Building life cycle assessment: a scenario analysis of a basic dwelling unit to evaluate environmental sustainability

Author(s):  
A.K. Kulatunga ◽  
K.S.L. Wickramaratne
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (9) ◽  
pp. 4948
Author(s):  
Núria Boix Rodríguez ◽  
Giovanni Formentini ◽  
Claudio Favi ◽  
Marco Marconi

Face masks are currently considered key equipment to protect people against the COVID-19 pandemic. The demand for such devices is considerable, as is the amount of plastic waste generated after their use (approximately 1.6 million tons/day since the outbreak). Even if the sanitary emergency must have the maximum priority, environmental concerns require investigation to find possible mitigation solutions. The aim of this work is to develop an eco-design actions guide that supports the design of dedicated masks, in a manner to reduce the negative impacts of these devices on the environment during the pandemic period. Toward this aim, an environmental assessment based on life cycle assessment and circularity assessment (material circularity indicator) of different types of masks have been carried out on (i) a 3D-printed mask with changeable filters, (ii) a surgical mask, (iii) an FFP2 mask with valve, (iv) an FFP2 mask without valve, and (v) a washable mask. Results highlight how reusable masks (i.e., 3D-printed masks and washable masks) are the most sustainable from a life cycle perspective, drastically reducing the environmental impacts in all categories. The outcomes of the analysis provide a framework to derive a set of eco-design guidelines which have been used to design a new device that couples protection requirements against the virus and environmental sustainability.


2013 ◽  
Vol 44 (2s) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lelia Murgia ◽  
Giuseppe Todde ◽  
Maria Caria ◽  
Antonio Pazzona

Dairy farming is constantly evolving towards more intensive levels of mechanization and automation which demand more energy consumption and result in higher economic and environmental costs. The usage of fossil energy in agricultural processes contributes to climate change both with on-farm emissions from the combustion of fuels, and by off-farm emissions due to the use of grid power. As a consequence, a more efficient use of fossil resources together with an increased use of renewable energies can play a key role for the development of more sustainable production systems. The aims of this study were to evaluate the energy requirements (fuels and electricity) in dairy farms, define the distribution of the energy demands among the different farm operations, identify the critical point of the process and estimate the amount of CO2 associated with the energy consumption. The inventory of the energy uses has been outlined by a partial Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach, setting the system boundaries at the farm level, from cradle to farm gate. All the flows of materials and energy associated to milk production process, including crops cultivation for fodder production, were investigated in 20 dairy commercial farms over a period of one year. Self-produced energy from renewable sources was also accounted as it influence the overall balance of emissions. Data analysis was focused on the calculation of energy and environmental sustainability indicators (EUI, CO2-eq) referred to the functional units. The production of 1 kg of Fat and Protein Corrected Milk (FPCM) required on average 0.044 kWhel and 0.251 kWhth, corresponding to a total emission of 0.085 kg CO2-eq). The farm activities that contribute most to the electricity requirements were milk cooling, milking and slurry management, while feeding management and crop cultivation were the greatest diesel fuel consuming operation and the largest in terms of environmental impact of milk production (73% of energy CO2-eq emissions). The results of the study can assist in the development of dairy farming models based on a more efficient and profitable use of the energy resources.


2013 ◽  
Vol 54 ◽  
pp. 215-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Holma ◽  
Kati Koponen ◽  
Riina Antikainen ◽  
Laurent Lardon ◽  
Pekka Leskinen ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (20) ◽  
pp. 25197-25208
Author(s):  
Kexuan Yang ◽  
Bihong Lv ◽  
Huazhen Shen ◽  
Guohua Jing ◽  
Zuoming Zhou

2020 ◽  
Vol 317 ◽  
pp. 123988 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edgard Gnansounou ◽  
Murthy S. Ganti ◽  
Anoop Singh ◽  
Benoit Gabrielle

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document