生命周期评估与材料循环性指标的比较分析:应用于智能电表聚碳酸酯部件的研究

IF 2.7 4区 环境科学与生态学 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Mariane Guerra Martins, Andrea Oliveira Nunes, Sandro Donnini Mancini, Cristina Belli, Tiago Barreto Rocha, Virginia Aparecida Silva Moris
{"title":"生命周期评估与材料循环性指标的比较分析:应用于智能电表聚碳酸酯部件的研究","authors":"Mariane Guerra Martins,&nbsp;Andrea Oliveira Nunes,&nbsp;Sandro Donnini Mancini,&nbsp;Cristina Belli,&nbsp;Tiago Barreto Rocha,&nbsp;Virginia Aparecida Silva Moris","doi":"10.1007/s10163-024-02077-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>There is growing interest in metrics for developing circular and sustainable products. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and the Material Circularity Indicator (MCI) are prominent for analyzing environmental performance and product circularity, respectively. This study compares these methodologies applied to a case of plastic parts made from virgin Polycarbonate + 10% Fiber Glass for smart electricity meters. Sensitivity analyses were conducted on the recycled content used and the final treatment of parts. Both methodologies are sensitive to recycled content usage. The best scenario (SA1-10) features 100% recycled content and full recycling of parts, while the worst scenario (SA2-1) uses 100% virgin content with all parts disposed of in landfills. The results highlight similarities and differences between the methodologies. MCI focuses on material source, life extension, and end-of-life treatment to measure circularity. LCA covers a broader range of impact categories, including resource use, human health, and ecosystem impacts, making it more comprehensive for environmental analysis. Both emphasize the importance of recycled content and end-of-life treatment, underscoring the benefits of recycling in reducing environmental impacts and enhancing circularity.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":643,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management","volume":"26 6","pages":"3777 - 3786"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative analysis of life cycle assessment and material circularity indicator: study applied to smart electricity meter polycarbonate parts\",\"authors\":\"Mariane Guerra Martins,&nbsp;Andrea Oliveira Nunes,&nbsp;Sandro Donnini Mancini,&nbsp;Cristina Belli,&nbsp;Tiago Barreto Rocha,&nbsp;Virginia Aparecida Silva Moris\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10163-024-02077-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>There is growing interest in metrics for developing circular and sustainable products. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and the Material Circularity Indicator (MCI) are prominent for analyzing environmental performance and product circularity, respectively. This study compares these methodologies applied to a case of plastic parts made from virgin Polycarbonate + 10% Fiber Glass for smart electricity meters. Sensitivity analyses were conducted on the recycled content used and the final treatment of parts. Both methodologies are sensitive to recycled content usage. The best scenario (SA1-10) features 100% recycled content and full recycling of parts, while the worst scenario (SA2-1) uses 100% virgin content with all parts disposed of in landfills. The results highlight similarities and differences between the methodologies. MCI focuses on material source, life extension, and end-of-life treatment to measure circularity. LCA covers a broader range of impact categories, including resource use, human health, and ecosystem impacts, making it more comprehensive for environmental analysis. Both emphasize the importance of recycled content and end-of-life treatment, underscoring the benefits of recycling in reducing environmental impacts and enhancing circularity.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":643,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management\",\"volume\":\"26 6\",\"pages\":\"3777 - 3786\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10163-024-02077-4\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10163-024-02077-4","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人们对开发循环和可持续产品的指标越来越感兴趣。生命周期评估(LCA)和材料循环性指标(MCI)分别是分析环境性能和产品循环性的重要方法。本研究对这些方法进行了比较,并将其应用于由原生聚碳酸酯+10% 玻璃纤维制成的智能电表塑料部件。对所使用的回收成分和部件的最终处理进行了敏感性分析。两种方法都对回收成分的使用很敏感。最佳方案(SA1-10)的特点是使用 100% 再生成分并对部件进行完全回收利用,而最差方案(SA2-1)则使用 100% 原生成分并对所有部件进行填埋处理。结果凸显了两种方法的异同。MCI 专注于材料来源、寿命延长和报废处理,以衡量循环性。生命周期评估涵盖了更广泛的影响类别,包括资源使用、人类健康和生态系统影响,使其在环境分析方面更加全面。两者都强调回收成分和报废处理的重要性,强调回收在减少环境影响和提高循环性方面的益处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparative analysis of life cycle assessment and material circularity indicator: study applied to smart electricity meter polycarbonate parts

Comparative analysis of life cycle assessment and material circularity indicator: study applied to smart electricity meter polycarbonate parts

There is growing interest in metrics for developing circular and sustainable products. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and the Material Circularity Indicator (MCI) are prominent for analyzing environmental performance and product circularity, respectively. This study compares these methodologies applied to a case of plastic parts made from virgin Polycarbonate + 10% Fiber Glass for smart electricity meters. Sensitivity analyses were conducted on the recycled content used and the final treatment of parts. Both methodologies are sensitive to recycled content usage. The best scenario (SA1-10) features 100% recycled content and full recycling of parts, while the worst scenario (SA2-1) uses 100% virgin content with all parts disposed of in landfills. The results highlight similarities and differences between the methodologies. MCI focuses on material source, life extension, and end-of-life treatment to measure circularity. LCA covers a broader range of impact categories, including resource use, human health, and ecosystem impacts, making it more comprehensive for environmental analysis. Both emphasize the importance of recycled content and end-of-life treatment, underscoring the benefits of recycling in reducing environmental impacts and enhancing circularity.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
16.10%
发文量
205
审稿时长
4.8 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management has a twofold focus: research in technical, political, and environmental problems of material cycles and waste management; and information that contributes to the development of an interdisciplinary science of material cycles and waste management. Its aim is to develop solutions and prescriptions for material cycles. The journal publishes original articles, reviews, and invited papers from a wide range of disciplines related to material cycles and waste management. The journal is published in cooperation with the Japan Society of Material Cycles and Waste Management (JSMCWM) and the Korea Society of Waste Management (KSWM).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信