Group 4 - Bio_composite

7/31/2019 Group 4 - Bio_composite

1/40

Life cycle assessment of fossil

and bio based materials for 3Dshell applications

Material eco-profiles and example with a blowmoulded clear rigid packaging

Course number: 1N1800

Assignment carried out by: Martin Johansson

Group number: 4

Stockholm, 2005-06-17

Martin Johansson


2/40

Life cycle assessment of fossil and bio based materials for 3D shell applicationsMaterial eco-profiles and example with a blow moulded clear rigid packaging

2 (40)

Table of contents

Page1 Summary..................................................................................................... 3

2 Introduction ................................................................................................ 6

3 Goal and scope .......................................................................................... 7

3.1 Goal of the study ................................................................................. 7

3.2 Functional unit ..................................................................................... 8

3.3 System boundaries.............................................................................. 8

3.4

Assumptions and limitations ................................................................ 9

3.5 Impact categories and impact assessment method............................. 9

4 Life cycle inventory analysis .................................................................. 11

4.1 Process flowchart .............................................................................. 11

4.2 Data................................................................................................... 14

4.2.1 LCI of materials from cradle to gate........................................................................ 144.2.2 LCA of moulded clear rigid packaging .................................................................... 22

5 Life cycle interpretation........................................................................... 27

5.1 Results............................................................................................... 275.1.1 LCI of all materials from cradle to gate................................................................... 275.1.2 LCA of blow moulded clear rigid packaging ........................................................... 34

5.2 Conclusions and recommendations................................................... 37

6 References................................................................................................ 39


3/40


3 (40)

1 Summary

The study is part of the NFNM-project where the overall vision is: A wet process for the

production of a new cellulose reinforced biocomposite material with improved dimensionaland mechanical properties intended for the use in 3D applications such as shells or doublecurvature panels. The aim of the study is to supply data to a material database asguidelines for eco-design of new applications of biocomposites.

The accounting study is performed to compare the environmental performance of thedifferent materials. As the overall aims of the NFNM-project is to replace fossil material

with bio based materials, the parameter fossil CO2 and resource use will be studied more indetail.

The comparative study is performed to illustrate the use of the eco-profiles in decision

making for material choices.

The following materials have been studied:

Bio based material from wooden fibre- Unbleached Kraft pulp- Bleached sulphite pulp- CTMP- Cardboard- Deinked pulp (post consumer recycled fibres)

Polymers from fossil resources

- PE (polyethene)- PP (polypropylene)- PET (polyetheneterflatate)

Metals- Steel

Polymers from bio based resources- PLA (polylactic acid)

The materials are invented from cradle to gate of the facility where the materials are

produced. For all material except de-inked pulp (DIP) and Polylactic acid (PLA) availabledata in SimaPro databases were used. Mainly data from the Ecoinvent database has been

used were relevant. Infrastructure for production is not included in the study.

Furthermore a comparative study of PLA and PET in a theoretical application is

performed. In this study the application is studied from cradle to gate including the

disposal. The use face is not studied.

In the comparing study of the blow moulded clear rigid packaging, data has been collected

from cradle to grave, excluding the use face.

The ecoprofiles for the materials studied in relative size are shown in the figure on next

page.


4/40


4 (40)

Figure: Comparison of ecoprofiles of materials studied, Method CML2 baseline

2000 no biogenic CO2

Results for the life cycle of the packaging is presented in the table below.

Impact category Unit PET PLA, landfillscenario

PLA,compostingscenario

abiotic depletion kg Sb eq 6,89E-09 0,00205 0,00205

global warming (GWP100) kg CO2 eq 3,59 4,82 4,82

ozone layer depletion (ODP) kg CFC-11 eq 1,25E-07 4,73E-07 4,74E-07

human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 1,89 1,56 1,75

fresh water aquatic ecotox. kg 1,4-DB eq 1,7 0,459 0,54

marine aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 2280 2400 2670terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 0,0184 0,0121 0,0122

photochemical oxidation kg C2H2 0,00059 0,000859 0,000861

acidification kg SO2 eq 0,0141 0,0277 0,0277

eutrophication kg PO4--- eq 0,00363 0,00567 0,00658

Table: Comparison of life cycle for rigid packaging, Methode CML2 baseline 2000 no biogenic CO2


5/40


5 (40)

In the NFNM-project PLA is to be used as the matrix when designing biocomposites withwooden pulps. This means that the resulting biocomposite will be a mixture of PLA andpulp. A calculation of the environmental impact of theoretical material made from this

mixture were made in this study. Two compositions, made of 25% pulp and 50% pulprespectively, were studied.

The theoretical biocomposites shows a lower environmental impact than PLA and PET onmost categories in both the CML and eco-indicator methods. The exception being land use(in eco-indicator) as forestry requires large land areas. The result also indicates that themore pulp mixed into the PLA, the lower environmental impact.

The results of this study can be used in the continuation of the NFNM-project. For manyof the materials studied in this reports, generic data of good quality can be found inavailable databases, mainly the Ecoinvent database.

The study shows that PLA only can be considered an environmental alternative to fossilbase plastics if a large part of bio based fuels are used in the production of PLA and itsintermediates. By combining this with better use of corn residues and energy savings in theproduction processes PLA could be a more competitive material.

The suggested biocomposites mixing PLA with pulps from wooden fibre shows promisingenvironmental performance. More information of a suggested production process for thismaterial will be derived from the continuation project. Hopefully this information willconfirm the relative low environmental impact of the biocomposites indicated in this study.


6/40


6 (40)

2 Introduction

The study is part of the NFNM-project where the overall vision is: A wet process for theproduction of a new cellulose reinforced biocomposite material with improved dimensionaland mechanical properties intended for the use in 3D applications such as shells or doublecurvature panels

A sub-project involves eco-design and sustainability aspects. The objectives are to illustrateand increase the contribution of the developed new material to a sustainable developmentand the use of renewable materials.

In the sub-project eco profile of different kind of materials will be described. This will bedone based on existing databases for e.g. metals and plastics. When it comes to forest

based fibre materials we will use previous compiled data at STFI-Packforsk and try to findgeneric data on the actual types of different pulps.

The so far identified forest based fibre materials (pulps) that will be studied are thefollowing:- Unbleached kraft pulp- Bleached sulphite pulp- Grease proof pulp- CTMP- Deinked pulp (post consumer recycled fibres)

Some materials, which have to be studied to describe existing, comparing systems andidentified future systems are the following:- Steel- PLA (polylactic acid)- PE (polyethene)- PP (polypropylene)

The results will be used as guidelines for eco-design of new applications of biocomposites.


7/40


7 (40)

3 Goal and scope

3.1 Goal of the studyIn this study different materials that can be used in 3D shell applications are studies:

Bio based material from wooden fibre- Unbleached Kraft pulp- Bleached sulphite pulp- CTMP- Cardboard- Deinked pulp (post consumer recycled fibres)

Polymers from fossil resources- PE (polyethene)- PP (polypropylene)- PET (polyetheneterflatate)

Metals- Steel

Polymers from bio based resources- PLA (polylactic acid)

For all materials LCI are performed from cradle to gate. This can be considered asaccounting LCA. The resulting LCI-profiles are to be used in a data base as guidelines foreco-design of new applications of biocomposites.

Furthermore a comparative study of PLA and PET in a theoretical application isperformed. In this study the application is studied from cradle to gate including thedisposal. The use face is not studied.

PLA with corn as raw materials will be studied. A theoretical product were PLA is mixedwith pulp are also studied.

The accounting study is performed to compare the environmental performance of thedifferent materials. As the overall aims of the NFNM-project is to replace fossil materialwith bio based materials, the parameter fossil CO2 and resource use will be studied more indetail.

The comparative study is performed to illustrate the use of the eco-profiles in decisionmaking for material choices.

The intended audience of this report is the project group of the NFNM project.


8/40


8 (40)

3.2 Functional unit

In the accounting LCA of the final use of the material is not known. Thus mass of materialwill be used as functional unit.

Functional unit = 1 kg of studied material.

In the comparing study an blow moulded clear rigid packaging is studied. The choosenpackaging is a single-serve container for products with five- to 10-day shelf life.

Functional unit = 1 p of studied packaging.

3.3 System boundaries

The materials are invented from cradle to gate of the facility where the materials areproduced. For all material except de-inked pulp (DIP) and Polylactic acid (PLA) availabledata in SimaPro databases were used. Mainly data from the Ecoinvent database has beenused were relevant. Infrastructure for production is not included in the study.

In the comparing study of the blow moulded clear rigid packaging, data has been collectedfrom cradle to grave, excluding the use face. It is assumed that the environmental burdenof the two different packaging are equal in the use face.

The project is mainly a study for a Swedish case , but as many of the materials studied arenot produced in Sweden, Europe is used as a geographical boundary.

System extension has been used to avoid allocation. Many of the datasets for the materialsin SimaPro includes system expansion due to the use of recycled material as raw material.

For DIP the recycled newspapers has been used as raw material. These are assumed tohave the composition corresponding to the European newsprint production in 2002.Newsprint made of 100% virgin fibre has been included by system expansion as avoidedmaterial.

In the comparing study of the blow moulded clear rigid packaging, the packaging is partlyrecycled. Here production of the same virgin material has been used as avoided product.

When the packaging has been incinerated for energy recovery, natural gas is assumed to bethe avoided fuel.

Cut-off (due to data gaps)For production of the intermediates when producing PLA from corn, dextrose and lacticacid, only data for energy use and water consumption were available. The energy dataalthough include the energy use, from cradle, to produce process chemicals in theseprocess.

For the waste scenario landfill only data on emissions on heavy metals were available.


9/40


9 (40)

3.4 Assumptions and limitations

For all material except de-inked pulp (DIP) and Poly lactic acid (PLA) available data inSimaPro databases were used. For all scenarios but production ad harvesting of corn, datafrom the ecoinvnet data base has been used. The assumptions and limitations made in thedatasets also goes for this study.

For Production of PLA from corn only data on energy use and water consumption hasbeen available for production of the intermediates, dextrose and lactic acid. There are thusdata gaps concerning other impacts concerning these production steps. The energy dataalthough include the energy use, from cradle to gate, for production of process chemicalsin these process. Considering the seeding, grooving and harvesting of corn, data from theEcoinvent database has been used, thus covering all impact categories.

PET and PLA has been assumed to need the same mass of material for the blow mouldedclear rigid packaging studied (Laversuch 2002).

Assumptions and limitations are described in detail for each dataset used in chapter 4.2.

3.5 Impact categories and impact assessment method

In this study the method CML 2 baseline 2000 V2.1 / West Europe, 1995 has been usedto calculate the environmental impact. The method covers the following impact categories:

- Abiotic depletion- Global warming (GWP 100)

-Ozone layer depletion

- Human toxicity- Ecotoxicity; fresh water aquatic, marine aquatic and terrestrial- Photochemical oxidation- Acidification- Eutrophication

The main focus of this study is the use of fossil resources versus the use of bio basedresources. Thus global warming and energy resources are two important impact categories.

Though other impacts has also been taken in to account.

As data from the Ecoinvent dabase on wood contains assimilation of CO2 and the dataused on maize does not include this some changes has been made in the

To analyse the energy surplus and use of fossil fuels more in detail Eco-indicator 99 (H)V2.1 / Europe EI 99 H/H has also been used in some calculations in the comparing ofthe rigid packaging. Here three impact categories has been of special interest:

- Climate change- Land use- Minerals- Fossil fuels


10/40


10 (40)

The reason for the focus on fossil fuels is partly due to the fact that only data on energy useand water consumption were available for production of the intermediates, dextrose andlactic acid, when producing PLA from corn.

As data from the Ecoinvent database on wood used in this study contains assimilation ofCO2 and the data used on maize does not include this some, changes has been made in theclimate change impact categories in both methods used. The changes consists of setting theGWP values for biogenic CO2 (originally 01) and CO2 in air (originally -1) to zero. Thus thetwo biological raw materials are treated equally.

No normalisation nor weighting methods has been used.


11/40


11 (40)

4 Life cycle inventory analysis

4.1 Process flowchartFigure 1 below shows the flowchart and boundaries to nature used in the material analyses.

Emissions

Extraction offossil fuels

Petrochemicalproduction

Monomerproduction

Polymerproduction

Forestry

Pulp production

Cardboardproduction

Extraction ofminerals and

metals

Steel ingotproduction

Steel rolling

Corn growingand harvesting

Dextroseproduction*

Lactic acidproduction*

PLA production*

Energy production

Uranium

Fossil resources(oil and gas)

Hydro energy

Metals and mineralSolar energy

Bio based resources

Water

PET, PP, PET

DIP, CTMP Pulps

Steel PLACardboard

Prod. of processchemicals

Figure 1: Schematic flowchart for the materials analysed. *Only data on energy use and water

consumption for production of the intermediates, dextrose and lactic acid, when producing PLA from corn. The energy data

include the energy use, from cradle, to produce process chemicals in these process

.


12/40


12 (40)

Emissions

Extraction of

fossil fuels


Monomerproduction

PET production

Corn growing

and harvesting

Dextroseproduction*


PLA production*

Energy production

Uranium


Hydro energy

Metals andmineral

Solar energy

Bio based resources

Water

Use of PET packaging

Use of PLA packaging

Prod. of process

chemicals

Blow moulding Blow moulding Waste handling

Energy recovery

Landfill

Material recycling

Municipal

waste asavoided

roduct

Figure 2 below shows the flowchart and boundaries to nature used in the analyse of the

moulded clear rigid packaging .


13/40


13 (40)

Emissions

Extraction of

fossil fuels


Monomerproduction

PET production

Corn growing

and harvesting

Dextroseproduction*


PLA production*

Energy production

Uranium


Hydro energy

Metals andmineral

Solar energy

Bio based resources

Water

Use of PET packaging

Use of PLA packaging

Prod. of process

chemicals

Blow moulding Blow moulding Waste handling

Energy recovery

Landfill

Material recycling

Municipal

waste asavoided

roduct

Figure 2: Schematic flowchart for the clear rigid packaging analysed. *Only data on energy use andwater consumption for production of the intermediates, dextrose and lactic acid, when producing PLA from corn. The energy datainclude the energy use, from cradle, to produce process chemicals in these process


14/40


14 (40)

4.2 Data

The Ecoinvent database (EMPA., 2004) ver 1.01 adapted for SimaPro has been used when

data available.

4.2.1 LCI of materials from cradle to gate

Bleached sulphite pulpData source used:Sulphite pulp, bleached, at plant/RER, U: from Ecoinvent database

Description of data used (from SimaPro):

Included processes: This module includes the production of bleached sulphite pulp- including transports to the pulp mill, wood handling, chemical pulping andbleaching, drying process, energy production on-site, recovery cycles of chemicalsand internal waste water treatment

Geography: Data from a small European producer and from the Finnish databaseused as European average data

Technology: Mix of modern Ca-bisulphite and Mg-sulphite bleaching technology.

Version: 1.01

Energy values: Undefined

Production volume: Total European market sulphite pulp production in 2000: 1101kt

Allocation rules

System description Ecoinvent

CTMPData source used:Chemi-thermomechanical pulp, at plant/RER U: from Ecoinvent database


Included processes: This module includes the production of bleached chemi-thermomechanical pulp (CTMP) - including transports to the pulp mill, woodhandling, mechanical pulping and bleaching, drying process, energy production on-site and internal waste water treatment.

Geography: Data from Swedish EPA and from a norwegian producer as Europeanaverage data.

Technology: Modern average technology.

Version: 1.01


Production volume: Total European market mechanical pulp production in 2000:901 kt


15/40


15 (40)

DIPData source used:STFI-Packforsk data from production in Sweden, 1991, original reference. Baumann et.al.

1993, REFORSK FoU 79, Miljmssiga skillnader mellan tervinining/teranvndning ochfrbrnning/deponering. The data set in SimPro is presented in appendix 1.


Productso Pulp from recycled fibres, DIP t90, SE, U 1000kg

Materials/fuelso Kaolin, at plant/RER U 8kg (CaCO3 in original reference)o Hydrogen peroxide, 50% in H2O, at plant/RER U 8kgo Sodium dithionite, anhydrous, at plant/RER U 13kg

("Deinking chemical" in original reference)

o Sodium hydroxide, 50% in H2O, production mix, at plant/RER U 10 kgo Epoxy resin insulator (SiO2), at plant/RER U 15kg (SiO2)o Paper, newsprint, DIP containing, at plant/RER U 1203 kg (Waste)

Electricity/heato Heat, hardwood chips from industry, at furnace 1000kW/CH U 650 MJ

(Bark in original reference)o Electricity, high voltage, production SE, at grid/SE U 390 kWho Heat, natural gas, at industrial furnace low-NOx >100kW/RER U 490 MJ

(Originally coal used. Not applicable for modern data.)

Emissions to air

Emissions to watero BOD5, Biological Oxygen Demand 0,73 kg (BOD7 in original reference)o COD, Chemical Oxygen Demand 3,84 kgo Nitrogen 0,198 kgo Phosphorus 0,0054 kgo Suspended solids, unspecified 0,42 kg

Emissions to soil

Final waste flowso Wood ashes 10,1 kg (Emission to ground in original reference)

Assumptions:

As the data are for Swedish production, electricity data for Sweden has been used.. In original data coal has been used as energy carrier for fossil fuel. Present day coal

is not used in this application. The coal has thus been replaced by fossil fuel.

Part from H2O2 sodium dithionite are assumed to be used as bleaching chemical.

No data for CaCO3 available in SimaPros databases. This has been replaced withanother common filler, kaolin.

Wood ashes, which were considered emission to ground in original reference, areclassed as waste as waste management procedures has been changed compared tothe time of the original data.

Allocation procedures

No allocation used.


16/40


16 (40)

Data gapsNo data on emissions to air.

Corrugated boardData source used:Corrugated board, mixed fibre, single wall, at plant/RER U: from Ecoinvent database


Included processes: This module includes the production of corrugated board outof the corrugated base papers. The following steps are included: energy production,corrugated board production itself, waste water treatment.

Geography: Estimation based on average data from European producers, collectefrom FEFCO

Technology: Average of present used technology Version: 1.01


HDPEData source used:Polyethylene, HDPE, granulate, at plant/RER U: from Ecoinvent database


Included processes: Aggregated data for all processes from raw material extractionuntil delivery at plant

Remark: Data are from the Eco-profiles of the European plastics industry (APME).Not included are the values reported for: recyclable wastes, amount of air / N2 /O2 consumed, unspecified metal emission to air and to water, mercaptan emissionto air, unspecified CFC/HCFC emission to air. The amount of "sulphur (bonded)"is assumed to be included into the amount of raw oil.

CAS number: 009002-88-4

Geography: 10 European production sites (A,B,F,P,NL,S,UK)

Technology: polymerization out of ethylene under normal pressure andtemperature

Time period: time to which data refer Version: 1.01


Percent representativeness: 32.2

Production volume: 1.32 Mt (1992)


17/40


17 (40)

PETData source used:Polyethylene terephthalate, granulate, amorphous, at plant/RER U: from Ecoinvent

database


Included processes: Average data for the production of amorphous PET out ofethylene glycol and PTA. The data include material and energy input, waste as wellas air and water emissions. Missing sum parameters to water (DOC, TOC),transport and infrastructure are estimated.

Remark: Data are based on the average unit process from the Eco-profiles of theEuropean plastics industry

CAS number: 025038-59-9

Geography: Data from several European production sites

Technology: PET production out of PTA and ethylene gylcol

Time period: date of publication

Version: 1.01


Production volume: 569 kt (2000)

PLAData source used:Literature reference: Vink E., Rbago K., Glassner D. and Gruber P. (2003),Applications of

life cycle assessment to NatureWorks polylactide (PLA) production, Polymer Degradation andStability 80 (2003) 403419

Data from Sima Pro, Ecoinvent data base for Corn production and energy.

Description of data used:The reference presents data on gross energy requirement and water use for production ofPLA form corn. Data is divided into three steps:

Growing and harvesting of corn, including gross energy use for operating supplies

Production of dextrose from corn, including gross energy use for operatingsupplies. Based on site specific data for one corn wet mill I USA 2001.

Production of lactic acid from dextrose, including gross energy use for operatingsupplies. Based on site specific data for one lactic acid plant in USA 2001.

Production of PLA from lactic acid, including gross energy use for operatingsupplies. Based on detailed design plans for a Lactide PLA plant that was started upNovember 2001 in USA.

Assumptions:

In the report energy data for natural gas and electric energy has been used (Vink etal 2003). It is not specified the ratio of the different energy carriers used. Theassumption has been made that 50% of the energy is from electricity and 50% from

natural gas. According to Vink et al 1,74 kg corn is needed to produce, 1 kg PLA.


18/40


18 (40)

According to Gerngross T. (1999), Can biotechnology move us toward a sustainable society?Nature Biotechnology v.17, n.6, Jun99, 1,52 kg corn are needed to produce 1 kgglucose. It is assumed that the same mass ratio can be used for production of

dextrose. According to the same reference 0,95 kg PLA can be produced from 1 kglactic acid. By combining these data it is assumed that 1,09 kg dextrose are neededto produce 1 kg lactic acid.

In Vink et al 2003 consumption of water is only presented in total use per kg PLA.Based on this total figure it is assumed that the intermediate processes consumes anequal amount of water.

CalculationsProduction of dextrose from corn:Data given: 1,52 kg corn/kg dext

1,74 kg corn/kg PLA

9,4 MJ/kg PLA in dextrose production step30 kg water/ kg PLA

1,74/1,52 = 1,146 kg dextrose/kg PLA

Energy use: 9,4/1,149 = 8,20 MJ/kg dextrose

Assumed 50% natural gas and 50 % electricity

8,20*0,5 = 4,10 MJ natural gas/kg dextrose 8,20*0,5/3,6 = 1,14 kWh electricity/kg dextrose

Water use: 30*0,5/1,149 = 13 kg water/ kg dextrose

Production of lactic acid from dextrose:Data given: 1,09 kg dextrose/kg lactic acid rose

0,95 kg PLA/kg lactic acid26,3 MJ/kg PLA in lactic acid production step30 kg water/ kg PLA

Energy use: 26,3 *0,95 = 25,0 MJ/kg lactic acid


25,0*0,5 = 12,5 MJ natural gas/kg lactic acid 25,0*0,5/3,6 = 3,47 kWh electricity/kg lactic acid

Water use: 30*0,5*0,95 = 14,2 kg water/ kg lactic acid

Production of PLA from lactic acid:23,2 MJ/kg PLA in PLA production step

Energy use: 26,3 *0,95 = 25,0 MJ/kg lactic acid


19/40


19 (40)


13,2*0,5 = 6,60 MJ natural gas/kg lactic acid

13,2*0,5/3,6 = 1,83 kWh electricity/kg lactic acid

Water use: assumed to be 0.

Description of data used for Corn:Corn:

Data source used:Corn data from the data base BUVWAL 250 (ETH, 1996)

Description of data used ( from SimaPro)

Production and harvest of corn for starch production. Data are derived

from Schaer (1993).

Description of data used corn-dextrose-lactic acid-PLA:The reference presents data on gross energy requirement and water use for production ofPLA form corn. Data is divided into three steps:

Growing and harvesting of corn, including gross energy use for operating supplies

Production of dextrose from corn, including gross energy use for operatingsupplies. Based on site specific data for one corn wet mill I USA 2001.

Production of lactic acid from dextrose, including gross energy use for operatingsupplies. Based on site specific data for one lactic acid plant in USA 2001.

Production of PLA from lactic acid, including gross energy use for operatingsupplies. Based on detailed design plans for a Lactide PLA plant that was started upNovember 2001 in USA.

Dextrose:

Productso Dextrose from corn 1kg

Resourceso Water, cooling, surface 2,5 kgo Water, fresh 15 m3

Materials/fuels

o Corn 1,52 kg Electricity/heat

o Electricity, medium voltage, production UCTE, at grid/UCTE U1,1 kWh

o Heat, natural gas, at industrial furnace >100kW/RER U 4,1 MJ

Final waste flowso Residues 0,52 kg Corn residues

Lactic acid:

Productso Lactic acid from dextrose 1kg

Resourceso Water, cooling, surface 2,5 kg


20/40


20 (40)

o Water, fresh 15 m3

Materials/fuelso Dextrose from corn 1,09 kg

Electricity/heato Electricity, medium voltage, production UCTE, at grid/UCTE U

3,4 kWho Heat, natural gas, at industrial furnace >100kW/RER U 12,5 MJ

Final waste flowso Residues 0,09 kg undefined

PLA:

Productso PLA 1kg

Materials/fuelso Lactic acid from dextrose 1,05 kg

Electricity/heato Electricity, medium voltage, production UCTE, at grid/UCTE U

1,8 kWho Heat, natural gas, at industrial furnace >100kW/RER U 6,6 MJ

Final waste flowso Residues 0,05 kg undefined

Data gaps

No data on emissions to water, air and ground from the production chain dextrose lacticacid PLA. No information of process chemicals other than energy use from cardle togate.

PPData source used:Polypropylene, granulate, at plant/RER U: from Ecoinvent database


Included processes: Aggregated data for all processes from raw material extraction

until delivery at plant Remark: Data are from the Eco-profiles of the European plastics industry (APME).

Not included are the values reported for: recyclable wastes, amount of air / N2 /O2 consumed, unspecified metal emission to air and to water, mercaptan emissionto air, unspecified CFC/HCFC emission to air. The amount of "sulphur (bonded)"is assumed to be included into the amount of raw oil.

CAS number: 009003-07-0

Geography: 15 European production sites (A,B,SF,P,NL,N,UK)

Technology: polymerization out of propylene

Time period: time to which data refer

Version: 1.01 Energy values: Undefined


21/40


21 (40)

Percent representativeness: 24.3

Production volume: 1.58 Mt (1992)

SteelData source used:Steel, low-alloyed, at plant/RER U: from Ecoinvent database


Included processes: Mix of differently produced steels and hot rolling

Remark: represents Average of World and European production mix. This isassumed to correspond to the consumption mix in Europe

Geography: Data relate to plants in the EU

Technology: technology mix Version: 1.01


Production volume: unknown

Unbleached sulphate pulpData source used:Sulphate pulp, unbleached, at plant/RER U: from Ecoinvent database


Included processes: This module includes the production of unbleached sulphatepulp - including transports to the pulp mill, wood handling, chemical pulping anddrying, energy production on-site, recovery cycles of chemicals and internal waste

water treatment.

Geography: Data from a Swiss study (based on scandinavian conditions) and fromthe Swedish EPA used as European average data.

Technology: Modern average technology.

Version: 1.01


Production volume: Total European market sulphate pulp production in 2000:

9297 kt


22/40


22 (40)

4.2.2 LCA of moulded clear rigid packaging

PET productionSe chapter 4.2.1

PLA productionSe chapter 4.2.1

Blow moldingData source used:Blow moulding/RER U: from Ecoinvent database


Included processes: This process contains the auxiliaries and energy demand for thementioned conversion process of plastics. The converted amount of plastics is

NOT included into the dataset. Remark: 1 kg of this process equals 0.997 kg of blow moulded plastics (e.g. bottles).

Geography: information from different European and Swiss converting companies

Technology: present technologies

Time period: time to which data refer

Version: 1.01


Production volume: unknown

Assumptions:

PET and PLA can have the same downguaging for this application (Leaversuch 2002).Thus it is assumed that the same mass is used in the product regardless the kind of plastics.This means that 1 kg of plastics has been used in each product.

Waste managementAssumptions:For both PET and PLA the following waste management scenario has been used

30% Landfill

30% Material recycling

40% Energy recoveryThis assumption is based on the recycling rates regulated inEuropean Parliament and CouncilDirective 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste.This directive wasrecently changed byDirective 2004/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11February 2004 amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste.


23/40


23 (40)

Landfill -PETData source used:Disposal, plastics, mixture, 15.3% water, to sanitary landfill/CH U from Ecoinvent

database


Included processes: Waste-specific short-term emissions to air via landfill gasincineration and landfill leachate. Burdens from treatment of short-term leachate(0-100a) in wastewater treatment plant (including WWTP sludge disposal inmunicipal incinerator). Long-term emissions from landfill to groundwater (afterbase lining failure).

Remark: Inventoried waste contains 100% Mixed various plastics; .

Share of carbon in waste that is biogenic 0%.

Overall degradability of waste during 100 years: 1%.

Geography: Technology encountered in Switzerland in 2000. Landfill includes baseseal, leachate collection system, treatment of leachate in municipal wastewatertreatment plant.

Technology: Swiss municipal sanitary landfill for biogenic or untreated municipalwaste ('reactive organic landfill'). Landfill gas and leachate collection system.Recultivation and monitoring for 150 years after closure.

Version: 1.01


Landfill -PLA

Assumptions:Based on landfill of paper as PLA is a bio based easily degradable material.

Data source used:Disposal, packaging paper, 13.7% water, to sanitary landfill/CH U from Ecoinventdatabase

Description of data used(from SimaPro):

Included processes: Waste-specific short-term emissions to air via landfill gasincineration and landfill leachate. Burdens from treatment of short-term leachate(0-100a) in wastewater treatment plant (including WWTP sludge disposal in

municipal incinerator). Long-term emissions from landfill to groundwater (afterbase lining failure).

Remark: Inventoried waste contains 100% packaging paper; .


Overall degradability of waste during 100 years: 27%.

Geography: Technology encountered in Switzerland in 2000. Landfill includes baseseal, leachate collection system, treatment of leachate in municipal wastewatertreatment plant.

Technology: Swiss municipal sanitary landfill for biogenic or untreated municipalwaste ('reactive organic landfill'). Landfill gas and leachate collection system.

Recultivation and monitoring for 150 years after closure. Energy values: Undefined


24/40


24 (40)

Material recycling -PETAssumptions:

Avoided product: Polyethylene terephthalate, granulate, amorphous, at plant/RER U: fromEcoinvent database ( Se chapter 4.2.1)

Data source used:Recycling PET U from Ecoinvent database


Unit process

Included is the energy consumption for the mechanical recycling of PET. Thisrecord links to ecoinvent processes. This record has been created by PReConsultants thus this record has not been reviewed by ecoinvent

Material recycling -PLAAssumptions:Avoided product: PLA ( Se chapter 4.2.1)The same energy use when recycling PLA as for PET has assumed. Thus data for recyclingof PET has been used.

Data source used:Recycling PET U from Ecoinvent database vere recyling of Pet has been changed torecycling of PLA.


Unit process

Included is the energy consumption for the mechanical recycling of PET. Thisrecord links to ecoinvent processes. This record has been created by PReConsultants thus this record has not been reviewed by ecoinvent

Energy recovery-PETAssumptions:Avoided product: Energy from municipal waste

In chosen dataset the energy produced is as follows:2/3 Heat from waste, at municipal incineration plant/CH U1/3 electricity from waste, at municipal incineration plant/CH U

Data source used:Disposal, polyethylene terephtalate, 0.2% water, to municipal incineration/CH U fromEcoinvent database


25/40


25 (40)


Included processes: waste-specific air and water emissions from incineration,auxiliary material consumption for flue gas cleaning. Short-term emissions to river

water and long-term emissions to ground water from slag compartment (frombottom slag) and residual material landfill (from solidified fly ashes and scrubberslugde). Process energy demands for MSWI.

Remark: Inventoried waste contains 100% PET; .


Share of iron in waste that is metallic/recyclable 0%.

Net energy produced in MSWI: 2.46MJ/kg waste electric energy and 5.03MJ/kgwaste thermal energy

Allocation of energy production: Natural gas

One kg of this waste produces 0.0106 kg of slag and 0.003547 kg of residues, which

are landfilled. Additional solidification with 0.001419 kg of cement. Geography: Specific to the technology mix encountered in Switzerland in 2000.

Well applicable to modern incineration practices in Europe, North America orJapan.

Technology: average Swiss MSWI plants in 2000 with electrostatic precipitator forfly ash (ESP), wet flue gas scrubber and 29.4% SNCR , 32.2% SCR-high dust ,24.6% SCR-low dust -DeNOx facilities and 13.8% without Denox (by burnt

waste, according to Swiss average). Share of waste incinerated in plants withmagnetic scrap separation from slag : 50%. Gross electric efficiency technology mix12.997% and Gross thermal efficiency technology mix 25.57%

Time period: Waste composition as given in literature reference, theoretical data or

other source. Transfer coefficients for modern Swiss MSWI. Emission speciationbased on early 90ies data.

Version: 1.01


Energy recovery-PLAAssumptions:Avoided product: Energy from municipal waste

In chosen dataset the energy produced is as follows:2/3 Heat from waste, at municipal incineration plant/CH U1/3 electricity from waste, at municipal incineration plant/CH U

As PLA is biobased data for combustion of waste paper has been used. Data has beenchanged so that the combustion energy of PLA is generated. PLA has a heat value 0,7times the heat value of PET. (Refers)

Data source used:Disposal, PLA, to municipal incineration/CH U -avoided product with has been made bychanging the input to PLA and heat value according to PLA in the original ecoinventdataset Disposal, paper, 11.2% water, to municipal incineration.


26/40


26 (40)


Included processes: waste-specific air and water emissions from incineration,auxiliary material consumption for flue gas cleaning. Short-term emissions to river

water and long-term emissions to ground water from slag compartment (frombottom slag) and residual material landfill (from solidified fly ashes and scrubbersludge). Process energy demands for MSWI.

Remark: Inventoried waste contains 100% average paper; .


Share of iron in waste that is metallic/recyclable 0%.

Net energy produced in MSWI: 1.68MJ/kg waste electric energy and 3.52MJ/kgwaste thermal energy

Allocation of energy production: Natural gas

One kg of this waste produces 0.07875 kg of slag and 0.01249 kg of residues, which

are landfilled. Additional solidification with 0.004996 kg of cement. Geography: Specific to the technology mix encountered in Switzerland in 2000.

Well applicable to modern incineration practices in Europe, North America orJapan.

Technology: average Swiss MSWI plants in 2000 with electrostatic precipitator forfly ash (ESP), wet flue gas scrubber and 29.4% SNCR , 32.2% SCR-high dust ,24.6% SCR-low dust -DeNOx facilities and 13.8% without Denox (by burnt

waste, according to Swiss average). Share of waste incinerated in plants withmagnetic scrap separation from slag : 50%. Gross electric efficiency technology mix12.997% and Gross thermal efficiency technology mix 25.57%

Time period: Waste composition as given in literature reference, theoretical data or

other source. Transfer coefficients for modern Swiss MSWI. Emission speciationbased on early 90ies data.

Version: 1.01


Composting-PLAFor PLA a alternative scenario were the packaging is composted also has been considered.Her the 30% to landfill for the PLA packaging instead goes to composting.

Data source used:Composting from Ecoinvent database

Description of data used (from SimaPro):Separated from waste stream to be partly recycled.

Data gapsBio based CO2 emissions from compost not included. Only data on realising of heavymetals.


27/40


27 (40)

5 Life cycle interpretation

5.1 ResultsIn this chapter the ecoprofiles of the materials studied and the result of the assessment of

the life cycle for the studied packaging are presented. The results for the material

ecoprofiles are not analysed in detail in this report. This is partly due to the fact that most

of the data are taken directly from the ecoinvent data as unit processes. The main reason

though is that the data are to be used further to study different applications of the

material, and the analyse will be done in this context later in the NFNM project. The main

focus of this study is the comparing analyse of the blow moulded clear rigid packaging.

5.1.1 LCI of all materials from cradle to gate

The calculated impacts for the materials for the impact category methods in CML2

baseline 2002 are shown in Table 1. The ecoprofiles for the materials studied in relative size

are shown in and Figure 3.

Figure 3: Comparison of ecoprofiles of materials studied, Method CML2 baseline2000 no biogenic CO2


28/40


28 (40)

Impact category Bleached

sulphite

pulp

Corugated

board

CTMP DIP HDPE PET PLA PP Steel Unbleach.

sulphate

pulp

ADP

[kg Sb eq]0,00284 0,000924 0,00092 0,000983 0,00136 0,00323 0,00725 0,0013 0,00166 0,00101

GWP100

[kg CO2 eq]0,0107 0,00301 0,00462 0,0089 0,0214 0,0114 0,0305 0,0203 0,00786 0,00412

ODP

[kg CFC-11 eq]0,000407 0,000135 0,000178 0,000428 0,000681 0,000507 0,000877 0,00064 0,000856 0,000151

human toxicity

[kg 1,4-DB eq]0,00811 0,00676 0,00605 0,00965 0,0099 0,0181 0,00919 0,011 0,0323 0,00322

fresh water

aquatic ecotox.

[kg 1,4-DB eq]

246 260 480 658 109 627 2110 71,2 2050 187

marine aquatic

ecotoxicity

[kg 1,4-DB eq]

0,124 0,204 0,226 0,251 0,0212 0,186 0,367 0,0143 1,73 0,0475

terrestrial

ecotoxicity

[kg 1,4-DB eq]

0,516 0,411 0,387 0,635 0,0784 1,08 1,3 0,0679 15,4 0,262

photochemical

oxidation

[kg C2H2]

4,71E-08 8,6E-08 4,84E-08 8,46E-08 1,48E-10 1,14E-07 6,08E-07 1,24E-10 7,85E-08 4,07E-08

Acidification

[kg SO2 eq]0,483 0,883 0,778 1,29 1,75 2,31 5,16 1,85 1,29 0,351

Eutrophication

kg PO4-- eq1,48E-10 1,12E-10 5,39E-09 2,11E-08 1,17E-07 7,26E-09 0,00293 2,09E-08 7,09E-10 1,01E-10

Table 1: Ecoprofiles of materials studied, Method CML2 baseline 2000 nobiogenic CO2

The results show that PLA is relative high in most impact categories. The results for PLAalso deviates greatly from the other materials from bio based resources, pulps andcorrugated board. This is partly as PLA is based on corn and the other biobased materialsare produced of wooden fibre. It should also be noted that there are uncertainties and datagaps in the PLA, especially when it comes to composition of energy used in the productionstages.

Results for the four impact categories studied form the method Ecoindicator are presented

in Table 2.


29/40


29 (40)

Impact category Bleachedsulphitepulp

Corugatedboard

CTMP DIP HDPE PET PLA PP Steel Unbleach.sulphatepulp

Climate change[DALY]

2,12E-07 8,73E-08 8,66E-08 1,46E-07 1,52E-08 1,63E-07 2,32E-07 1,2E-08 2,12E-06 4,67E-08

Land use[PDF*m2yr]

1,08 0,137 0,11 0,279 0,000157 0,0156 0,0237 0,000196 0,0532 0,985

Minerals[MJ surplus]

0,0159 0,0186 0,0152 0,0443 0,0208 0,0618 0,0106 0,00161 0,954 0,00918

Fossil fuels[D MJ surplus]

0,733 1,59 0,768 1,6 9,91 9,3 7,28 9,86 1,38 0,624

Table 2: Ecoprofiles of materials studied, Method Ecoindicator 99 no biogenic CO2

Also according to these impact categories, PLA shows a high environmental impact.

Notice that PLA has a use of fossil fuels that is almost as high as for the plastics madefrom fossil resources. Once again this is a result of the high energy use in the productionstages, and greatly influenced by the fuels used. 50% UCPE electricity mix and 50% naturalgas means a high dependence on fossil fuels. The assumption made in the calculations thushave a great influence on the results concerning PLA.

The impact category global warming has been analysed for the materials to identifysignificant life cycle stages. This has been done using the graphical presentation in SimaPro.In Figures 4-6 below this is shown for PET, PLA and unbleached sulphate pulp. Thesethree materials has been chosen as they represents each material category; based on fossilfuels, new material and based on wooden fibre.

For PET most impact arise in the processing of the fossil raw material into final polymer.This is similar for the other fossil based plastics studied in the product. Use of energy indifferent process steps also adds up to a significant part of the total GWP.

As has been discussed previously, the production of PLA has a relative high energyconsumption. The larger part is in the production of the monomer, lactic acid, fromdextrose.

It can be noticed that the residues from the corn production could be used for energyrecovery. This has not been taken into account in this analyse.


30/40


30 (40)

Figure 4: Sankey diagram showing processes contributing to GWP [kg CO2 eq] for

PET. 10% Cut off.


31/40


31 (40)


PLA. 10% Cut off.


32/40


32 (40)


Unbleached Sulphite Pulp. 10% Cut off.


33/40


33 (40)

The unbleached sulphite pulp has the lowest value on global warming of the materialstudied. The GWP is mainly due to the use of electric energy in the pulp productionprocess. The low value can be explained by the use of wood residues for production of

energy, that is used internally in the production, thus lowering the need for fossil basedenergy. This pattern is similar for all wooden based material. The effect is lover for themechanical pulps, CTMP and DIP, as more of the fibres ends up in the mechanical pulpscompared to the chemical pulps, meaning less fibres to be used for energy recovery.


34/40


34 (40)

5.1.2 LCA of blow moulded clear rigid packaging

Results for the life cycle of the packaging is presented in Table 3 and 4 and Figure 7.

Impact category Unit PET PLA, landfillscenario

PLA,compostingscenario

abiotic depletion kg Sb eq 6,89E-09 0,00205 0,00205

global warming (GWP100) kg CO2 eq 3,59 4,82 4,82

ozone layer depletion (ODP) kg CFC-11 eq 1,25E-07 4,73E-07 4,74E-07

human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 1,89 1,56 1,75

fresh water aquatic ecotox. kg 1,4-DB eq 1,7 0,459 0,54

marine aquatic ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 2280 2400 2670

terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 0,0184 0,0121 0,0122

photochemical oxidation kg C2H2 0,00059 0,000859 0,000861

acidification kg SO2 eq 0,0141 0,0277 0,0277

eutrophication kg PO4--- eq 0,00363 0,00567 0,00658

Table 3: Comparison of life cycle for rigid packaging, Method CML2 baseline 2000no biogenic CO2

Figure 7: Comparison of life cycle for rigid packaging Methode CML2 baseline 2000 no biogenic CO2


35/40


35 (40)

Impact category Unit PET PLA,

compostingscenario

PLA,landfill

scenarioClimate change DALY 5,03E-07 3,43E-07 3,88E-07

Land use PDF*m2yr 0,11 0,116 0,116

Minerals MJ surplus 0,0535 0,0231 0,0233

Fossil fuels MJ surplus 7,59 6,22 6,23

Table 4: Comparison of life cycle for rigid packaging, Method Ecoindicator 99 nobiogenic CO2

As for the single materials the PET packaging shows a lower impact on most categoriesstudied in the CML method. In the ecoindicator the results is vice versa. The energyrecovery especially credits the PLA packaging on GWP as the avoided energy is partly fromfossil fuel.

The landfill and composting scenarios have the same impact. The small differences shownare due to methane emissions in the landfill scenario. Here it can be noted that there is onlya 100 year perspective on the emissions arising from land filling in the CML method. Thismeans that the easily degradable PLA packaging, in the calculations assumed having thesame characteristics as paper in land filling, releases most of its carbon as methane duringthis time span , whereas the inert PET is more or less unaffected. If a longer timeperspective had been used the emissions from the land filling of PET, that will arise in thefuture, would rise the GWP impact of the PET packaging life cycle. This example alsoshows that the ratio of the different waste management methods in the waste scenario havean important influence on the results. The rates chosen in this study are a bit conservative

when it comes to land filling and energy recovery.

It can be argued if material recycling of PLA is relevant. The pure PLA could possibly bereused, but if we consider PLa as part of a composite material, material recycling is virtuallyimpossible. The probibalde waste scenario for such a material is incineration for energyrecovery.

As been discussed in chapter 5.1.1 the choices made on energy sources in the PLAproduction has a great influence on the overall result. This is especially significant when itcomes to GWP, but does also effects other impact categories greatly.

The results indicates that if PLA is to be an environmentally adapted alternative topackaging from fossil resources, the energy sources used in the production stage has to bebio based to a greater extent. The environmental impacts which arises mainly fromfarming of corn, acidification, eutrophication and ecotoxicity are according to this studylower than for the PET packaging.

When comparing the results for the ecotoxicity categories for the packagings and thematerials used, it can bee seen that PET as material has lower impact than PLA, but in thelife cycle for the packaging PET has a higher impact. This indicates that he wastemanagement methods for PET has a higher ecotoxicity than the waste managementmethods for PLA. As the PLA waste management methods in the calculations are mainly

assumptions based on other materials, this finding is highly uncertain.


36/40


36 (40)

In the NFNM-project PLA is to be used as the matrix when designing biocomposites withwooden pulps. This means that the resulting biocomposite will be a mixture of PLA andpulp. A calculation of the environmental impact of theoretical material made from this

mixture were made in this study. Two compositions, made of 50% pulp and 75% pulprespectively, were studied. In these calculation Unbleached Sulphite pulp has been the pulpchosen. The actual process to mix the two material has not been covered in the calculationsas no data on this process were available at the time of the study. The results on themixed biocomposites compared to PET an pure PLA are shown in figures 8 and 9.

Figure 8: Comparison of PET and biocomposite materials. Method CML2 baseline2000 no biogenic CO2

The theoretical biocomposites shows a lower environmental impact than PLA and PET onmost categories in both the CML and eco-indicator methods. The exception being land use(in eco-indicator) as forestry requires large land areas. The result also indicates that themore pulp mixed into the PLA, the better lower environmental impact. The biocompositethus combine the physical properties of a plastic material and the relative lowenvironmental impact of the pulp.


37/40


37 (40)

Figure 9: Comparison of PET and biocomposite materials. Method Ecoindicator 99no biogenic CO2

5.2 Conclusions and recommendations

The results of this study can be used in the continuation of the NFNM-project. For manyof the materials studied in this reports, generic data of good quality can be found inavailable databases, mainly the Ecoinvent database.

For the new material studied, PLA, the result was bit surprising as the bio based polymergives a higher impact on the major part of the impact categories studied. This was even thecase for the impact in main focus of this study, GWP. When studying the packaging lifecycle, the PLA gave a slightly better result as the avoided fossil fuel due to waste energyrecovery influence the results on GWP.

A major finding of this study is that the assumptions made in the PLA case influences theresults greatly. Efforts has to be taken in the continuation of the NFNM-project to collectbetter environmental data on PLA.

The study shows that PLA only can be considered an environmental alternative to fossilbase plastics if a large part of bio based fuels are used in the production of PLA and itsintermediates. By combining this with better use of corn residues and energy savings in theproduction processes PLA could be a more competitive material.

The suggested biocomposites mixing PLA with pulps from wooden fibre shows promising

environmental performance. This is mainly due to the usage of wooden pulp. The


38/40


38 (40)

biocomposite combine the physical properties of a plastic material and the relative lowenvironmental impact of the pulp.

More information of a suggested production process for this material will be derived fromthe continuation project. Hopefully this information will confirm the relative lowenvironmental impact of the biocomposites indicated in this study.


39/40


40/40


APPENDIX 1: Data documentation for DIP process

SimaPro 6.0 Process Date: 2005-06-17 Time: 13:25:02

Process

Category type Material

Process ident if ier FMS.EDUX11378300010Type Unit processName DIP, Pulp form recycled fibreTime period UnspecifiedGeography UnspecifiedTechnology UnspecifiedRepresentat iveness Unspecif iedMultiple output allocation UnspecifiedSubstitution allocation Unspecified

Cut off rules UnspecifiedCapital goods UnspecifiedBoundary with nature UnspecifiedInfrastructure NoDate 2005-05-14Record Martin JohanssonGenerator Data from STFI databaseLiterature referencesCollection method

Data treatmentVerificationComment Included processes: Data from production in Sweden, 1991, original reference. Baumann et.al. 1993, REFORSK FoU 79,

Miljmssiga skillnader mellan tervinining/teranvndning och frbrnning/deponeringRemark: Data changed to represent a state of the art process in the late 90s. some processes has been cahngedAssumptions:o As the data are for Swedish production, electricity data for Sweden has been used..o In original data coal has been used as energy carrier for fossil fuel. Present day coal is not used in this application.

The coal has thus been replaced by fossil fuel.

o Part from H2O2 sodium dithionite are assumed to be used as bleaching chemical.o No data for CaCO3 available in SimaPros databases. This has been replaced with another common filler, kaolin.o Wood ashes, which were considered emission to ground in original reference, are classed as waste as waste

management procedures has been changed compared to the time of the original data.

Allocation rules: No allocation used.Geography: Data from SwedishTechnology: Modern average technology.Time period:1990-200

Allocation rules No allocation used. System expantion for substituted newsprint production from virgin fibre

System description

ProductsPulp from recycled fibres, DIP t90, SE, U 1000 kg 100 % not defined Paper+ Board\Pulp

Avoided products

Resources

Materials/fuelsKaolin, at plant/RER U 8 kg CaCO3 in original referenceHydrogen peroxide, 50% in H2O, at plant/RER U 8 kgSodium dithionite, anhydrous, at plant/RER U 13 kg "Deinking chemical" in original referenceSodium hydroxide, 50% in H2O, product ion mix, at plant/RER U 10 kgEpoxy resin insulator (SiO2), at plant/RER U 15 kg SiO2Paper, newsprint, DIP containing, at plant/RER U 1203 kg Waste

Electricity/heatHeat, hardwood chips from industry, at furnace 1000kW/CH U 650 MJ Bark in original referenceElectricity, high voltage, production SE, at grid/SE U 390 kWhHeat, natural gas, at industrial furnace low-NOx >100kW/RER U 490 MJ Originally coal used. Not applicable for modern data.

Emissions to air

Emissions to waterBOD5, Biological Oxygen Demand 0,73 kg BOD7 in original reference

COD, Chemical Oxygen Demand 3,84 kgNitrogen 0,198 kgPhosphorus 0,0054 kgSuspended solids, unspecified 0,42 kg

Emissions to soil

Date post:	05-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dasohamath
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Group 4 - Bio_composite

Documents