Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Influence of the Material Composition on the Environmental Impact of Ceramic Glasses

  • Regular Paper
  • Published:
International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing-Green Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An exhaustive study of the influence of ceramic glass material composition on the environmental impact has been performed. In order to perform a more accurate calculation of the environmental impact a life cycle assessment (LCA) was implemented using real material composition of ceramic glasses. Employing a sequential X-rays Fluorescence spectrometer, the composition of several ceramic glasses were analyzed, as this information is not published by the manufacturers. The environmental impact results of each ceramic glass were surveyed using EcoInvent v3.4 data, and SimaPro 8.4 software, following ReCiPe Endpoint and Carbon Footprint methodologies. The importance of considering the composition on the LCA is shown, establishing significant differences among the analyzed glasses. Few variations in the quantity of material composition generate high differences on the environmental impact values, demonstrating the high influence of the material composition on the environmental impact. Elements such as tin, lithium, and titanium are the ones that generate the highest contribution on the environmental impact. In contrast, silica sand shows the lowest impact in both methodologies despite it supposes between 58% and 63% of their compositions. Others such as barite and magnesium, together with neodymium emerged in the composition of the studied ceramic glasses as they are considered Critical Raw Materials by the European Union, due to their supply risk and economic importance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

EoL:

End of Life

ErP:

Energy-related products

EU:

European Union

EuP:

Energy-using products

GWP:

Global warming potential

IPCC:

Intergovernmental panel on climate change

ISO:

International Organization for Standardization

LCA:

Life cycle assessment

LREE:

Light rare earth element

REACH:

Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and restriction of CHemicals

REEs:

Rare earth elements

RMA:

Raw material acquisition

RoHS:

Restriction of hazardous substances

References

  1. European Commission. (2012). Ecodesign your future. How Ecodesign can help the environment by making products smarter. Belgium: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ma, J., Kremer, G. E. O., & Ray, C. D. (2017). A comprehensive end-of-life strategy decision making approach to handle uncertainty in the product design stage. Research in Engineering Design,29, 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Casamayor, J. L., & Su, D. (2013). Integration of eco-design tools into the development of eco-lighting products. Journal of Cleaner Production,47, 32–42.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Gómez, P., Elduque, D., Sarasa, J., Pina, C., & Javierre, C. (2016). Influence of composition on the environmental impact of a cast aluminum alloy. Materials,9(6), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Elduque, A., Javierre, C., Elduque, D., & Fernández, Á. (2015). LCI databases sensitivity analysis of the environmental impact of the injection molding process. Sustainability,7, 3792–3800.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dalhammar, C. (2016). Industry attitudes toward ecodesign standards for improved resource efficiency. Journal of Cleaner Production,123, 155–166.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dekoninck, E. A., Domingo, L., O’Hare, J. A., Pigosso, D. C. A., Reyes, T., & Troussier, N. (2016). Defining the challenges for ecodesign implementation in companies: Development and consolidation of a framework. Journal of Cleaner Production,135, 410–425.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gaha, R., Yannou, B., & Benamara, A. (2014). A new eco-design approach on CAD systems. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing,15, 1443–1451.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Linke, B., Huang, Y., & Dornfeld, D. (2012). Establishing greener products and manufacturing processes. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing,13, 1029–1036.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Zhao, W. B., Jeong, J. W., Noh, S. D., & Yee, J. T. (2015). Energy simulation framework integrated with green manufacturing-enabled PLM information model. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing-Green Technolgy,2(3), 217–224.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Aryanasl, A., Ghodousi, J., Arjmandi, R., & Mansouri, N. (2016). Can excellence management models encompass “cleaner production” and “sustainable business” revolution? (European Foundation for Quality Management as a case study). International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology,13(5), 1269–1276.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ma, J., & Kim, N. (2016). Optimal product design for life cycle assessment (LCA) with the case study of universal motors. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing,17, 1229–1235.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lee, C. M., Woo, W. S., & Roh, Y. H. (2017). Remanufacturing: Trends and issues. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing-Green Technolgy,4, 113–125.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Prakash, S., Liu, R., Schischke, K., & Stobbe, L. (2012). Timely replacement of a notebook under consideration of environmental aspects. Germany: Federal Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt), Dessau-Roßlau.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Alonso, N., Zwolinski, P., Dewulf, J., & Mathieux, F. (2016). A method for manual disassembly analysis to support the ecodesign of electronic displays. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,11, 42–58.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ardente, F., Mathieux, F., & Recchioni, M. (2014). Recycling of electronic displays: Analysis of pre-processing and potential ecodesign improvements. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,92, 158–171.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Prendeville, S., O’Connor, F., & Palmer, L.(2001). Barriers and benefits to ecodesign: A case study of tool use in an SME. In: Sustainable Systems and Technology (ISSST), 2011 IEEE International Symposium on, pp. 1–6.

  18. Dornfeld, D. A. (2014). Moving towards green and sustainable manufacturing. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing-Green Technology,1, 63–66.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Chiu, M. C., & Chu, C. H. (2012). Review of sustainable product design from life cycle perspectives. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing,13, 1259–1272.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Zhang, L., Zhang, B., Bao, H., & Huang, H. (2018). Optimization of cutting parameters for minimizing environmental impact: considering energy efficiency, noise emission and economic dimension. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing,19, 613–624.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Pina, C., Elduque, D., Javierre, C., Martínez, E., & Jiménez, E. (2015). Influence of mechanical design on the evolution of the environmental impact of an induction hob. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,20, 937–946.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kang, Y., Chun, D., Jun, Y., & Ahn, S. (2010). Computer-aided environmental design system for the energy-using product (EuP) directive. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing,11, 397–406.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kuo, T. C., Huang, M., Hsu, C. W., Lin, C. J., Hsieh, C., & Chu, C. (2015). Application of data quality indicator of carbon footprint and water footprint. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing-Green Technology,2, 43–50.

    Google Scholar 

  24. European Parliament. (2005). Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2005 Establishing a Framework for the Setting of Ecodesign Requirements for Energy-Using Products. Official Journal of the European Union, EU Publications Office: Luxembourg.

  25. European Parliament. (2009). Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 Establishing a Framework for the Setting of Ecodesign Requirements for Energy-Related Products. Official Journal of the European Union, EU Publications Office: Luxembourg.

  26. Committee, Japanese Industrial Standards. (2012). JIS Q 14006. Environmental management systems—guidelines for incorporating ecodesign. Tokyo: JIS.

    Google Scholar 

  27. European Parliament. (2006). Regulation (Ec) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 Concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), Establishing a European Chemicals Agency. In: Official Journal of the European Union, EU Publications Office: Luxembourg.

  28. ISO. ISO 14006:2011. (2011). Environmental Management Systems—Guidelines for Incorporating Ecodesign. Geneve: International Organization for Standardization.

    Google Scholar 

  29. European Parliament. (2003) .Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment. In: Official Journal of the European Union, EU Publications Office: Luxembourg.

  30. Rossi, M., Germani, M., & Zamagni, A. (2016). Review of ecodesign methods and tools. Barriers and strategies for an effective implementation in industrial companies. Journal of Cleaner Production,129, 361–373.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ardente, F., Calero Pastor, M., Mathieux, F., & Talens Peiró, L. (2016). Analysis of end-of-life treatments of commercial refrigerating appliances: Bridging product and waste policies. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,21, 1063–1066.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Su, J. C. P., Chu, C. H., & Wang, Y. T. (2012). A decision support system to estimate the carbon emission and cost of product designs. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing,13, 1037–1045.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Nam, S., Lee, D., Jeong, Y., Lee, P., & Shin, J. (2016). Environmental impact assessment of composite small craft manufacturing using the generic work breakdown structure. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing-Green Technology,3, 261–272.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Elduque, A., Elduque, D., Clavería, I., & Javierre, C. (2018). “Influence of material and injection molding machine’s selection on the electricity consumption and environmental impact of the injection molding process: An experimental approach. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing-Green Technology,5, 13–28.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Klöpffer, W., & Grahl, B. (2016). Life cycle assessment (LCA): A guide to best practice. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,21, 1063–1066.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Gómez, P., Elduque, D., Sarasa, J., Pina, C., & Javierre, C. (2015). Influence of the material composition on the environmental impact of SMD transistors. Journal of Cleaner Production,107, 722–730.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Andrae, A. S., & Andersen, O. (2010). “Life cycle assessments of consumer electronics—are they consistent? The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,15(8), 827–836.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Andrae, A. S. G., & Samuli Vaija, M. (2017). “Precision of a streamlined life cycle assessment approach used in eco-rating of mobile phones. Challenges,8, 21–46.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Burchart-Korol, D. (2013). Life cycle assessment of steel production in Poland: a case study. Journal of Cleaner Production,54, 235–243.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Cheung, W. M., Leong, J. T., & Vichare, P. (2017). Incorporating lean thinking and life cycle assessment to reduce environmental impacts of plastic injection moulded products. Journal of Cleaner Production,167, 759–775.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Xiao, R., Zhang, Y., Liu, X., & Yuan, Z. (2015). A life-cycle assessment of household refrigerators in China. Journal of Cleaner Production,95, 301–310.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Xiao, R., Zhang, Y., & Yuan, Z. (2016). Environmental impacts of reclamation and recycling processes of refrigerators using life cycle assessment (LCA) methods. Journal of Cleaner Production,131, 52–59.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Lugliettia, R., Rosaa, P., Pastoreb, A., Terzia, S., & Taisch, M. (2017). Life cycle assessment tool implemented in household refrigeration industry: A magnetic cooling prototype development. Procedia Manufacturing,8, 231–238.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Amienyo, D., Doyle, J., Gerola, D., Santacatterina, G., & Azapagic, A. (2016). Sustainable manufacturing of consumer appliances: Reducing life cycle environmental impacts and costs of domestic ovens. Sustainable Production and Consumption,6, 67–76.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Yuan, Z., Zhang, Y., & Liu, X. (2016). “Life cycle assessment of horizontal-axis washing machines in China. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,21, 15–28.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Romain, A., Julie, G., Bertrand, L., Bertrand, G., & Dominique, B. (2015). Small household equipment toward sustainability. Procedia CIRP,30, 179–184.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Pannhorst, W. (1997). Glass ceramics: state-of-the-art. Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids,219, 198–204.

    Google Scholar 

  48. da Berto Silveira, C., de Denofre Campos, S., de Castro, S. C., & Kawano, Y. (1999). Preparation and characterization of glass ceramic materials in the BaO–Li2O–ZrO2–SiO2 system and their dependence on treatment temperatures. Materials Research Bulletin,34, 1661–1671.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Barbieri, L., Corradi, A., & Lancellotti, I. (2002). Thermal and chemical behavior of different glasses containing steel fly and their transformation into glass-ceramics. Journal of the European Ceramic Society,22, 1759–1765.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Goswami, M., Kothiyal, G. P., Montagne, L., & Delevoye, L. (2008). MAS-NMR study of lithium zinc silicate glasses and glass-ceramics with various ZnO content. Journal of Solid State Chemistry,181, 269–275.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Blengini, G. A., Busto, M., Fantoni, M., & Fino, D. (2012). Eco-efficient waste glass recycling: Integrated waste management and green product development through LCA. Waste Management,32, 1000–1008.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Dorn, C., Behrend, R., Giannopoulos, D., Napolano, L., James, V., Herrmann, A., et al. (2016). A Systematic LCA-enhanced KPI evaluation towards sustainable manufacturing in industrial decision-making processes. A case study in glass and ceramic frits production. Procedia CIRP,48, 158–163.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Humbert, S., Rossi, V., Margni, M., Jolliet, O., & Loerincik, Y. (2009). Life cycle assessment of two baby food packaging alternatives: glass jars vs. plastic pots. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,14, 95–106.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Hischier, R. (2007) Part IV Packaging glass. Life Cycle Inventories of Packaging and Graphical Papers. Ecoinvent-Report No 11,” Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories.

  55. Dai, Q., Kelly, J., Sullivan, J., Elgowainy, A. (2015). Life Cycle Analysis Update of Glass and Glass Fiber for the GREET Model. Systems Assessment Group, Energy Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory.

  56. Carrillo, V., Pflieger, J., & Sun, T. (2011). Life cyle assessment of float glass. Leinfelden: PE International AG.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Zhang, J., Everson, M. P., Wallington, T. J., Field, F. R., III, Roth, R., & Kirchain, R. E. (2016). Assessing economic modulation of future critical materials use: The case of automotive-related platinum group metals. Environmental Science and Technology,50, 7687–7695.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Commission, European. (2017). Methodology for establishing the EU list of critical raw materials. Guidelines. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Sprecher, B., Daigo, I., Spekkin, W., Vos, M., Kleijn, R., Murakami, S., et al. (2017). Novel indicators for the quantification of resilience in critical material supply chains, with a 2010 rare earth crisis case study. Environmental Science and Technology,51, 3860–3870.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Commission, European. (2017). Communication from the commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic, and Social Committee and de Committee of the regions on the 2017 list of Critical Raw Materials for the EU. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Jin, Y., Kim, J., & Guillaume, B. (2016). Review of critical materials studies. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,113, 77–87.

    Google Scholar 

  62. European Commission. (2017). Study on the review of the list of Critical Raw Materials. Critical Raw Materials Factsheets. Communication from the commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and de Committee of the regions on the 2017 list of Critical Raw Materials for the EU. European Commission: Brussels.

  63. Commission, European. (2017). Study on the review of the list of Critical Raw Materials. Executive summary. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Komeijani, M., Ryen, E. G., & Babbitt, C. W. (2016). Bridging the gap between eco-design and the human thinking system. Challenges,7, 5.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Bartekova, E., Kemp, R. (2016) Critical raw material strategies in different world regions. In: MERIT working papers 005, United Nations University—Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).

  66. European Commission. (2017). “6th EU-US-Japan Trilateral Conference on Critical Materials. http://ec.europa.eu/growth/content/6th-eu-us-japan-trilateral-conference-critical-materials-0_en. Accessed 23 Jan 2019.

  67. METI. (2018). “The 8th trilateral EU-US-Japan conference on critical materials held. http://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/2018/1206_001.html. Accessed 23 Jan 2019.

  68. James, P. F. (1995). Glass ceramics: new compositions and uses. Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids,181, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Rawlings, R. D., Wu, J. P., & Boccaccini, A. R. (2006). Glass-ceramics: Their production from wastes—A Review. Journal of Materials Science,41, 733–761.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Chapman, C., Wojak, B., & Peters, R. (2006). Development of process to manufacture glass/glass-ceramic products from phosphogypsum. Bartow: Florida Institute of Phosphate Research.

    Google Scholar 

  71. ThermoFisher Scientific. (2013). Research X-Ray Fluorescence and Diffraction. https://www.thermofisher.com/search/browse/category/es/es/602533;jsessionid=8EC50137B8D1D8E486F15F9B63A82076?navId=11035&resultPage=2&resultsPerPage=15. Accessed 01 Jan 2018.

  72. ThermoFisher Scientific. (2013). Software UniQuant para análisis XRF sin patrones. http://www.thermofisher.com/order/catalog/product/IQLAAHGABUFABXMATU. Accessed 01 Jan 2018.

  73. ISO. (2006). “ISO 14040:2006 Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO.

  74. Weidema, B. P., Bauer, C., Hischier, R., Mutel, C., Nemecek, T., Reinhard, J., et al. (2016). Ecoinvent database version 3 overview and methodology. St Gallen: EcoInvent.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Consultants, Pre. (2013). SimaPro 8 database manual. methods library. Amersfoort: Pre Consultants.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Goedkoop, M. J., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M. A. J., De Schryver, A., Struijs, J., & van Zelm, R., “ReCiPe 2008. (2013). A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. The Netherlands.

  77. Dong, Y. H., & Ng, S. T. (2014). Comparing the midpoint and endpoint approaches based on recipe-a study of commercial buildings in Hong Kong. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,19(7), 1409–1423.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Pre Various authors. (2018). SimaPro Database Manual. Methods Library. Amersfoort: Pre Consultants.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Delbeke, J., Vis, P. (2015) EU Climate Policy Explained,” Routledge.

  80. Dryzek, J.S., Norgaard, R.B., Schlosberg, D. (2012). Climate change and society: Approaches and responses. The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society.

  81. Weidema, B. P., Baue, C., Hischier, R., Mutel, C., Nemecek, T., Reinhard, J., et al. (2013). Overview and methodology. Data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3. Ecoinvent report No. 1 (v3). St. Gallen: The ecoinvent Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Commission, European. (2017). Study on the review of the list of critical raw materials. Critical raw materials factsheets. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The study presented in this paper has been partially supported by the Spanish MINECO under Project RETO RTC-2014-1847-6, and has been performed by members of the I + AITIIP (DGA-T08_17R) research group of the FEDER 2014–2020 “Construyendo Europa desde Aragón” program, recognized by the Regional Government of Aragon.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. BSH Electrodomésticos España, S.A, Avda. de la Industria, 49, Zaragoza, 50016, Spain

    Patricia Gómez & Carmelo Pina

  2. i + aitiip, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Zaragoza, C/María de Luna, 3, Zaragoza, 50018, Spain

    Daniel Elduque, Isabel Clavería & Carlos Javierre

Authors
  1. Patricia Gómez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel Elduque
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Isabel Clavería
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Carmelo Pina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Carlos Javierre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Elduque.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gómez, P., Elduque, D., Clavería, I. et al. Influence of the Material Composition on the Environmental Impact of Ceramic Glasses. Int. J. of Precis. Eng. and Manuf.-Green Tech. 7, 431–442 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40684-019-00096-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40684-019-00096-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation