Life cycle assessment of fossil- and bio-based polyurethane foams:a review

被引:20
作者
Silva, Raquel [1 ]
Barros-Timmons, Ana [1 ]
Quinteiro, Paula [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Aveiro, Aveiro Inst Mat, CICECO, Campus Santiago, P-3810193 Aveiro, Portugal
[2] Univ Aveiro, Ctr Environm & Marine Studies CESAM, Dept Environm & Planning, Campus Univ Santiago, P-3810193 Aveiro, Portugal
关键词
Environmental impacts; Renewable resources; Climate change; Data harmonization; Polymers; Polyurethane foam; SENSITIVITY; POLYOLS;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139697
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Polyurethane (PUF) foam market has grown rapidly in recent years due to its wide variety of applications. Their environmental impact is a matter of significant concern as so far, the production of PUF is essentially dependent on fossil raw materials, namely isocyanates and polyols. With the purpose of reducing climate change and decoupling economic growth from resource use, the use of renewable polyols is already a reality in the PUF industry, namely vegetable oils, recycled polyols, and CO2-based polyols. However, this only contributes in part to the total polyol used in some formulations in various industrial-scale applications. Even though there are other potential renewable polyol counterparts (e.g. lignin, as well as alternative synthetic routes to produce PUF including variations of the so-called via Non-Isocyanate Polyurethane (NIPU)), there are still several limitations compared to the conventional manufacturing processes involving petroleum-derived raw materials, which hampers the availability of these alternatives. The possible benefits of these potentially greener alternatives need to be quantified and compared with the environmental performance of well-established conventional processes. This review work encompasses the results from a systematic literature analysis regarding Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies on PUF produced using a variety of raw materials, classified as four different feedstocks in this work. This timely work identifies the main trends in methodological choices, including functional unit, system boundaries, multifunctionality, impact assessment methods, and sensitivity analysis, and enables the understanding of their effect on the environmental sustainability of PUF, namely in the most evaluated impact category-the climate change (CC). A wide range of CC variation was observed, ranging from 2.95 kgCO2eq/FU for a fossil-based to 7.67 kgCO2eq/FU for a recovered fossil polyol. The main issues for this high variability are addressed, highlighting the need for further harmonization and consistency in data collection and methodological choices used in LCA studies.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 67 条
[1]   Shades of Grey: Guidelines for Working with the Grey Literature in Systematic Reviews for Management and Organizational Studies [J].
Adams, Richard J. ;
Smart, Palie ;
Huff, Anne Sigismund .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT REVIEWS, 2017, 19 (04) :432-454
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2006, ISO 14040 2006 ENV M
[3]  
APA, 2015, Single SIRAPA form. Support manual for filling the PRTR form. Combustion emissions. Determination of air emissions using emission factors
[4]   Economic Allocation in Life Cycle Assessment The State of the Art and Discussion of Examples [J].
Ardente, Fulvio ;
Cellura, Maurizio .
JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY, 2012, 16 (03) :387-398
[5]   Renewable carbon feedstock for polymers: environmental benefits from synergistic use of biomass and CO2 [J].
Bachmann, Marvin ;
Kaetelhoen, Arne ;
Winter, Benedikt ;
Meys, Raoul ;
Mueller, Leonard Jan ;
Bardow, Andre .
FARADAY DISCUSSIONS, 2021, 230 (00) :227-246
[6]   Life cycle analysis in refurbishment of the buildings as intervention practices in energy saving [J].
Badea, Nicolae ;
George-Vlad, Badea .
ENERGY AND BUILDINGS, 2015, 86 :74-85
[7]  
BARE JC, 2003, J IND ECOLOGY, V0006
[8]  
Beck T., 2010, LANCA Land Use Indicator Value Calculation in Life Cycle Assessment
[9]   Survey of approaches to improve reliability in LCA [J].
Björklund, AE .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2002, 7 (02) :64-72
[10]  
Bos U., 2016, LANCA Characterization Factors for Life Cycle Impact Assessment