Greening the future: identifying and mitigating environmental hotspots in the MSME sector - a wall mixer case study

Figures & data

Figure 1. LCA as per ISO 14,040 (Reinout, Huppes, and Guinée 2010).

Figure 2. Wall tap mixer 33,420 (similar design manufactured by all the three companies).

Table 1. Power consumption and CO₂ equiv. For manufacturing of component of ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘C’ bath fitting companies.

Process	Steps	Power ratings (kW)			Duration (min.)			Power consum. (kWh)			CO2 equivalent (kg)
		A	B	C	A	B	C	A	B	C	A	B	C
Core making	Simple sand core	1	1	1	8	7	10	0.13	0.12	0.17	0.13	0.11	0.16
	Resin sand core	3.03	2.1	3.04	1	1	1	0.05	0.03	0.05	0.05	0.03	0.05
Total		4.03	3.1	4.04	9	8	11	0.18	0.15	0.22	0.18	0.15	0.21
Casting	Melting of raw material	40	285.17	40	1	1	1	0.67	4.75	0.67	0.65	13.93	0.65
	Pouring of material	60		60	1		1	1		1	0.98		0.98
Decoring	Fettling machine	3.73	0	2.98	60	0	60	3.73	0	2.98	3.65	0	2.92
Total		103.73	285.17	102.98	62	1	62	5.4	4.75	4.65	5.29	13.93	4.56
Rough grinding	Belt grinding	3.73	1.5	3.73	1	2	1	0.06	0.05	0.06	0.06	0.05	0.06
Machining	Lathe	3.73	2.24	3.73	6	5	6	0.37	0.19	0.37	0.37	0.18	0.37
	Capstan	5.96	5.97	5.97	2	1	1	0.2	0.09	0.1	0.19	0.1	0.1
Testing	Leakage testing	3.73	2.24	3.8	2	2	1	0.12	0.07	0.06	0.12	0.07	0.06
Grinding	Flat belt grinder	3.73	2.24	3.8	10	8	10	0.62	0.3	0.62	0.61	0.6	0.61
Polishing	Buff grinder	2.24	2.24	3	5	5	4	0.19	0.19	0.2	0.18	0.18	0.19
Total		23.12	16.41	2.98	26	23	4	1.57	0.88	0.2	1.53	1.18	0.19
Electroplating	Sk-40 + water	1	2	2	0.08	0.08	0.08	0	0	0	0	0	0
	NiS + Ni-Cl + boric acid + Brighter	1.49	4	4	20	20	20	0.5	1.33	1.33	0.49	1.31	1.31
	EC-94 + water	1	1	1	0.08	0.08	0.08	0	0	0	0	0	0
	cleaning	0	1	0.5	0	0.08	0.08	0	0	0	0	0	0
Total		3.49	8	7.5	20	20.08	20.08	0.5	1	1.33	0.48	1.31	1.31
Packaging	L D Bags	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Polythene	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Total			0	0		0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Total		109.36	312.67	108.38							7.09	16.26	7.67

Figure 3. System boundary for cradle-to-grave analysis.

Figure 4. A CO₂ equivalent and energy consumption related to company A.

Figure 5. A CO₂ equivalent emission and energy consumption related to company B.

Figure 6. A CO₂ equivalent emission and energy consumption related to company C.

Table 2. GHGs emission for manufacturing of component by ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘C’ bath fitting companies.

CO2 equivalent (kg) for each process
Process	A	B	C
Core making	00.00	−30.00	21.43
Casting	−74.76	64.64	−110.74
Machining	55.22	27.11	−6.13
Electroplating	−172.91	91.98	91.98

Figure 7. GHGs for manufacturing of component by “A”, “B”, and “C” bath fitting.

Figure 8. The arrangement of a manufacturing process according to highest probability to reduce CO₂ equivalent (hotspot).

Table 3. Manufacturing processes according to highest probability to reduce CO₂ equivalent (hotspot) in descending order.

Company	Process	Hotspots
B	Electroplating	91.98
C	Electroplating	91.98
B	Casting	64.64
A	Machining	55.22
C	Machining	27.11
C	Core making	21.42
A	Core making	0
C	Machining	−6.13
B	Core making	−30.00
A	Casting	−74.76
C	Casting	−110.74
A	Electroplating	−172.91

Reinout, H., G. Huppes, and J. B. Guinée. 2010. “Life Cycle Assessment and Sustainability Analysis of Products, Materials and Technologies. Toward a Scientific Framework for Sustainability Life Cycle Analysis.” Polymer Degradation and Stability 95 (3): 422–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2009.11.010.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.