Journal of Industrial Ecology Volume 23 issue 1 2019 [doi 10.1111_jiec.12775] -- Corrigendum to Hicks, A.L. 2018. Environmental Implications of Consumer Convenience- Coffee as a Case Study. Journ

CORRIGENDUM

Corrigendum to Hicks, A.L. 2018. Environmental
Implications of Consumer Convenience: Coffee as a
Case Study. Journal of Industrial Ecology 22(1): 79–91

Summary

Two incorrect values were used to calculate the density controlled figures in the article.
Specifically, the value of 0.17kWh was used for the amount of electricity used for the
conventional drip filter. This value should have been 0.13kWh. Also, the value used for the
quantity of water used in the French press was 0.9L when it should have been 0.95L. These
errors did not change the resulting relative advantages of the coffee making methods.

This article corrects: water used in the French press was 0.9L when it should have
been 0.95L.

1. Environmental Implications of Consumer Convenience: The Impact on the Results
Coffee as a Case Study. Volume 22, Issue 1, 79–91, Article
first published online: January 2017. Upon using the correct values, particularly for the electricity,
the impact of the drip filter decreases, while the single serve
Introduction coffee pod impact stays the same. Although the impact decreases
for both of the conventional coffee brewing methods, the drip
Minor errors have been identified in the calculation of the filter is still greater than the single serve coffee pod, largely
density controlled figures in the original article. These er- as a function of electricity consumption. With respect to the
rors stem from the use of two incorrect values. The values in French press, its environmental impact also deceases, although
question were the amount of electricity used for the conven- with respect to eutrophication potential, due to the wasted
tional drip filter and the quantity of water used in the French water, and thus higher strength of the brewed coffee, it has the
press. greatest environmental impact.

The Errors The impacts obtained when using the corrected values are
shown in figure 1.

The value of 0.17kWh was utilized as the amount of electricity The corrected values have an impact on the graphs in figure 6
used for the conventional drip filter. This value should have of the original article. Figure 2 provides a corrected version of
been 0.13kWh. Also, the value utilized for the quantity of the original article’s figure 6.

© 2018 by Yale University www.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jie
DOI: 10.1111/jiec.12775
Volume 23, Number 1

292 Journal of Industrial Ecology

CORRIGENDUM

Global Warming (kg CO2e per 0.275 L of 7.00E-02 Drip Filter French Press Pod Style Eutrophicaton (kg Neq per 0.275L of 1.20E-03 Drip Filter French Press Pod Style
brewed coffee) 6.00E-02 brewed coffee) 1.00E-03 Pod Style
5.00E-02 8.00E-04 Pod Style
4.00E-02 RoasƟng/Grinding Transport 6.00E-04 RoasƟng/Grinding Transport Pod Style
3.00E-02 4.00E-04
2.00E-02 Filter Foil 2.00E-04 Filter Foil
1.00E-02 0.00E+00
0.00E+00 Electricity Disposal Electricity Disposal
Coffee
Coffee Water
Water Cup
Cup

Ozone DepleƟon (kg CFC-11 eq per 0.275 4.00E-09 Smog (kg O3 eq per 0.275 L of brewed 4 .0E -03
L of brewed coffee) 3.50E-09 coffee) 3 .5E -03
3.00E-09 3 .0E -03
2.50E-09 2 .5E -03
2.00E-09 2 .0E -03
1.50E-09 1 .5E -03
1.00E-09 1 .0E -03
5.00E-10 5 .0E -04
0.00E+00 0.0E+00

Drip Filter French Press Pod Style Drip Filter French Press

Coffee RoasƟng/Grinding Transport Coffee RoasƟng/Grinding Transport
Water Water
Cup Filter Foil Cup Filter Foil

Electricity Disposal Electricity Disposal

AcidificaƟon (mol H+ eq per 0.275 L of 3.5E-02 Carcinogenics (CTUh per 0.275 L of 4.50E-09
brewed coffee) brewed coffee) 4.00E-09
3.0E-02 3.50E-09
3.00E-09
2.5E-02 2.50E-09
2.00E-09
2.0E-02 1.50E-09
1.5E-02 1.00E-09
5.00E-10
1.0E-02 0.00E+00

5.0E-03
0.0E+00

Drip Filter French Press Pod Style Drip Filter French Press

Coffee RoasƟng/Grinding Transport Coffee RoasƟng/Grinding Tr ansport
Water Water
Cup Filter Foil Cup Filter Foil

Electricity Disposal Electricity Disposal

Non Carcinogenics (CTUh per 0.275 L of 1.4E-08 Respiratory Effects (kg PM10 eq per 0.275 1.0E-04
brewed coffee) L of brewed coffee) 9.0E-05
1.2E-08 8.0E-05
7.0E-05
1.0E-08 6.0E-05
5.0E-05
8.0E-09 4.0E-05
3.0E-05
6.0E-09 2.0E-05
1.0E-05
4.0E-09 0.0E+00

2.0E-09

0.0E+00

Drip Filter French Press Pod Style Drip Filter French Press
Pod Style
Coffee RoasƟng/Grinding Transport Coffee RoasƟng/Grinding Transport
Water
Water Filter Foil Cup Filter Foil

Cup Electricity Disposal Electricity Disposal

EcoToxicity (CTUe per 0.275 L of brewed 4.3E+00
coffee) 4.2E+00
4.1E+00
4.0E+00
3.9E+00
3.8E+00
3.7E+00
3.6E+00
3.5E+00
3.4E+00
3.3E+00

Drip Filter French Press

Coffee RoasƟng/Grinding Transport
Water
Cup Filter Foil

Electricity Disposal

Figure 1 All of the impact values for the different impact categories utilizing the corrected inputs.

Hicks, Corrigendum to Env. Implications of Convenience 293

CORRIGENDUM

7.00E-02Global Warming (kg CO2e per 0.275 L of Pod Style 1.20E-03 Drip Filter French Press Pod Style
6.00E-02brewed coffee) 1.00E-03
5.00E-02 8.00E-04
4.00E-02 Eutrophicaton (kg Neq per 0.275L of 6.00E-04
3.00E-02 brewed coffee) 4.00E-04
2.00E-02 Drip Filter French Press 2.00E-04
1.00E-02 0.00E+00
0.00E+00 RoasƟng/Grinding Transport RoasƟng/Grinding Transport
Coffee
Coffee Filter Foil Water Filter Foil
Water Cup
Cup Electricity Disposal Electricity Disposal

Figure 2 Corrected Global warming and eutrophication impacts per serving (.275 L) when the strength of the brewed coffee is the same
for all 3 systems (43 g/L).

Conclusions figures in the original article. Overall, these errors did not
change the resulting relative advantages of the coffee making
Minor errors stemming from the use of incorrect values have methods.
been identified in the calculation of the density controlled

294 Journal of Industrial Ecology