Eco report short

Ryan de Mello LCA Redesign 1010333

Introduction The Product The product chosen for an LCA and eco-friendly redesign was a Cole & Mason Salt Grinder. The product, totalling 12 individual components, involves the user twisting the wooden top to manually grind salt granules held in the main body. The product is considered to be from a high quality brand, retailing at ÂŁ15.99, and coming with a lifetime guarentee.

System Boundaries Using no electricity during its use phase, it will be assumed that no energy is consumed, rather than calculate the human effort required as this would become to complex a situation to process.

It will be assumed that the entire product will end up in landfill, as some of the parts can be generally difficult to separate due to their interference fits. The Cole & Mason sticker was also excluded from the analysis, given how small it is. A lacquer had been applied to the woods surface, however this has been left out due to ambiguity.

The Grinder is made in China, so a calculator (Searoutes.com) was used for the freight travel, estimating a distance of 17,829.6 km.

Travel from the port to destination was not included on either end as these values were unobtainable.

The packaging for the product was simply a paper tag wrapped around the top, so this will be ignored for the LCA due to its insignificance.

The product comes with a lifetime guarantee , so it is likely that if the product were to be disposed of, it would be due to reasons other than failure. As a result a lifespan of 10 years is given to the product.

Functional Unit This product is highly aesthetic, and given that it involves the user in the process, with them possibly developing an attachment to it; it’s likely that this product will be used in a domestic environment.

It would then be reasonable to assume that a single serving is 10g of salt, and in a home it would be used on average 2 times a day. This means through the life of the product, it would use a total of:

10 x 2 x 356 x 10 = 71 kg of Salt

This total will then be considered in a separate analysis of the impact of the product, looking at the effects of that volume of salt.

Wooden Top Beech Wood CNC Machined 49.4g

Information on the type of wood and plastic for the outer body, and the internals of the grinder was obtained from the retailers website

Salt Container Acrylic Injection Moulded 107.4g

Metal Top Steel CNC Machined 3.43g

Wooden Base Beech Wood CNC Machined 35.55g Rod Aluminium Extrude and machined 6.36g

Metal Cap

Screws

Stainless Steel Die Cut and Embossed 3.43g

Steel CNC Machined 0.45g

In order to determine the type of plastic used, burn and sink tests were conducted with a sample of the plastic. The results identified the plastic as polystyrene (most likely high impact). which was used on the plastic housing and rod cap.

Plastic Housing Polystyrene Injection Moulded 3.71g

Outer Grinder Ceramic Formed 7.87g

Rod Cap Polystyrene Injection Moulded 0.22g

Spring Steel Wire Extrude 0.38g

Inner Grinder Ceramic Formed 4.96g

Flow Chart Beech Wood

Acrylic

Machined

Injection Moulded Polished

Aluminium Steel

Extrude

Cast

PS

Ceramic

Steel

Steel

Steel

Injection Moulded

Formed

Wire Extrude

Cast

Stamped

Machined

Non-adhesive assembly

Packaging Not included

Transport China to England

Use Phase No Energy

Disposal Landfill

Spring Machined Wound

CES Eco Audit Analysis

CES Analysis

Energy (MJ) 20

15

10

5

Material

Manufacture Transport

Use

Disposal

EoL Potential

CO2 Footprint (kg) 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2

Material

Manufacture Transport

Use

Disposal

EoL Potential

For full results see appendix

The CES Analysis was carried out using the first level; despite research and tests to discover the types of material used, only a general idea was formed of the materials, which the first level provided. The higher levels would require details and specifics that were not available, and would otherwise have to be guessed.

The overall analysis clearly highlighted the material collection stage in the Life-Cycle to have the greatest environmental impact, having a carbon footprint of over 0.9 kg, and requiring 15.4 MJ. This equates to 82.3% and 85.2% of the entire product respectively[1]. The manufacturing stage was next, however it contributed significantly less, requiring 2.2 MJ and creating 0.166 kg of Carbon (12.2% and 14.8% of the whole process respectively[2]).

Taking a closer look at the breakdown, it can be seen that the component that causes the most issues is the acrylic salt container. In terms of the actual material, it holds 78.1% of the energy (12MJ) and has a carbon footprint of 0.73 kg, 79% for the total of the product[3].

Furthermore, in the manufacture creates 0.15 kg of carbon, 89.9% of the total, and holds 2 MJ, 89.8% of the total[4]. The sourcing and production of this part is clearly a problem area, and is at blame for the overall issues in the material collection and manufacture.

Although these percentages are quite large, it’s important to remember that the salt container is the heaviest part, weighing approximately 73% of the entire product. Comparatively, it becomes apparent that through being the primary component, it’s likely to have the biggest impact. However, looking deeper at the material, there are other issues linked with the environmental impacts. This is likely due to the fact that acrylic is a man-made material that requires a large investment into the processes behind creating it. The actual process involved bulk polymerising methyl methacrylate monomers, into polymers (PMMA). It’s primarily the use of acrylic acid where the problems lie, with it being quite toxic, but a large necessary component, its a huge knock on effect to the whole production.

[1][2][3][4]

See Appendix A

The transport phase had minimal impacts, likely because this is such a small item, and when part of a large bulk shipment, has very low individual effects. The disposal and EoL phase had little to no impacts, due to it being such a small product, and having no recycling potential due to difficulty in disassembly.

CES Eco Audit Strengths Through being a streamlined LCA tool, CES can take a range of detailed information and process it into results very quickly, and would be much cheaper for a company. This makes it ideal for use in the earlier stages of a design process where decisions can be made at a faster rate based on the results. This is due to the fact that it uses clear boundaries to the system, to avoid it from becoming too complex. Furthermore these boundaries are common, and can be readily available to multiple people making it more recognisable.

The actual data provided covers two of the more practical environmental impacts (Energy held and the Carbon Footprint).

These points provide a generalised view on the potential impacts of the final product, enabling the user to gain a better understanding faster.

Weaknesses Although the program covers the main points, one of its biggest problems is the fact that it only covers those 2 issues. The boundaries of the analysis are relatively small meaning that it overlooks all the potential secondary effects of the product which are a lot more indepth, and at times could reveal more about the issues the product is causing, such as issues involving toxic substance.

SimaPro LCA

SimaPro Analysis LCA per Impact Category 125

100

mPt

75

50

25

Salt Grinder

Transport

Respiratory Inorganics

Carcinogens

Disposal

Climate Change

Fossil Fuels

Others

100

mPt

75

50

ap m

M

et al

Bo

tto

et al M

ta i on C

C

To p

r ne

se Ba Sa lt

de n

To p W oo

de n

s

d Ro

W oo

rH de

re w

ou

d rin G

Sc

sin

g

ap C

g Ro

in Sp r

de rin

ne In

O

ut er

G

rG

rin

de

r

r

25

Component Comparison For full results see appendix

The SimaPro Analysis included significantly more detail than CES, and required more detailed input as well. As a result, some assumptions were made as to the specific material that was used in some areas.

Unlike CES, the data from the results was broken down into a number of different environmentally sensitive areas, providing more useful information as to where the issues of the product lie. Unsurprisingly, the results also highlighted the material and manufacture as the biggest problem area, and specifically the acrylic salt container. It went further and showed that the reason for such a big impact was the use of fossil fuels, likely those held in the plastic and the processes behind forming them. More interestingly, the disposal phase of the LCA had much more of an impact, with there being a large issue with carcinogens when the product is left in landfill. From looking deeper into the SimaPro data, it becomes apparent that this is due to the Cadmium involved in the treatment facilities at the Landfill site.

The most common cause of the carcinogenic Cadmium release is due to incinerating materials, with Cadmium being a by-product of the burning[5].

Both the LCA’s showed the issue with the salt container, being the biggest contributor to the issues. Through SimaPro it can be seen that these issues are rooted in the use of fossil fuels in the acrylic. The actual source is the cause, with it being a man made material, there are a number of toxic chemicals and processes behind it, resulting in large environmental impacts. The two biggest contributors were the crude oil required to actually make the material, and the natural gas likely required to fuel the processes. The container also had issues with respiratory inorganics, with the 2 biggest by-products being Sulfur Dioxide, and Nitrogen Oxide, both of which are released during the actual production of PMMA[6].

[5][6]

See Appendix B

Overall Analysis

100

mPt

75

50

25

Human Health

Eco-System

Salt Grinder

Resources

Transport

Disposal

Substances Affecting Human Health

Sulfur Dioxide Particulates <2.5 um Carbon Dioxide, fossil Nitrogen Oxides Arsenic Particulates >2.5 um, <10 um Others

For full results see appendix

The next two biggest components were the metal top and the rod, two of the largest metal parts. These parts both had issues with carcinogens, respiratory inorganics, and fossil fuels, all three likely originating from the processing and treatments of the metals, as well as their collection. However these impacts were much smaller in comparison.

Through looking at the general categories for the environmental issues, it becomes apparent that Human health is actually a relatively big issue. More than half of the problems come from the production and sourcing of the product, with the waste being a large issue as well. Breaking down what are the causes of these issues highlights some of the issues that have already been brought up: Sulfur dioxide being the biggest contributor to heath issues as well as the Nitrogen Oxide, both by-products from the production of acrylic.

The other largest contributors are particulates and carbon dioxide.

The air particulates come from the production of the ceramic parts in the grinder[7]. This is unfortunate, as the use of ceramics in the grinder is essential, as metal isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t an option given that it will likely corrode as any coatings would wear from the grinding of salt, and would detract from the quality of the product. The carbon dioxide is another product from the production of the PMMA[8] likely from the burning of fossil fuels.

[7][8]

See Appendix B

SimaPro LCA Strengths The SimaPro provided a comprehensive look at the life cycle of the product showing all potential effects of the product, and providing the information in great depth. It enables the users to pin-point where the issues are in a products life and enable them to minimize these impacts, right down to the chemicals used in certain processes. Through having a flexible system, it allows the user to further analyse individual parts against each other, in order to find if there is a specific problem area or component. The detail of the system also means that it has a huge library of processes and materials available to ensure that all the correct information is input into the calculations.

Another big benefit of the Full LCA is the fact that it considers most of the potential environmental effects of a product, essentially providing a better damage assessment of the product to the environment. This decreases the likelihood that certain effects will be overlooked, and ensures the user will be better informed.

Weaknesses Through having such a diverse library of materials, at times the user may not be able to go into that level of detail, meaning assumptions have to be made about the material and process choices. In fact a number of assumptions have to be made using the full LCA as a whole, such as during the use phase, meaning the results gained from it could vary dramatically. Furthermore the method of assessment used means the use of a Full LCA is inherently subjective as individuals could choose their boundaries that may be different from one another due to the fact thereâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s no scientific standard set out e.g. for weightings of certain factors. Another issue is that although the library is extensive, it wonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t always have the exact material you require, so substitutions will have to be made, or in some cases the material may actually have incorrect data, causing highly skewed results. All of these factors essentially point to the fact that two LCAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s conducted on the same system could lead to different results.

LCA Comparison

CES Eco Audit Fast Relatively Cheap Clearly Defined Boundaries

Uses well known method Covers main environmental issues Limited Scope and Boundaries

SimaPro Time consuming Expensive System Boundaries are up to user discretion, can lead to varied results Variety of analysis methods Considers most environmental issues Includes issues with toxicity and other damages Has a large comprehensive library of materials and processes A number of assumptions are required to carry out fully Provides in-depth analysis of the results

Salt Usage

As mentioned before, the salt usage during the lifetime of this product would be analysed, but not within the LCA of the product. This is because the user will use the same amount of salt regardless of the product, however the impacts of that usage should be examined.

As a result, the assumption of 71kg of salt usage throughout the life of the product was taken and analysed. Unfortunately SimaPro did not have the correct material for table salt, however it did have the chemical Sodium Chloride powder, which would be a suitable substitute given its chemical consistency.

Given such a large volume of material was required, the overall impacts are considerably larger than that of just the product, in every sector. Actually looking deeper at the impacts per individual category, the majority of the issues come from 3 sectors: carcinogens, respiratory inorganics and fossil fuels. The biggest contributor to the carcinogens was arsenic originating from sulfidic tailing. Particulates <2.5um were to blame for the large respiratory inorganics, with them being produced from high voltage electricity usage.

As mentioned before, these results should be taken with a pinch of salt, theyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re technically not based on the actual material used, and utilise a volume calculated using generalised assumptions.

Furthermore they have no bearing on the functional unit as it would be far too complex to calculate the efficiency of the original product and the potential redesign. Nevertheless, they provide an insight into the potential impact of the entire product throughout its life.

Salt impacts compared to Salt Grinder

1.6 1.4 1.2

Pt

1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2

Human Health

Eco-System

Salt

Resources

Salt Grinder

800 700 600

400 300 200

Ec

O

zo

ne ot ox Eu ic ity tro ph ic at io n La nd Us e M in er al s Fo ss il Fu el s

Re

ar ci

no ge sp ns .O r g Re an sp ic . In s or ga C ni lim cs at e C ha ng e Ra di at io n

100

C

mPt

500

Salt impact per category

Both the results brought up the key issues with the product, and some of the benefits. As mentioned before, the fact that this is a manual mill removes the need for any electricity, a huge benefit over the popular battery powered mills. Plus it brings the aesthetic and rustic style that some may desire. In terms of the human needs met, this product simply provides seasoning for food, which could be considered a non-essential. Although the salt could be considered an essential food from its nutritional value, realistically this is being targeted at a specific market. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s an extravagant product for just providing salt, as it has a further step in providing the salt: enabling the user to carry the process out themselves. In Maslows Hierarchy of Needs, this could go as high as to be considered as self-esteem.

It enables people to have a more social food experience e.g. if someone was having a dinner party, they could grind the salt for their guests. Moving further up, it is a highly aesthetic item, one that the owner will feel proud off. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s a product that someone would want to have on display and show its use.

These are important factors when considering the redesign of the product, as it must still maintain itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s traits beyond just the physical material. The brand Cole & Mason has a number of products on sale that carry out the same function, but have been designed differently to suit various styles. The involvement of motor in some products is an understandable step in involving technology in the process, but as mentioned it removes some of the attachment the user has. So this product must try and maintain a similar aesthetic as much as possible. In terms of changing the users behaviour towards the product, whilst it may be possible to give the user specific portions of salt, realistically they could use the product repeatedly, so trying to design a method of portion control become redundant.

Product Redesign

Remove the Grinder Use a salt shaker

Change Grinding Mechanism

Change Salt Container Material

Remove ceramics and other grinding components

Could optimize material usage and minimisation

Removes problems attached with acrylic

Could remove emotional investment

No real way to check efficiency of new design

Could be difficult to maintain current aesthetic

REDESIGN Control the Salt Portions

Reduce Material in Salt Container

Motorize Grinder

Health benefits and reduction to massive salt impacts

Optimize material usage from bulky container

Improve product appeal and efficiency

User could ignore and use as much as they like

Could compromise strength and weaken use

Would require electricity, a big knock on effect

Improve Joints for Disassembly

Use alternate material in Grinder

Adjustable Serving

Improves product End of Life Potential

Removes particulates from the outputs of the system

User can personalise it so may keep product for longer

Would physically weaken parts of the design

Could reduce life expectancy through corrosion

May add further unnecessary parts for possibly no gain

POSSIBILITIES Complete Redesign

Remove Unnecessary Components

Better Sourcing of Material

Could be reduced to only achieve core function

Save on material and manufacturing impacts

Collection of materials from a sustainable source

Product would lose a lot of the appeal and character

Could alter product aesthetic for the worse

Could compromise on quality

Wooden Top Beech Wood Machined 50g Screw Thread Screw thread on the between wooden top and salt container keeps the lid on top, allowing user to replenish salt

Salt Container HIPS Injection Moulded 138g

Screw Thread Plastic cross section at the base of the container has screw thread for axle to screw into

Upper Grinder Ceramic Formed 4.5g

Wooden Bottom Beech Wood Machined 35g

Lower Grinder Ceramic Formed 9.6g

Filter PET Injection Moulded 3.74g

Screws Steel CNC Machined 0.45g

Axle Steel CNC Machined 3.55g

The redesign addresses two main features, the first is the use of acrylic in the salt container, and the second is the grinding mechanism. Through using high impact polystyrene instead of acrylic, it would change the process slightly, but have more benefits overall. Transparent HIPS could provide the same aesthetic, whilst maintaining an acceptable level of strength. In this case the general size has remained the same as the user will need to hold the salt container and the bottom wooden part in order to use the grinder, so the increased thickness and strength is needed for reliability.

The second big change is the redesign of the grinding mechanism.

Firstly, the metal top and the metal rod running through the product have been removed.These were the second two biggest contributors to environmental impacts. The grinding mechanism then needs to be changed, so the top grinder is moved into the salt container, and held in place with two slots. The second part is then held in the wooden base, screwed in place through the bottom. The two flat ceramic faces will catch and crush the salt as they are twisted in their two patterns. At the bottom of the product, there is a plastic plate that will spread the granules as they pass through, which will also be held in place with the screws. Finally there will be an axle that passes through the grinders up in to the salt container where it will screw into place. This axle will hold the parts together vertically, with all the twisting torque being applied to the joints holding the ceramics to their respective parts.

Overall there are few components, through the changing of the grinding mechanism, the plastic housing, rod cap, spring and metal cap are all removed simplifying the overall design.

Finally the product is held together entirely through screws, resulting in a quicker and simpler disassembly, meaning the product is less likely to end up in landfill entirely, but instead be broken down and recycled.

Components Per Impact Category 70 60

mPt

50 40 30 20

Fossil Fuels

To p W oo

de

n

Ba n de W oo

pe Up

Climate Change

se

r de rin

re w

lt Sa

Respiratory Inorganics

rG

on C

Sc

ne ta i

rin G Lo w er

Carcinogens

s

r

r de

te r Fil

A

xle

10

Others

80

mPt

60

40

20

Salt Grinder

Transport

Salt Mill Per impact Category

Disposal

SimaPro was used to carry out the analysis of the redesign due to the quality of information it produces, giving an in-depth analysis of the product. The values for weights were taken from the Solidworks model, with estimations from the material mass properties.

The results showed that the Salt Container is still the biggest contributor to environmental issues, with fossil fuels being a large issue with it.

The actual component takes up 56% of the overall product in terms of weight, so naturally it will be have bigger impacts. These effects of the fossil fuels come from the need for crude oil, and the natural gas used in the processes. The production also produces some respiratory inorganics such as Sulfur Dioxide, and Nitrogen Oxide, likely by-products of the production of plastic. The production of the salt container is also the biggest contributor to climate change, with it producing 85% of the CO2 out of the entire production process. The grinder parts also produce a large number of respiratory inorganics through the particulates from ceramic product[9]. The transport and disposal phases are fairly similar in their impacts, although different in their types.Transport requires the fossil fuels in order to actually fuel the vehicles, with sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides produced as a by-product. On the other hand, the disposal phase is comprised entirely of carcinogenic effects[10]. The big advantage of this over the previous design is the use of fossil fuels instead of the carcinogens and respiratory inorganics: a large portion of the fossil fuel usage is through natural gas.

[9][10]

See Appendix C

LCA Comparison 100

mPt

80

60

40

20

Human Health

Eco-System

Original

Resources

Redesign

100

mPt

80

60

40

20

Salt Grinder

Transport

Disposal

When comparing the two designâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s LCA, it becomes clear that there are benefits to the new design. Looking at the impacts to the various environmental issues, human health issues are cut by nearly half, there is a marginal improvement to eco-system related issues and resources used are lowered. The lowered resources are due to the removal of some components, reducing the total to 8 unique components (down from 12). The improvements to human health issues is likely from the changing of acrylic to high impact polystyrene, a process which produces less carcinogens and generally is a less toxic production.

Through actually looking at the life-cycle phases, the overall improvements of the product can be seen. During the material and production phase, the product is substantially better, seeing a 20% improvement. Again this is likely due to fewer components, and a better process for the salt container (the biggest part).

Transport effects are actually increased slightly, a consequence of changing the material for the salt container. The HIPS plastic weighs approximately 30% more than the old acrylic one, having a knockon effect on the transport requirements. It should be noted that due to not knowing the strength requirements of the material, the old structure was assumed to be kept; it may be possible to alter the form and reduce the overall material required through analysis programs if HIPS can withstand the forces applied. Finally the disposal phase had improved by almost 50%, as the new design enables a much quicker and easier disassembly, increasing the likelihood that the product will be broken down and recycled.

The redesign clearly shows overall improvements across most categories, and importantly still keeps the aesthetic and function of the original design, meeting the same human needs.