Material and Methods 41
Bonn University, Germany under constant climate conditions of 23°C ± 2°C and a relative humidity of 55% ± 5% as described in the IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) (IEC, 2009). Climate conditions were monitored and recorded during each test programme. The following data were measured and recorded every second by using a calibrated data logging system (SLG Prüf und Zertifizierungs GmbH):
The total water consumption was measured using calibrated in line flow meters with a measuring range of 2 to 40 l/min.
The water temperature of the incoming water was taken using NiCr Ni thermocouples.
The water temperature of the water in the sump of the dishwasher was measured using NiCr Ni thermocouples.
The electrical power was measured.
The total energy consumption was calculated.
After each test, all data were transferred to a PC for further calculation and analysis using the software MS Excel (Microsoft Corporation).
Due to the seasonal temperature fluctuation of the inlet water during the test period, the total energy consumption was corrected following the method of cold water energy correction according to IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) (IEC, 2009). The following equations were used:
(5) = ( × × ∆ , ° )/3600
with:
= total corrected energy consumption in kWh
= total inlet water consumption in l
, ° = difference in temperature between incoming water and 15°C in K
(6) = + Material and Methods 42
with:
= total energy consumption in kWh
= total measured energy consumption in kWh
Figure 3 9 shows the dishwasher test desk set up in a schematic diagram. An overview of all technical devices for data measurement can be found in Appendix D, table D 3.
PC
Data logger
Monitor
3 1 Dishwasher power supply
Water inlet
1 In line flow meter with Automatic integrated thermocouple, dishwasher volume and water temperature water inlet 2 Thermocouple NiCr Ni, water temperature, dishwasher sump
3 Water inlet valvle
2
Fig. 3-9: Schematic diagram of the dishwasher test desk set up
The resource consumption per item for each dishwasher model was calculated by dividing the total resource consumption value of each tested model with the total number of items the appliances was loaded with.
At the end of each test programme, the cleaning result was evaluated visually using the same method as for the consumer study (see chapter 3.1.5). After the cleaning result was assessed, all dishes were cleaned thoroughly in a professional dishwasher (Miele Material and Methods 43
Professional G 7881, programme: SPECIAL 93°C 10’, Miele & Cie. KG, Gütersloh, Germany), so that each dish item achieved a cleaning score of 5.
3.3 Statistical methods All data of both consumer and dishwasher study have been tested for parametric assumptions. Because all data violated the assumptions of being normally distributed, only non parametric tests were applied to analyse significant differences, such as: Kruskal Wallis test, Wilcoxon test, and Mann Whitney test with partly Bonferroni corrections. Jonckheere’s test was used to test for an ordered pattern of medians across independent groups. Categorical variables have been tested for statistical relationships by using Pearson’s chi square test. In addition the following statistical measures have been used in figures and tables: coefficient of determination, mean, median, maximum, minimum, standard distribution, Spearman’s correlation coefficient, 25 th percentile, and 75 th percentile.
3.4 Systematic error A vital part of this research was to observe and analyse peoples’ behaviour and habits on manual dishwashing. The main tools to create further knowledge about this were a written questionnaire and a non participant observation. Although the development and usage of these tools were done with the greatest care, sources of error cannot completely be eliminated but instead minimised as well as possible.
In written questionnaire designs, respondents tend to choose the answer which is likely to be highly desired by society (social desirability response) (KROMREY , 2009). These questions can challenge the validity of this tool used in social science. In this study, the use of these kinds of questions was minimised. Nevertheless, this could not be completely avoided especially as cleanliness and hygiene aspects in manual dishwashing habits were analysed as well. Questions covering these topics were therefore trivialized in order to increase the number of correct responses and to reduce the effect of socially desired answers (KROMREY , 2009). Another aspect regarding the validity of response can be found in the language that is used by people with different cultural backgrounds. Statements and response can have different meanings within these groups and might lead to a response that was not intended by the interviewer or Material and Methods 44 might get misinterpreted by the analyst towards a wrong conclusion. As this survey analyses the behaviour on a global perspective with participants from various countries, all foreign language questionnaires were therefore translated by and discussed with native speakers upfront together with the researcher. Thereby, it could be exactly identified how questions and answers needed to be phrased in order to reflect the correct responses the survey wanted to capture (KROMREY , 2009).
Also for the non participant observation, factors exist that can affect the validity of the results. The observation of actions with a camera is likely to change the natural behaviour of participants especially in a laboratory test set up (KROMREY , 2009). In order to reduce this effect of the observation on the participants’ actions and to make them feel more comfortable, each test person was briefed at first about the video set up. Enough time was given to the consumer to adapt to the new situation by allowing them to fill out the questionnaire in the laboratory room before the actual manual dishwashing experiment started. Overall, no negative feedback was given by any consumer about the video recording, neither before nor after the experiment. To minimise any failure in categorising the observed behaviour due to different subjective perceptions by the observer (KROMREY , 2009), only one researcher was asked to analyse the video records.
All measurement devices, sensors and appliances used for both the manual dishwashing experiment and the automatic dishwashing tests were calibrated before and during the test period regularly.
The assessment of the cleaning performance was carried out only by trained test personnel. To minimise the effect of subjective rating, the same trained test personnel evaluated the cleaning performance of the dishes washed by hand and those cleaned in the dishwashers.
Results 45
4 Results
This chapter describes the consumer panel and its characteristics (4.1), followed by an analysis of the resource consumption and cleaning results of both consumer (4.2) and dishwasher study (4.3). In chapter 4.4, the average resource consumption and cleaning results of both consumer and dishwasher study are compared. Furthermore, findings of the written questionnaire are summarised (4.5) highlighting insights of consumers’ dishwashing behaviour and attitudes towards that topic. Finally, an analysis of specific manual dishwashing habits is given by determining the effect of specific practices on consumption values and cleaning result (4.6). Some findings presented have already been published in BERKHOLZ , KOBERSKY and STAMMINGER (2013).
4.1 Demographical characteristics of the consumer panels The recruitment of participants for each panel did not aim to achieve a representative distribution of each population due to the low number of participants per country (Table 4 1). Instead, qualitative consumer insights should be gained.
In total, 289 test persons participated in the manual dishwashing tests. Over all test countries, 72% of participants were female and 28% were male. For the countries Hungary (HU), Australia/New Zealand (AU/NZ) and Latin America (LATAM), the gender distribution was quite balanced. Only the Russian panel (RU) consisted of only female participants.
Regarding the age of the participants, the distribution was more in favour for younger age groups. More than 50% of participants were below the age of 34 years. Only for the US and Southern African panel (ZA), the majority of people was above the age of 34 years. The biggest share for these two country panels could be found in the age group 45 to 54 years in the US panel respectively in the age group 35 to 44 years in the Southern Africa panel (ZA).
The major household size over all country panels appeared to be four people per household or more (40%) while the share of 1 person to 3 persons household was rather balanced (18% to 21%). Panels with a higher share in 3 and more persons per household were China (CN), Korea (KR), Russia (RU), Latin America (LATAM), and Results 46 the US. In contrast to that, the Japanese (JP) and German (DE) panels consisted mainly of one or two persons per household. For Australia/New Zealand (AU/NZ), Hungary (HU), the Middle East (ME) and Southern Africa (ZA), the distribution between the different household sizes was rather balanced.
Except for Russia (RU) and Southern Africa (ZA), the majority of households per country included no person under the age of 18 years. For Russia (RU), 50% of all households had at least one person below 18 years. For the Southern African panel (ZA), the share of people per household below 18 years was 42%. The highest number of households with two or more persons per household below 18 years could be found in the US panel.
About two thirds of all participants did not own a dishwasher. The lowest number of dishwasher non owners could be found in all Asian country panels, especially China (CN). But also within the Russian (RU) and Southern African panel (ZA), the dishwasher ownership rate was very low. Participants of the Latin American (LATAM) and the Middle Eastern panel (ME) did not own a dishwasher at all. Around 40% of participants from Australia/New Zealand (AU/NZ) and Germany (DE) used a dishwasher at home. The distribution of dishwasher owners to non owners was equally balanced within the Hungarian panel (HU). Only in the US panel, a high majority of participants (85%) owned a dishwasher.
Results 47
Tab. 4-1: Demographic characteristics of the consumer panels
Demographic CN JP KR AU/NZ DE HU RU LATAM ME US ZA Total characteristics No. of participants 30 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 80 19 289
Gender female 23 15 14 11 12 9 20 11 8 73 12 208 male7 5 6 9 8 11 9 12 7 7 81 Age group < 25 years 7 9 9 2 8 14 16 15 9 17 3 109 25 to 34 years 14 7 11 15 6 4 4 5 10 14 6 96 35 to 44 years 4 4 2 1 2 17 7 37 45 to 54 years 5 1 4 1 26 3 40 55 to 64 years 1 5 6 > 64 years 1 1 Household size 1 person 2 7 8 6 6 4 2 4 5 5 4 53 2 persons 8 7 0 3 8 5 1 1 5 18 4 60 3 persons 11 2 3 6 2 6 5 2 17 6 60 > 4 persons 9 4 9 5 6 9 11 10 8 40 5 116 No. of household members < 18 years 0 24 14 18 19 18 18 7 17 14 39 7 195 1 person 6 3 2 1 1 1 10 3 3 13 8 51 2 persons 1 1 20 3 25 3 persons 1 3 4 8 > 4 persons 3 2 4 1 10 Dishwasher ownership No. of household with 153 8 895 662 107 a dishwasher No. of households 29 15 17 12 12 11 15 20 20 14 17 182 without a dishwasher 4.2 Manual dishwashing: Resource consumption and cleaning result Measurements during the consumer study were done to reveal how much of resources participants used to manually clean the dishes and what cleaning result they achieved. An overview of all statistical data of the resource consumption values and cleaning results can be reviewed in Appendix F, tables F 1 to F 5.
Average total water consumption values showed a wide distribution from lowest 45.2 l (AU/NZ) up to 163.5 l (RU) between the panels (Figure 4 1). Also, country panels differed in the interquartile ranges. They varied from 19.6 l (AU/NZ) up to 135.0 l (RU). The lowest total water consumption reached a value of 18 l (AU/NZ), while the highest was 26 times above this value (US: 473 l). Results 48
500.0 Mean
450.0
400.0
350.0
300.0
250.0
200.0
Water consumption in l consumptionin Water 163.5 160.2 150.0 151.5 130.3 125.9 109.0 112.9 117.5 100.0 63.1 60.6 50.0 45.2
0.0 CN JP KR AU/NZ DE HU RU LATAM ME US ZA Fig. 4-1: Box-and-whisker diagram of the total water consumption in l with mean values; consumer study
The total mean of the total water consumption per item was 0.886 l (Table 4 2). Mean values of the panels ranged from 0.333 l per item (AU/NZ) up to 1.174 l per item (KR, RU). Interquartile ranges varied from 0.144 l per item (AU/NZ) to 0.964 l per item (RU). The lowest total water consumption per item was measured for Australia/New Zealand (AU/NZ) with a value of 0.135 l. The highest total water consumption per item reached a value of 3.377 l (US).
Tab. 4-2: Statistics of the total water consumption per item in l, consumer study
Total water consumption per item in l Country abbreviation 25th 50th 75th Mean SD Min Max pctl pctl pctl CN 0.778 0.387 0.282 1.667 0.282 0.713 1.082 JP 0.856 0.463 0.337 1.996 0.458 0.782 1.129 KR 1.174 0.697 0.355 2.550 0.574 1.001 1.501 AU/NZ 0.333 0.258 0.135 1.314 0.206 0.255 0.350 DE 0.433 0.146 0.233 0.757 0.317 0.450 0.531 HU 0.839 0.563 0.236 2.014 0.379 0.704 1.112 RU 1.168 0.577 0.340 2.314 0.617 1.144 1.581 LATAM 0.931 0.506 0.396 2.021 0.573 0.739 1.424 ME 0.899 0.507 0.225 2.012 0.472 0.873 1.075 US 1.144 0.609 0.318 3.377 0.653 0.999 1.483 ZA 0.451 0.331 0.164 1.402 0.267 0.350 0.485 Total 0.886 0.576 0.135 3.377 0.441 0.716 1.228 Results 49
The mean values of both cold and hot water consumptions differed greatly between the country panels (Figure 4 2). The lowest mean value of the cold water consumption was noticed for Australia/New Zealand (AU/NZ: 13 l). The highest average cold water consumption reached a value of 74 l (KR). Mean values of the hot water consumption ranged from 33 l (AU/NZ) to 125 l (US). Country panels showed a wide distribution of the interquartile ranges. They varied from 13 l (AU/NZ) to 78 l (KR) for cold water consumption, and from 8 l (AU/NZ) to 97 l (US) for hot water consumption. A minimum value of 0 l could be identified for both cold (CN, AU/NZ, ME, US) and hot water consumption (CN, JP, US). The maximum value for cold water consumption was 293 l (KR) while the hot water consumption reached a maximum value of 449 l (US).
500 Mean 450
400
350
300
250
200 Water consumption in l consumption in Water 150 125 100 109 86 74 77 72 70 53 56 63 61 50 55 50 44 45 40 39 33 36 24 13 17 0 cold hot cold hot cold hot cold hot cold hot cold hot cold hot cold hot cold hot cold hot cold hot CN JP KR AU/NZ DE HU RU LATAM ME US ZA Fig. 4-2: Box-and-whisker diagram of the hot and cold water consumption in l with mean values; consumer study
A Wilcoxon test was done to reveal whether there is a significant difference between cold and hot water consumption value within one country panel (Appendix G, table G 1). For Australia/New Zealand (AU/NZ), Germany (DE), Hungary (HU), Russia (RU), Middle East (ME) and the US, the hot water consumption was Results 50 significantly higher than for cold water. For all other country panels, no significant difference could be identified between cold and hot water consumption.
Average total corrected heat quantity consumption values ranged from 1.1 kWh (ZA) to 4.4 kWh (US) (Figure 4 3). Interquartile ranges varied from 0.5 kWh (AU/NZ) to 3.8 kWh (RU). Minimum values of 0 kWh could be identified for the country panels China (CN), Japan (JP), US, and Southern Africa (ZA). The highest total corrected heat quantity reached a value of 14.5 kWh (US).
A positive correlation between the total corrected heat quantity consumption and the total water consumption is visualised by a scatter plot in figure 4 4. A Spearman correlation analysis confirmed a significant relationship between both variables
[rs = .76, p (one tailed) < .001] (Appendix G, table G 2).
16.0 Mean
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.4 4.0 4.1 3.4 3.2 3.2
Corrected heat quantity consumption in kWh kWh in consumption quantity heatCorrected 2.6 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.9 1.5 1.1
0.0 CN JP KR AU/NZ DE HU RU LATAM ME US ZA Fig. 4-3: Box-and-whisker diagram of the total corrected heat quantity consumption in kWh with mean values; consumer study Results 51
16.0 R²=0.58
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0 Corrected heat quantity consumption in kWh in consumption quantity heat Corrected
0.0 0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0 450.0 500.0 Water consumption in l Fig. 4-4: Scatter plot of water consumption in l and corrected heat quantity consumption in kWh with regression line and coefficient of determination, consumer study
In total, 21.6 Wh per item were used on average (Table 4 3). Mean values varied from 7.6 Wh per item to 31.3 Wh per item. The lowest interquartile range reached a value of 3.3 Wh per item (AU/NZ), while the highest interquartile range was more than eight times bigger (RU: 27.1 Wh). No corrected heat quantity consumption per item was reported for the country panels China (CH), Japan (JP), US, and Southern Africa (ZA). The highest total corrected heat quantity consumption per item could be identified among the US participants (103.4 Wh).
Results 52
Tab. 4-3: Statistics of the total corrected heat quantity consumption per item in Wh; consumer study
Total corrected heat quantity consumption per item in Wh Country abbreviation 25th 50th 75th Mean SD Min Max pctl pctl pctl CN 14.5 11.8 0.0 52.4 6.0 10.6 20.2 JP 13.9 11.8 0.0 38.5 5.7 10.2 21.3 KR 26.2 20.3 6.2 74.0 9.8 18.3 34.0 AU/NZ 11.0 8.7 3.1 44.2 7.0 8.8 10.4 DE 13.4 6.3 5.6 29.4 8.3 11.7 17.8 HU 22.9 20.7 1.9 68.1 9.7 12.9 30.6 RU 29.5 17.7 3.5 71.2 13.5 32.5 40.6 LATAM 18.6 13.3 4.7 59.0 9.1 14.5 23.1 ME 23.1 16.6 6.9 77.0 11.3 21.1 28.6 US 31.3 20.3 0.0 103.4 16.8 24.8 43.2 ZA 7.6 6.4 0.0 26.8 3.9 5.3 7.6 Total 21.6 17.9 0.0 103.4 8.6 15.8 28.7 Mean values of the total detergent consumption showed a wide distribution ranging from 10.9 g to 63.6 g (Figure 4 5). Again, interquartile ranges differed greatly between the country panels. Lowest interquartile range could be identified for Japan (JP) with a value of 8.9 g. The highest occurred for China (CN) with a value of 58.2 g. Extreme values varied from 2.5 g (JP) up to 227.5 g (HU).
250.0 Mean
200.0
150.0
100.0 Detergent consumption in g in consumption Detergent 63.6 54.4 50.0 47.8 51.0 45.2 41.4 36.2 26.5 23.0 21.6 10.9 0.0 CN JP KR AU/NZ DE HU RU LATAM ME US ZA Fig. 4-5: Box-and-whisker diagram of the total detergent consumption values in g with mean values; consumer study Results 53
The average total detergent consumption per item was 0.31 g (Table 4 4). Mean values ranged from 0.08 g per item (JP) to 0.45 g per item (ZA). A wide distribution of the interquartile ranges could be identified varying from 0.07 g per item (JP) to 0.42 g (CN) per item. The lowest measure was observed for Japan (JP: 0.02 g per item). The highest total detergent consumption per item was 1.84 g (US).
Tab. 4-4: Statistics of the total detergent consumption per item in g; consumer study
Total detergent consumption per item in g Country abbreviation 25th 50th 75th Mean SD Min Max pctl pctl pctl CN 0.32 0.25 0.04 0.94 0.13 0.23 0.55 JP 0.08 0.07 0.02 0.25 0.04 0.05 0.10 KR 0.21 0.07 0.09 0.34 0.16 0.19 0.25 AU/NZ 0.17 0.11 0.04 0.52 0.09 0.16 0.20 DE 0.15 0.08 0.04 0.33 0.09 0.14 0.21 HU 0.34 0.40 0.06 1.63 0.12 0.20 0.33 RU 0.30 0.25 0.06 1.11 0.11 0.22 0.39 LATAM 0.360.31 0.11 1.26 0.17 0.23 0.40 ME 0.26 0.20 0.09 0.86 0.13 0.21 0.26 US0.41 0.34 0.06 1.84 0.18 0.31 0.49 ZA0.45 0.27 0.10 1.10 0.27 0.34 0.54 Total 0.31 0.28 0.02 1.84 0.13 0.22 0.36 Mean values of the total duration varied from 67 min (AU/NZ) to 98 min (CN) (Figure 4 6). The lowest interquartile range was found for Hungary (HU) with 17 min. The highest interquartile range achieved a value of 49 min (CN). Minimum and maximum values differed greatly from 38 min (US) to 184 min (ME). Results 54
200 Mean
180
160
140
120
100 98 93
Time in min in Time 91 90 86 87 88 80 83 76 73 67 60
40
20
0 CN JP KR AU/NZ DE HU RU LATAM ME US ZA Fig. 4-6: Box-and-whisker diagram of the total duration in min with mean values; consumer study
The lowest average cleaning index occurred among the Australian/New Zealand participants (AU/NZ: 2.24) (Figure 4 7). The highest average cleaning index reached a value of 2.98 (HU). Interquartile ranges varied from 0.75 (JP) to 1.66 (CN). The poorest cleaning result was observed for Germany (DE) with an index of 0.57. The best cleaning index was 4.26 (CN). A cleaning score of 3.5 is considered to be the minimum cleaning result required of a dishwashing process (STAMMINGER et al ., 2007, p. 39). In this investigation, only 13% (N = 38) of all participants reached a cleaning result of >= 3.5. Results 55
5.00 Mean
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00 2.98 2.78 2.74 2.72 2.64 2.66 2.50 2.36 2.33 2.38 2.24 2.26
Cleaning index Cleaning 2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00 CN JP KR AU/NZ DE HU RU LATAM ME US ZA Fig. 4-7: Box-and-whisker diagram of the cleaning indices with mean values; consumer study
A Spearman correlation analysis was done in order to verify whether there is a relationship between the achieved cleaning results of each consumer tests and the amount of soil applied on the tableware. The analysis could not confirm a correlation between both variables (Appendix G, table G 3).
A Kruskal Wallis test was done to identify whether there is a significant relationship between the country panels with regard to the consumption data and the cleaning result (Appendix G, table G 4). The test revealed that all consumption data and the cleaning result differed significantly between the country panels.
Furthermore, a correlation analysis was conducted to verify whether the resource consumption data correlated with the cleaning result (Appendix G, table G 5). A Spearman correlation confirmed a small significant positive correlation between the resources total water consumption per item, total corrected heat quantity consumption per item, total duration per item and the cleaning index. No correlation was found for the variables total detergent consumption per item and the cleaning index.
Because previous researches concluded that a cleaning score of 3.5 is the minimum cleanliness that is required for a dishwashing process (STAMMINGER et al., 2007a), the Results 56 hypothesis was investigated whether participants with a cleaning score of >= 3.5 differed in their resource consumption data per item from test persons with a cleaning score < 3.5 (Appendix G, table G 6). A Mann Whitney test revealed that there was only a significant difference between both groups with regard to total duration per item [U = 2930.50, z = 3.83, r = .23] at p < .001. The variable total water consumption per item missed a significance level of p < .05 by a narrow margin.
A Mann Whitney test was executed to verify whether there is a significant difference between the panels of China and the US that participated in the consumer tests in Germany and abroad respectively regarding the resource consumption data and the cleaning result (Appendix G, tables G 7 & G 8). No significant difference of the tested parameters could be found between the Chinese consumer panels that participated in Germany and the one abroad. For the US consumer panels, the test revealed a significant difference of the tested parameters for total detergent consumption [U = 371.50, z = 2.54, r = .46] at p < .05 and total duration [ U = 304.00, z = 3.29, r = .60] at p = .01.
4.3 Automatic dishwashing: Resource consumption and cleaning result Objective of the dishwasher study was to measure the resource consumption and the cleaning result of automatic dishwasher models representative for the countries of the consumer study. All statistical data of resource consumption and cleaning result can be found in Appendix F, tables F 6 to F 9.
Individual average total water consumption of the tested automatic dishwashers increased with the rising intensity of the tested programmes. Lowest mean values of each machine were measured in the quick programme ranging from 9.58 l (DW JP; DW LATAM) to 12.73 l (DW US) (Figure 4 8). Highest mean values were measured in the intensive programme varying from 12.78 l (DW LATAM) to 26.74 l (DW US). The normal programme showed a distribution of the average total water consumption from lowest 12.03 l (DW LATAM) up to 17.69 l (DW US). The average total water consumption in the quick and normal programme of DW US already exceeded the consumption values for the normal and intensive programme of the remaining models with the exception of DW JP. Also, average total water consumption values of DW JP Results 57 for the normal programme were higher than the average total water consumption in the intensive programme of the remaining appliances under test excluding DW US.
30.00
26.74
25.00
20.00 17.69 17.34 DW JP DW KR 15.14 13.56 15.00 DW AU/NZ 12.31 12.03 13.86 12.99 12.78 12.73 12.24 12.43 DW EU 9.69 9.89 DW LATAM 9.58 9.85 9.58 Water consumption in l consumptionin Water 10.00 DW US
5.00
0.00 Quick programme Normal programme Intensive programme Fig. 4-8: Total water consumption in l with mean and SD values in the quick, normal and intensive programme; dishwasher study
The total water consumption per item in litre was lowest in the quick programme for all machines reaching an average value of 0.083 l per item (Table 4 5). The highest average consumption per item was achieved in the intensive programme with 0.134 l per item. On average, 0.113 l per item were used in the normal programme. For all programmes, DW LATAM was the model with the lowest water consumption per item. In comparison, the Japanese dishwasher (DW JP) showed the highest average water consumption per item in all programmes among all tested appliances.
Results 58
Tab. 4-5: Statistics of the total water consumption per item in l in the quick, normal and intensive programme; dishwasher study
Total water consumption per item in l
Abbr. of dishwasher Quick Normal Intensive programme programme progamme
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
AU/NZ 0.072 0.001 0.091 0.000 0.100 0.003 JP 0.123 0.004 0.194 0.008 0.222 0.006 KR 0.075 0.000 0.095 0.000 0.101 0.000 LATAM 0.068 0.000 0.086 0.000 0.091 0.000 US 0.091 0.001 0.126 0.001 0.191 0.001 EU 0.071 0.000 0.089 0.000 0.099 0.000
Total 0.083 0.001 0.113 0.002 0.134 0.002
Individual average total corrected energy consumption of the tested dishwasher models increased with the rising intensity of the programmes equally to the total water consumption (Figure 4 9). Only DW AU/NZ had a lower corrected energy consumption in the normal programme compared to the quick programme. Mean values ranged from 0.543 kWh (DW JP) to 0.889 kWh (DW US) in the quick programme, from 0.689 kWh (DW AU/NZ) to 1.607 kWh (DW US) in the normal programme, and from 1.106 kWh (DW JP) to 1.965 kWh (DW US) in the intensive programme.
A positive correlation between the total corrected energy consumption and the total water consumption is visualised by a scatter plot in figure 4 10. A Spearman correlation analysis confirmed a significant relationship between both variables
[rs = .74, p (one tailed) < .001] (Appendix G, table G 9).
Results 59
2.000 1.965
1.728 1.800 1.637 1.607 1.574 1.600 1.514
1.400 1.288 1.142 DW JP 1.200 1.145 1.106 DW KR 1.000 DW AU/NZ 0.788 0.889 0.871 DW EU 0.763 0.787 0.800 0.689 DW LATAM 0.605 DW US 0.600 0.543
Corrected energy consumption in kWh in consumption energy Corrected 0.400
0.200
0.000 Quick programme Normal programme Intensive programme Fig. 4-9: Total corrected energy consumption in kWh with mean and SD values in the quick, normal and intensive programme; dishwasher study
2.500 R²=0.55
2.000
1.500
1.000
Corrected energy consumption in kWh in consumption energy Corrected 0.500
0.000 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 Water consumption in l Fig. 4-10: Scatter plot of water consumption in l and corrected energy consumption in kWh with regression line and coefficient of determination; dishwasher study
The total corrected energy consumption per item in kWh was lowest in the quick programme for all automatic dishwashers equally to the total water consumption per item (Table 4 6). In line with the values of the average corrected energy consumption, Results 60
DW AU/NZ demonstrated to be an exception as its average corrected energy consumption value per item was lower in the normal programme (5.1 Wh) compared to the quick programme (5.8 Wh). Average consumption per item for all machines was 5.8 Wh in the quick programme. It more than doubled in the intensive programme (12.6 Wh) and reached an average value of 9.0 Wh in the normal programme. Again, the Japanese dishwasher (DW JP) achieved the highest average corrected energy consumption per item in the quick and intensive programme compared to all other test dishwashers. In the normal programme, highest consumption value per item was measured for the US machine.
Tab. 4-6: Statistics of the corrected energy consumption per item in Wh in the quick, normal and intensive programme; dishwasher study
Total corrected energy consumption per item in Wh Abbr. of dishwasher Quick Normal Intensive programme programme progamme
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
AU/NZ 5.8 0.1 5.1 0.3 11.1 0.3 JP 7.0 0.1 11.2 0.5 14.2 0.4 KR 5.9 0.1 8.9 0.1 12.2 0.2 LATAM 4.3 0.1 9.2 0.2 12.3 0.4 US 6.3 0.0 11.5 0.2 14.0 0.1 EU 5.6 0.3 8.2 0.4 11.7 0.4
Total 5.8 0.1 9.0 0.3 12.6 0.3
Average programme time in min was lowest in the quick programme for each dishwasher model. Here, time values ranged from 29 min (DW KR) to 43 min (DW JP) on average. The longest programme for all machines was the normal programme except for DW JP. Programme time varied from 131 min (DW US) to 164 min (DW LATAM) on average. The Japanese dishwasher (DW JP) had the longest average programme duration in the intensive programme (96 min). All remaining models needed less time compared to the normal programme. Their time values ranged from 112 min (DW US) to 141 min (DW LATAM) in the intensive programme. Results 61
180 164 158 160 154 150 141 140 131 135 130 129
120 112 DW JP 96 100 DW KR DW AU/NZ 80 71 DW EU
Time in min in Time DW LATAM 60 DW US 43 36 39 40 32 29 31
20
0 Quick programme Normal programme Intensive programme Fig. 4-11: Total programme time in min with mean and SD values in the quick, normal and intensive programme; dishwasher study
Average cleaning results of each tested dishwasher differed in the programme under test (Figure 4 11). Lowest cleaning indices for each model were evaluated in the quick programme ranging from 1.14 (DW JP) to 2.15 (DW EU). The highest cleaning results were evaluated in the intensive programme which varied from 2.10 (DW JP) to 4.41 (DW LATAM). Cleaning indices in the normal programme ranged from 1.64 (DW JP) to 4.06 (DW LATAM). Results 62
5.00
4.41 4.50 4.16 4.01 4.06 4.00 3.51 3.42 3.38 3.50 3.13 2.87 3.00 2.75 DW JP DW KR
2.50 2.10 DW AU/NZ 2.15 2.06 DW EU 1.87 2.00 1.71 1.64 DW LATAM
Cleaning index Cleaning 1.58 DW US 1.50 1.14
1.00
0.50
0.00 Quick programme Normal programme Intensive programme Fig. 4-12: Cleaning indices with mean and SD values in the quick, normal and intensive programme; dishwasher study
A Spearman correlation analysis was done in order to verify whether there is a relationship between the achieved cleaning results of each dishwasher test in all programmes and the amount of soil applied on the tableware. The analysis confirmed a significant relationship (Appendix G, table G 10).
A Kruskal Wallis test was done to identify whether there is a significant relationship between the dishwasher models with regard to the consumption data and cleaning result (Appendix G, tables G 11 to G 13). The analysis confirmed a significant result showing that the tested models differed greatly in resource consumption and cleaning result in each of the three programmes.
4.4 Comparison of manual and automatic dishwashing regarding resource consumption and cleaning result Within the following chapter, the focus is on factors that can only be directly compared between both dishwashing processes. Therefore, data of the total detergent consumption are not mentioned as the chemical formulation of detergent products used for manual and automatic dishwashing are too different regarding their effectiveness. Data of the total duration for both processes are not discussed either as only the active Results 63 time of the participants is of interest. This is valid for a manual dishwashing process while the operating time of a dishwasher does not need the continuous involvement of a user.
The comparison of the average total water consumption between consumer and dishwasher study demonstrated that consumers used in total 7.5 times more water (122.60 l) than the dishwashers did on average in the intensive programme (16.21 l). Also, each country panel used more water on average than its country specific dishwasher model in each of the three programmes (Tables 4 7 & 4 8).
The average total heat quantity of the consumer study was almost twice as much (2.998 kWh) as the average total corrected energy consumption in the intensive programme of the dishwasher study (1.587 kWh). However, mean values of the Australian/New Zealand (AU/NZ) and the Southern African (ZA) panel could compete with the results of the dishwashers. The mean value of the Australian/New Zealand panel (AU/NZ) was lower (1.493 kWh) than the mean value of DW AU/NZ in the intensive programme (DW AU/NZ: 1.514 kWh). The Southern African panel (ZA) even used less heat quantity (1.057 kWh) than the country specific dishwasher in the normal programme (DW EU: 1.142 kWh).
The average cleaning result of the consumer study reached a value of 2.57 which was below the average cleaning result of the dishwasher tests for the normal programme. Similarly, average cleaning indices of the country panels were higher than cleaning results of their country specific dishwasher model in the quick programme. However, almost no country panel reached a higher cleaning index better than the automatic dishwashers in the normal programme. Only the Japanese panel (JP) had better cleaning results than the Japanese dishwasher (DW JP) in all programmes.
Results 64
Tab. 4-7: Mean values of resource consumption values and cleaning indices; consumer study
Country abbr. Total water Total corrected Cleaning consumption heat quantity index in l /energy consumption in kWh CN 108.96 2.029 2.36 JP 112.94 1.834 2.78 KR 151.49 3.373 2.74 AU/NZ 45.25 1.493 2.24 DE 60.62 1.876 2.33 HU 117.47 3.207 2.98 RU 163.49 4.135 2.26 LATAM 130.30 2.600 2.38 ME 125.87 3.234 2.72 US 160.20 4.380 2.64 ZA 63.11 1.057 2.66 Total 122.60 2.998 2.57
Tab. 4-8: Mean values of resource consumption values and cleaning indices in the quick, normal and intensive programme; dishwasher study
Dishwasher abbr. Programme Total water Total corrected Cleaning consumption heat quantity index in l /energy consumption in kWh quick 9.58 0.543 1.14 DW JP normal 15.14 0.871 1.64 intensive 17.34 1.106 2.10 quick 9.69 0.763 1.71 DW KR normal 12.24 1.145 2.87 intensive 12.99 1.574 3.38 quick 9.85 0.788 1.87 DW AU/NZ normal 12.31 0.689 3.13 intensive 13.56 1.514 3.51 quick 9.89 0.787 2.15 DW EU normal 12.43 1.142 4.01 intensive 13.86 1.637 4.16 quick 9.58 0.605 2.06 DW LATAM normal 12.03 1.288 4.06 intensive 12.78 1.728 4.41 quick 12.73 0.889 1.58 DW US normal 17.69 1.607 2.75 intensive 26.74 1.965 3.42 quick 10.22 0.729 1.75 Total normal 13.64 1.123 3.08 intensive 16.21 1.587 3.50 Results 65
4.5 Analysis of consumers’ attitudes and behaviour towards manual and automatic dishwashing Objective of the written questionnaire design was to generate insights about consumers’ attitudes and habits towards manual and automatic dishwashing. Respondents were asked to specify their rating about how important a low resource consumption and cleanliness are to them when doing the dishes (Figures 4 13 to 4 17). Regarding a low water consumption (Figure 4 13), in total 56% of all respondents replied that low water consumption was of importance to them. A low water consumption was important for the majority of country panels of which more than 50% of test persons shared this opinion (CN, JP, KR, AU/NZ, DE, LATAM, ME, US). Only a small proportion of in total 19% of the respondents stated that it was not important. This opinion was also shared by 53% of the Russian participants (RU). 24% of all test persons did not have a concrete opinion about whether a low water consumption would be something they cared about. More than 50% of Hungarian participants (HU: 55%) also remained undecided.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
CN, n=30 43% 23% 27% 7%
JP, n=20 10% 50% 30% 5% 5%
KR, n=20 15% 40% 10% 30% 5%
AU/NZ, n=20 25% 50% 20% 5%
DE, n=20 25% 35% 20% 20%
HU, n=20 15% 20% 55% 5% 5%
RU, n=17 18% 18% 12% 35% 18%
LATAM, n=20 40% 25% 25% 10%
ME, n=20 60% 15% 5% 10% 10%
US, n=79 22% 33% 25% 18% 3%
ZA, n=18 22% 17% 33% 17% 11%
Total, n=284 26% 30% 24% 14% 5%
very important important undecided unimportant very unimportant
Fig. 4-13: Importance of low water consumption; consumer survey 1
1 Due to rounded values, it occurs that the summation of percentages does not amount to 100% Results 66
In total, 49% of all test persons indicated a low energy consumption as an important and 24% as unimportant factor (Fig. 4 14). Almost the same country panels of which the majority of participants rated a low water consumption as important again named a low energy consumption as an important factor except for Korean respondents (KR). 50% of Koreans replied that a low energy consumption was less important to them. The same tendency could be found for the Russian (RU) and Southern African (ZA) panel for which the majority of test persons stated a low energy consumption of minor importance (RU: 63%, ZA: 45%). Again, the majority of Hungarian respondents (HU: 58%) remained undecided.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
CN, n=30 37% 20% 37% 3% 3%
JP, n=19 21% 42% 21% 11% 5%
KR, n=20 15% 20% 15% 45% 5%
AU/NZ, n=20 10% 50% 20% 5% 15%
DE, n=20 30% 20% 30% 20%
HU, n=19 16% 21% 58% 5%
RU, n=16 19% 6% 13% 38% 25%
LATAM, n=20 25% 30% 20% 15% 10%
ME, n=20 30% 25% 10% 30% 5%
US, n=80 24% 28% 30% 16% 3%
ZA, n=18 11% 11% 33% 17% 28%
Total, n=282 23% 26% 27% 17% 7%
very important important undecided unimportant very unimportant
Fig. 4-14: Importance of low energy consumption; consumer survey 2
In contrast to water and energy consumption, a low detergent consumption seemed to be of lower importance among the participants (Fig. 4 15). 43% of all participants rated a low detergent consumption used for dishwashing as important, while 26% replied that it was not important to them. Especially among the Asian country panels (CN, JP, KR), this factor seemed to be of major interest because at least half of the respondents of each panel rated a low detergent consumption as important (CN: 55%,
2 Due to rounded values, it occurs that the summation of percentages does not amount to 100% Results 67
JP: 75%, KR: 50). Also, for the majority of respondents of the country panels Germany (DE: 45%), Russia (RU: 44%), and US (45%) using less detergent for dishwashing was a subject they were considering as important. 40% of Hungarian respondents (HU) stated a low detergent consumption as not important. 50% and more of the Middle Eastern (ME) and Australian/New Zealand (AU/NZ) panel members replied that a low consumption of detergent was neither important nor unimportant to them. The same percentage of respondents from Latin America (LATAM: 40%) and Southern Africa (ZA: 37%) stated a low detergent consumption as important and were undecided respectively.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
CN, n=29 24% 31% 10% 24% 10%
JP, n=20 30% 45% 15% 10%
KR, n=20 10% 40% 35% 5% 10%
AU/NZ, n=20 20% 60% 15% 5%
DE, n=20 15% 30% 20% 35%
HU, n=20 10% 15% 35% 30% 10%
RU, n=18 11% 33% 33% 17% 6%
LATAM, n=20 15% 25% 40% 20%
ME, n=20 20% 5% 50% 10% 15%
US, n=80 15% 30% 29% 21% 5%
ZA, n=19 26% 11% 37% 21% 5%
Total, n=286 16% 27% 31% 20% 6%
very important important undecided unimportant very unimportant
Fig. 4-15: Importance of low detergent consumption; consumer survey 3
In total, 65% of all respondents were in favour of not spending so much of time for dishwashing (Fig. 4 16). This was also important to more than 50% of respondents from Australia/New Zealand (AU/NZ: 65%), Germany (DE: 75%), Hungary (HU: 79%), Russia (RU: 71%), Latin America (LATAM: 70%), Middle East (ME: 63%), US (80%), and Southern Africa (ZA: 56%). In contrast to that, less than half of the participants from the Asian countries (CN: 49%, JP: 40%, KR: 40%)
3 Due to rounded values, it occurs that the summation of percentages does not amount to 100% Results 68 rated a short duration as important. Instead, more than one third of Asian participants remained undecided about the importance of this factor (CN: 31%, JP: 35%, KR: 40%).
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
CN, n=29 21% 28% 31% 10% 10%
JP, n=20 10% 30% 35% 25%
KR, n=20 40% 40% 5% 15%
AU/NZ, n=20 40% 25% 20% 5% 10%
DE, n=20 40% 35% 20% 5%
HU, n=19 26% 53% 11% 5% 5%
RU, n=17 24% 47% 24% 6%
LATAM, n=20 45% 25% 15% 15%
ME, n=19 47% 16% 21% 11% 5%
US, n=80 55% 25% 18% 1% 1%
ZA, n=18 39% 17% 11% 11% 22%
Total, n=282 36% 29% 22% 7% 6%
very important important undecided unimportant very unimportant Fig. 4-16: Importance of short duration; consumer survey 4
Of all factors that participants were asked to state their opinion about, cleanliness was considered to be the one with the highest total percentage of importance (Overall average: 95%) (Fig. 4 17). All country panels rated the cleaning result as important to them with 85% or higher of all responses. Only 10% of Russian respondents (RU) remained undecided.
4 Due to rounded values, it occurs that the summation of percentages does not amount to 100% Results 69
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
CN, n=30 87% 7% 3% 3%
JP, n=20 90% 5% 5%
KR, n=20 55% 35% 5% 5%
AU/NZ, n=20 40% 55% 5%
DE, n=20 65% 30% 5%
HU, n=20 85% 10% 5%
RU, n=20 80% 5% 10% 5%
LATAM, n=20 95% 5%
ME, n=19 89% 5% 5%
US, n=80 90% 8% 3%
ZA, n=19 84% 11% 5%
Total, n=288 81% 14% 3% 2%
very important important undecided unimportant very unimportant
Fig. 4-17: Importance of cleanliness; consumer survey 5
The hypothesis was investigated whether participants who reached a cleaning score of >= 3.5 had different opinions about the importance of resource consumption and cleaning result compared to test persons with a cleaning score < 3.5. A Mann Whitney test revealed that there was no significant difference to be identified between either groups (Appendix G, table G 14).
Further statistical analyses were conducted to find out whether resource consumption data per item and cleaning indices correlated with participants’ ratings of the importance of low resource consumption and cleanliness respectively. Significant relationships could be identified between the variables “total water consumption per item” and “importance of low water consumption”, “total detergent consumption per item” and “importance of low detergent consumption”, and “total duration per item” and “importance of short duration” (Appendix G, tables G 15, G 17 & G 18). All three Spearman correlation coefficients were negative, indicating that resource consumption data decreased while respondents’ ratings from the survey increased. No correlation was found between the variables “total corrected heat quantity consumption per item”
5 Due to rounded values, it occurs that the summation of percentages does not amount to 100% Results 70 and “importance of low energy consumption”, “cleaning index” and “importance of cleanliness (Appendix G, tables G 16 & G 19).
Participants were asked to state their opinion about which dishwashing process uses less water and energy: Doing the dishes by hand or using an automatic dishwasher (Figure 4 18). In total, a small majority of 42% named manual dishwashing as the process that uses fewer resources. On the contrary, 38% of all respondents replied that automatic dishwashing saves more water and energy. Only 4% stated that there is no difference between both methods, and 15% remained undecided. More than 50% of respondents in only three out of the eleven country panels were more in favour for automatic dishwashing (DE: 84%, HU: 55%, US: 51%). Also, the majority of Russian participants (RU: 47%) named the automatic dishwasher as less water and energy consuming. However, the majority of country panels preferred manual dishwashing as the best fitting answer (CN: 66%, JP: 60%, KR: 50%, AU/NZ: 75%, LATAM: 50%, ME: 61%). The same proportion of replies for both dishwashing methods could be identified for the Southern African panel (ZA: 32%). Dishwasher owners clearly named the appliance as more environmental friendly (DW owner: 54%), while on the contrary dishwasher non owners replied that manual dishwashing saves more resources (DW non owner: 51%).
Pearson’s chi square test was run to confirm whether there is a relationship between dishwasher ownership and respondents’ attitude on resource consumption for both dishwashing processes (Appendix G, tables G 20 & G 21). The analysis showed that there was a significant association between dishwasher ownership and whether manual or automatic dishwashing was seen as a less water and energy consuming process [χ² (1) = 19.76, p < .001]. This seems to represent the fact that, based on the odds ration, the odds of automatic dishwashing stated as a resource saving practice is 3.48 times higher for dishwasher owners compared to dishwasher non owners. The contingency coefficient was .28. This represents a low association between both variables. Results 71
100%
90% 16% 20% 32% 30% 32% 28% 80% 42% 50% 50% 51% 70% 60% 66% 61% 75% 60% Manual 55% 32% Automatic 50% 47% 54% No difference 84% 51% 40% 20% 38% Don't know 10% 28% 35% 30% 16% 17% 10% 28% 5% 20% 10% 3% 5% 4% 30% 5% 6% 10% 17% 20% 20% 21% 18% 15% 16% 15% 6% 14% 12% 15% 6% LATAM, n=20 DW owner, n=107 AU/NZ, AU/NZ, n=20 DW DW non-owner, n=177 Total, n=284
0% DE, n=19 ME, n=18 US, n=80 JP, n=20 CN, CN, n=29 KR, n=20 HU, N=20 RU, n=19 ZA, n=19
Fig. 4-18: Question about which dishwashing process uses less water and energy; consumer survey 6
Participants had to give their opinion about which dishwashing process delivers better cleaning results (Figure 4 19). In total, 45% of all respondents said that manual dishwashing delivers cleaner dishes than using an automatic dishwasher. Only 28% held the opposite opinion as correct. 12% of respondents named that there is no difference between both methods, and 15% said that they did not know which process delivers a better cleaning result. When comparing the country panels’ replies, the overall opinion was more in favour for washing dishes manually. The majority of respondents in eight out of the eleven country panels (CN: 45%, JP: 60%, KR: 70%, DE: 42%, RU: 37%, LATAM: 70%, ME: 67%, ZA: 42%) claimed manual dishwashing as their choice. Only the US and Hungarian respondents (US: 49%, HU: 50%) were more in favour for automatic dishwashing. The same proportion of replies for both dishwashing methods could be identified for Australia/New Zealand (AU/NZ: 40%). Automatic dishwashing remained the best option for 43% of the dishwasher owners (DW owner), while 50% of the dishwasher non owners believed that manual dishwashing achieves a better cleanliness.
6 Due to rounded values, it occurs that the summation of percentages does not amount to 100% Results 72
Pearson’s chi square test was run to identify whether there was a relationship between dishwasher ownership and respondents’ attitude on the cleaning result for both manual and automatic dishwashing (Appendix G, tables G 22 & G 23). The analysis revealed that there was a significant association between dishwasher ownership and whether manual or automatic dishwashing was seen to be more effective in achieving a better cleaning result [χ² (1) = 14.56, p < .001]. This seems to represent the fact that, based on the odds ration, the odds of automatic dishwashing being stated as a more effective process toward cleanliness is 3.05 times higher for dishwasher owners compared to dishwasher non owners. The contingency coefficient was .26. This represents a low association between both variables.
100%
90% 30% 31% 80% 40% 37% 36% 45% 42% 42% 45% 50% 70% 60% 70% 70% 67% 60% Manual 50% 16% Automatic 14% 32% 26% 50% 49% No difference 40% 40% 43% 19% 28% 14% Don't know 30% 15% 11% 32% 16% 10% 20% 5% 21% 12% 30% 10% 10% 30% 28% 15% 15% 10% 20% 22% 21% 16% 15% 10% 10% 11% 11% 5% 6% DW DW owner, n=107 LATAM, n=20 DW DW non-owner, n=177 AU/NZ, AU/NZ, n=20 US, US, n=80 Total, n=284 DE, DE, n=19 JP, n=20 0% ME, n=18 ZA, ZA, n=19 CN, CN, n=29 KR, n=20 HU, HU, n=20 RU, n=19
Fig. 4-19: Question about which dishwashing process achieves a better cleaning result; consumer survey 7
Dishwasher owners were asked whether they still wash up by hand despite using a dishwasher at home (Fig. 4 20). 96% of all dishwasher owners admitted that they still did manual dishwashing. The size and shape respectively of the dishes was named as one of the main reasons (66%). Some dishes took up a lot of space in the dishwasher and they therefore needed to be cleaned manually. 53% replied that they could not
7 Due to rounded values, it occurs that the summation of percentages does not amount to 100% Results 73 wait until the start of the next cleaning cycle as dishes were needed immediately. 52% washed items by hand which were not dishwasher safe. A poor cleaning result was also stated by 34% of the dishwasher owners as one reason for washing up by hand. Some participants replied that they did not have enough dishes to run the dishwasher (28%), and 27% did not wash delicate items in a dishwasher.
multiple response
Dishes are too bulky 66%
Immeditate need of dishes 53%
Dishes are not dishwasher safe 52%
Dishes do not get clean 34%
Not enough dishes to run the dishwasher 28%
Dishes are to delicate 27%
Others 2%
n=103 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Fig. 4-20: Question why dishwasher owners still wash up by hand, consumer survey
Since almost all dishwasher owners admitted to washing up manually, a further question revealed if and how dishes were getting pre treated before being loaded into the dishwasher (Fig. 4 21). In total, 85% of dishwasher owners agreed that they pre treat dishes. 75% replied that they first removed bigger soil particles from the surface. Over 50% of all dishwasher owners confirmed that they rinsed the dishes under running tap water first. Some participants (16%) stated that they used dishwashing utensils for the pre treatment. Soaking dishes in water only was a common pre treatment practice for 11%, while only 7% of dishwasher owners soaked dishes in water with detergent. Results 74
Fig. 4-21: Question about how dishes are pre-treated before loaded into the dishwasher, consumer survey
Based on the consumer survey, the predominant hand dishwashing method was found to be the washing up under running tap water (Figure 4 22). 45% of respondent stated that they used this practice when doing the dishes manually. Only 22% replied that they washed up in a sink and water bath respectively, and one third of participants used both ways. The comparison of country panels’ responses clearly showed tendencies towards the preferred hand dishwashing method. Participants from Australia/New Zealand and Southern Africa stated that they preferred washing up in a water bath (AU/NZ: 55%, ZA: 65%), while German test persons replied that they tended to use both the water bath and running tap water method (DE: 55%). All remaining country panels named the running tap water method as the dominant practice (CN: 53%, JP: 55%, KR: 70%, HU: 40%, RU: 45%, LATAM: 80%, ME: 53%, US: 46%). No significant relationship could be confirmed between dishwasher ownership and the hand dishwashing method [ U = 9412.50, z = .14, r = .01] (Appendix G, table G 24). 43% of dishwasher owners preferred to wash up under running tap water compared to 46% of dishwasher non owners (Table 4 9). On the contrary, washing up by hand in a filled sink/water bath was favoured by 24% of Results 75 dishwasher owners and by 22% of dishwasher non owners. The same percentage (33%) of dishwasher owners and dishwasher non owners practiced a combination of both methods.
100%
17% 15% 17% 90% 20% 21% 25% 25% 22% 30% 30% 80%
55% 70% 30% 63% 20% 40% 26% 37% 60% 33% 35% 50%
55% 40% 80% 70% 30% 30% 53% 55% 53% 45% 46% 26% 45% 20% 40%
10% 15% 15% 11% 0% CN JP KR AU/NZ DE HU RU LATAM ME US ZA Total n=30 n=20 n=20 n=20 n=20 n=20 n=20 n=20 n=19 n=78 n=19 n=286
running tap water both sink/water bath Fig. 4-22: Question about preferred hand dishwashing practice; consumer survey
Tab. 4-9: Preferred hand dishwashing practice in % by dishwasher ownership, consumer study
Preferred hand dishwashing practice running tap water both sink/water bath DW owner 43% 33% 24% DW non owner 46% 33% 22%
4.6 Effect of specific manual dishwashing practices on the resource consumption and the cleaning result The video observation analysis showed that more than 38% of all participants were using running tap water for the dishwashing process (Figure 4 24). In contrast to that, 19% of participants washed up predominantly in a water bath. A percentage of 43% did the dishes both in a filled sink and under running tap water. 50% of the participants in five of the eleven test countries could be identified as running tap washers (JP: 60%, KR: 55%, RU: 55%, LATAM: 80%, ME: 75%). On the other hand, country panels like Australia/New Zealand (AU/NZ: 55%), Germany (DE: 55%) and Southern Results 76
Africa (ZA: 68%) were more in favour of washing up in a water bath. The country panels China (CN: 47%), Hungary (HU: 55%), and the US (56%) could be named as “mixed washers”.
Pearson’s chi square test was run to identify whether there is a relationship between respondent’s feedback based on the questionnaire regarding their preferred hand dishwashing practice and the observed washing up habit during the hand dishwashing test (Appendix G, tables G 25 & G 26). The analysis revealed that there was a significant association between the results of the questionnaire and the observed manual dishwashing behaviour [χ² (2) = 23.811, p < .001]. The contingency coefficient was .28. This represents a low association between both variables.
100% 5% 5% 5% 10% 90% 17% 19% 25% 15% 25% 80% 35% 45% 40% 50% 55% 70% 68% 56% 60% 47% 43%
50% 55% 40% 80% 75% 30% 60% 55% 45% 55% 40% 20% 38% 37% 34% 26% 10% 20% 5% 5% 5% 0% CN JP KR AU/NZ DE HU RU LATAM ME US ZA Total n=30 n=20 n=20 n=20 n=20 n=20 n=20 n=20 n=19 n=80 n=19 n=289
Running tap washers Mixed washers Sink washers
Fig. 4-23: Percentages of washer types per country panel based on the percentages of dishwashing steps done under running tap water; consumer study 8
A statistical analysis was conducted to determine whether there were any differences between the three washer types with regard to resource consumption per item and cleaning result respectively (Appendix G, table G 27). A Kruskal Wallis test revealed that the three washer types showed a significant difference regarding total water
8 Due to rounded values, it occurs that the summation of percentages does not amount to 100% Results 77 consumption per item [ H (2) = 89.46, p < .001] and total corrected heat quantity consumption per item [ H (2) = 35.58, p < .001]. However, for the factors detergent consumption per item, duration per item, and cleaning index no significant relationship could be found.
Jonckheere’s test revealed a significant trend in the data at p < .001 (Appendix G, table G 28): As more dishwashing steps were done under running tap water, the median total water consumption values per item [ J = 20557.50, z = 9.63, r = .56] and total corrected heat quantity consumption values per item [ J = 362.50, z = 3.69, r = .60] increased.
Mann Whitney tests were used to follow up the findings that water consumption per item and total corrected heat quantity consumption per item were significantly affected by the applied method of washing up dishes manually (Appendix G, tables G 29 to G 31). In order to control the type I error rate, a Bonferroni correction was applied and so called effects are reported at a .0167 level of significance. It appeared that total water consumption per item and total corrected heat quantity consumption per item were significantly lower when participants washed up mainly in a filled sink compared to those who were mixed washers combining washing up under running tap water and in a filled sink [Total water consumption per item: U = 1402.00, z = 6.31, r = 47; total corrected heat quantity consumption per item: U = 2242.00, z = 3.65, r = .27]. Total water consumption per item and total corrected heat quantity consumption per item were also significantly lower for sink washers compared to running tap washers [Total water consumption per item: U = 576.00, z = 8.48, r = .66; total corrected heat quantity consumption per item: U = 1418.50, z = 5.56, r = .43]. In addition, mixed washers showed a significant lower total water consumption per item and total corrected heat quantity consumption per item compared to running tap washers [Total water consumption per item: U = 3974.50, z = 5.52, r = .36; total corrected heat quantity consumption per item: U = 5025.50, z = 3.47, r = .23].
A further analysis was conducted with the consumer sample from only those who had achieved a cleaning index of 3.5 or higher. Again, it had to be investigated whether any significant differences could be determined between the three washer types with Results 78 regard to resource consumption per item and cleanliness (Appendix G, table G 32). A Kruskal Wallis test was run which showed that no significant difference between the three washer types was recognized for the factors total corrected heat quantity consumption per item, detergent consumption per item, duration per item and cleaning index. Only for the factor total water consumption per item could a significant relationship between the three washer types be identified [ H (2) = 14.22, p < .01].
Jonckheere’s test was applied and demonstrated a significant trend in the data at p < .001 (Appendix G, table G 33): As more dishwashing steps were done under running tap water, the median total water consumption values per item [ J = 362.50, z = 3.69, r = .60] increased.
A post hoc analysis was done using Mann Whitney tests to follow up on the findings of the Kruskal Wallis test (Appendix G, tables G 34 to G 36). Again, a Bonferroni correction was applied and all effects are reported at .0167 level of significance. The analysis showed that total water consumption per item was significantly lower for the group of participants who washed up in a filled sink compared to the group of mixed washers [ U = 13.00, z = 2.95, r = .60]. Also, total water consumption per item was significantly lower for sink washers when compared to participants who mainly washed up under running tap water [ U = 4.00, z = 3.36, r = .73]. However, no significant relationship could be found between sink washers and mixed washers [U = 75.50, z = 1.73, r = .31].
Discussion 79
5 Discussion
After summarizing the main results of the consumer and dishwasher study in the previous part of the present study, the following chapter explains first possible limitations of the applied methodology and the consumer sample and highlights their potential influences on the research findings. Furthermore, resource consumption and cleaning results of both consumer and dishwasher study are discussed comparatively. In addition, findings of both questionnaire and non participant observation focus on potential relationships and explanations of specific manual dishwashing methods. All presented results shall be discussed and broadened with findings of previous investigations in order to confirm their universal validity.
5.1 Methodology The consumer study followed the design of a laboratory study in order to gain results under controlled test conditions for each test run. However, it also aimed to replicate household conditions as closely as possible. Therefore, the tableware used for the investigation as well as the different types of food applied for the soiling procedure were partly based on national test standards for household dishwashers of the countries the participants came from. It could be ensured that participants were familiar with the food residues and the type of dishes they had to wash up by hand. However, national test standards did not exist for all countries that participated in this study. Hence, the international test standard IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) (IEC, 2009) had to be used for these countries only. In these cases, tableware and food used for the soiling procedure in these tests did not fully reflected country specific eating habits. The consumer samples for which the international test standard was applied only were China (CN), Germany (DE), Hungary (HU), Russia (RU), Latin America (LATAM), Middle East (ME) and Southern Africa (ZA).
A total amount of twelve place settings had to be washed manually by each test person. However, participants commented that this amount did not reflect their daily household conditions as it represents an amount of dishes that would theoretically accumulate in a 4 persons household within a day during breakfast, lunch and dinner.
A consumer survey of STAMMINGER and STREICHARDT (2009) showed that even in a Discussion 80
5 persons household – not owning a dishwasher – only 44.3 items per day on average
were washed by hand (STAMMINGER & STREICHARDT , 2009). However, as the comparison of manual with automatic dishwashing was one objective of this study, the test method required that a full dishwasher load of twelve place settings had to be washed both by hand and machine.
A kitchen like workplace was used for the manual dishwashing tests. It had a universal build up and allowed participants to adjust the setup based on their requirements and conditions at home. However, country specific kitchen designs were not taken into account which could have an influence on the workflow and therefore on the manual washing up habits, the resource consumption and cleaning result.
Although different and common hand dishwashing utensils were provided for the consumer study in each test run, a full range of available utensils from each national market could not be provided. Hence, not all consumers were able to use the identical hand dishwashing utensil for the consumer study that they had at home. However, as all presented utensils were globally available and therefore known by each test person, none of the participants indicated having any difficulties during the application of the utensils.
5.2 Consumer sample In total, 289 people with 29 nationalities coming from seven major regions were recruited to participate in the consumer study. The recruitment of participants for each consumer panel did not aim to achieve a representative distribution of each country population due to the low number of participants per panel. Instead, qualitative and quantitative consumer insights were gained. Therefore, criteria which were important to determine original manual dishwashing habits were taken into account for the recruitment process.
A large variety of different nationalities was chosen to ensure that a broad diversity of cultural backgrounds and therefore diverse manual dishwashing behaviours which lead to any regional or country specific characteristics were achieved. In order to limit the risk of people having already adopted any foreign habits, one main requirement for Discussion 81 participants recruited in Germany was that they had not lived in the country for more than three years. However, as there was no proof whether participants would have already adopted any foreign habits before and had therefore changed their original behaviour, additional consumer tests were done locally in China and the US. Resource consumption and cleaning results of both consumer panels participating in Germany and abroad were statistically compared. As only no significant results were detected between both US panels on the variables total detergent consumption and total duration, it was concluded that the water and energy consumption as well as the cleaning result of tests done with participants from Germany were of the same distribution as those from tests done with locals. A similar approach was also done in a research of BERKHOLZ et al. ( 2010) in which manual dishwashing results on resource consumption and cleanliness of a small UK consumer panel were statistically compared with results of a fully representative UK consumer panel. The study came to the conclusion that manual dishwashing results of a small country panel could be taken as an observation of results from a larger consumer panel of the same country
(BERKHOLZ et al ., 2010). Hence, it could be concluded that manual dishwashing habits of people coming from the same country and region were not easily affected by external factors but were on the contrary quite robust.
The age distribution within the country panels was more to favour younger age groups. More than 50% or participants were below the age of 34 years except for the US and Southern African (ZA) panel. This could be traced back to the main recruitment locations which were dominated by the younger generation such as university campus and social networks. For the tests done abroad in South Africa and the US, a consumer research panel was used to recruit participants by simple random sampling. This resulted in a more uniform age distribution within these country panels.
The assessment of the cleaning performance for both consumer and dishwasher study was done visually following European test standard requirements of EN 50242:2008
(EUROPÄISCHES KOMITEE FÜR ELEKTROTECHNISCHE NORMUNG , 2008). Hence, the evaluation procedure depended on the individual judgments of the evaluator. In order to limit the risk of false and subjective ratings, cleaning results of both consumer and Discussion 82
dishwasher study were always assessed by the same evaluator only. Furthermore, evaluators were trained intensively before the beginning of the study until they had achieved repeatable results.
5.3 Research findings 5.3.1 Manual dishwashing: Resource consumption and cleaning results Resource consumption
The analysis of the resource consumption data for manual dishwashing which were measured and calculated for each participant during the consumer study showed high variations when comparing the country panels. Differences could be identified for all resource consumption data when looking at total average results, interquartile ranges and distances between minimum and maximum values as well as consumption data per item.
These finding were also reported by previous studies. In the researches done by
STAMMINGER et al. (2007a) and BERKHOLZ et al. (2010), the high variations found in the data were related to the large variety of washing up habits. This variety became
apparent in ten consumer cases which were described by STAMMINGER et al. (2007a). Although researchers concluded that no common manual dishwashing practice could be clearly identified neither for Europe nor for any country and region , still a regional tendency of water usage habits was observed. While Southern European countries were predominantly washing up under running tap water during the trial, this habit was rarely observed for consumers coming from European countries which are
located further North (S TAMMINGER et al ., 2007a). RICHTER (2011) confirmed this trend with his investigation of four European countries by identifying different pre treatment practices of dishes for the dishwashers. The different pre treatment habits had an increasing effect on total water usage per dishwasher cycle when added to the dishwashers’ water consumption. This was found to be highest for Italy – a Southern European country – (Italy: 20 l per cycle) and lower for Northern European countries (UK: 4 l per cycle). Reasons were found in the high proportion of items being pre treated in Italian households and the pre treatment habit of rinsing dishes under
running tap water (RICHTER , 2011). Discussion 83
High variations of water and energy consumption per item for manual dishwashing between different countries could be also confirmed by RICHTER (2010a). Households without dishwashers showed differences in their average water use per item ranging from 1.0 l/item to 1.7 l/item. Differences in energy consumption per item varied between 25.0 Wh/item and 39.5 Wh/item (RICHTER , 2010a).
Measured data also showed high variations between the country panels with regard to the range between the 25 th and 75 th percentile. Countries with small and large ranges of the medium 50% were identified. A small deviation between the 25 th and 75 th percentile was seen as an argument for a more uniform hand washing practice among consumers of one panel. Country panels for which this was valid were Australia/New Zealand (AU/NZ), Southern Africa (ZA), and Germany (DE). On the contrary, a higher variety of applied manual dishwashing habits was rather linked to a large range between the 25 th and 75 th percentile which was the case for all remaining consumer panels.
The comparative statistical analysis of hot and cold water usage showed significant differences for some country panels. Some countries (AU/NZ, DE, HU, RU, ME, US) used significantly more hot than cold water compared to others which means that these countries purposely preferred warm water for washing up dishes by hand than all the remaining countries. These findings also advocated that specific washing up habits existed among the country panels. Different preferences in hot and cold water usage for hand dishwashing were confirmed by previous studies as well. WILHITE et al. (1996) reported that Norwegian households predominantly used hot water for washing up dishes, while Japanese families either used cold water or tended to adjust their hot water usage for dishwashing depending on the season. Interviews revealed that the Japanese did not link hot water with hygiene as it is common in Western societies but instead used hot water in order to warm up their hands and bodies during the cold seasons (WILHITE et al., 1996). A similar tendency was also found in the present study as hot water was predominantly used by Western consumer panels (AU/NZ, DE, HU, RU, ME, US) while Asian (CN, JP, KR), African (ZA) and Latin American (LATAM) consumer panels did not show any differences in hot and cold water usage at all. Discussion 84
Furthermore, there have been individual consumers who did not use any cold water at all (CH, AU/NZ, ME, US). These consumers with the exception of the Chinese participant (CN) – also belonged to those panels which showed a significantly higher use of hot than cold water which could be related back to a specific understanding of good hygiene practice. On the contrary, individual consumers from especially Asian countries (JP, CH, ZA, US) did not use any hot water for the manual dishwashing procedure. On one hand, this could be related back to the findings of WILHITE et al. (1996) that Asian consumers did not link a good hygiene result with hot water usage
(WILHITE et al. , 1996). On the other hand, some of these participants stated that they were not used to having hot water to wash up dishes. Some participants simply did not have any water heating system at their kitchen sink at home or the tap water temperature was already warm enough which made the additional usage of a hot water system in their kitchen unnecessary. Due to the lack of hot water usage by these participants, no corrected heat quantity consumption could be calculated either.
Cleaning results
The analysis of the cleaning results for manual dishwashing showed variations when comparing the country panels. Differences were identified especially when looking at the interquartile ranges and distances between minimum and maximum values. However, average cleaning indices did not differ greatly between the country panels as was the case for the resource consumption data. This was also demonstrated by the total standard deviation of the cleaning results which indicated that individual cleaning performance data were closer to the mean compared to measures of total water consumption, total corrected heat quantity consumption and total detergent consumption (Appendix F, table F 1 to F 5). Total standard deviation of total duration data also indicated that individual duration measures were closer to the mean value compared to the remaining resource consumption data.
A low deviation of average cleaning results between the country panels lead to the hypothesis that participants seemed to have a similar perception of the cleaning degree of hand washed dishes. Even the amount of soil which was applied to all dishes before each consumer trial and which differed depending on the applied test standard did not Discussion 85 have any influence on the cleaning result. STAMMINGER et al. (2007b) also concluded within their study that most of the consumers did seem to have a personal target value of how clean manually washed dishes needed to be (STAMMINGER et al. , 2007b). Nevertheless, the present study could not prove statistically that cleaning results were not different between country panels but instead differed significantly.
Similar perceptions of cleanliness among consumers lead to the question of whether an intensive usage of resources is necessary to achieve a better cleaning result. Indeed, a relationship was found between consumption data and the cleaning performance. A small significant positive correlation was confirmed between the cleaning result and the resources total water consumption per item, total corrected heat quantity per item, and total duration per item.
The dependency of the cleaning result on the resource consumption data was further investigated. Hence, the consumer sample was split into two groups: One group consisting of participants with cleaning indices greater or equal to 3.5, and the second group consisting of consumers with cleaning indices below that level. The score of 3.5 was chosen based on the European investigation of STAMMINGER et al. (2007a). The researchers concluded that a cleaning index of at least 3.5 was necessary in order to be recognised by consumers as an acceptable cleaning result (STAMMINGER et al., 2007a). If there was a relationship between the cleaning result and resource consumption data, both groups would show significant differences between these variables. A statistical analysis revealed that both groups differed in the total duration per item only. However, the total water consumption per item also seemed to have a relationship to the cleaning result as it only missed a significant level of p < .05 by a narrow margin.
Finally, it could be confirmed that almost all resource consumption data and cleaning results of the Chinese (CN) and the US consumer panel participating in Germany did not differ significantly from the data that were measured for the respective Chinese (CN) and US country panels tested abroad. This demonstrated that participants tested in Germany did not differ in their manual dishwashing behaviour compared to local people. They did not seem to have changed their habits since moving abroad but kept their original habits instead. Thus, dishwashing habits did not seem to be affected by Discussion 86
any external factors as they seemed to be part of less reflected routine behaviours. A
similar conclusion was stated by STAMMINGER et al. (2007b). Researchers observed that dishwashing habits were surprisingly constant between participants and did not change over the investigation period although the research set up was changed during
the tests (STAMMINGER et al., 2007b). BERKHOLZ et al. (2010) also demonstrated that a consumer panel tested abroad did not show any statistical differences in almost all
measured data compared to the local consumer panel (BERKHOLZ et al. , 2010). Hence, it was assumed that also the remaining country panels of the present study which participated in Germany did not change their original manual dishwashing habits.
5.3.2 Automatic dishwashing: Resource consumption and cleaning results Resource consumption
Equal to the consumer study, resource consumption data for automatic dishwashing were measured and calculated for each appliance during the dishwasher study. Also, differences could be identified between the machines.
Looking at the average total water consumption, especially two machines stood out in their average values compared to the remaining dishwasher models. The US dishwasher showed the highest average total water consumption values in all tested programmes followed by the Japanese dishwasher (DW JP) which had the second highest average values in the normal and intensive programme. These findings resulted from the additional water changes which both models were running during the programmes. Due to its specific “Sensotronic™ water condition monitoring” technology, the US dishwasher adjusted the amount of water in both the normal and intensive programme based on the soiling level of the loaded tableware. These additional water changes were especially realised in the pre wash step. Instead, the Japanese model (DW JP) ran additional water changes steps between the main and rinse step in both the normal and intensive programme.
Highest average total water consumption per item was also achieved by both the US and Japanese dishwasher (DW JP). Due to its lower loading capacity of five place Discussion 87 settings only, the average total water consumption per item was highest for the Japanese model (DW JP) in all programmes followed by the US machine.
The US dishwasher had the highest average total corrected energy consumption for all programmes under test. This was connected to its overall higher average total water consumption in all programmes which led to a higher energy demand which was needed to heat up the water on the required water temperature in the different programmes. A significant positive correlation between the total corrected energy consumption and the total water consumption confirmed this relationship. DW JP showed the lowest average total corrected energy values in the short and intensive programme and also the third lowest consumption data in the normal programme. Its overall lower average total corrected energy consumption was explained by shorter programmes on the one hand which did not include a pre rinse step in any of the tested programmes. On the other hand, the Japanese dishwasher (DW JP) reached overall lower average maximum water temperatures in all programmes in comparison to the other tested machines. Remarkably, DW AU/NZ achieved lower average total corrected energy consumption values in the normal programme compared to the quick programme which was contrary to all other dishwashers. This could be related back to the US Energy Star® rating system – a high energy performance standard which was adopted by the Australian government. It requires all dishwashers sold on the Australian market to follow these specific performance requirements in order to apply for an Energy Label (HARRINGTON & DAMNICS , 2004). Because the normal programme is used for Energy Label testing, manufacturers try to achieve lowest energy consumption values especially in this programme in order to first fulfil the standard requirements and second to remain competitive on the market.
Again due to its reduced loading capacity, the Japanese dishwasher (DW JP) achieved highest average total corrected energy consumption values per item in the quick and intensive programme compared to all other tested machines.
Beside the quick programme, the Japanese dishwasher (DW JP) had the shortest average programme time of all tested models in both the normal and intensive programme due to missing pre rinsing steps. Furthermore, a shorter heating up phase Discussion 88 of the water due to lower maximum water temperatures also lead to a reduced programme time of DW JP.
Cleaning results
All tested dishwashers achieved an improvement of cleaning results with an increase in cleaning intensity depending on the different programmes. Hence, lowest results were achieved in the quick programme while best results could be realised in the intensive programme. Poor results in the quick programme were connected with a low water temperature combined with a short programme time and a missing pre rinsing phase. In addition, the amount of soil was too high and therefore not suitable for cleaning conditions in the quick programme. On the contrary, best cleaning results were identified in the intensive programme for all machines due to an increase in water temperatures in combination with a longer programme time and a pre rinsing phase with heated up water. Only DW JP did not have a pre rinsing step in any of the programmes which could give one explanation for its lowest cleaning performance in all programmes.
A good cleaning performance depends on a minimum required water temperature plus the period which the temperature is kept constant in order to guarantee that grease residues, wax and paraffin are sufficiently dissolved and melted in the washing liquid. Thereby, the temperature magnitude has an effect on the reaction time of physiochemical processes (PICHERT , 2001). Hence, all machines had the best cleaning results in the intensive programme which was characterised by a higher water temperature compared to the quick and normal programme. While temperatures only went up to a maximum temperature of 46°C in the quick and 56°C in the normal programme, maximum temperatures up to 71°C were achieved in the main wash in the intensive programme (Table 5 1).
Discussion 89
Tab. 5-1: Maximum temperature in °C of the main wash step depending on programme and dishwasher model; dishwasher study
Maximum temperature in °C in main wash cycle AU/NZ JP KR LATAM US EU Quick programme 45.1 31.5 45.2 39.9 46.2 45.7 Normal programme 48.3 55.8 48.8 48.8 54.7 49.9 Intensive programme 70.8 58.4 70.4 70.0 71.0 70.2
DW JP had the lowest maximum water temperature in the main wash step and the shortest programme time of all dishwashers tested. Therefore, it achieved the lowest average cleaning indices due to the reduced impact of all necessary factors that influence the cleaning performance. Best average cleaning performance results in the normal and intensive programme were achieved by DW LATAM. Explanations for this result were found in the overall higher water temperatures in the main step plus the programme time which was the longest among all tested models in the normal and intensive programme.
The amount of soil also influenced the cleaning result. A significant relationship between the amount of soil used for the soiling procedure of the dishes and the cleaning result could be proven. Both variables showed a positive correlation. However, the correlation analysis could only be used as a limited indicator of a relationship due to the small correlation coefficient of .38 (Appendix G, table G 10). Further investigations would need to be done with a reference dishwasher, the different test loads and soils mentioned in the used test standards in order to get clear evidence about the strength of the correlation between the cleaning result and the soil amount.
Another parameter that influenced the cleaning performance was the number of intermediate rinse steps during a dishwasher programme. The investigation of POOLE ,
TAUBE and AULENBACH (1966) demonstrated that best performance results were realised when dishwasher programmes which consisted of two cleaning steps were separated by an intermediate rinse step. The aim of their study was to evaluate the cleaning performance of 14 dishwashers in removing different types of solids. In their study, the effect of selected factors on the cleaning result was investigated. The Discussion 90
researchers concluded that the design of the dishwasher programme was the most
important factor to realise a good cleaning effect (POOLE , TAUBE & AULENBACH , 1966). Furthermore, other factors such as the filter system of a dishwasher, the water spraying technology and the water pressure, material, surface structure and shape of the tableware, the loading position of the dishes in the different baskets as well as the design of the dishwasher baskets itself could be named as possible variables that contribute to a good cleaning ability of an automatic dishwasher. Because the present study focussed on absolute resource consumption measurements and total cleaning performance assessment of different dishwasher models only, future research would be needed to analyse the influence of further factors on the cleaning performance as mentioned above.
5.3.3 Comparison of manual and automatic dishwashing regarding resource consumption and cleaning result The comparison of manual and automatic dishwashing regarding the average resource consumption and cleaning performance data revealed clear differences between both methods. The average total water consumption results of the dishwasher study showed lower values for all machines in all programmes tested compared to the average results of the consumer study. A similar picture was identified for the average total corrected energy consumption data of the dishwasher tests which were lower than the average total heat quantity consumption data of the different country samples for the majority of machines and programmes. Only the Australian/New Zealand (AU/NZ) and Southern African (ZA) consumer panel achieved lower average results on total corrected heat quantity consumption than the respective country specific dishwasher models needed in specific programmes. Both country panels used less warm water on average compared to other participating panels which led to the reduced average total corrected heat quantity demand. Participants of the Australian/New Zealand panel (AU/NZ) indicated that water saving is of high importance for them and also especially encouraged by the Australian government due to frequent droughts in the country. Target oriented campaigns could be assumed to have effectively changed consumer habits in this specific case. But also an increase in water tariffs might have resulted in a thoughtful usage of drinking water. For example, data from 2011 Discussion 91 demonstrate that Australia’s water charges were one of the highest among other developed countries with similar GDP’s (LEE , 2013). Furthermore, participants of the Southern African panel (ZA) stated that they simply were not used to using any hot water for manual dishwashing at all because of the warm climate in their country. The water from the kitchen tap was usually already warm enough which made the installation of separate water heating systems at the kitchen sink unnecessary.
With the exception of the Japanese dishwasher (DW JP), all country specific models achieved better average cleaning results in the normal and intensive programme compared to the average results of the country panels. Only in the quick programme, average cleaning performance results of all tested dishwashers were lower than those of all consumer panels.
Based on the average resource consumption data for total water, total corrected heat/energy consumption per item and the average total cleaning indices of both consumer and dishwasher study, optimisation potentials were calculated to compare automatic with manual dishwashing (Table 5 2). Overall, the dishwasher tests improved the efficiency in total water and total corrected energy consumption per item by achieving a better cleaning performance result when the normal and intensive programme were tested. Thereby, highest gains in efficiency were achieved in total water usage per item by 85% (manual dishwashing: 0.886 l/item vs. automatic dishwashing: 0.134 l/item) and 87% (manual dishwashing: 0.886 l/item vs. automatic dishwashing: 0.113 l/item) followed by total corrected energy consumption per item with savings of 42% (manual dishwashing: 21.6 Wh/item vs. automatic dishwashing: 12.6 Wh/item) and 58% (manual dishwashing: 21.6 Wh/item vs automatic dishwashing: 9.0 Wh/item). Cleaning results could be improved up to 36% in the intensive (manual dishwashing: 2.57 vs. automatic dishwashing: 3.50) and 20% in the normal programme (manual dishwashing: 2.57 vs. automatic dishwashing: 3.08). However, resource savings in automatic dishwashing could only be considered as useful if no decline in the cleaning performance was expected. Average results for total water and total corrected energy consumption in the quick programme compared to results of the manual dishwashing tests did not meet this assumption. Discussion 92
Tab. 5-2: Optimisation potential of automatic dishwashing vs manual dishwashing in % regarding average total resource consumption and cleaning results, consumer and dishwasher study
Optimisation potential automatic vs manual dishwashing in % Quick Normal Intensive programme programme programme Total water consumption 91% 87% 85% per item in l Total corrected heat quantity/ 73% 58% 42% energy consumption per item in kWh Cleaning index 32% 20% 36%
Nevertheless, it has to be considered that calculated saving potentials mentioned in table 5 2 were based on data from a laboratory study and only valid if 100% of all items were fully washed in an automatic dishwasher and not by hand. Saving potentials calculated based on data from real life conditions draw a more realistic picture. Thus, households with dishwashers use less than half of the amount of water per item and almost one third less energy per item than households washing all dishes manually. The lower saving potentials were explained by less efficient usage of the dishwasher, such as pre treating dishes with water before cleaning them in a
dishwasher (RICHTER , 2010a).
5.3.4 Analysis of consumers’ attitudes and behaviour towards manual and automatic dishwashing The aim of the written questionnaire was to gain deeper insights and further knowledge about consumers’ attitudes and behaviour towards manual and automatic dishwashing.
In order to compare whether participants’ questionnaire replies were in line with their manual dishwashing habits, a correlation analysis was done between participants’ ratings of the importance of low resource consumption and cleanliness and the resource consumption data per item and cleaning indices. Significant negative correlations were found between the variables “importance of low water consumption” and “total water consumption per item”, “importance of low detergent consumption” and “total detergent consumption per item”, and “importance of short duration” and “total duration per item”. The negative correlation indicated that participants’ ratings Discussion 93 from the Likert type answer scale increased while the data of total water consumption per item, total detergent consumption per item and total duration per item decreased. That means that participants who rated these factors as important also used less resources compared to those consumers who rated these factors as less important. No significant correlation was found for the variables “importance of low energy consumption” and “total corrected heat quantity consumption” and “importance of cleanliness” and “cleaning index”. However, there seemed to be a relationship between both variables because both correlation coefficients missed the significant level of p < 0.05 by narrow margin only.
The ratings of the importance for the different resource consumption factors revealed high variations between the country panels. Country panels could be named for which a low energy or water consumption was of high importance, such as CN, JP, KR, AU/NZ, DE, LATAM, ME, US. On the contrary, countries such as Russia (RU) did not give priority to resource savings at all when it came to dishwashing. Only for the factor total duration and cleanliness, country panels’ replies were more uniform as the majority of participants in each panel stated that both factors were of importance for them. Looking at the total number of replies, the most important factor was the cleaning result followed by total duration. A low water and energy consumption was only named in third position. The least priority was given to a low detergent consumption. Recent studies asked people about their preferences when purchasing new white good appliances. Interestingly, low resource consumption was predominantly named to be the most important purchasing factor. An excellent cleaning performance was also stated to be of high importance. Low detergent consumption was only named by a small percentage of people (STAMMINGER, 2007; RICHTER, 2010b). Comparing the findings of the present and past studies, it could be assumed that resource saving factors were only considered and seen by consumers of higher importance when connected to an appliance purchase compared to when the general household task was mentioned.
The total average replies on the question regarding which dishwashing process uses less water and energy showed almost equal percentages for manual (37%) and Discussion 94 automatic (42%) dishwashing. However, when comparing the countries, panels could be clearly separated into groups which were more in favour of automatic (DE, HU, US, RU) or manual (CN, JP, KR, AU/NZ, LATAM, ME) dishwashing. The most possible reason for this outcome is the fact that dishwashers are still not a global popular household appliance. While dishwashers are already well established in North America and Western Europe, regions like Asia Pacific are still dominated by hand dishwashing due to a high purchase price of the appliance itself but also because of a strong maid culture (EUROMONITOR , 2014). This trend was also reflected in the questionnaire replies. It was statistically confirmed that respondents’ attitude on resource consumption for both dishwashing processes was associated with dishwasher ownership. Dishwasher owners (54%) were of the opinion that a dishwasher would save more resources than manual dishwashing, while dishwasher non owners (51%) stated the opposite. A similar result was concluded by a Greek study investigating attitudes and behaviour of Greek consumers regarding dishwashing. Statistical analysis revealed that dishwasher owners agreed more than dishwasher non owners on the statement that dishwashers use less water compared to manual dishwashing
(ABELIOTIS , DIMITRAKOPOULOU & VAMVAKARI , 2012).
When it comes to cleaning the dishes, the majority of participants (45%) chose manual dishwashing as the better cleaning process than automatic dishwashing (28%). The differences in the country panels’ responses were overall following the findings of the question which dishwashing process used less resources with the exception of the German participants who stated that manual dishwashing would be the better performing process when it comes to cleanliness. Again, a statistical analysis confirmed an association between dishwasher ownership and the attitude respondents had regarding the cleaning result achieved by both processes. Dishwasher owners (43%) were of the opinion that a dishwasher achieved a better cleaning result compared to manual dishwashing, while dishwasher non owners stated the opposite
(50%). ABELIOTIS , DIMITRAKOPOULOU and VAMVAKARI (2012) again confirmed these findings with results of their survey. Dishwasher owners agreed more on the statement than dishwasher non owners that dishwashers provide a better cleaning result Discussion 95 compared to washing up by hand (ABELIOTIS , DIMITRAKOPOULOU & VAMVAKARI , 2012).
Previous researches indicated that manual dishwashing would still be done in households which own a dishwasher (STAMMINGER , 2007; RICHTER , 2010b,
ABELIOTIS , DIMITRAKOPOULOU & VAMVAKARI 2012). Thereby, the main argument by consumers was seen in the shape of the dishes which were too bulky to perfectly fit into the dishwasher baskets followed by the immediate need of the dishes for further usage. Non dishwasher safe items were also named to be cleaned by hand instead of being washed in a dishwasher (RICHTER , 2010b, ABELIOTIS , DIMITRAKOPOULOU &
VAMVAKARI 2012). The present study confirmed these results. Almost all participants who said that they owned a dishwasher confirmed doing the dishes by hand also. Reasons for this habit were in line with finding of previous investigations.
Habits of pre treating dishes before loading them into the dishwasher did not seem to vary much globally compared to European findings of previous researches
(STAMMINGER , 2007; RICHTER , 2010a). The most common practice remained the rough removal of bigger leftovers on the dishes. Rinsing with water was named as the second most frequently used habit followed by soaking items. Especially the last two arguments were detected to have an increasing effect on the total water consumption per dishwasher cycle resulting in additional water use up to 20 litres on average
(RICHTER , 2011).
When it comes to hand dishwashing practices, the running tap water method was named as the predominant way for washing up by hand among all participants (45%) followed by a combination of washing up in a filled sink or bowl and under running tap water (33%). The lowest percentage of consumers stated that they washed up in a filled sink or bowl only (22%).
Dishwasher ownership did not seem to have any influence on the way people washed up by hand. Other researches came to a different conclusion. Some results showed that households with dishwashers generally did the dishes more frequently under running tap water (31%) than households without a dishwasher (17%) (RICHTER , 2010b). A Discussion 96
similar increase in running tap water usage was reported by STAMMINGER (2007). Running tap water method increased on average from 34.5% in households without a dishwasher to 40.2% in households with a dishwasher. On the contrary, manual dishwashing in a sink or bowl decreased on average from 35.1% in households without a dishwasher to 30.2% in households where a dishwasher was installed The researchers explained their results by the fact that single dishes which were needed immediately or would require a special treatment were cleaned quickly by hand
instead of being loaded into the dishwasher (STAMMINGER , 2007).
However, hand dishwashing methods differed greatly between the country panels
which had also been observed by previous research (STAMMINGER , 2007; RICHTER , 2010b). Countries (AU/NZ, ZA) with a small range of the medium 50% for total water consumption and a low average total water consumption values (see chapter 4.2) stated that they favoured washing up in a filled sink/bowl or combine manual dishwashing under running tap water and in a filled sink/bowl. All other countries indicated that they either preferred washing up under running tap water or combined washing up under running tap water and in a filled sink. Hence, there seemed to be a relationship between the total water consumption and the preferred method of washing up by hand.
On the topic of different manual dishwashing practices, FUSS et al. (2011) worked out Best Practice Tips of washing up dishes by hand which were based on washing up in two water filled sinks or bowls and specific detergent use and dose recommendations. Running tap water usage was not recommended. The researchers could show within a consumer study that the application of Best Practice Tips used around 60% less water, 70% less energy and 30% less detergent when compared to the participants’ everyday washing up behaviour. Additionally, an improvement of the cleaning performance was
realised (FUSS et al. , 2011).
5.3.5 Effect of specific manual dishwashing practices on the resource consumption and cleaning result The observation of the participants’ manual dishwashing practices during the consumer study revealed a slightly different picture compared to the feedback on preferred washing up methods that all participants stated in the questionnaire. During Discussion 97 the manual dishwashing test, the combination of both running tap water method and washing in a filled sink was the predominant practice (43%) followed by washing up under running tap water (38%). Identical to the survey results, washing up in a filled sink was the least practiced method (19%). However, when comparing the findings of both questionnaire and observation analysis statistically, a significant association between both analyses could be demonstrated.
FUSS et al. (2011) have demonstrated with their research that a specific manual dishwashing practice could lead to a reduction in resource consumption and to an improvement of the cleaning performance at the same time ((FUSS et al. , 2011). Therefore, it was verified whether these findings could be transferred to the video observation results of the present study as well. Hence, it was investigated whether a significant difference could be detected between the three manual dishwashing types of washing up under running tap water (running tap washer), washing up in a filled sink/bowl (sink washer) and combining both methods (mixed washer) with regard to resource consumption and cleaning result. The first statistical analysis combined resource consumption and cleaning results of all participants. It demonstrated that the three washer types were significantly different regarding total water consumption per item and total corrected heat quantity consumption per item. In addition, a trend within the data could be identified showing that the more dishwashing steps were done under running tap water the more water respectively corrected heat quantity per item was used. Based on these finding, the sink washer was identified to be the washer type who used significantly less water and less corrected heat quantity per item than the mixed and running tap washer.
A further statistical analysis was conducted to verify whether there were any significant differences between the three washer types regarding resource consumption and cleaning result if only participants with a cleaning index of 3.5 or higher were taken into account. The score of 3.5 was chosen based on a European research which concluded that a cleaning index of at least 3.5 was necessary in order to be recognised by consumers as an acceptable cleaning result (STAMMINGER et al., 2007a). Within this group of participants with best cleaning indices, the three washer types showed a Discussion 98 significant difference for total water consumption per item only. Again, a significant trend could be identified demonstrating that the more dishwashing steps were performed under running tap water the more water per item was used. This relationship could not be confirmed for the remaining resource consumption values and the cleaning result. Again, the sink washer was found to use the least water per item among all washer types. Furthermore, since the washer types did not differ significantly in their cleaning performance results, it was concluded that the sink washer reached a similar cleaning result to the two other washer types by consuming a lower amount of water per item. Hence, the present study could also confirm findings of FUSS et al. (2011) that washing up in a sink reduced the water consumption per item significantly compared to other methods by achieving a constant cleaning result.
Conclusion 99
6 Conclusion
The task of the present study was to broaden the already existing research findings about manual dishwashing by including both European and non European countries into the focus of research. Consumer panels from all continents took part and six country specific dishwasher models were tested on resource consumption and cleaning result. New insights about global manual and automatic dishwashing habits were investigated and country related washing up practices were analysed to identify their impact on resource consumption and cleanliness. The research design followed a comparative laboratory study by taking country specific and close to home conditions into account.
The comparison of both manual and automatic dishwashing provided a wide range of measured resource consumption data and cleaning results, which demonstrated that hand dishwashing habits varied dramatically between countries. Regional tendencies in washing up habits could be identified based on the high variations in resource consumption. However, this trend was not found within the cleaning results which implied a similar perception of cleanliness among consumers. Under the test conditions chosen, almost all dishwasher models achieved a better cleaning performance and used less resources compared to the majority of countries. Comparison of both manual and automatic dishwashing pointed out that within a laboratory test, automatic dishwashing achieved a clear optimisation of the dishwashing process with regard to a more efficient resource usage and an improvement in cleaning performance. However, real life conditions in the respective countries may differ from those simulated in the present laboratory investigation. Factors such as cultural differences in cooking practices, household sizes and living conditions were not taken into account but may have an impact on household practices. Therefore, future research needs to be done under real life conditions with a deeper focus on social demographic factors.
Deeper insights and further knowledge about consumers’ attitudes and behaviour towards manual and automatic dishwashing was gained with the help of the written questionnaire. The survey revealed large differences between the countries. The Conclusion 100 importance of low resource consumption during dishwashing varied greatly between the countries and gives reason for concern. A thoughtful usage of resources did not seem to be a common habit among consumers. Furthermore, facts about the benefits of automatic dishwashing in terms of resource consumption and cleanliness were not well understood or established among consumers. Manual dishwashing was still seen as the more effective process in terms of water and energy savings and a better cleaning performance by a high percentage of consumers. It could be confirmed that consumer habits also influenced the efficient usage of dishwashers. Pre treatment habits such as pre rinsing and soaking were still well established among dishwasher owners and resulted in additional water and energy demand.
To determine the effect of specific manual dishwashing practices on the resource consumption and the cleaning result, three main washer types were defined based on survey results and confirmed by non participating observation. Thus, the sink washer was determined as the most resource saving manual dishwashing practice by achieving a similar cleaning result as the mixed and running tap water washer.
The residential sector has already become the most rapidly growing area after transportation in terms of energy use today and water remains a limited source and therefore an important issue in many regions of the world. This was the reason why this research was focussed on the residential sector and why further investigations on dishwashing as an example for a frequent and resource consuming household task were conducted. Consumer behaviour and attitudes have an impact on resource consumption. The present research confirmed that hand dishwashing still remains a mundane and dominant household task globally that is less reflected in terms of its impact on resource consumption. This applies also to consumers using a dishwasher who reduce the resource saving potential of the appliance by additional water usage for manual pre treatment habits. The study also demonstrated that knowledge about the environmental impact of manual dishwashing and the benefits of automatic dishwashing in terms of resource saving and cleanliness is still less well established among consumers. Conclusion 101
In order to reduce resource consumption in the home, user behaviour will have to be changed. To achieve this, it will be necessary to increase consumer awareness by improved communication and wider discussions. There are two aspects which need to be considered. On the one hand, consumers need to be better informed about best practice tips for the various household tasks which are still done by hand, such as washing up, especially in countries where household appliances are part of a luxury lifestyle and less affordable by the majority. On the other hand, the potential savings, benefits and the correct usage of household appliances such as automatic dishwashers need to be more highlighted, since the development and promotion of efficient machines by the industry do not seem to be able to overcome the barrier of consumer habits. Therefore, consumer targeted communication, new policies and campaigns are needed which combine both local cultural and social backgrounds by taking financial and technological availability into account. Specifically for this purpose, the results of the present study should provide a basis for a better understanding of consumer behaviour.
References 102
References
ABELIOTIS , K., DIMITRAKOPOULOU , N. & VAMVAKARI , M. (2012) Attitudes and behaviour of consumers regarding dishwashing: The case of Patras, Greece. Resources, Conservation and Recycling , 62, 31 36
ASSOCIATION OF HOME APPLIANCE MANUFACTURERS (2005) Household Electric Dishwashers, ANSI/AHAM DW 1 2005 (Revision of ANSI/AHAM DW 1 1992 and AHAM DW 1 2004). Washington, DC.
BERKHOLZ , P., STAMMINGER , R., WNUK , G., OWENS , J. & BERNARDE S. (2010) Manual dishwashing habits: an empirical analysis of UK consumers. International Journal of Consumer Studies , 34 , 235 242.
BERKHOLZ , P., KOBERSKY , V. & STAMMINGER , R. (2013) Comparative analysis of global consumer behaviour in the context of different manual dishwashing methods. International Journal of Consumer Studies , 37 , 46 58.
BDEW (2013) Trinkwasserverwendung im Haushalt 2012. [WWW document] URL https://www.bdew.de/internet.nsf/id/3852C5217E9FD4E1C125786C004274E7/$file/T rinkwasserverwendung%20im%20HH%202012.pdf, 12.08.2014.
CLASP (2013) Estimating potential additional energy savings from upcoming revisions to existing regulations under the ecodesign and energy labelling directives: a contribution to the evidence base. Brussels. [WWW document] URL http://www.clasponline.org/en/Resources/Resources/PublicationLibrary/2013/CLASP and eceee Point To Additional Savings from Ecodesign and Energy Labelling.aspx, 18.08.2014.
CECED (n.d.) New EU Energy Label. [WWW document] URL http://www.newenergylabel.com/uk/discover_the_label, 21.08.2014.
DVGW (2004) Arbeitsblatt W 551: Trinkwassererwärmungs und Trinkwasserleitungsanlagen; Technische Maßnahmen zur Verminderung des References 103
Legionellenwachstums; Planung, Errichtung, Betrieb und Sanierung von Trinkwasser Installationen. Bonn.
EEA (2001) Environmental signals 2001. Copenhagen. [WWW document] URL http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/signals 2001/page000.html, 27.08.2014.
EMMEL , J. M., PARROTT , K. & BEAMISH , J. (2003) Dishwashing and Water Conservation: An Opportunity for Environmental Education. Journal of Extension, 41. [WWW document] URL http://www.joe.org/joe/2003february/rb3.php, 07.10.2014.
EUR ACTIV (2002) Sustainable Development: Introduction. [WWW document] URL http://www.euractiv.com/sustainability/sustainable development introduction/article 117539, 09.06.2014.
EUROMONITOR INTERNATIONAL (2013) Sustainability and the New Normal for Natural Resources. London. [WWW document] URL http://go.euromonitor.com/new normal for natural resources white paper.html, 18.07.2014.
EUROMONITOR INTERNATIONAL (2014) Dishwasher Manufacturers Must Educate to Penetrate New Markets. London. [WWW document] URL http://blog.euromonitor.com/2014/04/homework for dishwasher manufacturers.html, 23.10.2014
EUROPÄISCHES KOMITEE FÜR ELEKTROTECHNISCHE NORMUNG (2008) EN 50242, 2008: Elektrische Geschirrspüler für den Hausgebrauch – Messverfahren für Gebrauchseigenschaften. Brussels.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2014) Energy Efficiency. Energy Labelling of Products. [WWW document] URL http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/labelling/labelling_en.htm, 21.08.2014.
EUROSTAT (2009) Consumers in Europe. Luxembourg. [WWW document] URL http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/archive/strategy/consumers_europe_edition2_en.pdf, 20.07.2014. References 104
EUROSTAT (2012) Europe in figures. Eurostat yearbook 2012. Luxembourg. [WWW document] URL http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS CD 12 001/EN/KS CD 12 001 EN.PDF, 16.07.2014.
EWING , B., MOORE , D., GOLDFINGER , S., OURSLER , A., REED , A. & WACKERNAGEL , M. (2010) The Ecological Footprint Atlas 2010. Global Footprint Network, Oakland. [WWW document] URL http://www.footprintnetwork.org/images/uploads/Ecological_Footprint_Atlas_2010.pd f, 18.07.2014.
FAO (2012) Water withdrawal by sector, around 2006. [WWW document] URL http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/globalmaps/AquastatWorldDataEng_20121214_ Withdrawal.pdf, 12.08.2014.
th FRIEDRICHS , J. (1985) Methoden empirischer Sozialforschung. 13 edn., Westdeutscher Verlage GmbH, Opladen.
FUSS , N., BORNKESSEL , S., MATTERN , T. & STAMMINGER , R. (2011) Are resource savings in manual dishwashing possible? Consumers applying Best Practice Tips. International Journal of Consumer Studies , 35 , 194 200
FUSS , N. & STAMMINGER , R. (2010) Manual Dishwashing – How can it be Optimized? Tenside Surfactants Detergents , 47 , 342 348.
FUSS , N. & STAMMINGER , R. (2011) Resource Saving by Training – How much can be Saved in Manual Dishwashing? Tenside Surfactants Detergents , 48 , 359 365.
GUDD , R., KIONKA , U. & SCHMITZ PLASKUDA , R. (1994) Vergleich der Wirtschaftlichkeit zwischen dem Handspülen und dem Spülen mit der Geschirrspülmaschine (ed. by R.W.E. Energie), Versuchsbericht, Essen.
GUTZSCHEBAUCH , C., HÄRER , J., JESCHKE , P., SCHRÖDER , R. & ZAIKA , D. (1996) Geschirrspülen von Hand und in der Maschine – ein Systemvergleich. Hauswirtschaft und Wissenschaft , 2, 51 63. References 105
HARRINGTON , L. & DAMNICS , M. (2004) Energy Labelling and Standards Programs Throughout the World, NAEEEC Report 2004/04, Victoria. [WWW document] URL http://www.energyefficient.com.au/reports/200404 internatlabelreview.pdf, 21.08.2014.
HARRIS , J. M. (2003) Sustainability and Sustainable Development. International Society for Ecological Economics. [WWW document] URL http://isecoeco.org/pdf/susdev.pdf, 14.07.2014.
HSBC (2012) Consumer in 2050. The rise of the EM middle class. Global Economics, October, London. [WWW document] URL http://www.worldcaptiveforum.com/images/Consumer in 2050 HSBCGlobalResearch.pdf, 18.07.2014.
IEA (2006) World Energy Outlook 2006. Paris. [WWW document] URL http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/2008 1994/WEO2006.pdf, 21.07.2014.
IEC (2009) IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009(E): Electric dishwashers for household use – methods for measuring the performance. Geneva.
IISD (2002) The Sustainable Development Timeline. 3rd edn., Winnipeg, Manitoba. [WWW document] URL http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2002/sd_timeline2002.pdf, 17.01.2011.
JEMA (2008) JEMA HD 032:2007: Voluntary Standards for Dishes to Be Washed with Electrical Dishwashers. Tokyo.
JEMA (2008) JEMA HD 084:2008: Methods for Measuring the Performance of Dishwashers. Tokyo.
JOINT STANDARDS AUSTRALIA /S TANDARDS NEW ZEALAND COMMITTEE EL 015 (2005) AS/NZS, 2007: Australian/New Zealand Standard™, Performance of household electrical appliances Dishwashers, Part 1: Methods for measuring performance, energy and water consumption. Sydney, Wellington. References 106
th KROMREY , H. (2009) Empirische Sozialforschung. 12 edn., Lucius & Lucius, Stuttgart.
LEE , F. (2013) Hong Kong Water – Agenda & Goals. [WWW document] URL http://chinawaterrisk.org/opinions/hong kong water agenda goals/, 14.11.2014.
LUECKE , A. (1971) Hausfrauen im Wettstreit mit dem Geschirrspüler. Haustechnischer Anzeiger , 6, 117 118.
MINISTRY OF KNOWLEDGE & ECONOMY AND KOREA ENERGY MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION (2008) MKE’s Notification 2008 99: Regulation on Energy Efficiency Labeling and Standards. Gwacheon si, Gyeonggi do.
OECD (2001a) Environmental Outlook. Paris. [WWW document] URL http://dev.ulb.ac.be/ceese/CEESE/documents/ocde%20environment%20outlook.pdf, 10.08.2014.
OECD (2001b) Experts Workshop on Information and Consumer Decision Making For Sustainable Consumption. Background paper. Paris [WWW document] URL http://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/consumption innovation/1895757.pdf, 19.08.2014.
OECD (2001c) ENV/EPOC/WPNEP(2001)15/FINAL. Sector case studies series. Household energy & water consumption and waste generation: Trends, environmental impacts and policy responses. Paris. [WWW document] URL http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?doclanguage=en& cote=env/epoc/wpnep(2001)13/final, 21.07.2014.
OECD (2008) OECD Environmental Outlook to 2030. Paris.
nd PICHERT , H. (2001) Haushaltstechnik: Verfahren und Geräte. 2 edn., Ulmer, Stuttgart.
POOLE , N. D., TAUBE , R. K. & AULENBACH , B. B. (1966) Mechanical dishwashers for the home: Their performance characteristics. Journal of Home Economics , 58 , 194 200. References 107
RICHTER , C. P. (2010a) In house Consumer Study on Dishwashing Habits in Four European Countries: Saving Potentials in Households with Dishwashing machine. Schriftenreihe der Haushaltstechnik Bonn, 2, Shaker, Aachen
RICHTER , C. P. (2010b) Automatic dishwashers: efficient machine or less efficient consumer habits? International Journal of Consumer Studies , 34 , 228 234
RICHTER , C. P. (2011) Usage of dishwashers: observation of consumer habits in the domestic environment. International Journal of Consumer Studies , 35 , 180 186.
RICHTER , C. P. & STAMMINGER , R. (2012) Water Consumption in the kitchen – A Case Study in Four European Countries. Water Resources Management , 26 , 1639 1649.
ROBINSON , J. (2004) Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development. Ecological Economics , 48 , 369 384. [WWW document] URL http://www.buyteknet.info/fileshare/data/ambides_lect/Robinson.pdf, 02.09.2014.
SAMMER , K. & WÜSTENHAGEN , R. (2006) The Influence of Eco Labelling on Consumer Behaviour – Results of a Discrete Choice Analysis for Washing Machines. Business Strategy and the Environment , 15 , 185 199.
SATER , V. E. (1934) Time and Cost Evaluation of Dishwashing by Different Methods. State College of Washington Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin , 303 , Pullmann.
STAMMINGER , R., MEBANE , W. & ESPOSITO , R. (2007) Preparatory Studies for Eco design Requirements of EuPs (Tender TREN/D1/40 2005). LOT 14: Domestic Washing Machines and & Dishwashers. Part I – Present Situation. Task 2: Economic and Market Analysis Rev. 1.0. [WWW document] URL http://www.eup network.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Task_2_Economic_and_Market_Analysis.pdf, 10.08.2014.
STAMMINGER , R. (2007) Preparatory Studies for Eco design Requirements of EuPs (Tender TREN/D1/40 2005) LOT 14: Domestic Washing Machines and & Dishwashers. Part I – Present Situation. Task 3: Economic and Market Analysis Rev. References 108
1.0. [WWW document] URL http://www.eup network.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Task_3_Economic_and_Market_Analysis_Consum er_Behaviours.pdf, 10.08.2014.
STAMMINGER R., ELSCHENBROICH , A., RUMMLER B. & BROIL , G. (2007a) Washing up Behaviour and Techniques in Europe. Hauswirtschaft und Wissenschaft , 1, 31 40.
STAMMINGER , R., RUMMLER , B., ELSCHENBROICH , A. & BROIL , G. (2007b) Dishwashing Under Various Consumer relevant Conditions. Hauswirtschaft und Wissenschaft , 2, 81 88
STAMMINGER , R. & STREICHARDT , C. (2009) Selected Aspects of Consumer Behaviour in the Manual and Mechanical Dishwashing in Germany. SÖFW Journal , 135 , 50 56
THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (2014) Water Rating. Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (WELS) scheme. [WWW document] URL http://www.waterrating.gov.au/, 21.08.2014.
UNEP (2004) Freshwater in Europe – Facts, Figures and Maps. Geneve. [WWW document] URL http://www.grid.unep.ch/products/3_Reports/freshwater_atlas.pdf, 10.08.2014.
UNITED NATIONS (1987) Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our common Future. New York, NY. [WWW document] URL http://www.un documents.net/our common future.pdf, 13.07.2014.
UNITED NATIONS (1992) United Nations Conference on Environment & Development Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992, Agenda 21. New York, NY. [WWW document] URL http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf, 13.07.2014.
UNITED NATIONS (2000) 55/2. United Nations Millennium Declaration. New York,
NY. [WWW document] URL http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.htm, 13.07.2014. References 109
UNITED NATIONS (2002) Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August – 4 September 2002. New York, NY. [WWW document] URL http://www.un.org/jsummit/html/documents/summit_docs/131302_wssd_report_reissu ed.pdf, 13.07.2014.
UNITED NATIONS (2005) 60/1. 2005 World Summit Outcome. New York, NY. [WWW document] URL http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan021752.pdf, 13.07.2014.
UNITED NATIONS (2012) Report of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 20–22 June 2012. New York, NY. [WWW document] URL http://www.uncsd2012.org/content/documents/814UNCSD%20REPORT%20final%2 0revs.pdf, 13.07.2014.
UNITED NATIONS (2013) World Population Prospects. The 2012 Revision. Highlights and Advance Tables. New York, NY. [WWW document] URL http://esa.un.org/wpp/Documentation/pdf/WPP2012_HIGHLIGHTS.pdf, 16.07.2014.
WATERWISE (n.d.) Water – The facts [WWW document] URL http://www.waterwise.org.uk/data/resources/25/Water_factsheet_2012.pdf, 26.08.2014.
WILHITE , H., NAKAGAMI , H., TAKASHI , M. & YAMAGA , Y. (1995) A cross cultural analysis of household energy use behaviour in Japan and Norway. Energy Policy , 9, 795 803.
WORLD WATER ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME (2009) The United Nations World Water
Development Report 3: Water in a Changing World. Paris, London. [WWW document] URL http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001819/181993e.pdf, 20.07.2014.
ZVEI (2011) Zahlenspiegel des deutschen Elektro Hausgerätemarktes 2011. Frankfurt am Main. [WWW document] URL http://www.gfu.de/srv/easyedit/_ts_1313425319000/page:home/marktzahlen/markthg/ References 110 sl_1313417356268/args.link01/de_ZVEI%20Zahlenspiegel%20des%20dt.%20Elektro Hausgera%CC%88temarktes_2011 06.pdf, 02.09.2014.
List of abbreviations 111
List of abbreviations abbr./Abbr. Abbreviation
AHAM Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers
BDEW Bundesverband der Energie und Wasserwirtschaft e.V.
BRIC Brazil, Russia, India, China
BSH Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte
°C Degree Celcius
CECED Conseil Européen de la Construction d'appareils Domestiques
CLASP Collaborative Labeling and Appliance Standards Program
CO Colorado
Corp. Corporation
DVGW Deutscher Verein des Gas und Wasserfaches
EEA European Environment Agency
EEC European Economic Community
EN Europäische Norm
EU European Union
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Fig. Figure g Gramm
GmbH Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung
H Kruskal Wallis test statistic
HSBC Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation List of abbreviations 112
IEA International Energy Agency
IEC International Electrotechnical Commission
IISD International Institute for Sustainable Development
Inc. Incorporated
J Jonckheere Terpstra test statistic
JEMA Japan Electrical Manufacturers' Association
K Kelvin kg Kilogramm kJ Kilojoule kWh Kilowatt hour l Litre(s)
Ltd Limited
Max Maximum
Mdn Median
MEPS Minimum energy performance standards
Min Minimum
MKE Ministry of Knowledge & Economy mmol Millimol
MS Microsoft
N Sample size
NAEEEC National Appliance and Equipment Energy Efficiency Committee
NJ New Jersey List of abbreviations 113
No. Number(s) ns not significant
OECD Organisation for Economic Co operation and Development p Probability
PC Personal computer pctl Percentile
Pty Proprietary r Effect size rs Spearman’s correlation coefficient
R2 Coefficient of determination
SD Standard deviation
Tab. Table
TX Texas
U Mann Whitney test statistic
UN United Nations
UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
USA United States of America
WCED World Commission on Environment and Development
WELS Water Efficiency Labelling Schemes
Wh Watt hours List of abbreviations 114
χ² Chi z z score
ZVEI Zentralverband Elektrotechnik und Elektronikindustrie e.V.
List of figures 115
List of figures
Fig. 3 1: Research design of the consumer study and the dishwasher study ...... 20 Fig. 3 2: Schematic diagram of the experimental set up of the workstation; consumer study ...... 32 Fig. 3 3: Loading plan AU/NZ dishwasher: Lower basket (left), upper basket (right) 38 Fig. 3 4: Loading plan JP dishwasher: Lower basket (left), upper basket (middle), cutlery basket (right) ...... 38 Fig. 3 5: Loading plan KR dishwasher: Lower basket (left), upper basket (right) ...... 39 Fig. 3 6: Loading plan LATAM dishwasher: Lower basket (left), upper basket (right) ...... 39 Fig. 3 7: Loading plan US dishwasher: Lower basket (left), upper basket (right) ...... 39 Fig. 3 8: Loading plan EU dishwasher: Lower basket (left), upper basket (right) ...... 40 Fig. 3 9: Schematic diagram of the dishwasher test desk set up ...... 42 Fig. 4 1: Box and whisker diagram of the total water consumption in l with mean values; consumer study ...... 48 Fig. 4 2: Box and whisker diagram of the hot and cold water consumption in l with mean values; consumer study ...... 49 Fig. 4 3: Box and whisker diagram of the total corrected heat quantity consumption in kWh with mean values; consumer study ...... 50 Fig. 4 4: Scatter plot of water consumption in l and corrected heat quantity consumption in kWh with regression line and coefficient of determination, consumer study ...... 51 Fig. 4 5: Box and whisker diagram of the total detergent consumption values in g with mean values; consumer study ...... 52 Fig. 4 6: Box and whisker diagram of the total duration in min with mean values; consumer study ...... 54 Fig. 4 7: Box and whisker diagram of the cleaning indices with mean values; consumer study ...... 55 Fig. 4 8: Total water consumption in l with mean and SD values in the quick, normal and intensive programme; dishwasher study ...... 57 List of figures 116
Fig. 4 9: Total corrected energy consumption in kWh with mean and SD values in the quick, normal and intensive programme; dishwasher study ...... 59 Fig. 4 10: Scatter plot of water consumption in l and corrected energy consumption in kWh with regression line and coefficient of determination; dishwasher study ...... 59 Fig. 4 11: Total programme time in min with mean and SD values in the quick, normal and intensive programme; dishwasher study ...... 61 Fig. 4 12: Cleaning indices with mean and SD values in the quick, normal and intensive programme; dishwasher study ...... 62 Fig. 4 13: Importance of low water consumption; consumer survey ...... 65 Fig. 4 14: Importance of low energy consumption; consumer survey ...... 66 Fig. 4 15: Importance of low detergent consumption; consumer survey ...... 67 Fig. 4 16: Importance of short duration; consumer survey ...... 68 Fig. 4 17: Importance of cleanliness; consumer survey ...... 69 Fig. 4 18: Question about which dishwashing process uses less water and energy; consumer survey ...... 71 Fig. 4 19: Question about which dishwashing process achieves a better cleaning result; consumer survey ...... 72 Fig. 4 20: Question why dishwasher owners still wash up by hand, consumer survey 73 Fig. 4 21: Question about how dishes are pre treated before loaded into the dishwasher, consumer survey ...... 74 Fig. 4 22: Question about preferred hand dishwashing practice; consumer survey ..... 75 Fig. 4 23: Percentages of washer types per country panel based on the percentages of dishwashing steps done under running tap water; consumer study ...... 76
List of tables 117
List of tables Tab. 3 1: Consumer panel: allocation of countries per region, nationality, number of consumers per test country and test location ...... 21 Tab. 3 2: Applied test standard with total amount of soil per country panel; consumer study ...... 23 Tab. 3 3: Applied soiling agents according to test standard; consumer study and dishwasher study ...... 23 Tab. 3 4: Definition of manual dishwashing segments used in the non participant observation; consumer study ...... 28 Tab. 3 5: Definition of the application method of the hand dishwashing detergent; consumer study ...... 30 Tab. 3 6: Definition of the application method of the hand dishwashing detergent; consumer study ...... 35 Tab. 3 7: Number of dish segments according to applied test load; consumer study and dishwasher study ...... 36 Tab. 3 8: Automatic dishwasher models under test according to test region and test standard with total amount of soil; dishwasher study ...... 37 Tab. 4 1: Demographic characteristics of the consumer panels ...... 47 Tab. 4 2: Statistics of the total water consumption per item in l, consumer study ...... 48 Tab. 4 3: Statistics of the total corrected heat quantity consumption per item in Wh; consumer study ...... 52 Tab. 4 4: Statistics of the total detergent consumption per item in g; consumer study 53 Tab. 4 5: Statistics of the total water consumption per item in l in the quick, normal and intensive programme; dishwasher study ...... 58 Tab. 4 6: Statistics of the corrected energy consumption per item in Wh in the quick, normal and intensive programme; dishwasher study ...... 60 Tab. 4 7: Mean values of resource consumption values and cleaning indices; consumer study ...... 64 Tab. 4 8: Mean values of resource consumption values and cleaning indices in the quick, normal and intensive programme; dishwasher study ...... 64 List of tables 118
Tab. 4 9: Preferred hand dishwashing practice in % by dishwasher ownership, consumer study ...... 75 Tab. 5 1: Maximum temperature in °C of the main wash step depending on programme and dishwasher model; dishwasher study ...... 89 Tab. 5 2: Optimisation potential of automatic dishwashing vs manual dishwashing in % regarding average total resource consumption and cleaning results, consumer and dishwasher study ...... 92 Tab. A 1: Place settings and serving pieces "AS/NZS 2007.1 / IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E)" load; consumer study (region: Australia/New Zealand) and dishwasher study (model: Bosch/SMI50E25AU)...... I Tab. A 2: Place settings and serving pieces "IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E)" load; consumer study (region: Europe, Latin America, Middle East, Southern Africa; country: China) and dishwasher study (model: Siemens/SN26M230EU, Bosch/SMS63M08MX) ...... II Tab. A 3: Place settings and serving pieces "JEMA HD 032:2007 / IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E)" load; consumer study (country: Japan) ...... III Tab. A 4: Place settings and serving pieces " JEMA HD 032:2007 / IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E)" load; dishwasher study (model: National/NP 33S2) . IV Tab. A 5: Place settings and serving pieces "MKE’s Notification 2008 99 / IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E)" load; consumer study (country: Korea) dishwasher study (model: Siemens/SN25E230EA) ...... V Tab. A 6: Place settings and serving pieces "ANSI/AHAM 2005 DW 1 / IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E)" load; consumer study (region: North America) dishwasher study (model: Bosch/SHE55M05UC) ...... VI Tab. A 7: Soiling agents/ingredients for preparation of "AS/NZS 2007.1 / IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E)" load; consumer study (region: Australia/New Zealand) and dishwasher study (model: Bosch/SMI50E25AU) ...... VII Tab. A 8: Soiling agents/ingredients for preparation of "IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E)" load; consumer study (region: Europe, Latin America, Middle East, Southern Africa; country: China) and dishwasher study (model: Siemens/SN26M230EU, Bosch/SMS63M08MX) ...... VIII List of tables 119
Tab. A 9: Soiling agents/ingredients for preparation of "JEMA HD 084:2008 / IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E)" load; consumer study (country: Japan) and dishwasher study (model: National/NP 33S2) ...... IX Tab. A 10: Soiling agents/ingredients for preparation of "MKE’s Notification 2008 99 / IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E)" load; consumer study (country: Korea) dishwasher study model: Siemens/SN25E230EA) ...... IX Tab. A 11: Soiling agents/ingredients for preparation of "ANSI/AHAM 2005 DW 1 / IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E)" load; consumer study (region: North America) dishwasher study (model: Bosch/SHE55M05UC) ...... X Tab. C 1: Hand dishwashing detergents used by participants from Australia/New Zealand ...... XXVII Tab. C 2: Hand dishwashing detergents used by participants from Europe...... XXVII Tab. C 3: Hand dishwashing detergents used by participants from Asia ...... XXVIII Tab. C 4: Hand dishwashing detergents used by participants from Latin AmericaXXIX Tab. C 5: Hand dishwashing detergents used by participants from the Middle East ...... XXX Tab. C 6: Hand dishwashing detergents used by participants from Southern Africa ...... XXX Tab. C 7: Hand dishwashing detergents used by participants from North America ...... XXXI Tab. C 8: Hand dishwashing utensils used by participants in all test locations .... XXXII Tab. D 1: Video equipment used for non participant observation in all test locations ...... XXXIII Tab. D 2: Technical equipment for water heating and data measurement; consumer study ...... XXXIII Tab. D 3: Technical equipment for data measurement; dishwasher study ...... XXXIV Tab. E 1: Example of assessment sheet for non participant observation, IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E)" load ...... XXXV Tab. F 1: Statistical data of the total water consumption in l; consumer study .. XXXVI Tab. F 2: Statistical data of the total corrected heat quantity in kWh; consumer study ...... XXXVI List of tables 120
Tab. F 4: Statistical data of the total duration in min; consumer study ...... XXXVI Tab. F 5: Statistical data of the cleaning indices; consumer study ...... XXXVII Tab. F 6: Statistical data of the total water consumption in l in the quick, normal and intensive programme; dishwasher study ...... XXXVII Tab. F 7: Statistical data of the total corrected energy consumption in kWh in the quick, normal and intensive programme; dishwasher study ...... XXXVII Tab. F 8: Statistical data of the total programme duration in min in the quick, normal and intensive programme; dishwasher study ...... XXXVII Tab. F 9: Statistical data of the cleaning indices in the quick, normal and intensive programme; dishwasher study ...... XXXVIII Tab. G 1: Results of the Wilcoxon test to compare hot water consumption and cold water consumption within country panels; consumer study ...... XXXIX Tab. G 2: Results of the Spearman correlation on the variables “total water consumption” and “total corrected heat quantity consumption”; consumer study ...... XXXIX Tab. G 3: Results of the Spearman correlation on the variables “cleaning index” and “amount of soil”; consumer study ...... XXXIX Tab. G 4: Results of the Kruskal Wallis test to analyse the relationship between the country panels with regard to the consumption data and the cleaning result; consumer study ...... XXXIX Tab. G 5: Results of the Spearman correlation on the variable “cleaning index” and “total water consumption per item”, “total corrected heat quantity consumption per item”, “total detergent consumption per item, “total duration per item”; consumer study ...... XL Tab. G 6: Results of the Mann Whitney test to compare resource consumption data per item between participants with cleaning score >=3.5 and <3.5; consumer study ...... XL Tab. G 7: Results of the Mann Whitney test to compare resource consumption data and cleaning result between Chinese consumer panels tested in Germany and abroad; consumer study ...... XL List of tables 121
Tab. G 8: Results of the Mann Whitney test to compare resource consumption data and cleaning result between US consumer panels tested in Germany and abroad; consumer study ...... XLI Tab. G 9: Results of the Spearman correlation on the variables “total water consumption” and “total corrected energy consumption”; dishwasher study ...... XLI Tab. G 10: Results of the Spearman correlation on the variables “cleaning index” and “amount of soil”; dishwasher study ...... XLI Tab. G 11: Results of the Kruskal Wallis test to analyse the relationship between the dishwasher models with regard to the consumption data and cleaning result; dishwasher study (quick programme) ...... XLI Tab. G 12: Results of the Kruskal Wallis test to analyse the relationship between the dishwasher models with regard to the consumption data and cleaning result; dishwasher study (normal programme) ...... XLII Tab. G 13: Results of the Kruskal Wallis test to analyse the relationship between the dishwasher models with regard to the consumption data and cleaning result; dishwasher study (intensive programme) ...... XLII Tab. G 14: Results of the Mann Whitney test to compare importance ratings for consumption data and cleaning result between participants with cleaning score >=3.5 and <3.5; consumer study ...... XLII Tab. G 15: Results of the Spearman correlation on the variables “total water consumption per item” and “importance of low water consumption”; consumer study ...... XLII Tab. G 16: Results of the Spearman correlation on the variables “total corrected heat quantity per item” and “importance of low energy consumption”; consumer study ...... XLIII Tab. G 17: Results of the Spearman correlation on the variables “total detergent consumption per item” and “importance of low detergent consumption”; consumer study ...... XLIII Tab. G 18: Results of the Spearman correlation on the variables “total duration per item” and “importance of short duration”; consumer study ...... XLIII List of tables 122
Tab. G 19: Results of the Spearman correlation on the variables “cleaning index” and “importance of cleanliness”; consumer study ...... XLIII Tab. G 20: Contingency table: DW at home * less water/energy; consumer study XLIV Tab. G 21: Results of Pearson’s chi square test to analyse the association between dishwasher ownership and rating of resource consumption for manual and automatic dishwashing; consumer study ...... XLIV Tab. G 22: Contingency table: DW at home * better cleaning result; consumer study ...... XLV Tab. G 23: Results of Pearson’s chi square test to analyse the association between dishwasher ownership and rating of cleaning result for manual and automatic dishwashing; consumer study ...... XLV Tab. G 24: Results of the Mann Whitney test to compare the preferred hand dishwashing practice between participants owning and not owning a dishwasher; consumer study ...... XLV Tab. G 25: Contingency table: Way of doing the dishes (observation) * Accord with questionnaire; consumer study ...... XLVI Tab. G 26: Results of Pearson’s chi square test to analyse the association between way of doing the dishes (observation) and accordance with questionnaire feedback; consumer study ...... XLVI Tab. G 27: Results of the Kruskal Wallis test to analyse the relationship between the percentages of dishwashing steps done under running tap water with regard to the consumption data and cleaning result among all participants; consumer study .... XLVII Tab. G 28: Results of the Jonckheere Terpstra test to analyse a trend in the percentages of dishwashing steps done under running tap water with regard to the total water consumption per item and total heat quantity consumption per item among all participants; consumer study ...... XLVII Tab. G 29: Results of the Mann Whitney test to compare total water consumption per item and total corrected heat quantity consumption per item between participants with percentages of dishwashing steps <=30.0% and between 30.1% to 69.9% among all participants; consumer study ...... XLVII List of tables 123
Tab. G 30: Results of the Mann Whitney test to compare total water consumption per item and total corrected heat quantity consumption per item between participants with percentages of dishwashing steps between <=30.0% and >=70.0% among all participants; consumer study ...... XLVIII Tab. G 31: Results of the Mann Whitney test to compare total water consumption per item and total corrected heat quantity consumption per item between participants with percentages of dishwashing steps between 30.1% to 69.9% and >=70.0% among all participants; consumer study ...... XLVIII Tab. G 32: Results of the Kruskal Wallis test to analyse the relationship between the percentages of dishwashing steps done under running tap water with regard to the consumption data and cleaning result among participants with a cleaning index >=3.5; consumer study ...... XLVIII Tab. G 33: Results of the Jonckheere Terpstra test to analyse a trend in the percentages of dishwashing steps done under running tap water with regard to the total water consumption per item among participants with a cleaning index >=3.5; consumer study ...... XLVIII Tab. G 34: Results of the Mann Whitney test to compare total water consumption per item between participants with percentages of dishwashing steps <=30.0% and between 30.1% to 69.9% among participants with a cleaning index >=3.5; consumer study ...... XLIX Tab. G 35: Results of the Mann Whitney test to compare total water consumption per item between participants with percentages of dishwashing steps between 30.1% to 69.9% and >=70.0% among participants with a cleaning index >=3.5; consumer study ...... XLIX Tab. G 36: Results of the Mann Whitney test to compare total water consumption per item between participants with percentages of dishwashing steps between 30.1% to 69.9% and >=70.0% among participants with a cleaning index >=3.5; consumer study ...... XLIX APPENDIX I
Appendix
A. Place settings, serving pieces and soiling agents
Tab. A-1: Place settings and serving pieces "AS/NZS 2007.1 / IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E)" load; consumer study (region: Australia/New Zealand) and dishwasher study (model: Bosch/SMI50E25AU)
Diameter (D) Item No. of volume (V) Shape/style Manufacturer/supplier description items length (L) AS/NZS 2007.1 ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 Dinner plate 6 D: 260 mm Arzberg 8500/City Schirnding, Germany ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 Soup plate 6 D: 230 mm Arzberg 1382 Schirnding, Germany Dessert ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 6 D: 190 mm Arzberg 8500/City dish Schirnding, Germany ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 Cup 6 V: 0.21 l Arzberg 1382 Schirnding, Germany ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 Saucer 6 D: 140 mm Arzberg 1382 Schirnding, Germany Beaker/Tall/ Glass 6 V: 250 ml SCHOTT AG, 55122 Mainz, Germany Schott Duran WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik Fork 6 L: 184 mm WMF "Berlin" AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik Soup spoon 6 L: 195 mm WMF "Berlin" AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik Knife 6 L: 203 mm WMF "Berlin" AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik Tea spoon 6 L: 126 mm WMF "Berlin" AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany Dessert WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik 6 L: 156 mm WMF "Berlin" spoon AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 Dinner plate 6 D: 260 mm Arzberg 8500/City Schirnding, Germany ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 Soup plate 6 D: 230 mm Arzberg 1382 Schirnding, Germany Dessert ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 6 D: 190 mm Arzberg 8500/City dish Schirnding, Germany ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 Cup 6 V: 0.21 l Arzberg 1382 Schirnding, Germany ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 Saucer 6 D: 140 mm Arzberg 1382 Schirnding, Germany Beaker/Tall/ Glass 6 V: 250 ml SCHOTT AG, 55122 Mainz, Germany Schott Duran WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik Fork 6 L: 184 mm WMF "Berlin" AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik Soup spoon 6 L: 195 mm WMF "Berlin" AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik Knife 6 L: 203 mm WMF "Berlin" AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik Tea spoon 6 L: 126 mm WMF "Berlin" AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany Dessert WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik 6 L: 156 mm WMF "Berlin" spoon AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany Medium ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 1 D: 160 mm Arzberg 8700/Daily serving bowl Schirnding, Germany Small ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 1 D: 130 mm Arzberg 8500/City serving bowl Schirnding, Germany Serving WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik 1 L: 260 mm WMF "Berlin" spoon AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik Gravy ladle 1 L: 175 mm WMF "Berlin" AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany APPENDIX II
Tab. A-2: Place settings and serving pieces "IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E)" load; consumer study (region: Europe, Latin America, Middle East, Southern Africa; country: China) and dishwasher study (model: Siemens/SN26M230EU, Bosch/SMS63M08MX)
Diameter (D) Item No. of volume (V) Shape/style/name Manufacturer/supplier description items length (L) IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 Dinner plate 12 D: 260 mm Arzberg 8500/City Schirnding, Germany ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 Soup plate 12 D: 230 mm Arzberg 1382 Schirnding, Germany Dessert ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 12 D: 190 mm Arzberg 8500/City dish Schirnding, Germany ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 Cup 12 V: 0.21 l Arzberg 1382 Schirnding, Germany ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 Saucer 12 D: 140 mm Arzberg 1382 Schirnding, Germany Beaker/Tall/ Glass 12 V: 250 ml SCHOTT AG, 55122 Mainz, Germany Schott Duran WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik Fork 12 L: 184 mm WMF "Berlin" AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik Soup spoon 12 L: 195 mm WMF "Berlin" AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik Knife 12 L: 203 mm WMF "Berlin" AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik Tea spoon 12 L: 126 mm WMF "Berlin" AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany Dessert WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik 12 L: 156 mm WMF "Berlin" spoon AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 Oval platter 1 D: 320 mm Arzberg 1382 Schirnding, Germany Large ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 1 D: 200 mm Arzberg 8700/Daily serving bowl Schirnding, Germany Medium ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 1 D: 160 mm Arzberg 8700/Daily serving bowl Schirnding, Germany Small ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 1 D: 130 mm Arzberg 8500/City serving bowl Schirnding, Germany Serving WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik 2 L: 260 mm WMF "Berlin" spoon AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik Serving fork 1 L: 192 mm WMF "Berlin" AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik Gravy ladle 1 L: 175 mm WMF "Berlin" AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany
APPENDIX III
Tab. A-3: Place settings and serving pieces "JEMA HD-032:2007 / IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E)" load; consumer study (country: Japan)
Diameter (D) Item No. of volume (V) Shape/style Manufacturer/supplier description items length (L) hight (H) JEMA HD 032:2007 D: 227 mm Designer Homeware Distribution GmbH, Large plate 6 Maxwell & Williams H: 20 mm 34419 Marsberg, Germany Medium D: 160 mm 6 Rosenthal/Jade Rosenthal GmbH, 95100 Selb, Germany bowl H: 50 mm D: 125 mm Galeria Kaufhof GmbH, 53115 Bonn, Small plate 6 Tavola H: 20 mm Germany D: 115 mm Maxwell & Designer Homeware Distribution GmbH, Rice bowl 4 H: 60 mm Williams/Cashmere 34419 Marsberg, Germany D: 120 mm Soup bowl 4 Taisan Seng Heng, 50676 Köln, Germany H: 60 mm D: 70 mm Tea cup* 6 Kyoto Tai Yo, 40210 Düsseldorf, Germany H: 65 mm Oneida 2619 Oneida International, London, NW2 1BZ, Dinner fork 6 L: 180 mm FRSF/Accent England Soup WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik 6 L: 195 mm WMF "Berlin" spoon* AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany Knife solid Oneida 2619 Oneida International, London, NW2 1BZ, 6 L: 205 mm handle KPVF/Accent England Chopsticks* 6 L: 240 mm Taisan Seng Heng, 50676 Köln, Germany D: 60 mm HOREKA Service GmbH, 96050 Bamberg, Glass 6 Altbierbecher H: 110 mm Germany IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 Dinner plate 6 D: 260 mm Arzberg 8500/City Schirnding, Germany ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 Soup plate 6 D: 230 mm Arzberg 1382 Schirnding, Germany Dessert ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 6 D: 190 mm Arzberg 8500/City dish Schirnding, Germany ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 Cup 6 V: 0.21 l Arzberg 1382 Schirnding, Germany ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 Saucer 6 D: 140 mm Arzberg 1382 Schirnding, Germany Beaker/Tall/ Glass 6 V: 250 ml SCHOTT AG, 55122 Mainz, Germany Schott Duran WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik Fork 6 L: 184 mm WMF "Berlin" AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany
WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik Soup spoon 6 L: 195 mm WMF "Berlin" AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany
WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik Knife 6 L: 203 mm WMF "Berlin" AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany
WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik Tea spoon 6 L: 126 mm WMF "Berlin" AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany
Dessert WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik 6 L: 156 mm WMF "Berlin" spoon AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany Medium ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 1 D: 160 mm Arzberg 8700/Daily serving bowl Schirnding, Germany Small ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 1 D: 130 mm Arzberg 8500/City serving bowl Schirnding, Germany Serving WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik 1 L: 260 mm WMF "Berlin" spoon AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany
WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik Gravy ladle 1 L: 175 mm WMF "Berlin" AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany * Deviation from test standard APPENDIX IV
Tab. A-4: Place settings and serving pieces " JEMA HD-032:2007 / IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E)" load; dishwasher study (model: National/NP-33S2)
Diameter (D) Item No. of volume (V) Shape/style Manufacturer/supplier description items length (L) hight (H) JEMA HD 032:2007 D: 227 mm Designer Homeware Distribution GmbH, Large plate 6 Maxwell & Williams H: 20 mm 34419 Marsberg, Germany Medium D: 160 mm 6 Rosenthal/Jade Rosenthal GmbH, 95100 Selb, Germany bowl H: 50 mm D: 125 mm Galeria Kaufhof GmbH, 53115 Bonn, Small plate 6 Tavola H: 20 mm Germany D: 115 mm Maxwell & Designer Homeware Distribution GmbH, Rice bowl 4 H: 60 mm Williams/Cashmere 34419 Marsberg, Germany D: 120 mm Soup bowl 4 Taisan Seng Heng, 50676 Köln, Germany H: 60 mm D: 70 mm Tea cup* 6 Kyoto Tai Yo, 40210 Düsseldorf, Germany H: 65 mm Oneida 2619 Oneida International, London, NW2 1BZ, Dinner fork 6 L: 180 mm FRSF/Accent England Soup WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik 3 L: 195 mm WMF "Berlin" spoon* AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany Chopsticks* 6 L: 240 mm Taisan Seng Heng, 50676 Köln, Germany D: 60 mm HOREKA Service GmbH, 96050 Bamberg, Glass 6 Altbierbecher H: 110 mm Germany IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 Dinner plate 3 D: 260 mm Arzberg 8500/City Schirnding, Germany ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 Soup plate 2 D: 230 mm Arzberg 1382 Schirnding, Germany Dessert ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 3 D: 190 mm Arzberg 8500/City dish Schirnding, Germany ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 Cup 3 V: 0.21 l Arzberg 1382 Schirnding, Germany ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 Saucer 3 D: 140 mm Arzberg 1382 Schirnding, Germany Beaker/Tall/ Glass 2 V: 250 ml SCHOTT AG, 55122 Mainz, Germany Schott Duran WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik Fork 3 L: 184 mm WMF "Berlin" AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany
WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik Soup spoon 3 L: 195 mm WMF "Berlin" AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany
Dessert WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik 3 L: 156 mm WMF "Berlin" spoon AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany
* Deviation from test standard
APPENDIX V
Tab. A-5: Place settings and serving pieces "MKE’s Notification 2008-99 / IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E)" load; consumer study (country: Korea) dishwasher study (model: Siemens/SN25E230EA)
Diameter (D) Item No. of volume (V) Shape/style Manufacturer/supplier description items length (L) hight (H) MKE’s Notification 2008 99 D: 115 mm Maxwell & Designer Homeware Distribution GmbH, Rice bowl 6 H: 60 mm Williams/Cashmere 34419 Marsberg, Germany D: 160 mm Soup bowl 6 Rosenthal/Jade Rosenthal GmbH, 95100 Selb, Germany H: 50 mm Dessert D: 165 mm Villeroy & Boch Villeroy & Boch AG, 66693 Mettlach, 6 dish H: 15 mm 1748 Germany D: 227 mm Designer Homeware Distribution GmbH, Dinner plate 3 Maxwell & Williams H: 20 mm 34419 Marsberg, Germany ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 Oval platter 2 D: 260 mm Arzberg 1382 Schirnding, Germany ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 Coffee cub 6 V: 0.21 l Arzberg 1382 Schirnding, Germany ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 Saucer 6 L: 140 mm Arzberg 1382 Schirnding, Germany D: 60 mm HOREKA Service GmbH, 96050 Bamberg, Glass 6 Altbierbecher H: 110 mm Germany WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik Spoon 6 L: 195 mm WMF "Berlin" AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany Chopsticks* 6 L: 220 mm Heng Long, 50931 Köln, Germany WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik Tea spoon* 6 L: 126 mm WMF "Berlin" AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 Dinner plate 6 D: 260 mm Arzberg 8500/City Schirnding, Germany ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 Soup plate 6 D: 230 mm Arzberg 1382 Schirnding, Germany Dessert ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 6 D: 190 mm Arzberg 8500/City dish Schirnding, Germany ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 Cup 6 V: 0.21 l Arzberg 1382 Schirnding, Germany ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 Saucer 6 D: 140 mm Arzberg 1382 Schirnding, Germany Beaker/Tall/ Glass 6 V: 250 ml SCHOTT AG, 55122 Mainz, Germany Schott Duran WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik Fork 6 L: 184 mm WMF "Berlin" AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany
WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik Soup spoon 6 L: 195 mm WMF "Berlin" AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany
WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik Knife 6 L: 203 mm WMF "Berlin" AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany
WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik Tea spoon 6 L: 126 mm WMF "Berlin" AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany
Dessert WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik 6 L: 156 mm WMF "Berlin" spoon AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany
Medium ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 1 D: 160 mm Arzberg 8700/Daily serving bowl Schirnding, Germany Small ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 1 D: 130 mm Arzberg 8500/City serving bowl Schirnding, Germany Serving WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik 1 L: 260 mm WMF "Berlin" spoon AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany
WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik Gravy ladle 1 L: 175 mm WMF "Berlin" AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany * Deviation from test standard APPENDIX VI
Tab. A-6: Place settings and serving pieces "ANSI/AHAM 2005-DW-1 / IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E)" load; consumer study (region: North America) dishwasher study (model: Bosch/SHE55M05UC)
Diameter (D) Item No. of volume (V) Shape/style Manufacturer/supplier description items length (L) ANSI/AHAM 2005 DW 1 ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 Cup 6 V: 0.21 l Arzberg 1382 Schirnding, Germany ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 Saucer 6 D: 140 mm Arzberg 1382 Schirnding, Germany Corning® World Kitchen®, LLC., Greencastle, PA Dinner plate 6 D: 260 mm #6003893/Comcor® 17225, USA Bread and ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 6 D: 170 mm Arzberg 8500/City butter plate Schirnding, Germany Dessert ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 6 D: 130 mm Arzberg 8500/City bowl Schirnding, Germany Ice tea 6 V: 355 ml Libbey #551HT Libbey Inc., Toledo, OH 43699, USA glass Knife solid Oneida 2619 Oneida International, London, NW2 1BZ, 6 L: 205 mm handle KPVF/Accent England Oneida 2619 Oneida International, London, NW2 1BZ, Dinner fork 6 L: 180 mm FRSF/Accent England Oneida 2619 Oneida International, London, NW2 1BZ, Salad fork 6 L: 155 mm FSLF/Accent England Oneida 2619 Oneida International, London, NW2 1BZ, Tea spoon 12 L: 155 mm STSF/Accent England Serving Corning® World Kitchen®, LLC., Greencastle, PA 1 D: 240 mm platter #6011655/Comcor® 17225, USA Corning® World Kitchen®, LLC., Greencastle, PA Serving bowl 1 V: 1 l #6003911/Comcor® 17225, USA Serving cold Oneida 2865 Oneida International, London, NW2 1BZ, 1 L: 217 mm meat fork FCM/Flight pattern England Serving Oneida International, London, NW2 1BZ, 1 L: 205 mm Oneida 2619 STBF spoon England IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 Dinner plate 6 D: 260 mm Arzberg 8500/City Schirnding, Germany ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 Soup plate 6 D: 230 mm Arzberg 1382 Schirnding, Germany Dessert ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 6 D: 190 mm Arzberg 8500/City dish Schirnding, Germany ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 Cup 6 V: 0.21 l Arzberg 1382 Schirnding, Germany ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 Saucer 6 D: 140 mm Arzberg 1382 Schirnding, Germany Beaker/Tall/ Glass 6 V: 250 ml SCHOTT AG, 55122 Mainz, Germany Schott Duran WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik Fork 6 L: 184 mm WMF "Berlin" AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik Soup spoon 6 L: 195 mm WMF "Berlin" AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik Knife 6 L: 203 mm WMF "Berlin" AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik Tea spoon 6 L: 126 mm WMF "Berlin" AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany Dessert WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik 6 L: 156 mm WMF "Berlin" spoon AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany Medium ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 1 D: 160 mm Arzberg 8700/Daily serving bowl Schirnding, Germany Small ARZBERG PORZELLAN GmbH, 95706 1 D: 130 mm Arzberg 8500/City serving bowl Schirnding, Germany Serving WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik 1 L: 260 mm WMF "Berlin" spoon AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik Gravy ladle 1 L: 175 mm WMF "Berlin" AG, 73309 Geislingen/Steige, Germany APPENDIX VII
Tab. A-7: Soiling agents/ingredients for preparation of "AS/NZS 2007.1 / IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E)" load; consumer study (region: Australia/New Zealand) and dishwasher study (model: Bosch/SMI50E25AU)
Test Test Soiling Description/product name Manufacturer/supplier standard location agent Egg Weight: 50 65 g off the shelf Heinz Wattie's Ltd., Hawthorn East, Infant cereals Farex® original mixed cereal, 6+ months VIC, 3123 Australia Walter Rau, Lebensmittelwerke Margarine Deli Reform Das Original GmbH, 49176 Hilter, Germany Skim milk Heirler Cenobis GmbH, 78315 Magermilchpulver, bio powder Radolfzell, Germany Germany N.Y. Delhaize "Le Leeuw" "Le Lion" Spinach Delhaize gehakte Spnazie/epinards hachés S.A., 1080 Brussels, Belgium
AS/NZS 2007.1 Sir Winston Tea, Broken Orange Pekoe, Finest Teekanne GmbH, 40549 Düsseldorf, Tea tea blend from Indian and Ceylon tea gardens Germany Alnatura Produktions und Handels Tomato juice Tomatensaft mit Meersalz GmbH, 64404 Bickenbach, Germany
APPENDIX VIII
Tab. A-8: Soiling agents/ingredients for preparation of "IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E)" load; consumer study (region: Europe, Latin America, Middle East, Southern Africa; country: China) and dishwasher study (model: Siemens/SN26M230EU, Bosch/SMS63M08MX)
Test Test Soiling Description/product name Manufacturer/supplier standard location agent Egg Weight: 50 65 g Off the shelf Walter Rau, Lebensmittelwerke Margarine Deli Reform Das Original GmbH, 49176 Hilter, Germany Milk U.H.T. milk, 1.5 % – 2 % fat content Off the shelf
Minced meat Beaf and pork meat Off the shelf Germany Peter Koelln KgaA, Oat flakes Bluetenzarte Koellnflocken Koellnflockenwerke, 25336 Elmshorn, Germany iglo GmbH, 22774 Hamburg, Spinach Junger Spinat, fein gehackt Germany Sir Winston Tea, Broken Orange Pekoe, Finest Teekanne GmbH, 40549 Düsseldorf, Tea tea blend from Indian and Ceylon tea gardens Germany Egg Weight: 50 65 g Off the shelf Unilever South Africa Foods (Pty) Margarine* Rama™ Margarine Ltd., La Lucia, 4051, South Africa Milk U.H.T. milk, 1.5 % – 2 % fat content Off the shelf Minced meat Beaf and pork meat Off the shelf South Africa Tiger Food Brands Ltd., Bryanston, Oat flakes* Jungle Oats 2191, South Africa McCain®Foods (SA) (Pty) Ltd., Spinach* Young & Tender Spinach, frozen Bedfordview, 2008, South Africa Five Roses®Trusted Qualitiy Tea, camellia National Brands Limited, Rivonia, Tea* sinensis 2128, South Africa Egg Weight: 50 65 g Off the shelf Shanghai Gaofu Longhui Food Co., Margarine* Suki Margarine, 80% Fat Ltd., Pudongxinqu, Shanghai, P.R.C. Milk U.H.T. milk, 1.5 % – 2 % fat content Off the shelf Minced meat Beaf and pork meat Off the shelf Singapore Mai's Food (H.K.) IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E) IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 China Oat flakes* Mai's Golden, Oatmeal Classics Food Series International Limited, Wanchai, Hong Kong, P.R.C. Fresh spinach, blanched, strained through Spinach* strainer Off the shelf (mesh size: 2 mm, wire diameter: 0.9 mm) Unilever Foods (China) Company Tea* Lipton® Yellow Label Tea, black tea Ltd., Jinshanzui Industry District, Shanghai, P.R.C. Eggs Weight: 50 65 g Off the shelf ConAgra Foods Inc., Omaha, NE Margarine Fleishman™ Margarine 68102, USA Milk Any U.H.T. milk, 1,5 % – 2 % fat content Off the shelf Minced meat Beaf and pork meat Off the shelf Quaker Instant Oatmeal Original, 12 X 28 g The Quaker Oats Company, Chicago, Oat flakes USA packages, 336 g IL 60604, USA General Mills Sales, Inc., Green Giant Chopped Spinach, 255 g Minneapolis, MN 55440, USA Spinach The Allens Popeye Brand, chopped spinach, Allen's Inc., Siloam Springs, AR steam supreme, all natural, 340 g 72761, USA Lipton® Specially Blended Iced Tea Brew, 24 Tea Unilever, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632, Tea Bags, 170 g USA * Deviation from test
APPENDIX IX
Tab. A-9: Soiling agents/ingredients for preparation of "JEMA HD-084:2008 / IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E)" load; consumer study (country: Japan) and dishwasher study (model: National/NP-33S2)
Test Test Soiling Description/product name Manufacturer/supplier standard location agent Otsuka INSTANT Bon Curry Hot, Bon Curry Gold Otsuka Foods Co., Ltd., Osaka, 540 Curry 21 Kara Kuchi 0021, Japan Kabushikigaishya Hanamasa, Tokyo, Cutlet sauce* Tonkatsu sauce, noko sauce Japan Eggs Medium size Off the shelf Milk Any U.H.T. milk, 3,5 % fat content Off the shelf Miso soup Nagatanien Tokuyo Asage Miso Soap Nagatanien Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan Levo Produktenmij BV V/h Oil Levo®, Sojaolie P.S.Rollingswier, 8801 JK Franeker, Germany Netherlands Abbelen Fleischwaren GmbH & Co. Pork cutlet* Abbelen, Schweineschnitzel KG, 47918 Tönisvorst, Germany
JEMA HD 084:2008 Nishiki® Brand, U.S. No. 1 Extra Fancy Premium JFC Deutschland GmbH, 40472 Rice* Grade Rice, new variety rice, medium grain Düsseldorf, Germany Yamamotomama® of America, Tea* Tokusen Hoji Cha, roasted Green Tea Pomona, CA 91768, USA albi GmbH & Co. KG, 89180 Tomato juice Albi Tomate Berghülen, Germany * Deviation from test standard Tab. A-10: Soiling agents/ingredients for preparation of "MKE’s Notification 2008- 99 / IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E)" load; consumer study (country: Korea) dishwasher study model: Siemens/SN25E230EA)
Test Test Soiling Description/product name Manufacturer/supplier standard location agent FUCHS Gewürze GmbH Zentrale, Cayenne Cayenne Pfeffer, gemahlen 49201 Dissen, Germany Kraft Foods Deutschland Services Coffee Jacobs Krönung Gold Löskaffee GmbH & Co. KG, 28370 Bremen, Germany Eggs Weight: 50 65 g Off the shelf DW Dongwon F&B Co., Ltd., Seoul, Kimchi Yangban Cabbage Kimchi 137 135, Korea Walter Rau, Lebensmittelwerke Germany Margarine Deli Reform Das Original GmbH, 49176 Hilter, Germany Milk Any U.H.T. milk, 1,5 % – 2 % fat content Off the shelf GOLDHAND Vertriebsgesellschaft Milk powder TIP Kaffeeweißer mbH, 40235 Düsseldorf, Germany MKE’s Notification 2008 99 Nishiki® Brand, U.S. No. 1 Extra Fancy Premium JFC Deutschland GmbH, 40472 Rice Grade Rice, new variety rice, medium grain Düsseldorf, Germany Pfeifer & Langen, 50933 Köln, Sugar Diamant Feinster Zucker Germany
APPENDIX X
Tab. A-11: Soiling agents/ingredients for preparation of "ANSI/AHAM 2005-DW-1 / IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E)" load; consumer study (region: North America) dishwasher study (model: Bosch/SHE55M05UC)
Test Test Soiling Description/product name Manufacturer/supplier standard location agent Beef Ground beef Off the shelf The Folgers Coffee Company, Coffee Folgers™ Classic Decaf Coffee Orrville, OH 44667, USA General Mills, Inc., Minneapolis, MN Corn Green Giant™ Cream Style Sweet Corn 55440, USA Egg Minimum weight: 50 g Off the shelf Kidney suet Off the shelf ConAgra Foods Inc., Omaha, NE Margarine Fleishman™ Margarine 68102, USA Nonfat dry Nestlé USA, Glendale, CA 91203, Carnation™ Nonfat Dry Milk millk USA Quaker Instant Oatmeal Original, 12 X 28 g The Quaker Oats Company, Chicago, Oatmeal Germany packages IL 60604, USA The J.M. Smucker Co., Orrville, OH Peanut butter JIF™ Creamy 44667, USA The J.M. Smucker Co., Orrville, OH Potatoes Hungry Jack™ Instant Mashed Potatoes 44667, USA Smuckers™ Red Raspberry Preserves (with The J.M. Smucker Co., Orrville, OH Preserves seeds) 44667, USA Morton International Inc., Chicago, IL Salt Morton™ Iodized Salt 60606, USA Campbell Soup Company, Camden, Tomato juice Campbell’s™ Tomato Juice, regular NJ 08103, USA Del Monte Foods, San Francisco, CA Tomato paste Contadina™ Tomato Paste 94105, USA Beef Ground beef Off the shelf The Folgers Coffee Company, Coffee Folgers™ Classic Decaf Coffee Orrville, OH 44667, USA General Mills, Inc., Minneapolis, MN Corn Green Giant™ Cream Style Sweet Corn 55440, USA Egg Minimum weight: 50 g Off the shelf John Morrell & Co., Cincinnati, OH ANSI/AHAM 2005 DW 1 Morrell Snow Cap Lard 45240, USA Lard* ConAgra Foods Inc., Omaha, NE Amour Lard, Lard and Hydrogenated Lard 68102, USA ConAgra Foods Inc., Omaha, NE Margarine Fleishman™ Margarine 68102, USA Kroger Instant Nonfat Dry Milk Fortified with The Kroger Co., Cincinnati, OH Vitamins A & D 45202, USA Nonfat dry The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea millk* America's Choice Instant Nonfat Dry Milk, fortified USA Company, Inc., Montvale, NJ 07645, with Vitamins A&D, 10 envelopes USA Quaker Instant Oatmeal Original, 12 X 28 g The Quaker Oats Company, Chicago, Oatmeal packages IL 60604, USA The J.M. Smucker Co., Orrville, OH Peanut butter JIF™ Creamy 44667, USA The J.M. Smucker Co., Orrville, OH Potatoes Hungry Jack™ Instant Mashed Potatoes 44667, USA Smuckers™ Red Raspberry Preserves (with The J.M. Smucker Co., Orrville, OH Preserves seeds) 44667, USA Morton International Inc., Chicago, IL Salt Morton™ Iodized Salt 60606, USA Campbell Soup Company, Camden, Tomato juice Campbell’s™ Tomato Juice, regular NJ 08103, USA Del Monte Foods, San Francisco, CA Tomato paste Contadina™ Tomato Paste 94105, USA * Deviation from test standard APPENDIX XI
B. Appendix Written questionnaire design
Institute of Agricultural Engineering
Household and Appliance Technology Section
Evaluation of global manual dishwashing habits in private households
How to fill in this questionnaire
This form is only used for scientific research. Please answer all questions straightforward and spontaneously. If you are in two minds about different answers, choose the one which fits best. Please mark your answer(s) with a cross X. In tables please mark your answer(s) in the accordant field(s), too.
Not at all Extremely Don't satisfied satisfied know 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 X X
If you have marked a wrong answer, please correct it and indicate the valid cross. Questions which can be answered with several possibilities are marked with an annotation (“multiple answers possible”). If you miss a possible answer, please add answers where it is possible (option “others”). Thank you for your cooperation!
APPENDIX XII
Questions about the general meaning of doing the dishes in your household
1. When you think of doing the dishes how important are the following factors to you? Please evaluate in a scale of 1 (means “not at all important”) to 10 (means “extremely important”)!
Not at all Extremely Don't important important know 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 Low water consumption Low energy consumption Low consumption of dishwashing detergent Low expenditure of time Cleanliness Protection of the crockery
2. Is there a dishwasher in your household?
Yes
If so , for what reasons? (multiple answers possible)
There are a lot of dirty dishes in my household regularly.
The dishwasher saves time.
The dishwasher achieves a better cleaning performance than doing the dishes by hand.
The dishwasher needs less energy than doing the dishes by hand.
The dishwasher needs less water than doing the dishes by hand.
I’ve taken on the dishwasher second hand.
Other (please specify): ______
No
APPENDIX XIII
If not, for what reasons? (multiple answers possible)
There aren’t enough dirty dishes in my household regularly.
The purchase of a dishwasher is too expensive.
The dishwasher achieves a worse cleaning performance than doing the dishes
by hand.
The dishwasher needs more energy than doing the dishes by hand.
The dishwasher needs more water than doing the dishes by hand.
I haven’t got a storing position for a dishwasher in my household.
Because of my current living situation (e.g. hostel, flat sharing community) I haven’t got the possibility to purchase a dishwasher.
Other (please specify): ______
Questions about your manual dishwashing habits
3. How frequently do you do the dishes by hand?
2 or 3 times a day
once a day
every second day
2 or 3 times a week
once a week
less frequently
never, please go on with question 17
4. How much time do you need for doing the dishes per day on average?
______hours ______minutes
5. Which dishwashing detergent do you use at the moment? Please note the brand name of the product! ( e.g. Pril Limette ):______APPENDIX XIV
6. How do you generally use the dishwashing detergent? (Please mark only one statement!)
I dose the dishwashing detergent into the dishwashing water.
I dose the dishwashing detergent onto my dishwashing utilities (e.g. scrub sponge, dish cloth, scrubber).
I dose the dishwashing detergent directly onto the dishes.
I dilute the dishwashing detergent with water in a separate container and use this mixture for doing the dishes.
7. Whereupon do you act when using the dishwashing detergent?
I follow the instructions on the bottle.
I act by the frothing in the sink/in a separate water bath.
I just squirt some in. I use it depending on feelings.
8. What kind of utilities do you use for doing the dishes and how often do you use them?
Frequency of use 2 or 3 Every 2 or 3 Don`t Is used Once a Once a Less times a second times a know day week frequently day day week Dish cloth Sponge cloth Scrub sponge Spiral scourer Scrubber/bottle brush Gloves Other (please note): ______9. What is your preferred way of doing the dishes by hand?
I do the dishes in a water filled sink/in a separate water bath.
I do the dishes under running tap water.
I do the dishes both in a water filled sink/in a separate water bath and under running tap water.
APPENDIX XV
10. Do you do the dishes in a certain sequence?
Yes
If so, please note in which order you do the dishes by using the numbers 1 to 11. Please start with 1 for the dishes you normally start with.
chinaware:
dinner plates wooden crockery saucer glasses cups plastic crockery/Tupperware dessert plates pots/pans bowls cutlery soup plates
No
11. Do you pretreat the dishes when you do them by hand?
Yes
If so, what do you do? (multiple answers possible)
I remove bigger soil particles from the dishes.
I rinse the dishes under running tap water.
I do the dishes by using different dishwashing utilities (e.g. scrub sponge, dish cloth,scrubber).
I only soak several dishes by using dishwashing detergent without any water.
I soak all dishes by using dishwashing detergent without any water
I only soak several dishes in water with dishwashing detergent.
I soak all dishes in water with dishwashing detergent.
I only soak several dishes in water without detergent.
I soak all dishes in water without detergent.
Other (please specify): ______
No
APPENDIX XVI
12. Do you do a post treatment of the dishes after cleaning them by hand?
Yes
If so, what do you do? (multiple answers possible)
I do the dishes a second time after cleaning by using different utilities (e.g. scrub sponge, dish cloth, scrubber).
I rinse the dishes a second time with dishwashing detergent after cleaning.
I rinse the dishes a second time without dishwashing detergent after cleaning.
I only rinse several dishes a second time with water in a filled sink/in a separate water bath.
I rinse all dishes a second time with water in a filled sink/in a separate water bath.
I rinse several dishes a second time under running tap water.
I rinse all dishes a second time under running tap water.
Other (please specify): ______
No
13. How do you dry your dishes?
I dry the dishes at air after cleaning. Please go on with question 16
I dry the dishes by using a tea towel.
I dry the dishes both at air and by using a tea towel.
14. If you use a tea towel for drying your dishes, do you use it for other purposes in your household, too?
Yes
Yes, but only if it is not used for the dishes any longer.
APPENDIX XVII
If so, for what purposes do you use it? (multiple answers possible)
to clean and/or dry the kitchen surfaces
to dry my hands
other (please specify): ______
No
15. How frequently do you change your tea towel?
several times a day
daily
several times a week
once a week
every 2 weeks
less frequently
16. Is there anything that disturbs you about doing the dishes by hand? (multiple answers possible)
high physical strain
The construction of the sink constrains a good dishwashing procedure.
skin problems
unmanageable dishes
improper dishwashing utilities
high expenditure of time
unsatisfying cleaning performance
high water consumption
high energy consumption
other (please specify): ______
no problems APPENDIX XVIII
If you don’t use a dishwasher in your household, please go on with question 31
Questions about doing the dishes in a dishwasher
17. How old is your current dishwasher approx.?
< 1 year
1 5 years
6 10 years
11 15 years
16 20 years
> 20 years
18. How long do you already use a dishwasher in your household?
< 1 year
1 5 years
6 10 years
11 15 years
16 20 years
> 20 years
19. Which size has your dishwasher got?
60 cm
45 cm
other (please specify): ______cm
20. From which brand is your dishwasher (e.g. Siemens )?
Brand name: ______
APPENDIX XIX
21. How frequently do you use your dishwasher?
2 or 3 times a day
once a day
every second day
2 or 3 times a week
once a week
less frequently
22. How much time do you need for the handling of your dishwasher per day on average (e.g. placing in of dirty dishes, clearing out of cleaned dishes)? ______hours ______minutes
23. Do you also do the dishes by hand besides using the dishwasher?
Yes
If so, for what reasons? (multiple answers possible)
I need the dishes immediately.
There aren’t enough soiled dishes to run the dishwasher.
Some dishes need a lot of space in the dishwasher.
Some dishes don’t become clean in the dishwasher.
Some dishes aren’t dishwasher safe.
The dishes are too precious for cleaning them in a dishwasher.
Other (please specify): ______
No
APPENDIX XX
24. Please mark with a cross which of the following programmes/additional options your dishwasher has got and how often you use them.
Frequency of use Is Don`t Less available know Always Often Sometimes frequently Never Normal
wash/regular Heavy wash/
pots & pans Eco wash Automatic Delicate/China/
Crystal/Light Quick wash Rinse/
Rinse and hold 3in1 function Other (please note): ______
25. Which products do you mainly use for your dishwasher? Please note all products and their brand names ( e.g. Finish Protector )! (multiple answers possible)
cleaning powder:______
classic tabs (however no e.g. “2in1” or “3in1”tabs)______
multifunctional tabs (e.g. “2 and more in 1”tabs):______
gel/liquid detergent:______
special salt:______
rinse aid:______
dishwasher cleaner:______
dishwasher fragrance:______
other (please specify):______
APPENDIX XXI
26. Do you pretreat the dishes before placing them into the dishwasher?
Yes
If so, what do you do? (multiple answers possible)
I remove bigger soil particles from the dishes.
I rinse the dishes under running tap water.
I do the dishes by using different dishwashing utilities (e.g. scrub sponge, dish cloth, scrubber).
I only soak several dishes by using dishwashing detergent without any water.
I soak all dishes by using dishwashing detergent without any water
I only soak several dishes in water with dishwashing detergent.
I soak all dishes in water with dishwashing detergent.
I only soak several dishes in water without detergent.
I soak all dishes in water without detergent.
Other (please specify): ______
No
27. When you think of loading your dishwasher, which of the following statements do you agree with? (Please mark only one statement!)
I always use the maximum loading capacity of my dishwasher.
I never use the maximum loading capacity of my dishwasher. So I get a better cleaning performance.
I use the dishwasher very regularly. The loading thereby is always approximately identical.
I act by the introduction of the manufacturer when loading the dishwasher.
I always load the dishwasher differently, depending on the amount of dirty dishes in my household.
APPENDIX XXII
28. How satisfied are you with the following features of your dishwasher? Please evaluate this in a scale of 1 (means “not at all satisfied”) to 10 (means “extremely satisfied”)!
Not at all Extremely Don't important important know
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 High loading capacity High variety of programmes Low energy consumption Low water consumption Short programme durations Good cleaning performance Good drying performance Low price of the appliance Low operating noise Good flexibility of basket use Ease of interface use
29. There may occur a lot of dishwashing problems while using a dishwasher. Which problems do you have (multiple answers possible)?
soil residues on the dishes
faded/dull dishes
water residues on the dishes
dried water marking on the dishes
films and streaks on the dishes
glas corrosion
rust
no problems APPENDIX XXIII
30. How satisfied are you with your dishwasher with regard to the following dishwashing problems? Please evaluate this in a scale of 1 (means: “not at all satisfied”) to 10 (means: “extremely satisfied”)!
Not at all Extremely Don't satisfied satisfied know
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 Soil residues on the dishes
Faded/dull dishes
Water residues on the dishes Dried water marking on the dishes Films and streaks on the dishes Glass corrosion
Rust
Final questions about doing the dishes
31. In your opinion which of the procedures achieves better cleaning results: Doing the dishes by hand or using a dishwasher?
doing the dishes by hand
using a dishwasher
no difference
don’t know
APPENDIX XXIV
32. What do you think needs less water and less energy: Doing the dishes by hand or using a dishwasher?
doing the dishes by hand
using a dishwasher
no difference
don’t know
33. When you think of doing the dishes by hand which main factor is responsible for a hygienic acceptable result? (Please mark only one statement!)
the amount of dishwashing detergent
the water temperature
the duration of the dishwashing process
the input of mechanical action
other factors (please specify): ______
don’t know
34. When you think of using a dishwasher which main factor is responsible for a hygienic acceptable result? (Please mark only one statement!)
the amount of dishwashing detergent
the water temperature
the duration of the dishwashing process
the input of mechanical action
other factors (please specify): ______
don’t know
APPENDIX XXV
35. If you were to consider buying a new dishwasher, how important would be the following features to you? Please evaluate this in a scale of 1 (means “not at all important”) to 10 (means “extremely important”)!
Not at all Extremely Don't important important know
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 High loading capacity High variety of programmes Low energy consumption Low water consumption Short programme durations Good cleaning performance Good drying performance Low price of the appliance Low operating noise Good flexibility of basket use Ease of interface use Possibility to set time/duration of the cycle Network connectivity/ communication between household appliances
Personal data
36. Gender
female
male
APPENDIX XXVI
37. Age group
< 25 years
25 to 34 years
35 to 44 years
45 to 54 years
55 to 64 years
> 64 years
38. Nationality:______39. How many individuals live constantly in your household including yourself? _____
40. How many individuals under 18 years live constantly in your household?_____
APPENDIX XXVII
C. Hand dishwashing detergents and utensils
Tab. C-1: Hand dishwashing detergents used by participants from Australia/New Zealand
Test Test Test Name Manufacturer/supplier country region location Coles Smart Buy™ Dishwashing Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Liquid Lemon Ltd., Tooronga, VIC 3146, Australia Cussons Morning Fresh Super PZ Cusscon Australia Pty Ltd., Concentrate Original Fresh Dandenong VIC 3175, Australia Homebrand Dishwashing Liquid Woolworths, Bella Vista NEW 2153, Germany Regular Australia
Australia Colgate Palmolive Pty Ltd., Sydney Palmolive Original 2000, Australia
Australia/ Zealand New United Laboratories Pty Ltd., Trix Double Action Lemon Dandenong VIC 3175, Australia Tab. C-2: Hand dishwashing detergents used by participants from Europe
Test Test Test Name Manufacturer/supplier country region location Procter & Gamble, 65824 Fairy mit Oxid Original Schwalbach am Taunus, Germany Fit Original fit GmbH, 02788 Zittau, Germany Henkel Wasch und Pril Kraft Gel mit Anti Fett Germany Reinigungsmittel GmbH, 40191 Magnet Düsseldorf, Germany Schlecker AS Spülmittel Limone WIN Cosmetic GmbH & Co. KG, mit Soda Aktiv Fettlöser 52224 Stolberg, Germany Ultra Palmolive Balsam mit Aloe Colgate Palmolive Deutschland Vera Holding GmbH, 22113 Hamburg, Bip Narancs Mosogatószer EVM Zrt., 1172 Budapest, Hungary Cif Dishwash Mosogatószer Unilever Magyarország Kft., 1138 Sensitive Budapest, Hungary Procter & Gamble – Rakona, s.r.o., Germany Jar Sensitive Tea Tree & Mint 269 32 Rakovník, Czech Republic Europe Hungary Germany Henkel Magyarország Kft., 1113 Pur Balsam Aloe Vera Budapest, Hungary CFA Hungária Kft., 7833. Görcsöny, Universal Trendy Mosogatószer Hungary Nefis Cosmetics JSC, 420021 AOS Kazan, Russia Reckitt Benkiser Russia, 115054 Dosia (Gel) Moskau, Russia Procter & Gamble Russia, 125171, Fairy mit Oxid Original Germany Moscow, Russia
Russia Henkel ERA, 187000 Tosno Oblast Pril Balsam mit Mineralstoffen Leningrad, Russia GÜNSU SU KİM VE CİHAZLARI Ramstor® SAN TİC A , 07190 Yeniköy, Antalya, Turkey APPENDIX XXVIII
Tab. C-3: Hand dishwashing detergents used by participants from Asia
Test Test Test Name Manufacturer/supplier country region location Shan Dong Libo Household Carrefour Dish Washer Chemical Co., Wei Fang, Shandong Province, China Beijing Goldfish Technology Co., Goldfish Ltd., China Guang Zhou Liby Enterprise Group Germany Liby Co., Ltd., Guangzhou, Guangdong, China Bei jing LUSAN Chemistry Co., Ltd., Lusan China Wu Jiang Sea Lion Cleaning Tesco Washing Up Liquid Products Co., Wu Jiang, Jiangsu Province, China China Carrefour Dish Washer Carrefour China Inc., China Beijing Goldfish Technology Co., Goldfish Ltd., China Guang Zhou Liby Enterprise Group China Liby Co., Ltd., Guangzhou, Guangdong, China Luo Wa, Reward Luo Wa Technology, China Bei jing LUSAN Chemistry Co., Ltd., Lusan China Lion Corporation, 1 3 7 Honjyo, Asia Charmy Sumidaku, Tokyo to. 130 8644, Japan Kao Corporation, Kayabacho, Cucute Nihonbachi, Chuoku, Tokyo to. 103 8210, Japan Kaneyo Corporation, 6 33 10 Germany Kaneyo Higashiogu, Arakawaku, Tokyo to.
Japan 116 0012, Japan Procter and Gamble, 1 17 Koyocho, Joy Higashinadaku, Kobechi. 658 0032, Japan Outer Works Corporation, 5 3 9 Smile Price Nishiarai, Adachiku, Tokyo to. 123 0841, Japan Home Plus, Samung Tesco / Dongyang Nanotech ind. Inc., Jubang Saejae Siheung Si, Gyeonggi Do, Korea Procter &Gamble KK Korea, Joy Kangnam ku, Seoul, Korea, 135 855 LG Care, Youngdungpo gu, Seoul, Germany Malgun Sol ib, Jayon Pong 150 721, Korea Korea Aegyung ind. Inc., Guro gu, Seoul Sun Sem 152 050, Korea CJ Lion Inc., Sumida ku, Tokyo 130 Tcham Green 8644, Japan
APPENDIX XXIX
Tab. C-4: Hand dishwashing detergents used by participants from Latin America
Test Test Test Name Manufacturer/supplier country region location Carrefour Argentina S.A., Capital Carrefour Detergente Federal, 1638 Vicente López, Concentrado Ultra Marina Buenos Aires Argentina Unilever de Argentina S.A., Munro, Cif Ultra Melón Buenos Aires, C1106ABL, Argentina Germany Coto C. I. C. S.A., Caba, Buenos Cristal del Lago Aires, C1416CDP, Argentina Argentina Procter & Gamble Argentina SC., Magistral® Ultra Rindex4 (B1605EJA) Munro – Buenos Aires, Manzana Argentina Queruclor SRL, (1839) 9 de Abril, Querubín Ultra Durazno Buenoa Aires Argentina Bombril S/A., Sao Bernardo do Bombril Limpol Com Glicerina Campo, Sao Paolo, Brazil Prior Pack Indústria e Comércio Carrefour Lava Loucas Gel Clear Ltda., Cidade Nova II, Indaiatuba, Sao Paolo, Brazil Prior Pack Indústria e Comércio Germany Extra Lava Loucas Gel Clear Ltda., Cidade Nova II, Indaiatuba, Brazil Sao Paolo, Brazil Lava Loucas Minuano JBS S.A., Luziânia Goiás, Brazil Quimica Amparo Ltda., Figueira, Lave Loucas Ype Neutro Amparo, 13904 906, Brazil Procter & Gamble, Las Condes, Dawn® Aroma Limón Santiago, Argentina Latin Latin America Intercos S.A., Colina, Santiago, Lavalozas Lider Mandarina Chile Unilever Chile HPC Ltda., Santiago, Germany Quix® Limon
Chile Chile Quix® Power Gel Ultra Unilever Chile HPC Ltda., Santiago, Concentrado Chile Virginia® Lavalozas VIRGINIA S.A., El Salto, Viña del Concentrado, Manzana Mar, Chile Colgate Palmolive, S.A. de C.V., Axion® El Verdadero Irrigación México D.F.C.P. 11500, Arrancagrasa TriCloro Mexico Comercial Mexicana, S.A. de Basicos Lava Trastes Citron C.V.,Tultitlán, Edo. De México C.P. 54940, Mexico Procter & Gamble International Germany Dawn Aroma Limón Operations SA, Cuajimalpa, 05100,
Mexico México, D.F., Mexico Wal Mart Stores, Inc., Walmart Great Value Liquido Lava Trastes Home Office, Bentonville, AR 72716, Limón USA Procter & Gamble International Salvo® Me Salva Operations SA, Cuajimalpa, 05100, México, D.F., Mexico APPENDIX XXX
Tab. C-5: Hand dishwashing detergents used by participants from the Middle East
Test Test Test Name Manufacturer/supplier country region location Procter and Gamble, Jeddah, 21593 Fairy Lemon Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Fine Fare Food Market LLC, PO Box Home Choice Dishwashing Liquid 6324, Dubai UAE by Sandy Bell Food Stuff Co. Ltd. Lux Progress Dishwash Liquid Unilever Gulf, United Arabic Germany Lemon Emirates Henkel Saudi Arabia Detergents Co. Middle Middle East Pril Instant Power Ltd., Saudi Arabia
United Arab Emirates Arab United Waitrose Limited, Bracknell Waitrose Citrus washing up liquid Berkshire RG12 8YA, United Kingdom
Tab. C-6: Hand dishwashing detergents used by participants from Southern Africa
Test Test Test Name Manufacturer/supplier country region location Colgate Palmolive (Pty) Ltd, 1459 Ajax Lemon Lime Boksburg, South Africa Classic Clean, Gauteng, Randvaal, Bio Classic Sensitiv 1873, South Africa Adcock Ingram Head Office, Germany I.C.U. Citrus Midrand, South Africa Pick 'n' Pay Head Office, Kenilworth, South Africa South Africa No Name Blueberry Cape Town, South Africa Unilever South Africa Pty Ltd., Kwa Sunlight Original Zulu Natal, 4051, South Africa
APPENDIX XXXI
Tab. C-7: Hand dishwashing detergents used by participants from North America
Test Test Test Name Manufacturer/supplier country region location America's Choice Lemon Burst The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Ultra Concentrated Dish Company, Inc., Montvale, NJ 07645, Detergent USA Dawn Ultra Concentraded The Procter & Gamble Company, Original Scent Dishwashing Cincinnati, OH 45201, USA Liquid Wal Mart Stores, Inc., Walmart Great Value Liquid Detergent Germany Home Office, Bentonville, AR 72716, Orange Scent USA Sun Light Ultra Lemon Citrus Phoenix Brands™, Stamford, CT Burst 06901, USA
Ultra Concentrated Joy Lemon The Procter & Gamble Company, Dishwashing Liquid Cincinnati, OH 45201, USA
Ajax Antibacterial Hand Soap Colgate Palmolive Company, New Orange Dish Liquid York, NY 10022, USA
America's Choice Lemon Burst The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Ultra Concentrated Dish Company, Inc., Montvale, NJ 07645, Detergent USA
USA Dawn Ultra Concentraded The Procter & Gamble Company, Original Scent Dishwashing Cincinnati, OH 45201, USA North America North Liquid Everyday Living Ultra Dish Liquid The Kroger Co., Cincinnati, OH Anti Bacterial Hand Soap 45202, USA Wal Mart Stores, Inc., Walmart Great Value Liquid Detergent USA Home Office, Bentonville, AR 72716, Orange Scent USA Kroger Value Dishwashing Liquid The Kroger Co., Cincinnati, OH Lemon Scent 45202, USA
Ultra Concentrated Joy Lemon The Procter & Gamble Company, Dishwashing Liquid Cincinnati, OH 45201, USA
Ultra Palmolive Original Colgate Palmolive Company, New Concentrated Dish Liquid York, NY 10022, USA
Up & Up Dishwashing Soap Target Corporation Company, Concentrated Liquid Apple Minneapolis, MN 55403, USA
APPENDIX XXXII
Tab. C-8: Hand dishwashing utensils used by participants in all test locations
Test location Item Description/product name Manufacturer/supplier GOLDHAND Vertriebsgesellschaft Dish cloth aro Wischtuch mbH, 4235 Düsseldorf, Germany GOLDHAND Vertriebsgesellschaft Gloves aro Haushaltshandschuhe, M mbH, 4235 Düsseldorf, Germany zetForm Einweghandtücher, Zellstoff Vertriebs GmbH & Co. KG, Paper towels Krepp 53842 Troisdorf, Germany Scrub GOLDHAND Vertriebsgesellschaft aro Topf Reiniger sponge mbH, 4235 Düsseldorf, Germany Germany/ Dishwashing BÜMAG eG, 08328 Stützengrün, Spülbürste, Kunstfaser, weiß South Africa/ brush Germany China Spiral GOLDHAND Vertriebsgesellschaft aro Edelstahl Spirale scourer mbH, 4235 Düsseldorf, Germany GOLDHAND Vertriebsgesellschaft Sponge cloth aro Schwammtuch mbH, 4235 Düsseldorf, Germany Tea towels Any linen fabrics
Curver Germany, Austria, Switzerland Curver Geschirrabtropfer Dish rack & Scandinavia, Z.I. Haneboesch, L Spülkorb Kunststoff 4562, Niedercorn, Luxembourg Handi Wipes, Heavy Duty The Clorox Company, Oakland, CA Dish cloth Reusable Cloths 94612, USA Playtex Products Inc., Playtex Gloves Playtex Handsaver Large Consumer Affairs, Neenah, WI 54957, USA Georgia Pacific Consumer Products, Brawny pure white Atlanta, GA 30303, USA The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea America's Choice Big Roll Paper Paper towels Company, Inc., Montvale, NJ 07645, Towels, Strong, Absorbent USA The Kroger Co., Cincinnati, OH Kroger Value Paper Towels 45202, USA Scrub Scotch Bride™ Basic Heavy 3M Corporate Headquarters, St. Paul, sponge Duty Scrub Sponge MN 55144, USA Mainstays Home: Dish & Sink Wal Mart Stores, Inc., Walmart Home USA Brush Office, Bentonville, AR 72716, USA Dishwashing The Libman Company, Arcola, IL Libman® Kitchen Brush brush 61910, USA Mr. Clean Dish & Sink Brush Butler Home Products, Marlborough, Classic MA 01752, USA Spiral Scotch Bride™ Stainless Steel 3M Corporate Headquarters, St. Paul, scourer Scrubbing Pats MN 55144, USA The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Sponge cloth America's Choice Cloth Sponges Company, Inc., Montvale, NJ 07645, USA Mainstays Home, 4 pack Kitchen Wal Mart Stores, Inc., Walmart Home Tea towels Towels, 100% cotton Office, Bentonville, AR 72716, USA Curver Germany, Austria, Switzerland Curver Geschirrabtropfer Dish rack & Scandinavia, Z.I. Haneboesch, L Spülkorb Kunststoff 4562, Niedercorn, Luxembourg
APPENDIX XXXIII
D. Video and technical equipment
Tab. D-1: Video equipment used for non-participant observation in all test locations
Description/ Test location Item Manufacturer/supplier product name Colour Quad MONACOR® INTERNATIONAL GmbH TVSP 46COL Processor & Co. KG, 28307 Bremen, Germany Software for video CyperLink® Corp., Shindian City, Taipei PowerDirector™Pro 2.5 recording 231, Taiwan (R.O.C.)
Germany MONACOR® INTERNATIONAL GmbH Video camera TVCCD 255COL & Co. KG, 28307 Bremen, Germany Software for video ArcSoft® Inc., Fremont, CA 94538, Show Biz DVD 2 recording USA USB 2.0 Video Hama® GmbH & Co KG, 86651 hama® Video Editor
USA Editor Monheim, Germany South South 1/4'' Sharp Farb CCD Conrad Electronic GmbH, 92240
Africa/China/ Video camera Kamera Hirschau, Germany Tab. D-2: Technical equipment for water heating and data measurement; consumer study
Test Item Description/product name Manufacturer/supplier location Continous AB Electrolux, SE 105 45 Stockholm, AEG, Type FDE 2174 flow heater Sweden Data logging Visual Data Manager Version II, Endress+Hauser Instruments International system Software V2.20 AG, CH 4153 Reinach, Switzerland Software for Endress+Hauser Instruments International data ReadWin® 2000, Version 1.27.0.0. AG, CH 4153 Reinach, Switzerland collection Temperature NiCr Ni sensor, type FTA15P, Built sensor: Ahlborn Mess und Regelungstechnik in sensor with connecting head, type Sheathed GmbH, 83607 Holzkirchen, Germany T/P/N 463, NiCr Ni (K), Tmax=400°C sensor Water flow Ahlborn Mess und Regelungstechnik Type FVA915VTH meter GmbH, 83607 Holzkirchen, Germany Continous Siemens wellness electronic Siemens Electrogeräte GmbH, 81739 flow heater exclusive type DE27505 München, Germany Data logging Ahlborn Mess und Regelungstechnik Almemo ® 2890 9 system GmbH, 83607 Holzkirchen, Germany Software for akrobit® software GmbH, 07546 Gera, data AMR WinControl Germany collection Temperature NiCr Ni sensor, type FTA15P, Built sensor: Ahlborn Mess und Regelungstechnik in sensor with connecting head, type Sheathed GmbH, 83607 Holzkirchen, Germany T/P/N 463, NiCr Ni (K), Tmax=400°C
SouthAfrica/China/USA sensor Germany Water flow Ahlborn Mess und Regelungstechnik Type FVA915VTH meter GmbH, 83607 Holzkirchen, Germany
APPENDIX XXXIV
Tab. D-3: Technical equipment for data measurement; dishwasher study
Item Description/product name Manufacturer/supplier Ahlborn Mess und Regelungstechnik Data logger Almemo® 5690 GmbH, 83607 Holzkirchen, Germany Software for akrobit® software GmbH, 07546 Gera, AMR WinControl data Germany In line flow meter with Ahlborn Mess und Regelungstechnik FVA 645 GVx integrated GmbH, 83607 Holzkirchen, Germany thermocouple Temperature NiCr Ni sensor, type FTA15P, Built Ahlborn Mess und Regelungstechnik sensor: in sensor with connecting head, type GmbH, 83607 Holzkirchen, Germany Sheathed T/P/N 463, NiCr Ni (K), Tmax=400°C
APPENDIX XXXV
E. Assessment sheet
Tab. E-1: Example of assessment sheet for non-participant observation, IEC 60436:2004+A1:2009 (E)" load w ay? Question: Open Use of hand gloves Usehand of sink/utility the of Cleaning ID-No.(IEC): Rough soil removalsoilRough Main wash Main Final rinse Final Postwash Pre wash Pre Soaking Dryi ng Why do you do the dishes that that dishes the do you do Why ihahn emnsGassCp Saucers Cups Glasses segments Dishwashing in a filledasink in with runningwith water tap with hands/gloveswith paperwith towels cutlerywith Yes water: With (frequency): duringprocess the end the at all filledasink in water underrunning tap of"detergent" use of"utilities" use filledasink in water underrunning tap of"detergent" use of"utilities" use filledasink in water underrunning tap of"detergent" use of"utilities" use filledasink in water underrunning tap underrunning water tap detergentfilledwith dishes water filledwith dishes sequence main wash main sequence No water Without detergentwithout detergentwith detergentwithout detergentwith No Water changes Water 2-si nk-use 1-si nk-use Completewater change: (frequency): inlet Water Cutlery Soup plates Soup Cutlery Tableware (min) Time Uncommon Uncommon behaviour Detergent drying: dishwashing: Dinner Dinner plates Amount (g) total:Amount (g) (end):Amount (g) (start):Amount Code: Dessert plates Large bowl Serving dishes Serving dium bowl Me Small Small bowl platter Oval
APPENDIX XXXVI
F. Statistical data
Tab. F-1: Statistical data of the total water consumption in l; consumer study
Total water consumption in l AU/NZ JP KR CN ME ZA DE HU RU LATAM US/CA Total Mean 45.25 112.94 151.49 108.96 125.87 63.11 60.62 117.47 163.49 130.30 160.20 122.60 Median 34.69 103.29 129.16 99.85 122.27 48.99 63.04 98.56 160.10 103.46 139.89 99.68 Min 18.33 44.49 45.79 39.44 31.46 22.93 32.63 33.10 47.61 55.47 44.53 18.33 Max 178.67 263.50 328.94 233.44 281.70 196.28 105.97 281.92 324.02 282.98 472.76 472.76 25% pctl 28.01 60.43 74.10 64.91 66.04 37.37 44.38 53.08 86.42 80.21 91.49 60.48 75% pctl 47.57 148.97 193.69 151.44 150.53 67.91 74.29 155.67 221.40 199.43 207.57 170.21 SD 35.09 61.11 89.85 54.24 70.96 46.30 20.43 78.84 80.74 70.82 85.25 79.56 Tab. F-2: Statistical data of the total corrected heat quantity in kWh; consumer study
Total corrected heat quantity in kWh AU/NZ JP KR CN ME ZA DE HU RU LATAM US/CA Total Mean 1.493 1.834 3.373 2.029 3.234 1.057 1.876 3.207 4.135 2.600 4.380 2.998 Median 1.192 1.340 2.362 1.484 2.951 0.746 1.643 1.800 4.553 2.025 3.472 2.212 Min 0.428 0.000 0.804 0.000 0.969 0.006 0.786 0.270 0.491 0.661 0.000 0.000 Max 6.008 5.077 9.546 7.331 10.784 3.755 4.110 9.540 9.970 8.262 14.474 14.474 25% pctl 0.957 0.747 1.269 0.837 1.583 0.552 1.159 1.354 1.895 1.279 2.353 1.172 75% pctl 1.409 2.815 4.389 2.825 4.004 1.069 2.499 4.287 5.686 3.238 6.043 4.013 SD 1.179 1.558 2.625 1.650 2.321 0.895 0.875 2.903 2.474 1.858 2.841 2.484 Tab. F-3: Statistical data of the tota l detergent consumption in g; consumer study
Total detergent consumption in g AU/NZ JP KR CN ME ZA DE HU RU LATAM US/CA Total Mean 23.0 10.9 26.5 45.2 36.2 63.6 21.6 47.8 41.4 51.0 54.4 42.5 Median 21.4 6.6 25.2 32.8 29.2 49.0 19.6 27.5 30.6 31.8 43.7 29.9 Min 5.1 2.5 11.9 5.3 12.5 19.5 5.8 8.8 8.4 14.9 8.4 2.5 Max 70.3 32.8 43.7 131.7 120.2 153.9 46.4 227.5 154.9 176.2 222.1 257.0 25% pctl 12.8 4.9 21.1 18.4 18.4 39.1 13.3 16.6 15.8 23.9 25.5 17.3 75% pctl 27.5 13.8 32.3 76.6 36.8 80.7 29.9 46.6 53.9 55.3 68.3 50.0 SD 15.1 8.9 9.5 35.6 27.7 37.7 11.7 56.4 35.6 43.7 41.6 39.7 Tab. F-4: Statistical data of the total duration in min; consumer study
Total duration in min AU/NZ JP KR CN ME ZA DE HU RU LATAM US/CA Total Mean 67 86 87 98 90 88 76 91 83 93 73 83 Median 64 81 88 91 82 81 73 90 78 89 71 77 Min 48 62 55 58 42 53 50 65 58 60 38 38 Max 107 121 107 166 184 180 133 139 111 156 119 184 25% pctl 54 71 77 76 67 69 61 78 71 79 60 67 75% pctl 73 104 99 125 102 96 86 95 95 100 84 96 SD 16 21 15 28 37 31 21 18 17 24 18 24
APPENDIX XXXVII
Tab. F-5: Statistical data of the cleaning indices; consumer study
Cleaning index AU/NZ JP KR CN ME ZA DE HU RU LATAM US/CA Total Mean 2.24 2.78 2.74 2.36 2.72 2.66 2.33 2.98 2.26 2.38 2.64 2.57 Median 2.32 2.69 2.61 2.32 2.53 3.00 2.31 2.99 2.28 2.24 2.66 2.53 Min 1.05 1.84 1.59 0.82 1.11 1.14 0.57 1.81 0.94 1.08 0.76 0.57 Max 4.04 3.70 4.09 4.26 4.04 3.79 3.81 4.19 3.43 4.22 4.33 4.33 25% pctl 1.66 2.42 2.32 1.56 2.34 2.03 1.75 2.46 1.62 1.93 2.15 1.99 75% pctl 2.56 3.17 3.20 3.22 3.47 3.18 3.13 3.61 2.74 2.74 3.32 3.20 SD 0.71 0.54 0.65 1.04 0.81 0.76 0.97 0.70 0.70 43.71 0.80 0.81 Tab. F-6: Statistical data of the total water consumption in l in the quick, normal and intensive programme; dishwasher study
Total water consumption in l
AU/NZ JP KR LATAM US EU Total
Mean 9.85 9.58 9.69 9.58 12.73 9.89 10.22 Quick programme SD 0.07 0.32 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.02 1.16 Mean 12.31 15.14 12.24 12.03 17.69 12.43 13.64 Normal programme SD 0.04 0.59 0.04 0.03 0.13 0.04 2.15 Mean 13.56 17.34 12.99 12.78 26.74 13.86 13.45 Intensive programme SD 0.35 0.45 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.06 7.07 Tab. F-7: Statistical data of the total corrected energy consumption in kWh in the quick, normal and intensive programme; dishwasher study
Total corrected energy consumption in kWh
AU/NZ JP KR LATAM US EU Total
Mean 0.788 0.543 0.763 0.605 0.889 0.787 0.729 Quick programme SD 0.017 0.010 0.012 0.013 0.006 0.045 0.122 Mean 0.689 0.871 1.145 1.288 1.607 1.142 1.123 Normal programme SD 0.041 0.038 0.012 0.023 0.033 0.062 0.300 Mean 1.514 1.106 1.574 1.728 1.965 1.637 1.118 Intensive programme SD 0.038 0.031 0.024 0.050 0.012 0.050 0.568 Tab. F-8: Statistical data of the total programme duration in min in the quick, normal and intensive programme; dishwasher study
Total duration in min
AU/NZ JP KR LATAM US EU Total
Mean 32 43 29 36 39 31 35 Quick programme SD 4 0 0 1 1 1 5 Mean 150 71 154 164 131 158 138 Normal programme SD 1 1 1 2 3 3 32 Mean 129 96 130 141 112 135 88 Intensive programme SD 0 1 1 3 1 1 53
APPENDIX XXXVIII
Tab. F-9: Statistical data of the cleaning indices in the quick, normal and intensive programme; dishwasher study
Cleaning index
AU/NZ JP KR LATAM US EU Total
Mean 1.87 1.14 1.71 2.06 1.58 2.15 1.75 Quick programme SD 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.13 0.08 0.10 0.36 Mean 3.13 1.64 2.87 4.06 2.75 4.01 3.08 Normal programme SD 0.19 0.21 0.12 0.10 0.11 0.20 0.85 Mean 3.51 2.10 3.38 4.41 3.42 4.16 2.52 Intensive programme SD 0.16 0.18 0.10 0.07 0.16 0.16 1.19 APPENDIX XXXIX
G. Statistical analysis
Tab. G-1: Results of the Wilcoxon test to compare hot water consumption and cold water consumption within country panels; consumer study
Country Median z -scoreAsymptotic Effect size r significance p Hot water consumption Cold water consumption (two tailed) in l in l CN 52 48 0.85 ns .11 JP 41 58 1.20 ns .19 KR 59 55 0.86 ns .14 AU/NZ 26 7 3.88 .000 .61 DE 41 13 3.62 .000 .57 HU 44 39 2.24 .03 .35 RU 112 47 3.06 .002 .48 LATAM 53 56 0.71 ns .11 ME 73 30 2.80 .005 .44 US 106 16 6.33 .000 .50 ZA 18 23 1.37 ns .22 Tab. G-2: Results of the Spearman correlation on the variables “total water consumption” and “total corrected heat quantity consumption”; consumer study
Correlation Total corrected heat quantity consumption Correlation .76 ** Spearman- coefficient Total water consumption Rho p (one-tailed) .000 N 289 **p<.001
Tab. G-3: Results of the Spearman correlation on the variables “cleaning index” and “amount of soil”; consumer study
Correlation Amount of soil Correlation .376 Spearman- coefficient Cleaning index Rho p (one-tailed) ns N 289
Tab. G-4: Results of the Kruskal-Wallis test to analyse the relationship between the country panels with regard to the consumption data and the cleaning result; consumer study
Total water Total Total Total Cleaning consumption corrected detergent duration performance heat quantity consumption H (10) 93.82 81.88 77.53 50.47 20.28 Asymptotic significance p .000 .000 .000 .000 .02 APPENDIX XL
Tab. G-5: Results of the Spearman correlation on the variable “cleaning index” and “total water consumption per item”, “total corrected heat quantity consumption per item”, “total detergent consumption per item, “total duration per item”; consumer study
Correlation Total water Total corrected Total Total consumption heat quantity detergent duration per item consumption consumption per item per item per item Correlation .23** .15* .06 .31** Spearman- Cleaning pcoefficient (one-tailed) .000 .005 ns .000 Rho index N 289 289 289 289 **p<.001 *p<.01
Tab. G-6: Results of the Mann-Whitney test to compare resource consumption data per item between participants with cleaning score >=3.5 and <3.5; consumer study
Total water Total corrected heat Total detergent Total duration consumption quantity consumption consumption per item per item per item per item
U 4004.50 4588.50 4485.50 2930.50 z 1.59 .38 .60 3.83 r .094 .02 .035 .23 Monte Carlo significance ns ns ns .000 p (one-tailed)
Tab. G-7: Results of the Mann-Whitney test to compare resource consumption data and cleaning result between Chinese consumer panels tested in Germany and abroad; consumer study
Total water Total corrected heat Total detergent Total duration Cleaning consumption quantity consumption consumption performance U 88.00 90.00 73.00 93.50 84.00 z .53 .44 1.19 .29 .70 r .10 .08 .22 .05 .13 Exact significance ns ns ns ns ns p (two-tailed)
APPENDIX XLI
Tab. G-8: Results of the Mann-Whitney test to compare resource consumption data and cleaning result between US consumer panels tested in Germany and abroad; consumer study
Total water Total corrected heat Total detergent Total duration Cleaning consumption quantity consumption consumption performance U 547.00 436.00 371.50 304.00 590.50 z .59 1.82 2.54 3.30 .11 r .07 .20 .28 .37 .01 Exact significance ns ns .01 .001 ns p (two-tailed) Tab. G-9: Results of the Spearman correlation on the variables “total water consumption” and “total corrected energy consumption”; dishwasher study
Correlation Total corrected energy consumption Correlation .74 ** Spearman- coefficient Total water consumption Rho p (one-tailed) .000 N 90 **p<.001
Tab. G-10: Results of the Spearman correlation on the variables “cleaning index” and “amount of soil”; dishwasher study
Correlation Amount of soil Correlation .38** Spearman- coefficient Cleaning index Rho p (one-tailed) .000 N 90 **p<.001
Tab. G-11: Results of the Kruskal-Wallis test to analyse the relationship between the dishwasher models with regard to the consumption data and cleaning result; dishwasher study (quick programme)
Total water Total corrected Total Cleaning consumption heat quantity duration performance (quick) (quick) (quick) (quick) H (5) 23.74 26.13 24.97 25.73 Asymptotic .000 .000 .000 .000 significance p
APPENDIX XLII
Tab. G-12: Results of the Kruskal-Wallis test to analyse the relationship between the dishwasher models with regard to the consumption data and cleaning result; dishwasher study (normal programme)
Total water Total corrected Total Cleaning consumption heat quantity duration performance (normal) (normal) (normal) (normal) H (5) 27.92 27.45 28.13 26.58 Asymptotic .000 .000 .000 .000 significance p Tab. G-13: Results of the Kruskal-Wallis test to analyse the relationship between the dishwasher models with regard to the consumption data and cleaning result; dishwasher study (intensive programme)
Total water Total corrected Total Cleaning consumption heat quantity duration performance (intesive) (intensive) (intensive) (intensive) H (5) 27.73 27.27 27.89 25.40 Asymptotic .000 .000 .000 .000 significance p Tab. G-14: Results of the Mann-Whitney test to compare importance ratings for consumption data and cleaning result between participants with cleaning score >=3.5 and <3.5; consumer study
Importance of Importance of Importance of Importance of Importance of low water low energy low detergent short duration cleanliness consumption consumption consumption U 4628.50 4139.50 4640.50 4551.00 4551.00 z .30 1.32 .27 .46 .51 r .02 .08 .02 .03 .03 Exact significance ns ns ns ns ns p (two-tailed) Tab. G-15: Results of the Spearman correlation on the variables “total water consumption per item” and “importance of low water consumption”; consumer study
Correlation Importance of low water consumption Total water Correlation coefficient .18** Spearman- consumption per p (one-tailed) .002 Rho item N 284 **p<.01
APPENDIX XLIII
Tab. G-16: Results of the Spearman correlation on the variables “total corrected heat quantity per item” and “importance of low energy consumption”; consumer study
Correlation Importance of low energy consumption Total corrected heat Correlation coefficient .08 Spearman- quantity consumption p (one-tailed) ns Rho per item N 282 Tab. G-17: Results of the Spearman correlation on the variables “total detergent consumption per item” and “importance of low detergent consumption”; consumer study
Correlation Importance of low detergent consumption Total detergent Correlation coefficient .12* Spearman- consumption per p (one-tailed) .02 Rho item N 286 *p<.05 Tab. G-18: Results of the Spearman correlation on the variables “total duration per item” and “importance of short duration”; consumer study
Correlation Importance of short duration Correlation coefficient .15** Spearman- Total duration per p (one-tailed) .007 Rho item N 282 **p<.01 Tab. G-19: Results of the Spearman correlation on the variables “cleaning index” and “importance of cleanliness”; consumer study
Correlation Importance of cleanliness Correlation coefficient .09 Spearman- Cleaning index p (one-tailed) ns Rho N 288
APPENDIX XLIV
Tab. G-20: Contingency table: DW at home * less water/energy; consumer study
less water/energy manual automatic Total Yes Count 30 58 88 Expected count 46.3 41.7 88.0 % within DW at home 34.1% 65.9% 100.0% % within less water/energy 25.0% 53.7% 38.6% % of Total 13.2% 25.4% 38.6% Std. residual 2.4 2.5 No Count 90 50 140 Expected count 73.7 66.3 140.0 DW at home % within DW at home 64.3% 35.7% 100.0% % within less water/energy 75.0% 46.3% 61.4% % of Total 39.5% 21.9% 61.4% Std. residual 1.9 2.0 Total Count 120 108 228 Expected count 120.0 108.0 228.0 % within DW at home 52.6% 47.4% 100.0% % within less water/energy 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % of Total 52.6% 47.4% 100.0% Tab. G-21: Results of Pearson’s chi-square test to analyse the association between dishwasher ownership and rating of resource consumption for manual and automatic dishwashing; consumer study
Value df Asymptotic significance p Exact significance p Exact significance p (two-tailed) (two-tailed) (one-tailed) Pearson 19.761 a 1 .000 .000 .000 Chi-Square χ² N of valid 228 cases a0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 41.68. N of valid cases: 228
APPENDIX XLV
Tab. G-22: Contingency table: DW at home * better cleaning result; consumer study
better cleaning result manual automatic Total Yes Count 39 46 85 Expected count 52.1 32.9 85.0 % within DW at home 45.9% 54.1% 100.0% % within less water/energy 30.7% 57.5% 41.1% % of Total 18.8% 22.2% 41.1% Std. residual 1.8 2.3 No Count 88 34 122 Expected count 74.9 47.1 122.0 DW at home % within DW at home 72.1% 27.9% 100.0% % within less water/energy 69.3% 42.5% 58.9% % of Total 42.5% 16.4% 58.9% Std. residual 1.5 1.9 Total Count 127 80 207 Expected count 127.0 80.0 207.0 % within DW at home 61.4% 38.6% 100.0% % within less water/energy 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % of Total 61.4% 38.6% 100.0% Tab. G-23: Results of Pearson’s chi-square test to analyse the association between dishwasher ownership and rating of cleaning result for manual and automatic dishwashing; consumer study
Value df Asymptotic significance p Exact significance p Exact significance p (two-tailed) (two-tailed) (one-tailed) Pearson 14.557 a 1 .000 .000 .000 Chi-Square χ²
a0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 32.85. N of valid cases: 207 Tab. G-24: Results of the Mann-Whitney test to compare the preferred hand dishwashing practice between participants owning and not-owning a dishwasher; consumer study
Preferred hand dishwashing practice U 9412.50 z .14 r .01 Exact significance p (two-tailed) ns
APPENDIX XLVI
Tab. G-25: Contingency table: Way of doing the dishes (observation) * Accord with questionnaire; consumer study
Accord with questionnaire
Yes No Total Sink/water Count 28 27 55 bath Expected count 32.5 22.5 55.0 % within way of doing the 50.9% 49.1% 100.0% dishes (questionnaire) % within way of doing the 16.6% 23.1% 19.2% dishes (observation) % of Total 9.8% 9.4% 19.2% Std. residual 0.8 0.9 0.0 Running Count 84 25 109 tap water Expected count 64.4 44.6 109.0 % within way of doing the 77.1% 22.9% 100.0% dishes (questionnaire) % within way of doing the 49.7% 21.4% 38.1% dishes (observation) % of Total 29.4% 8.7% 38.1% Way of doing the dishes Std. residual 2.4 2.9 0.0 (observation) Both Count 57 65 122 Expected count 72.1 49.9 122.0 % within way of doing the 46.7% 53.3% 100.0% dishes (questionnaire) % within way of doing the 33.7% 55.6% 42.7% dishes (observation) % of Total 19.9% 22.7% 42.7% Std. residual 1.8 2.1 0.0 Total Count 169 117 286 Expected count 169.0 117.0 286.0 % within way of doing the 59.1% 40.9% 100.0% dishes (questionnaire) % within way of doing the 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% dishes (observation) % of Total 59.1% 40.9% 100.0% Tab. G-26: Results of Pearson’s chi-square test to analyse the association between way of doing the dishes (observation) and accordance with questionnaire feedback; consumer study
Value df Asymptotic significance p Exact significance p (two-tailed) (two-tailed) Pearson 23.811 a 2 .000 .000 Chi-Square χ² a0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 22.50. N of valid cases: 286 APPENDIX XLVII
Tab. G-27: Results of the Kruskal-Wallis test to analyse the relationship between the percentages of dishwashing steps done under running tap water with regard to the consumption data and cleaning result among all participants; consumer study
Total water Total heat Total detergent Total duration consumption quantity consumption Cleaning index per item per item consumption per item H (2) 89.46 35.58 3.09 3.32 1.90 Asymptotic .000 .000 ns ns ns significance p Tab. G-28: Results of the Jonckheere-Terpstra test to analyse a trend in the percentages of dishwashing steps done under running tap water with regard to the total water consumption per item and total heat quantity consumption per item among all participants; consumer study
Total water Total corrected heat consumption quantity consumption per item per item J 20557.50 17823.50 z 9.63 6.01 r .56 .35 Asymptotic significance p (two-tailed) .000 .000
Tab. G-29: Results of the Mann-Whitney test to compare total water consumption per item and total corrected heat quantity consumption per item between participants with percentages of dishwashing steps <=30.0% and between 30.1% to 69.9% among all participants; consumer study
Total water Total corrected heat consumption quantity consumption per item per item U 1402.00 2242.00 z 6.31 3.65 r .47 .27 Asymptotic significance p (two-tailed) .000 .000
APPENDIX XLVIII
Tab. G-30: Results of the Mann-Whitney test to compare total water consumption per item and total corrected heat quantity consumption per item between participants with percentages of dishwashing steps between <=30.0% and >=70.0% among all participants; consumer study
Total water Total corrected heat consumption quantity consumption per item per item U 576.00 1418.50 z 8.48 5.56 r .66 .43 Asymptotic significance p (two-tailed) .000 .000
Tab. G-31: Results of the Mann-Whitney test to compare total water consumption per item and total corrected heat quantity consumption per item between participants with percentages of dishwashing steps between 30.1% to 69.9% and >=70.0% among all participants; consumer study
Total water Total corrected heat consumption quantity consumption per item per item U 3974.50 5025.50 z 5.52 3.47 r .36 .23 Asymptotic significance p (two-tailed) .000 .001
Tab. G-32: Results of the Kruskal-Wallis test to analyse the relationship between the percentages of dishwashing steps done under running tap water with regard to the consumption data and cleaning result among participants with a cleaning index >=3.5; consumer study
Total water Total heat Total detergent Total duration consumption quantity consumption Cleaning index per item per item consumption per item H (2) 14.22 3.05 0.47 5.20 1.13 Asymptotic .001 ns ns ns ns significance p Tab. G-33: Results of the Jonckheere-Terpstra test to analyse a trend in the percentages of dishwashing steps done under running tap water with regard to the total water consumption per item among participants with a cleaning index >=3.5; consumer study
Total water consumption per item J 362.50 z 3.69 r .60 Asymptotic significance p (two-tailed) .000
APPENDIX XLIX
Tab. G-34: Results of the Mann-Whitney test to compare total water consumption per item between participants with percentages of dishwashing steps <=30.0% and between 30.1% to 69.9% among participants with a cleaning index >=3.5; consumer study
Total water consumption per item U 13.00 z 2.95 r .60 Asymptotic significance p (two-tailed) .003
Tab. G-35: Results of the Mann-Whitney test to compare total water consumption per item between participants with percentages of dishwashing steps between 30.1% to 69.9% and >=70.0% among participants with a cleaning index >=3.5; consumer study
Total water consumption per item U 4.00 z 3.36 r .73 Asymptotic significance p (two-tailed) .001
Tab. G-36: Results of the Mann-Whitney test to compare total water consumption per item between participants with percentages of dishwashing steps between 30.1% to 69.9% and >=70.0% among participants with a cleaning index >=3.5; consumer study
Total water consumption per item U 75.50 z 1.73 r .31 Asymptotic significance p (two-tailed) ns ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Acknowledgement
First of all, I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Rainer Stamminger for giving me the opportunity to work on this global project. His encouragement, his technical and mental support as well as his openness for discussions have considerably contributed to the success of this work.
I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Michael Burkhard Piorkowsky for his interest in this research topic and for agreeing to become second examiner of my thesis.
Special thanks go to the industry sponsors of this work RB Group and BSH Home Appliances Group – who provided their continuous support during the whole research period.
I owe particular thanks to Gereon Broil and Roland Lutz as well as the whole team of the scientific factory, especially Anton Berg, Walter Petriwski and Wilfried Berchtold. Without their technical expertise and support, a realisation of this project would not have been possible.
I would also like to thank the whole team of the Household and Appliance Technology Section at Bonn University. Particularly I would like to thank Anke Kruschwitz, for her friendship an technical support especially during the excursions abroad, Sandra Bichler and Jasmin Geppert for their continuous technical and emotional support during the whole time of my studies, Verena Braun for particularly supporting this work with findings of her Diploma thesis and for being an essential help during the stay abroad, and Marina Niestrath for always being there when help is needed.
Last but not least: Thanks to my family and friends who always believed in me and supported me in achieving my goals. CURRICULUM vitae
Curriculum vitae
Personal data:
Name: Petra Berkholz
Date and place of birth: May 10 th 1982 in Cologne, Germany
Contact: [email protected]
Education
Since 03/2007 Doctoral studies in Home Economics and Nutritional Science (Dr.oec. troph.) at Bonn University, Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Household and Appliance Technology Section, Bonn, Germany
Title of PhD thesis: Laboratory Investigation of Manual Dishwashing Habits and its Resource Consumptions: A Study of Consumer Panels in Seven Global Regions
02/2007 Diploma in Home Economics and Nutritional Science (Dipl. oec. troph.) at Bonn University, Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Household and Appliance Technology Section, Bonn, Germany
Title of Diploma thesis: Erfassung der Mengenabhängigkeit der Ver und Gebrauchsdaten von Haushaltswaschmaschinen
10/2001 – 02/2007 Studies at Bonn University, Germany
06/2001 General qualification for university entrance at Gymnasium Schulstraße in Cologne Pesch, Germany
08/1991 – 06/2001 Gymnasium Schulstraße in Cologne Pesch, Germany