Background, Aim and Scope:
In current global industry, environmental aspects of companies and their products are quickly becoming significant in heightening competitive advantage. While there has been a relative slow response to the use of environmental criteria for competitive purposes in Australasia as compared to the European Union, there is a gathering momentum for adopting sustainability principles; hence a focus on reduction of environmental impact is seen as a priority. Formway Furniture Ltd., a designer and manufacturer of office furniture products, is a New Zealand based company that is committed to sustainable development. As a result, this study was aimed at the following goals: 1) Determine environmental hotspots, 2) Compare the life cycle impacts of the two distinctive models of the LIFE chair: one with an aluminium base and the other with a glass filled nylon (GFN) base, and 3) Compare two potential waste management scenarios. The study also includes sensitivity analysis with respect to recycled content of aluminium in the product.
Materials and Methods:
The LIFE chair models consist of a mix of metal and plastic components that are manufactured by selected Formway suppliers according to design criteria. Hence the research methodology included determining the specific material composition of the two chair models and acquisition of manufacturing data from individual suppliers. This data was compiled and used in conjunction with pre-existing data, specifically from the EcoInvent database purchased in conjunction with the SimaPro7 LCA software, to form the Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) of the two chair models. The life cycle phases included in the study consist of raw material extraction through to waste management. Impact assessment was carried out using CML 2 baseline 2000, the methodology developed by Leiden University’s Institute for Environmental Sciences.
Results:
Since the study was aimed at obtaining information on the overall impacts of the LIFE chair models, default impact categories given by CML 2 were adopted. However, this paper presents results for global warming potential (GWP100). The study showed significant impact contribution from the raw material extraction and refinement stage for both chair models. This part of the life cycle was investigated further and it was determined that aluminium extraction and refinement contributed to the highest global warming impact. The comparison of the two LIFE chair models showed that the model with the aluminium base contributed to higher impact than the model with the GFN base. The waste management scenario compared impact when 1) Both chair models were sent to landfill, and 2) All metal components were recycled with the remainder sent to landfill. The results showed that the recycling scenario was extremely beneficial for recovery of impact. Since aluminium was found to be significant, a sensitivity analysis was carried out to determine the impact of using aluminium with different recycled contents (0%, 34% and 100%) considering both waste management scenarios. The results show that the use of aluminium with recycled content was insignificant if both chairs are recycled at end of life. However, when considering the landfill scenario, use of primary aluminium led to very high GWP100, while using 100% recycled aluminium gave near equivalent results to that of the recycling scenarios.
Discussion:
The results show that the main hotspot in the life cycle was the raw material extraction and refinement stage. This can be attributed to the extraction and refinement of aluminium, a material that is highly energy intensive. The LIFE chair model with the aluminium base contributed more GWP100 as it has more aluminium in its composition. The waste management scenario showed that avoided burdens can result from recycling, hence the recycling scenario lead to significantly less GWP100 than the landfill scenario. Sensitivity analysis pertaining to the recycled content of aluminium showed that use of aluminium with high recycled content was beneficial. This is because recycling aluminium is less energy intensive than extracting and refining raw materials for virgin aluminium.
Conclusions:
With respect to goal 1, it was found that the raw material extraction and refinement stage of the life cycle was significant for both LIFE chair models. This was largely due to the use of aluminium in the product. For goal 2 it was found that the chair model with the aluminium base contributed more GWP100 than the GFN model. Again this is directly attributed to the material content of the two chair models. Results for goal 3 illustrated that recycling at end of life is beneficial where the recycling scenario contributed to avoided burdens. Sensitivity analysis pertaining to the recycled content of aluminium showed that use of higher recycled contents lead to lower GWP100 impact if the chair models are landfilled. Recycled content of aluminium has negligible effect if the chair models are recycled.
Recommendations and
Perspectives:
Most of the GWP100 impact was contributed during the raw material extraction and refinement stage of the life cycle, thus overall impact may be reduced through engaging in heightened supply chain management with respect to environmental requirements. The study identified aluminium components as a major contributor to GWP100 for both LIFE chair models and also highlighted sensitivity of results to its recycled content. Thus it is recommended that the use of aluminium in future product designs be limited unless it is possible to use aluminium with high recycled contents. With respect to the waste management scenario, it was found that substantial reductions in GWP100 impact would occur if the chairs are recycled, rather than landfilled. Thus recycling the two LIFE chair models at end of life is highly recommended.
|
