Social life cycle assessment of garments production using the psychosocial risk factors impact pathway

被引:1
|
作者
Iofrida, Nathalie [1 ]
Salinas, Koldo Saez de Bikuna [2 ]
Mistretta, Marina [3 ]
Falcone, Giacomo [1 ]
Spada, Emanuele [1 ]
Gulisano, Giovanni [1 ]
Luca, Anna Irene De [1 ]
机构
[1] Mediterranean Univ Reggio Calabria, Dept Agr AGRARIA, Reggio Di Calabria, Italy
[2] Quantis, Florence, Italy
[3] Mediterranean Univ Reggio Calabria, Dept Informat Engn Infrastruct & Sustainable Energ, Reggio Di Calabria, Italy
关键词
Social life cycle assessment; Psychosocial risk factors; Impact pathway; Garments production; Textile sector; CANCER; OCCUPATION; WORKERS; HEALTH; NECK; PAIN;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142448
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
This study presents the application of a Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) methodology to two Italian case studies, allowing to estimate the possible impacts of the production of two garments "A" and "B". The hours of exposure to health risks have been accounted for the workers since they are the stakeholder group most immediately impacted. They have been analysed through the Psychosocial Risk Factors (PRF) impact pathway, a type II Social Life Cycle Assessment that allows the quantification of hours of exposure per each phase of the product or service life cycle. Using questionnaire, technical data have been gathered and all productive phases quantified and qualified in terms of duration (hours) and working conditions (ergonomics, exposures, postures, etc.). A literature review has been conducted to find relationships between these working conditions with health problems through odds ratios, a statistical measure of association between variables commonly used in retrospective studies. The functional unit chosen is one garment, and the system boundary is from cradle to firm gate; however, due to the lack of specific information concerning the upstream processes, impacts about inputs supplied from external providers were only qualified, but not quantified (background data). In both case studies, the highest psychosocial risk is linked to musculoskeletal disorders (Low back pain and neck and shoulder pain) and visual fatigue and discomfort. These results are due principally to the postures needed during work, the concentration required, repetitive movements, static and dynamic loads, as well as the use of video monitors during some tasks (especially planning and CAD modelling). Apparently, the process of product "B" is more socially impacting than "A". Actually, this is due because of the internalization of some operations such as (part of) the fabric production and the dyeing processes, which can expose workers to hazardous chemicals and dusts, and the use of trichloroethylene for stain removal. These working conditions, indeed, expose workers to a higher risk of cancers, according to scientific literature. To reduce risks, it is suggested to avoid the use of bleach and trichloroethylene for cleaning, to reduce the exposure to textile dusts (for example with the use of vacuums or masks), to avoid skin contact with the azo dyes and azo pigments, by using protective individual dispositive such as gloves, long-sleeved shirts, and aprons. To improve the ergonomics workplace, it is recommended to take more breaks during the timework, ensure the firmness of chairs and add lumbar support, as well as control the height of chairs and worktops. Promoting employees' physical activity would be useful to prevent musculoskeletal disorders.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Characterisation factors for life cycle impact assessment of sound emissions
    Cucurachi, S.
    Heijungs, R.
    SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 2014, 468 : 280 - 291
  • [32] Different paths in social life cycle impact assessment (S-LCIA)-a classification of type II impact pathway approaches
    Sureau, Solene
    Neugebauer, Sabrina
    Achten, Wouter M. J.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2020, 25 (02): : 382 - 393
  • [33] Different paths in social life cycle impact assessment (S-LCIA)—a classification of type II impact pathway approaches
    Solène Sureau
    Sabrina Neugebauer
    Wouter M. J. Achten
    The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2020, 25 : 382 - 393
  • [34] Biopolymer production and end of life comparisons using life cycle assessment
    Hottle, Troy A.
    Bilec, Melissa M.
    Landis, Amy E.
    RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING, 2017, 122 : 295 - 306
  • [35] Social impact assessment in LCA using the Preston pathway
    Feschet, Pauline
    Macombe, Catherine
    Garrabe, Michel
    Loeillet, Denis
    Saez, Adolfo Rolo
    Benhmad, Francois
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2013, 18 (02): : 490 - 503
  • [36] Environmental impact of using specialty feed ingredients in swine and poultry production: A life cycle assessment
    Kebreab, E.
    Liedke, A.
    Caro, D.
    Deimling, S.
    Binder, M.
    Finkbeiner, M.
    JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, 2016, 94 (06) : 2664 - 2681
  • [37] Environmental impact of cow milk production in the central Italian Alps using Life Cycle Assessment
    Penati, Chiara A.
    Tamburini, Alberto
    Bava, Luciana
    Zucali, Maddalena
    Sandrucci, Anna
    ITALIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, 2013, 12 (04) : 584 - 592
  • [38] Life cycle impact assessment integrating contemporary exposure and risk assessment principles
    Maritato, MC
    Keenan, RE
    Crawford, DW
    1997 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBIT, BOOKS 1 AND 2, 1997, : 399 - 414
  • [39] Impact of agrochemical emission models on the environmental assessment of paddy rice production using life cycle assessment approach
    Rezaei, Mojtaba
    Soheilifard, Farshad
    Keshvari, Athena
    ENERGY SOURCES PART A-RECOVERY UTILIZATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, 2025, 47 (01) : 4079 - 4094
  • [40] Impact of agrochemical emission models on the environmental assessment of paddy rice production using life cycle assessment approach
    Rezaei, Mojtaba
    Soheilifard, Farshad
    Keshvari, Athena
    ENERGY SOURCES PART A-RECOVERY UTILIZATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, 2025, 47 (01) : 4079 - 4094