vor 2 Monaten


  • Text
  • Bioplastics
  • Foam
  • Materials
  • Products
  • Lignin
  • Plastics
  • Biodegradable
  • Properties
  • Packaging
  • Foams

Foam With regard to

Foam With regard to recycling, the efficiency and use of take back schemes determines the recycling rate, and as of now there are apart for EPS no comprehensive take back schemes in place for most of the insulation products. From the results section it is evident that recycling should be pursued for environmental impact mitigation and that high recycling rates significantly reduce the environmental impact of BioFoam and EPS foam; a consequence of reduced demand for virgin lactide and expandable polystyrene. Whereas efficiency improvements of energy recovery from waste mainly achieves significant reductions for non-renewable energy use, abiotic resource depletion and global warming potential, improved recycling rates result in significant impact reductions in all impact categories. The study demonstrates that an LCA provides an adequate analytical framework for the quantitative comparison of insulation products from an environmental impact perspective. The following aspects have been identified as key with regard to the environmental performance of insulation products: • Insulating properties determining the material amounts required to achieve the insulating capacity • The environmental impact associated with the production of the insulation products • Post consumer treatment of the insulation products It is clear that one insulation product cannot be unambiguously classified as the most environmentally benign alternative, as this depends on the relevance assigned to the different environmental impact categories. However, considering only non-renewable energy use, abiotic resource depletion and global warming potential the insulation products can in general be ranked, starting with the most favourable alternatives, in the following order: BioFoam, EPS foam, PUR foam and mineral wool. It is evident that BioFoam can be recommended for insulation as an alternative to the other insulation products for reducing impact on climate change and dependence on fossil resources and for promoting the use of local and renewable resources. Other key observations are: • BioFoam has the highest eutrophication potential and renewable energy demand, the second highest acidification potential and requires use of farm land. • BioFoam and PUR foam have the lowest photochemical oxidant formation potentials. • EPS foam has the lowest contribution to acidification, however the highest contribution to photochemical oxidant formation. • Mineral wool performs worst in 4 out of 8 impact categories, and not well in any impact category, due to that significantly more material is needed relative the other insulation products and has a significant land use related to mining. • With regard to post consumer treatment BioFoam is the most flexible product, and is the only product which may be deliberately composted • Recycling of EPS foam and BioFoam into new insulation products leads to significant environmental impact reduction and should in general be pursued to the extent possible. This is very difficult for PUR foam and Mineral wool which mostly are incinerated or end up in landfill respectively. Cadre 1 LCA results Cradle-to-gate impacts of 1 kg lactide based PLA which is the amount of PLA needed to produce 1 kg of BioFoam using the Purac Sulzer polymerisation process. Cadre 2 Critical test passed by BioFoam Unit Non-Renewable Energy Use Renewable Energy Use Resources Carbon Footprint incl CO 2 sequestering Acidification Photochemical Oxidant Formation Eutrophication Lactide based PLA needed for BioFoam 38,642 MJ 55,763 MJ 0,79534 kg Crude Oil-Equiv. 0,9488 kg CO 2 -Equiv. 0,026551 kg SO 2 -Equiv. 0,0025805 kg Ethene-Equiv. 0,012426 kg Phosphate-Equiv. Flame retardant properties Flame retardant properties Fire propagation properties Termite and pest control EN 11925- 2:2002 DIN 4102-1 ECE R44/02 EN 117/118 Meets Euroclass E for 30-40kg/m3 Test report R0529 Effectis (TNO) dd 22-4-2010 Meets all the requirement of class B2 No after burning observed. Tested in line with the automotive directive. TNO Effectis October 2009 Suitable for automotive usage High and Low density samples not attacked by termites, BioFoam is not a digestible feedstock Report TNO Delft 22-7-2010 Other properties ISPM 15 No fungi, bacteria, splinters, rusty nails Hygienic, suitable for export without additional treatments Mould formation ISO 4833 Aerob mesofil colony forming units < 50 CFU after 3 weeks , better than EPS. Determined by Siliker Food safety and Quality solutions report 5-3-2010 32 bioplastics MAGAZINE [01/11] Vol. 6

Foam Figure 1. Flowchart of the studied system. EOL = End-of-life. T = Transport Steam Electricity Compost as Soil Conditioner Raw material for production of insulation product Raw material for low grade applications Carbon Footprint, Global Warming Potential for a functional unit with R c 5 BioFoam EPS Foam PUR Foam Mineral Wool Global Warming Potential (GWP 100 years) incl. biotic CO 2 [kg CO 2 -Equiv.] 8,1 17 22 41 Carbon dioxide Methane Carbon dioxide (biotic) Methane (biotic) Carbon dioxide (Sequestred) Nitrous oxide (laughing gas) RockWool Production RockWool PUR Foam PUR Foam EPS Foam EPS Foam Bio Foam Bio Foam Production -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 Global Warming Potential (GWP 100 years) [kg CO 2 -Equiv.] 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Global Warming Potential (GWP 100 years) [kg CO 2 -Equiv.] Land Use for a functional unit of R c 5 BioFoam EPS Foam Mineral Wool Land use (Farming & Forestry) [m 2• yr] 7,56 0,013 9,8 RockWool Occup. as Convent. arable land Occupation, arable, non-irrigated Occupation, forest, intensive Occupation, forest, intensive, normal Occupation, forest, intensive, short-cycle EPS Foam Bio Foam 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Land Use (Farming & Forestry) [m 2 .year] bioplastics MAGAZINE [01/11] Vol. 6 33

bioplastics MAGAZINE ePaper