LCA COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS LCA COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
LCA COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS LCA COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGIES OF DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR SURFACE FUNCTIONALISATION FOR SURFACE FUNCTIONALISATION Gabriela Benveniste Environment Park S.p.A. Turin, Italy 3rd International
3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland
Gabriela Benveniste
Environment Park S.p.A. – Turin, Italy
3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland
3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland
3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland
3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland
Born by initiative of Regione Piemonte, Provincia di Torino, Comune di Torino, in a wide industrial dismissed area Environment Park site contains Research and Development organizations as well as companies working on eco–efficient and innovative technologies. Environment Park has been realized in the context of European Union Structural Funds and nowadays is an Joint Stock company receiving most of the capital from public
Finpiemonte S.P.A., SMAT, AMIAT, IRIDE ENERGIA, CCIAA di Torino, Unione Industriale, Provincia di Torino, Università di Torino
3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland
3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland
Investigate the available and future technologies for surface functionalisation on a comparative basis with specific reference to their environmental life-cycle burden
Compare alternative technologies for surface functionalisation – process analysis Estimate the overall environmental burden for each technology through LCA Analysis
3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland
3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland
Process (Traditional or innovative)
Inputs (energy, raw materials) Outputs (air emissions, water emissions, solids,…) Final product: functionalised surface
BOUSTEAD MODEL V GER EU POPC Acid GWP Total emissions Total raw materials
3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland
Three different studies have been carried out to compare traditional and plasma-innovative technologies
Anti corrosion treatment on metal surfaces : comparing Plasma Vapour Deposition-PVD- plasma technology and SiOx plasma deposition (both innovative) and traditional galvanic plating Oleophobic properties on PET textile surface: comparing atmospheric pressure plasma technology and traditional process Hydrophobic properties on textile PET + cotton textile surface: comparing atmospheric pressure plasma technology and traditional process
3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland
For the GER (Gross Energy Requirement) results it has been taken into account the values of the energy consumption referred to the European Energy Mix. When stated, it has also been considered the Italy Energy Mix and France Energy Mix (anti corrosion case) Italy Mix Europe Mix France Mix
Coal 12% 27% 7% Fuel 34% 8% 2% Gas 34% 16% 1% Hydroelectrics 10% 6% 7% Nuclear 9% 39% 82% Other sources 1% 2% 1%
3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland
Indirect energy for Natural Gas consumption have been considered using Italy scenario All the values are referred to the established Functional Unit (F.U.) The analysis does not take into account the production
nor industrial systems The results regard the environmental point of view. No budget considerations at that point.
More specific hypothesis are described for each case study
3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland
3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland
Cr VI COATING 1 m2, 3 μm surface treated
Copper 41,37 mg Zinc 217,3 mg Chromium 858,6 mg
MASS AND ENERGY BALANCE OF GALVANIC PROCESS MASS AND ENERGY BALANCE OF GALVANIC PROCESS
WATER EMISSION Electricity 89,21 MJ CrO3 118 g Natural gas 15,8 MJ
Cr VI COATING 1 m2, 3 μm surface treated
Copper 41,37 mg Zinc 217,3 mg Chromium 858,6 mg
MASS AND ENERGY BALANCE OF GALVANIC PROCESS MASS AND ENERGY BALANCE OF GALVANIC PROCESS
WATER EMISSION Electricity 89,21 MJ CrO3 118 g Natural gas 15,8 MJ Electricity 89,21 MJ CrO3 118 g Natural gas 15,8 MJ
SiOx Plasma deposition
Electricity 266 MJ Oxygen 25,61 g Hexamethyldisiloxane 1185 g CO2 1.11 g
1 m2, 1 μm surface treated
MASS AND ENERGY BALANCE OF SiOx PLASMA DEPOSITION PROCESS
AIR EMISSION
SiOx Plasma deposition
Electricity 266 MJ Oxygen 25,61 g Hexamethyldisiloxane 1185 g CO2 1.11 g
1 m2, 1 μm surface treated
MASS AND ENERGY BALANCE OF SiOx PLASMA DEPOSITION PROCESS
AIR EMISSION
Comparing:
Extra hypothesis:
mix (Italy, France, Europe)
3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland
TiN PVD COATING
Electricity 121 MJ Ar 0,9 g N2 52,2 g Ti 7,8 g Detergent 15 g Lubricating oil 12,5 g N2 50 g Ar 0,9 g Isopropanol 12,3 g
1 m2, 1 μm surface treated
MASS AND ENERGY BALANCE OF PVD PROCESS MASS AND ENERGY BALANCE OF PVD PROCESS
AIR EMISSION
TiCN PVD COATING 1 m2, 1 μm surface treated
Electricity 121 MJ Ar 1,8 g C2H2 4,g N2 45,6 g Ti 12,4 g Detergent 15 g Lubricating oil 12,5 g N2 42 g Ar 1,8 g C2H2 0,7 g H2 0,3 g Isopropanol 12,2 g
MASS AND ENERGY BALANCE OF PVD PROCESS MASS AND ENERGY BALANCE OF PVD PROCESS
AIR EMISSION
3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland
3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland
Comparing:
Oleophobic process
pressure plasma treatment
Non treated PET surface Emissions: BOD : 0.12g O2 Solids: 0.065 g De
Olephobic plasma treatment Energy : Elettricity Elettricity Emissions: PM10: 0.714 mg Fluorocarbons 1 kg Treated PET Detergent: 5 g Water: 5 kg COD: 1.75 g O2 De
Energy : Natural gas: 4.15 MJ Total P: 0.026 g Total N: 0.087 g He : 4.46 g BOD : 0.12g O2 De
: 0.375 MJ : 3.77 g He : 4.46 g Fluorocarbons: 3.93 g COD: 1.75 g O2 De
He Non recuparable Solid wastes : 6.019 g BOD : 0.12g O2 De
PM10: 0.714 mg COD: 1.75 g O2 De
He : 4.46 g BOD : 0.12g O2 De
: 0.375 MJ : 3.77 g He: 4.46 g COD: 1.75 g O2 De
: 0.196 MJ He
Extra hypothesis:
raw material added to final results
neglected
generic compound
Non treated PET surface Sequestering agent: 4.5 g Sodium carbonate :18 g : 9 g Water 33.9 l Emissions: COD: 12.8 g O2 BOD :3g O2 Solids: 2.9 g De-oiling Chemical Oleophobic treatment Energy : Natural gas: 6.12MJ Electricity :0.36 MJ Energy : Natural gas:16.2 MJ : 0.144 MJ Emissions: VOC: 2.150g COD: 4.4 g O2 BOD: 1 g O2 1 kg treated PET Fluoro resins: 37 g Acetic Acid: 18 g Water :1.3 l Surfactant : 9 g COD: 12.8 g O2 BOD :3g O2 Solid De-oiling :0.36 MJ : : 0.144 MJ : VOC: 2.150g COD: 4.4 g O2 BOD: 1 g O2 1 kg Electric ity
3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland
3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland
Untreated PET+Co surface Stabilizant agent: 8 g NaOH: 50 g Surfactant: 6 g H2O2: 45 g Water: 20 l Emissions: COD: 145 g O2 BOD :33g O2 Solids: 6.5 g N: 1.3 g P: 0.15g De-sizing Traditional chemical Oleophoby treatment Energy : Natural gas: 6.12MJ Electricity :0.36 MJ Energy : Natural gas:16.2 MJ Electricity : Emissions: VOC: 3.1g 1 kg PET+Co Treated surface Fluororesins: 75 g Water: 1.3 l NaOH: 50 g : 6 g H2O2: 45 g COD: 145 g O2 BOD :33g O2 N: 1.3 g P: 0.15g De-sizing :0.36 MJ : 0.144MJ VOC: 3.1g Untreated PET+Co surface Stabilizant agent: 8 g NaOH: 50 g Surfactant: 6 g H2O2: 45 g Water: 20 l Emissions: COD: 145 g O2 BOD :33g O2 Solids: 6.5 g N: 1.3 g P: 0.15g De-sizing Traditional chemical Oleophoby treatment Energy : Natural gas: 6.12MJ Electricity :0.36 MJ Energy : Natural gas:16.2 MJ Electricity : Emissions: VOC: 3.1g 1 kg PET+Co Treated surface Fluororesins: 75 g Water: 1.3 l NaOH: 50 g : 6 g H2O2: 45 g COD: 145 g O2 BOD :33g O2 N: 1.3 g P: 0.15g De-sizing :0.36 MJ : 0.144MJ VOC: 3.1g Untreated PET+Co surface Emissions: BOD : 0.106 g O2 Solids: 0.054 g N: 0.073 g P: 0.021 g De-sizing Energy : Electricity: 4.5 MJ Energy : Natural gas: 3.5 MJ Electricity : Emissions: 1 kg PET+ Co Treated surface N2 : 27.9 l Detergent: 5 g Water: 4.2 l COD: 1.47g O2 De-sizing Hydrophobic Plasma treatment : 0.17 MJ N2: 27.75 l C2H2F4: 8.3 l Perfluorocarbons : 5.5 l BOD : 0.106 g O2 N: 0.073 g P: 0.021 g De-sizing : 4.5 MJ : N2 : 27.9 l COD: 1.47g O2 De-sizing : 0.17 MJ N2: 27.75 l C2H2F4: 8.3 l : 5.5 l Untreated PET+Co surface Emissions: BOD : 0.106 g O2 Solids: 0.054 g N: 0.073 g P: 0.021 g De-sizing Energy : Electricity: 4.5 MJ Energy : Natural gas: 3.5 MJ Electricity : Emissions: 1 kg PET+ Co Treated surface N2 : 27.9 l Detergent: 5 g Water: 4.2 l COD: 1.47g O2 De-sizing Hydrophobic Plasma treatment : 0.17 MJ N2: 27.75 l C2H2F4: 8.3 l Perfluorocarbons : 5.5 l BOD : 0.106 g O2 N: 0.073 g P: 0.021 g De-sizing : 4.5 MJ : N2 : 27.9 l COD: 1.47g O2 De-sizing : 0.17 MJ N2: 27.75 l C2H2F4: 8.3 l : 5.5 l
Comparing:
Hydrophobic process
plasma treatment for Hydrophoby properties Extra hypothesis:
as raw material added to final results
neglected
generic compound
3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland
3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland
Anti - corrosion treatments Energy consumption
Treatment GER[MJ/ f.u.]
Production energy Energy Use Transport energy Feedstock energy Total energy
PVD- TiCN Italy Mix
255 124 2 381
PVD- TiCN Europe Mix
248 124 2 1 375
PVD- TiCN France Mix
255 124 2 1 381
PVD
255 124 2 381
PVD
248 124 2 1 375
PVD
255 124 2 1 381
CrVI Galvanic Italy mix
187.3 115 2,5 0,9 306
CrVIGalvanic Europe mix
187,3 115 2,5 0,9 306
CrVI Galvanic France mix
182.3 115 2,5 0,9 300
SiOx plasma
607 348 6 41 1002
SiOx plasma
587 348 6 41 982
SiOx plasma
607 348 6 41 1002
3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland
Anti - corrosion treatments Environmental Paramters
TREATMENT GWP (kg CO2) AP (g eq SO2) POPC (g C2H4) EU (g PO43
PVD - TiCN Italy Mix 23,53 276,79 32,75 8,76 PVD - TiCN Europe Mix 17,36 140,63 15,32 5,98 PVD - TiCN France Mix 4,19 38,88 7,45 1,71 PVD- TiN Italy Mix 23,39 245,47 32,38 8,71 PVD- TiN Europe Mix 17,22 139,32 14,95 5,93 PVD- TiN France Mix 4,05 37,6 7,08 1,66 CrVI Galvanic Italy mix 18.93 210.52 22.44 6.92 CrVI Galvanic Europe mix 14.38 110.13 9.59 4.86 CrVI Galvanic France mix 4.76 35.68 3.60 1.73 SiOx plasma
59,78 718,75 75,99 22,92 SiOx plasma
46,21 419,44 37,66 16,8 SiOx plasma
17,38 197,35 20,54 7,46
3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland
Treatment [MJ/ f.u.] Production energy Process enegy Transport energy Feedstock energy Total energy Olephoby Traditional 2 23 25+0.703 Oleophoby Plasma 2 5 7+0.077 Hydrophoby Traditional 5 26 31 Hydrophoby Plasma 10 8 19+2 TREATMENT GWP (kg CO2) AP (g eq SO2) POPC (g C2H4) EU (g PO4
3-)
Traditional Oleophobic PET 0.4 1.22 0.19 0.26 Plasma Oleophobic PET 1.67 2.36 2.81 0.76 Traditional Hydrophobic PET+Cotton 0.938 5.86 0.55 0.42 Plasma Hydrophobic PET+Cotton 2.05 5.94 4.13 4.16
Energy consumption & Environmental parameters
3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland
3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland
3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland
Plasma process general PFC emissions have been considered as non GWP contributors. Specific analysis done to evaluate its contribution for CF4 emissions Generic PFC
contribution What What would would happen happen if if emission emission gas gas was was CF4? CF4?
Energy : Electricity Emissions: 1 kg PET+ Co Treated surface N2 : 27.9 l Hydrophobic Plasma treatment C2H2F4: 8.3 l Perfluorocarbons : 5.5 l : 4.5 MJ N2: 27.75 l : 5.5 l
3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland
GAS GWP 100 Potential Emitted quantity (kg) GWP gas contribution (kg Co2 eq) Total GWP (kg Co2 eq) Unspecified PFC 0,02375 0,938 CF4 5700 0,02375 135,375 136,313 2,05 0,938 0,938 136 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Unspecified PFC Plasma Plasma CF4 Traditional Process Treatment GWP 100 (kg eq CO2) CF4 gas GWP contribution Unspecified PFC gas GWP contribution
CF4 contributions to GWP
3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland
All these values are valid as long as all the initial hypothesis are taken into account. In addition it is important to know the validity of the results while varying the input data. This variation is simply the expected tolerance of an experimental process. Would these results be the same?
What is the maximum tolerance of the experimental processes data allowed in order to maintain the results given before?
3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland
GWP Sensitivity Analysis Sensitivity analysis can be done in order to determine, for instance, the possible variations on the GWP while varying the input data. In this case, to evaluate the maximum variations allowed in the process that keep the differences in GWP for traditional and plasma processes
G W P variations PET+ Co Hydrophoby
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Average GW P Theoretical GW P for overlap Calculated GW P
Processes
G W P (k g e q C O
G W P Plasm a G W P tradition al
+ 20%
3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland
GWP Sensitivity Analysis Allowed variations permitted calculated using appropriate mathematics functions that minimizes the differences found in GWP values.
Average GWP Min theoretical variations in percentage for
Theoretical GWP for overlap Calculated GWP Plasma Oleophoby PET+Co 0,937 20% 1,13 1,12 Traditional Oleophoby PET+co 2,03 44% 1,13 1,31
3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland
Contact: Gabriela Benveniste gabriela.benveniste@envipark.com