Evaluation of sustainability using an integrated approach at process and product level: a case study

Figures & data

Figure 1 An integrated approach for assessing sustainability.

Table 1 Product sustainability index.

Manufacturing	Score	Use	Score	Post-use	Score
Production energy used	7	Emissions	8	Recyclability	6
Hazardous waste produced	7	Functionality	6	Remanufacturability	6
Renewable energy used	6	Hazardous waste	4	Redesign	5
PSIen	66.66	PSIen	60	PSIen	56.66
Work ethics	8	Product pricing	8	Take back options	7
Ergonomics	8	Human safety	4	Reuse	8
Work safety	9	Upgradability	7	Recovery	8
PSIsoc	83.33	PSIsoc	63.33	PSIsoc	73.33
Production cost	7	Maintenance cost	8	Recycling cost	7
Packaging cost	7	Repair cost	6	Disassembly cost	8
Energy cost	7	Consumer injury cost	3	Disposal cost	6
Transportation	6			Remanufacturing cost	7
PSIeco	67.5	PSIeco	56.66	PSIeco	70
PSIman	72.50	PSIuse	59.99	PSIpu	66.66

Table 2 Risk/benefit worksheet for raw material phase.

	Social			Economic			Environmental
Process	Score	R/B	L/M/H	Score	R/B	L/M/H	Score	R/B	L/M/H
Hazardous	4	R	M	4			4	R	L
Source	7	B	M	7	B	H	7	B	M
Costs	8			8	B	H	8
Use of child labour	8	B	M	8			8
Transportation	6			6			6	B	L
Non-renewable	5	R	L	5			5	R	M
Energy used	4	R	M	4	R	M	4
Emissions	5			5			5	B	L
Discharges	3			3			3	R	H
Nuisances	7	B	H	7	B	M	7
Health and safety	6	B	L	6			6	B	L
Other	4			4			4

Table 3 Risk/benefit worksheet for manufacturing phase.

	Social			Economic			Environmental
Process	Score	R/B	L/M/H	Score	R/B	H/M/L	Score	R/B	H/M/L
Design	8	B	M	8	B	M	8
Material selection	7			7	B	L	7	B	L
Disassembly	8			8			8
Cost	6	B	L	6	B	L	6
Energy usage	5			5	R	L	5	B	L
Waste generated	4			4			4	R	M
Re-use	5	R	M	5	R	M	5	B	L
Recycling	8	B	H	8	B	H	8	B	H
LCA	5	B	L	5			5
Other	4			4			4

Figure 2 Risk prioritisation for raw material phase.

Figure 3 Benefit prioritisation for raw material phase.

Figure 4 Risk prioritisation manufacturing phase.

Figure 5 Benefit prioritisation for manufacturing phase.

Figure 6 Life cycle model for vacuum forming process.

Figure 7 Life cycle model for injection moulding process.

Table 4 Inventory analysis.

Units in kg equivalent	Vacuum forming	Injection moulding
Resources
Energy resources	96.877	106.693
Material resources	3079.957	3393.209
Energy resources
Non-renewable energy resources	96.877	106.692
Renewable energy resources	0.000297	0.000327
Material resources
Non-renewable elements	4.60E − 09	5.07E − 09
Non-renewable resources	1151.581	1268.714
Renewable resources	1928.375	2124.495

Table 5 Impact analysis.

Emissions (units in kg)	Vacuum forming	Injection moulding
Emissions to air	721.603	1010.972
Emissions to fresh water	1.646	1.813
Emissions to sea water	0.00679	0.00633
Emissions to industrial soil	6.35E − 05	6.19E − 05

Table 6 Various emissions to air.

Emission to air	Vacuum forming	Injection moulding
Heavy metals to air	0.000106	0.000117
Inorganic emissions to air	313.077	560.893
Organic emissions to air (group volatile organic compounds (VOC))	0.00859	0.00931
Other emissions to air	408.507	450.054
Particles to air	0.012	0.014
Radioactive emissions to air	1.52E − 07	1.67E − 07

Table 7 Human toxicity potential.

CML 2001–07 Dec., HTP (inf.; kg Dichlorobenzene (DCB)-equiv.)	Vacuum forming	Injection moulding
Emissions to air	2.412	2.656
Heavy metals to air	1.447	1.594
Inorganic emissions to air	0.939	1.033
Organic emissions to air (group VOC)	0.0204	0.022
Particles to air	0.0048	0.005
Radioactive emissions to air	0	0