LCA COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS LCA COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

LCA COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS LCA COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGIES OF DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR SURFACE FUNCTIONALISATION FOR SURFACE FUNCTIONALISATION Gabriela Benveniste Environment Park S.p.A. – Turin, Italy 3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland 3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland

SUMMARY SUMMARY • PROJECT FRAME AND AIMS • LCA METHODOLOGY • ANTI CORROSION TREATMENTS • OLEOPHOBY TREATMENTS • HYDROPHOBY TREATMENTS • RESULTS • FINAL COMMENTS 3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland

SUMMARY SUMMARY • PROJECT FRAME AND AIMS • LCA METHODOLOGY • ANTI CORROSION TREATMENTS • OLEOPHOBY TREATMENTS • HYDROPHOBY TREATMENTS • RESULTS • FINAL COMMENTS 3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland

Environment Park S.p.A. Environmental Scientific and Technological Park Born by initiative of Regione Piemonte, Provincia di Torino, Comune di Torino, in a wide industrial dismissed area Environment Park has been realized in the context of European Union Structural Funds and nowadays is an Joint Stock company receiving most of the capital from public organizations as: Comune di Torino, Finpiemonte S.P.A., SMAT, AMIAT, IRIDE ENERGIA, CCIAA di Torino, Unione Industriale, Provincia di Torino, Università di Torino Environment Park site contains Research and Development organizations as well as companies working on eco–efficient and innovative technologies. 3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland

PROJECT FRAME PROJECT FRAME 3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland

PROJECT AIMS PROJECT AIMS Investigate the available and future technologies for surface functionalisation on a comparative basis with specific reference to their environmental life-cycle burden Estimate the overall Compare alternative environmental burden for technologies for surface each technology through functionalisation – LCA Analysis process analysis 3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland

SUMMARY SUMMARY • PROJECT FRAME AND AIMS • LCA METHODOLOGY • ANTI CORROSION TREATMENTS • OLEOPHOBY TREATMENTS • HYDROPHOBY TREATMENTS • RESULTS • FINAL COMMENTS 3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland

LCA Methodology Methodology LCA Final product: functionalised surface Process Inputs (energy, raw (Traditional or Outputs (air emissions, materials) innovative) water emissions, solids,…) BOUSTEAD MODEL V Total Total raw Acid GER GWP POPC EU emissions materials 3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland

SCENARIOS SCENARIOS Three different studies have been carried out to compare traditional and plasma-innovative technologies Anti corrosion treatment on metal surfaces : comparing Plasma Vapour Deposition-PVD- plasma technology and SiOx plasma deposition (both innovative) and traditional galvanic plating Oleophobic properties on PET textile surface: comparing atmospheric pressure plasma technology and traditional process Hydrophobic properties on textile PET + cotton textile surface: comparing atmospheric pressure plasma technology and traditional process 3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland

LCA ANALYSIS - - HYPOTHESIS HYPOTHESIS LCA ANALYSIS For the GER (Gross Energy Requirement) results it has been taken into account the values of the energy consumption referred to the European Energy Mix. When stated, it has also been considered the Italy Energy Mix and France Energy Mix (anti corrosion case) Italy Mix Europe Mix France Mix Coal 12% 27% 7% Fuel 34% 8% 2% Gas 34% 16% 1% Hydroelectrics 10% 6% 7% Nuclear 9% 39% 82% Other sources 1% 2% 1% 3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland

LCA ANALYSIS - - HYPOTHESIS HYPOTHESIS LCA ANALYSIS Indirect energy for Natural Gas consumption have been considered using Italy scenario All the values are referred to the established Functional Unit (F.U.) The analysis does not take into account the production of the substrates, tools and machinery for the process, nor industrial systems The results regard the environmental point of view. No budget considerations at that point. More specific hypothesis are described for each case study 3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland

SUMMARY SUMMARY • PROJECT FRAME AND AIMS • LCA METHODOLOGY • ANTI CORROSION TREATMENTS • OLEOPHOBY TREATMENTS • HYDROPHOBY TREATMENTS • RESULTS • FINAL COMMENTS 3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland

CASE STUDY 1- - ANTI CORROSION COATINGS ANTI CORROSION COATINGS CASE STUDY 1 FOR FOOD INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS FOR FOOD INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS MASS AND ENERGY BALANCE OF SiOx PLASMA DEPOSITION PROCESS MASS AND ENERGY BALANCE OF SiOx PLASMA DEPOSITION PROCESS Comparing: Electricity 266 MJ Electricity 266 MJ SiOx SiOx • Traditional Cr plating CO 2 1.11 g CO 2 1.11 g Oxygen 25,61 g Oxygen 25,61 g Plasma deposition Plasma deposition Hexamethyldisiloxane 1185 g Hexamethyldisiloxane 1185 g • SiOx Plasma deposition AIR EMISSION AIR EMISSION • TiN/TiCN PVD plasma deposition 1 m 2 , 1 μ m surface treated 1 m 2 , 1 μ m surface treated Extra hypothesis: MASS AND ENERGY BALANCE OF GALVANIC PROCESS MASS AND ENERGY BALANCE OF GALVANIC PROCESS MASS AND ENERGY BALANCE OF GALVANIC PROCESS MASS AND ENERGY BALANCE OF GALVANIC PROCESS • Comparing 3 different energy Copper 41,37 mg Copper 41,37 mg Electricity 89,21 Electricity 89,21 Electricity 89,21 MJ MJ MJ Cr VI Cr VI mix (Italy, France, Europe) Zinc 217,3 mg Zinc 217,3 mg Natural gas 15,8 MJ Natural gas 15,8 MJ Natural gas 15,8 MJ COATING COATING Chromium 858,6 mg Chromium 858,6 mg CrO 3 118 g CrO 3 118 g CrO 3 118 g • F.U.= 1 m2 x 1 μ m or 1m2 x 3 μ m WATER EMISSION WATER EMISSION 1 m 2 , 3 μ m surface treated 1 m 2 , 3 μ m surface treated 3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland

CASE STUDY 1- - ANTI CORROSION COATINGS ANTI CORROSION COATINGS CASE STUDY 1 FOR FOOD INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS FOR FOOD INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS MASS AND ENERGY BALANCE OF PVD PROCESS MASS AND ENERGY BALANCE OF PVD PROCESS Electricity 121 MJ Ar 0,9 g N 2 50 g N 2 52,2 g TiN Ar 0,9 g PVD COATING Ti 7,8 g Isopropanol 12,3 g Detergent 15 g Lubricating oil 12,5 g AIR EMISSION 1 m 2 , 1 μ m surface treated MASS AND ENERGY BALANCE OF PVD PROCESS MASS AND ENERGY BALANCE OF PVD PROCESS Electricity 121 MJ N 2 42 g Ar 1,8 g Ar 1,8 g C 2 H 2 4,g TiCN C 2 H 2 0,7 g N 2 45,6 g PVD COATING Ti 12,4 g H 2 0,3 g Detergent 15 g Isopropanol 12,2 g Lubricating oil 12,5 g AIR EMISSION 1 m 2 , 1 μ m surface treated 3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland

SUMMARY SUMMARY • PROJECT FRAME AND AIMS • LCA METHODOLOGY • ANTI CORROSION TREATMENTS • OLEOPHOBY TREATMENTS • HYDROPHOBY TREATMENTS • RESULTS • FINAL COMMENTS 3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland

CASE STUDY 2- -Oleophoby on PET Oleophoby on PET substrates substrates CASE STUDY 2 Energy : Comparing: Fluorocarbons: 3.93 g Energy : Detergent: 5 g Natural gas: 4.15 MJ Elettricity : 0.375 MJ : 0.375 MJ He He : 4.46 g He : 4.46 g He Water: 5 kg Elettricity : 0.196 MJ • Traditional Oleophobic process Olephobic plasma Non treated PET De De De De De De De De -oiling -oiling -oiling -oiling -oiling -oiling -oiling -oiling 1 kg treatment surface Treated PET • Atmospheric Emissions: pressure plasma PM10: 0.714 mg PM10: 0.714 mg Emissions: Fluorocarbons : 3.77 g : 3.77 g COD: 1.75 g O2 COD: 1.75 g O2 COD: 1.75 g O2 COD: 1.75 g O2 treatment He He: 4.46 g : 4.46 g BOD : 0.12g O2 BOD : 0.12g O2 BOD : 0.12g O2 BOD : 0.12g O2 Non recuparable Solids: 0.065 g Total P: 0.026 g Solid wastes : 6.019 g Total N: 0.087 g Sequestering agent: 4.5 g Sodium carbonate :18 g Surfactant : 9 g : 9 g Energy : : Fluoro resins: 37 g Energy : Extra hypothesis: Water 33.9 l Natural gas: 6.12MJ Natural gas:16.2 MJ Acetic Acid: 18 g : 0.144 MJ : 0.144 MJ Water :1.3 l Electricity :0.36 MJ :0.36 MJ Electric ity • Energy contribution for PFC’s, as raw material added to final results Chemical Non treated PET De-oiling De-oiling 1 kg treated 1 kg Oleophobic surface PET • He gas contribution treated as O2 treatment • Sequestering agent contribution : Emissions: VOC: 2.150g VOC: 2.150g Emissions: neglected COD: 4.4 g O2 COD: 4.4 g O2 COD: 12.8 g O2 COD: 12.8 g O2 BOD: 1 g O2 BOD: 1 g O2 BOD :3g O2 BOD :3g O2 Solid Solids: 2.9 g • PFC emissions treated as a PFC generic compound 3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland

SUMMARY SUMMARY • PROJECT FRAME AND AIMS • LCA METHODOLOGY • ANTI CORROSION TREATMENTS • OLEOPHOBY TREATMENTS • HYDROPHOBY TREATMENTS • RESULTS • FINAL COMMENTS 3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management – Zurich, Switzerland