LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS OF A T-SHIRT
-
Upload
truongquynh -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
3
Transcript of LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS OF A T-SHIRT
1
LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS OF A
T-SHIRT
FRANCESC COLOM ALCOVER
July 2011
2
Summary
1. Goal and scope definition 4
1.1 Goal definition 4
1.2 Scope definition 5
1.3 Function, functional unit, alternatives 5
2. Inventory analysis 6
2.1 Economy-environment system boundary 6
2.2 Flow diagram 7
2.3 Loss of material 8
2.4 Data collection 8
2.5 Data quality 9
3. Impact assessment 10
3.1 Life Cycle Analysis of Article 1 (with viscose fibres) 10
3.2 Life Cycle Analysis of Article 2 (with cotton fibres) 23
3.3 Analysis of the production process : Article 1 36
3.4 Analysis of the production process: Article 2 39
3.5 Analysis with other fibres 42
4. Final conclusions 50
APPENDIX A: PVC PRODUCTION 51
APPENDIX B: RHOVYL PROCESS 68
APPENDIX C: SPINNING PROCESS 80
APPENDIX D: KNITTING PROCESS 84
APPENDIX E: REFINEMENT PROCESS 87
APPENDIX F: CONFECTION PROCESS 91
3
APPENDIX G: TRANSPORT 94
APPENDIX H: WASHING 100
APPENDIX I: COTTON FIBRES 104
APPENDIX J: VISCOSE FIBRES 108
APPENDIX K: ELECTRICITY OF TUNISIA 112
4
1. Goal and scope definition
1.1 Goal definition
The objective of the study is to identify the eco-profiles of the manufacture of T-Shirts of PVC
fibres. With this aim, it is going to be carried a cradle-to-grave analysis.
RHOVYL SAS is a company that produces PVC yarn from PVC powder. Part of this yarn is used
for making warm T-Shirts, mixing these PVC fibres with other textile products as silk or acrylic.
As a part of the whole chain production of T-Shirt of PVC fibres, RHOVYL SAS wants to know
and optimize its weight on the environmental impacts of the product, so the results of this LCA
will be used for:
� Quantify the weight of RHOVYL production with the full life cycle.
� Optimize the RHOVYL process, and the others processes.
� Compare the fibre RHOVYL fibre with other natural and artificial fibres.
Specially, RHOVYL SAS desires to know its contribution to:
� CO2 and Greenhouse Gases emissions
� Water consumption
� Eutrophication
This LCA does not aim at a public comparative assertion.
The study is conducted by the ‘Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Ingénieurs Sud Alsace’ of the
‘Université d’Haute Alsace’. The commissioner is RHOVYL SAS, a large producer of PVC fibres.
There will be studied the life cycle of two different products:
ARTICLE 1: T-Shirt mixture of 85% RHOVYL 15% acrylic
ARTICLE 2: T-Shirt mixture of 85% RHOVYL 15% silk
Each article has its own way of fabrication in different places, which are explained in Appendix
G: Transport.
Finally, RHOVYL SAS wants to compare the PVC fibres he produces with other natural and
artificial fibres as: cotton, acrylic, viscose, wool, polyester and silk. In this study there will only
be comparison with cotton and viscose fibres, due to the lack of databases of other fibres.
5
1.2 Scope definition
• Temporal coverage: The age of the data will be within the last 10 years, since 2000 to
2010.
• Geographical coverage: The data used is adapted to the location each process takes
place (France, Italy, Tunisia).
• Technology coverage: The technology is representative of the last ten years, since
2000.
1.3 Function, functional unit
The function of the product is the physical output and has to be clear and easy to compare
objectively with other products. It defines which the utilization of the product is.
We have decided to formulate it as:
“Wearing a T-Shirt of 200 g one day and washing1 it.”
The reason we decided this function, is due to the uncertainty of the life of the T-Shirt (2 years,
3 years ...?). So using the term one day, we can easily calculate the equivalence for 1 year, 3
years or the time we desire. The life of the T-Shirt is estimated in 3 years (75 weeks, 75
washings), used only half part of the year (it is a warm T-shirt).
All processes of fabrication will be defined for the fabrication of one t-shirt.
The functional unit will be kg/day.
1 For the washing process, see Appendix H: Washing.
6
2. Inventory analysis
2.1 Economy-environment system boundary
Whenever a system is studied, boundaries are needed to separate the system from the rest of
the world. It is clear that one cannot trace all inputs and outputs to a product systems, and
that one has to define boundaries around the system. It is assumed that excluding certain
parts as they are outside the system boundaries, the results can be distorted.
For describing our system it is used a flow diagram of processes which shows the different unit
processes and its relation (Figure 1).
So, in this LCA it is not included the impact of:
a) Construction of the buildings (industries).
b) Fabrication and transport of the machines used.
c) Land used by the industries.
d) Transportation of workers to the industry.
7
2.2 Flow diagram
PVC ARKEMA
RHOVYL
SPINNING
KNITTING / CONFECTION
TRANSPORT
ACETONE CS2
TRANSPORT TRANSPORT
ACRYLIC / SILK
TRANSPORT
TRANSPORT
SALE
TRANSPORT
TRANSPORT
WASHING
LANDFILL
Figure 1. Flow diagram of the t-shirt
x 75
8
2.3 Losses of material
The t-shirt weights 200 g when is finished, and it composition is 85% RHOVYL fibres and 15%
acrylic/silk fibres, which means 170 g of RHOVYL fibres and 30 g of acrylic/silk fibres. But
during the process there are losses of material, typical in all textile processes:
Process Losses
Weight of
RHOVYL
before [g]
Weight of
RHOVYL
after [g]
Weight of
acrylic/silk
before [g]
Weight of
acrylic/silk
after [g]
Spinning 5% 198,83 188,89 35,09 33,33
Knitting 0% 188,89 188,89 33,33 33,33
Finishing 0% 188,89 188,89 33,33 33,33
Confection 10% 188,89 170 33,33 30
Table 1. Calculation of the losses during the different processes
So, before the spinning process it has to be produced for each t-shirt:
� 198,83 g of RHOVYL fibres
� 35,09 g of Acrylic/Silk fibres
2.4 Data collection
We define every unit process of the life cycle as an enclosed black box with its inputs and its
outputs. The outline of the box denotes the system boundary and separates the system from
its surroundings (the system environment). The system environment acts as the source of all
inputs to the system and the sink for all outputs from the system. Schematically, any extended
industrial system can be represented as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Black box process with its inputs and outputs
SYSTEM
Fuels/energy
Waste heat
Air emissions
Water emissions Raw materials
Solid Waste
INPUTS OUTPUTS
9
2.4.1 PVC production: See Appendix A
2.4.2 RHOVYL process: See Appendix B
2.4.3 Spinning process: See Appendix C
2.4.4 Knitting process: See Appendix D
2.4.5 Refinement process: See Appendix E
2.4.6 Confection process: See Appendix F
2.4.7 Transport: See Appendix G
2.4.8 Washing: See Appendix H
2.4.9 Other fibres data:
� Cotton fibres: see Appendix I
� Viscose fibres: see Appendix J
2.4.10 Electricity of Tunisia: See Appendix K
2.5 Data quality
Having access to good and trustful data has been a big problem during this LCA. During the
discussion of the three sources of data in Appendix A: PVC production, it is explained how
there is lack of information of some environmental impacts on GEMIS data and other data
found on internet, which is totally normal due to the free cost of GEMIS.
During the following Annexes of discussion of data, the GEMIS library will be only taken in to
account for consulting and comparing, and if there is no other data, we will change the inputs
for the ones in SimaPro, which are much more complete (for example, electricity). Creating a
good database of industrial processes should be a necessary work in a near future in order to
solve this problem and be able to do LCA’s of good quality.
10
3. Impact Assessment
3.1 Life Cycle Analysis of Article 1 (with viscose fibres2)
Indicator Unit TOTAL
Abiotic depletion kg Sb eq 0,0339
Acidification kg SO2 eq 0,0334
Eutrophication Kg PO4 eq 0,00528
Global Warming (100) kg CO2 eq 6,57
Ozone layer depletion kg CFC-11 eq 3,99E-7
Human toxicity kg 1.4-DB eq 2,73
Fresh water aquatic ecotox. kg 1.4-DB eq 0,536
Marine aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1.4-DB eq 527
Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1.4-DB eq 0,0896
Photochemical oxidation kg C2H4 0,00416
Water consumption3 m
3 26,3226
Table 2. Results of the analysis of Article 1 with the CML 2 baseline 2000 method (production + 75 washes + landfill)
2 Due to the impossibility to find database of acrylic fibres, it is going to be used viscose fibres with the hypothesis that viscose and acrylic fibres have the same environmental impacts in its production. 3 Water consumption is not an environmental impact included in the method CML 2 baseline 2000, I have calculated on my own with the data of each process including ALL the water consumed, which means it includes the water used for making electricity with hydropower, for example.
11
Analysing 1 p 'Life Cycle T-Shirt 1'; Method: CML 2 baseline 2000 V2.04 / West Europe, 1995 / characterisation
T-Shirt 1 - acrylic Clothing washing A Landfill/CH U
Abiotic depletion Acidification Eutrophication Global warming (GWP100)
Ozone layer depletion (ODP
Human toxicity Fresh water aquatic ecotox
Marine aquatic ecotoxicity
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
Photochemical oxidation
%
120
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Figure 3. Analysis of ARTICLE 1 (viscose) with CML 2 baseline 2000: Impact Assessment Characterization
12
Analysing 1 p 'Life Cycle T-Shirt 1'; Method: CML 2 baseline 2000 V2.04 / West Europe, 1995 / normalisation
T-Shirt 1 - acrylic Clothing washing A Landfill/CH U
Abiotic depletion Acidification Eutrophication Global warming (GWP100)
Ozone layer depletion (ODP
Human toxicity Fresh water aquatic ecotox
Marine aquatic ecotoxicity
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
Photochemical oxidation
4e-12
Figure 4. Analysis of ARTICLE 1 (viscose) with CML 2 baseline 2000: Impact Assessment Normalisation
13
Figure 5. Analysis of ARTICLE 1 (viscose) with CML 2 baseline 2000: Network Normalisation (Abiotic depletion)
14
Figure 6. Analysis of ARTICLE 1 (viscose) with CML 2 baseline 2000: Network Normalisation (Acidification)
15
Figure 7. Analysis of ARTICLE 1 (viscose) with CML 2 baseline 2000: Network Normalisation (Eutrophication)
16
Figure 8. Analysis of ARTICLE 1 (viscose) with CML 2 baseline 2000: Network Normalisation (Global Warming 100)
17
Figure 9. Analysis of ARTICLE 1 (viscose) with CML 2 baseline 2000: Network Normalisation (Ozone Layer Depletion)
18
Figure 10. Analysis of ARTICLE 1 (viscose) with CML 2 baseline 2000: Network Normalisation (Human Toxicity)
19
Figure 11. Analysis of ARTICLE 1 (viscose) with CML 2 baseline 2000: Network Normalisation (Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity)
20
Figure 12. Analysis of ARTICLE 1 (viscose) with CML 2 baseline 2000: Network Normalisation (Marine aquatic ecotoxicity)
21
Figure 13. Analysis of ARTICLE 1 (viscose) with CML 2 baseline 2000: Network Normalisation (Terrestrial ecotoxicity)
22
Figure 14. Analysis of ARTICLE 1 (viscose) with CML 2 baseline 2000: Network Normalisation (Photochemical oxidation)
23
3.2 Life Cycle Analysis of Article 2 (with silk fibres4)
Indicator Unit TOTAL
Abiotic depletion kg Sb eq 0,0256
Acidification kg SO2 eq 0,0283
Eutrophication Kg PO4 eq 0,00563
Global Warming (100) kg CO2 eq 5,52
Ozone layer depletion kg CFC-11 eq 3,04E-7
Human toxicity kg 1.4-DB eq 2,59
Fresh water aquatic ecotox. kg 1.4-DB eq 0,522
Marine aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1.4-DB eq 440
Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1.4-DB eq 0,0914
Photochemical oxidation kg C2H4 0,00389
Water consumption m3 27,1214
Table 3. Results of the analysis of Article 2 with the CML 2 baseline 2000 method for the whole life cycle (production + 75 washes + landfill)
4 Due to the impossibility to find database of silk fibres, it is going to be used cotton fibres from China with the hypothesis that cotton and silk fibres have the same environmental impacts in its production.
24
Analysing 1 p 'Life Cycle T-Shirt 2'; Method: CML 2 baseline 2000 V2.04 / West Europe, 1995 / characterisation
T-Shirt 2 - silk Clothing washing A Landfill/CH U
Abiotic depletion Acidification Eutrophication Global warming (GWP100)
Ozone layer depletion (ODP
Human toxicity Fresh water aquatic ecotox
Marine aquatic ecotoxicity
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
Photochemical oxidation
%
120
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Figure 15. Analysis of ARTICLE 2 (cotton) with CML 2 baseline 2000: Impact Assessment Characterization
25
Analysing 1 p 'Life Cycle T-Shirt 2'; Method: CML 2 baseline 2000 V2.04 / West Europe, 1995 / normalisation
T-Shirt 2 - silk Clothing washing A Landfill/CH U
Abiotic depletion Acidification Eutrophication Global warming (GWP100)
Ozone layer depletion (ODP
Human toxicity Fresh water aquatic ecotox
Marine aquatic ecotoxicity
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
Photochemical oxidation
3e-12
Figure 16. Analysis of ARTICLE 2 (cotton) with CML 2 baseline 2000: Impact Assessment Normalisation
26
Figure 17. Analysis of ARTICLE 2 (cotton) with CML 2 baseline 2000: Network Normalisation (Abiotic depletion)
27
Figure 18. Analysis of ARTICLE 2 (cotton) with CML 2 baseline 2000: Network Normalisation (Acidification)
28
Figure 19. Analysis of ARTICLE 2 (cotton) with CML 2 baseline 2000: Network Normalisation (Eutrophication)
29
Figure 20. Analysis of ARTICLE 2 (cotton) with CML 2 baseline 2000: Network Normalisation (Global Warming 100)
30
Figure 21. Analysis of ARTICLE 2 (cotton) with CML 2 baseline 2000: Network Normalisation (Ozone Layer Depletion)
31
Figure 22. Analysis of ARTICLE 2 (cotton) with CML 2 baseline 2000: Network Normalisation (Human toxicity)
32
Figure 23. Analysis of ARTICLE 2 (cotton) with CML 2 baseline 2000: Network Normalisation (Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity)
33
Figure 24. Analysis of ARTICLE 2 (cotton) with CML 2 baseline 2000: Network Normalisation (Marine aquatic ecotoxicity)
34
Figure 25. Analysis of ARTICLE 2 (cotton) with CML 2 baseline 2000: Network Normalisation (Terrestrial ecotoxicity)
35
Figure 26. Analysis of ARTICLE 2 (cotton) with CML 2 baseline 2000: Network Normalisation (Photochemical oxidation)
36
3.3 Analysis of the production process: Article 1 (with viscose)
PV
C p
rod
uct
ion
[%
]
RH
OV
YL
[%]
VIS
CO
SE
[%
]
FIL
AT
UR
E [
%]
TR
ICO
TA
GE
[%
]
EN
NO
BLI
SS
EM
EN
T [
%]
CO
NF
EC
TIO
N [
%]
TR
AN
SP
OR
T 1
[%
]
Indicator
Unit TOTAL
Abiotic depletion kg Sb eq 0,03219 11,84 9,91 3,74 28,12 20,82 22,48 1,86 1,23
Acidification kg SO2 eq 0,01631 6,46 10,25 11,18 39,01 12,93 16,05 1,16 2,97
Eutrophication Kg PO4 eq 0,00170 7,10 7,01 7,67 23,02 12,22 37,96 1,09 3,93
Global Warming (100) kg CO2 eq 3,937 7,93 8,75 1,42 32,33 21,47 24,79 1,92 1,40
Ozone layer depletion kg CFC-11 eq 3,86E-7 0,01 7,43 2,58 25,94 28,72 30,59 2,57 2,16
Human toxicity kg 1.4-DB eq 2,301 52,41 6,76 2,99 14,89 10,14 11,18 0,91 0,71
Fresh water aquatic ecotox. kg 1.4-DB eq 0,11860 7,43 9,18 12,97 26,88 11,60 29,06 1,04 1,85
Marine aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1.4-DB eq 340,204 1,69 7,65 7,93 31,04 20,98 27,39 1,88 1,45
Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1.4-DB eq 0,05288 0,82 16,38 3,29 39,42 27,59 9,79 2,47 0,23
Photochemical oxidation kg C2H4 0,00181 2,95 62,60 4,24 14,43 6,08 8,29 0,54 0,88
Water consumption m3 H2O 14,7391749 0,05 30,16 4,82 57,59 2,06 4,70 0,18 0,44
Table 3. Results of the analysis of the Article 1 production with the CML 2 baseline 2000 method for 1 T-Shirt produced
37
Analysing 1 p 'T-Shirt 1 - acrylic'; Method: CML 2 baseline 2000 V2.04 / West Europe, 1995 / characterisation
1. PVC production 2. RHOVYL 2. Viscose fibres 3. Filature IT 4. Tricotage TN 5. Ennoblissement TN 6. Confection TN 7. Transport 1
Abiotic depletion Acidification Eutrophication Global warming (GWP100)
Ozone layer depletion (ODP
Human toxicity Fresh water aquatic ecotox
Marine aquatic ecotoxicity
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
Photochemical oxidation
%
120
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Figure 27. Damage characterisation of Article 1 production with CML 2 baseline method
38
Analysing 1 p 'T-Shirt 1 - acrylic'; Method: CML 2 baseline 2000 V2.04 / West Europe, 1995 / normalisation
1. PVC production 2. RHOVYL 2. Viscose fibres 3. Filature IT 4. Tricotage TN 5. Ennoblissement TN 6. Confection TN 7. Transport 1
Abiotic depletion Acidification Eutrophication Global warming (GWP100)
Ozone layer depletion (ODP
Human toxicity Fresh water aquatic ecotox
Marine aquatic ecotoxicity
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
Photochemical oxidation
2e-12
Figure 28. Normalisation of Article 1 production with CML 2 baseline method
39
3.4 Analysis of the production process: Article 2
PV
C p
rod
uct
ion
[%
]
RH
OV
YL
[%]
CO
TT
ON
[%
]
FIL
AT
UR
E [
%]
TR
ICO
TA
GE
[%
]
EN
NO
BLI
SS
EM
EN
T [
%]
CO
NF
EC
TIO
N [
%]
TR
AN
SP
OR
T 2
[%
]
Indicator
Unit TOTAL
Abiotic depletion kg Sb eq 0,02383 16,00 13,39 2,02 6,06 28,12 30,37 2,51 1,51
Acidification kg SO2 eq 0,01112 9,47 15,04 14,08 12,24 18,96 23,54 1,69 4,98
Eutrophication Kg PO4 eq 0,00206 5,87 5,80 38,24 4,42 10,11 31,40 0,90 3,25
Global Warming (100) kg CO2 eq 2,884 10,82 11,94 2,25 7,46 29,30 33,84 2,62 1,76
Ozone layer depletion kg CFC-11 eq 2,92E-7 0,02 9,83 2,27 3,43 38,02 40,49 3,40 2,53
Human toxicity kg 1.4-DB eq 2,162 55,77 7,20 2,54 10,01 10,79 11,90 0,96 0,82
Fresh water aquatic ecotox. kg 1.4-DB eq 0,1053 8,36 10,34 14,50 18,03 13,06 32,72 1,17 1,83
Marine aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1.4-DB eq 253,160 2,27 10,28 5,15 12,9 28,20 36,80 2,52 1,88
Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1.4-DB eq 0,05473 0,80 15,83 10,88 33,79 26,66 9,46 2,38 0,21
Photochemical oxidation kg C2H4 0,00154 3,46 73,45 0,96 3,47 7,13 9,72 0,64 1,17
Water consumption m3 H2O 15,538 0,05 28,61 2,73 61,63 1,96 4,46 0,17 0,39
Table 4. Results of the analysis of the Article 2 production with the CML 2 baseline 2000 method for 1 T-Shirt produced
40
Analysing 1 p 'T-Shirt 2 - silk'; Method: CML 2 baseline 2000 V2.04 / West Europe, 1995 / characterisation
1. PVC production 2. RHOVYL 2. Cotton fibres 3. Filature FR 4. Tricotage TN 5. Ennoblissement TN 6. Confection TN 7. Transport 2
Abiotic depletion Acidification Eutrophication Global warming (GWP100)
Ozone layer depletion (ODP
Human toxicity Fresh water aquatic ecotox
Marine aquatic ecotoxicity
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
Photochemical oxidation
%
120
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Figure 29. Damage characterisation of Article 2 production with CML 2 baseline method
41
Analysing 1 p 'T-Shirt 2 - silk'; Method: CML 2 baseline 2000 V2.04 / West Europe, 1995 / normalisation
1. PVC production 2. RHOVYL 2. Cotton fibres 3. Filature FR 4. Tricotage TN 5. Ennoblissement TN 6. Confection TN 7. Transport 2
Abiotic depletion Acidification Eutrophication Global warming (GWP100)
Ozone layer depletion (ODP
Human toxicity Fresh water aquatic ecotox
Marine aquatic ecotoxicity
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
Photochemical oxidation
2e-12
Figure 30. Damage characterisation of Article 2 production with CML 2 baseline method
42
3.5 Analysis with other fibres
5 This values concert the whole production of RHOVYL fibres, form raw mateirals to the final fibre, wich means PVC PRODUCTION + RHOVYL PROCESS
Indicator Unit RHOVYL5 VISCOSE COTTON US COTTON CN
Abiotic depletion kg Sb eq 0,0352 0,0343 0,00982 0,0132
Acidification kg SO2 eq 0,0137 0,052 0,0215 0,0442
Eutrophication Kg PO4 eq 0,00121 0,00372 0,0202 0,0223
Global Warming (100) kg CO2 eq 3,3 1,59 0,827 1,77
Ozone layer depletion kg CFC-11 eq 1,45E-7 2,84E-7 1,62E-7 1,76E-7
Human toxicity kg 1.4-DB eq 6,85 1,96 1,46 1,55
Fresh water aquatic ecotox. kg 1.4-DB eq 0,0991 0,438 17,3 0,432
Marine aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1.4-DB eq 160 769 238 365
Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1.4-DB eq 0,0458 0,0495 1,58 0,169
Photochemical oxidation kg C2H4 0,00596 0,00218 0,00035 0,000404
Water consumption m3 22,393 20,228 2,566 11,964
Table 5 . Results of the analysis of data with CML 2 baseline method (characterisation) for 1 kg of fibre produced
43
Comparing 1 kg 'RHOVYL fibre', 1 kg 'Viscose fibres, at plant/GLO U SimaPro', 1 kg 'Cotton fibres, at farm/US U SimaPro' and 1 kg 'Cotton fibres, ginned, at farm/CN U - SimaPro'; Method: CML 2 baseline 2000 V2.04 / West Europe, 1995 / characterisation
RHOVYL fibre Viscose fibres, at plant/GLO U SimaPro Cotton fibres, at farm/US U SimaPro Cotton fibres, ginned, at farm/CN U - SimaPro
Abiotic depletion Acidification Eutrophication Global warming (GWP100)
Ozone layer depletion (ODP
Human toxicity Fresh water aquatic ecotox
Marine aquatic ecotoxicity
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
Photochemical oxidation
%
120
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Figure 31. Comparation of fibres with CML 2 baseline method: Characterisation
44
Comparing 1 kg 'RHOVYL fibre', 1 kg 'Viscose fibres, at plant/GLO U SimaPro', 1 kg 'Cotton fibres, at farm/US U SimaPro' and 1 kg 'Cotton fibres, ginned, at farm/CN U - SimaPro'; Method: CML 2 baseline 2000 V2.04 / West Europe, 1995 / normalisation
RHOVYL fibre Viscose fibres, at plant/GLO U SimaPro Cotton fibres, at farm/US U SimaPro Cotton fibres, ginned, at farm/CN U - SimaPro
Abiotic depletion Acidification Eutrophication Global warming (GWP100)
Ozone layer depletion (ODP
Human toxicity Fresh water aquatic ecotox
Marine aquatic ecotoxicity
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
Photochemical oxidation
3,4e-11
Figure 32. Comparation of fibres with CML 2 baseline method: Normalisation
45
Indicator Unit RHOVYL VISCOSE COTTON US COTTON CN
Greenhouse kg CO2 3,06 1,45 0,699 1,56
Ozone layer depletion kg CFC11 1,24E-7 2,84E-7 1,96E-7 1,96E-7
Acidification kg SO2 0,0133 0,0476 0,0246 0,0506
Eutrophication Kg PO4 0,00121 0,00371 0,0200 0,0219
Heavy metals kg Pb 5,51E-5 7,7E-5 3,62E-7 3,03E-7
Carcirogens kg B(a)P eq 1,45E-7 5,54E-7 3,93E-7 3,03E-7
Pesticides kg act.subst 0 0 0 0
Summer smog kg C2H4 0,0122 0,000873 0,000696 0,000539
Winter smog kg SPM 0,00951 0,0411 0,00547 0,00663
Energy resources MJ LHV 150 164 40,2 50,2
Solid waste kg 0,02 0 0 0
Table 6 . Results of the analysis of data with Eco-indicator 95 method (characterisation) for 1 kg of fibre produced
46
Comparing 1 kg 'RHOVYL fibre', 1 kg 'Viscose fibres, at plant/GLO U SimaPro', 1 kg 'Cotton fibres, at farm/US U SimaPro' and 1 kg 'Cotton fibres, ginned, at farm/CN U - SimaPro'; Method: Eco-indicator 95 V2.05 / Europe e / characterisation
RHOVYL fibre Viscose fibres, at plant/GLO U SimaPro Cotton fibres, at farm/US U SimaPro Cotton fibres, ginned, at farm/CN U - SimaPro
Greenhouse Ozone layer Acidification Eutrophication Heavy metals Carcinogens Pesticides Summer smog Winter smog Energy resources Solid waste
%
120
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Figure 33. Comparation of fibres with Eco-indicator 95 method: Characterisation
47
Comparing 1 kg 'RHOVYL fibre', 1 kg 'Viscose fibres, at plant/GLO U SimaPro', 1 kg 'Cotton fibres, at farm/US U SimaPro' and 1 kg 'Cotton fibres, ginned, at farm/CN U - SimaPro'; Method: Eco-indicator 95 V2.05 / Europe e / normalisation
RHOVYL fibre Viscose fibres, at plant/GLO U SimaPro Cotton fibres, at farm/US U SimaPro Cotton fibres, ginned, at farm/CN U - SimaPro
Greenhouse Ozone layer Acidification Eutrophication Heavy metals Carcinogens Pesticides Summer smog Winter smog Energy resources Solid waste
0,0014
0,00135
0,0013
0,00125
0,0012
0,00115
0,0011
0,00105
0,001
0,00095
0,0009
0,00085
0,0008
0,00075
0,0007
0,00065
0,0006
0,00055
0,0005
0,00045
0,0004
0,00035
0,0003
0,00025
0,0002
0,00015
0,0001
0,00005
0
Figure 34. Comparation of fibres with Eco-indicator 95 method: Normalisation
48
Comparing 1 kg 'RHOVYL fibre', 1 kg 'Viscose fibres, at plant/GLO U SimaPro', 1 kg 'Cotton fibres, at farm/US U SimaPro' and 1 kg 'Cotton fibres, ginned, at farm/CN U - SimaPro'; Method: Eco-indicator 95 V2.05 / Europe e / weighting
RHOVYL fibre Viscose fibres, at plant/GLO U SimaPro Cotton fibres, at farm/US U SimaPro Cotton fibres, ginned, at farm/CN U - SimaPro
Greenhouse Ozone layer Acidification Eutrophication Heavy metals Carcinogens Pesticides Summer smog Winter smog Energy resources Solid waste
mPt
7
6,8
6,6
6,4
6,2
6
5,8
5,6
5,4
5,2
5
4,8
4,6
4,4
4,2
4
3,8
3,6
3,4
3,2
3
2,8
2,6
2,4
2,2
2
1,8
1,6
1,4
1,2
1
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0
Figure 34. Comparation of fibres with Eco-indicator 95 method: Weighting
49
Comparing 1 kg 'RHOVYL fibre', 1 kg 'Viscose fibres, at plant/GLO U SimaPro', 1 kg 'Cotton fibres, at farm/US U SimaPro' and 1 kg 'Cotton fibres, ginned, at farm/CN U - SimaPro'; Method: Eco-indicator 95 V2.05 / Europe e / single score
Greenhouse Ozone layer Acidification Eutrophication Heavy metals Carcinogens Pesticides Summer smog Winter smog Energy resourcesSolid waste
RHOVYL fibre Viscose fibres, at plant/GLO U SimaPro Cotton fibres, at farm/US U SimaPro Cotton fibres, ginned, at farm/CN U - SimaPro
mPt
14,5
14
13,5
13
12,5
12
11,5
11
10,5
10
9,5
9
8,5
8
7,5
7
6,5
6
5,5
5
4,5
4
3,5
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
Figure 34. Comparation of fibres with Eco-indicator 95 method: Single Score
50
4. Final conclusions
1. As we said in 2.5 Data quality, the big problem of this LCA has been having access to
good data. The free program GEMIS has worst quality data than SimaPro. We do not
know other data, so we don’t know how good data is SimaPro library, but it is better
than GEMIS data. Apart of the lack of information on GEMIS data of all environmental
impacts concerned in Human Toxicity and Ecotoxicity, the comments of the data are
very short and sometimes you do not even know which processes are included in the
data, which is the date of data or its boundaries. As we said before, picking good data
of industrial processes and having a quality data library should be done in the next
future. It would improve the results of LCA’s like this one, which can only be taken as
an orientation of the results.
2. The data presented on this LCA is the best we could get. Obviously, we cannot take
many conclusions of the results or propose improvements of the process: we only a
draft of the real process. If RHOVYL desires good and quality results, it is needed to
take data from the real process, step by step. Completing this LCA with real data will
allow to take real conclusions and to think in improvements for the process and
RHOVYL.
3. Once we assume this is only a draft that let us make an idea of the process, the
conclusions are that RHOVYL has a little contribution of the whole chain production
impacts. The only environmental impacts in which RHOVYL highlights is the
Photochemical Oxidation6 and Water Consumption. The three categories that RHOVYL
specially desired to know, are these:
Indicator Unit TOTAL RHOVYL RHOVYL [%]
Global Warming Potential kg Sb eq 3,397 0,345 8,75
Eutrophication Kg PO4 eq 0,00170 0,00011934 7,01
Water consumption m3 14,739 4,4453 30,1
Table 7. Environmental impacts of production chain desired and RHOVYL’s contribution (Article 1)
6 Photochemical Oxidation refers to all smog-producing chemicals, like NOX, VOCs. In RHOVYL process the emissions of Acetone and the CS2 cause the Photochemical Oxidation.