Comparison of Life Cycle Assessment of two toasters

被引:0
|
作者
Srinivasan, Raghunathan [1 ]
Ameta, Gaurav [1 ]
机构
[1] Washington State Univ, Sch Mech & Mat Engn, Pullman, WA 99164 USA
关键词
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
TP39 [计算机的应用];
学科分类号
081203 ; 0835 ;
摘要
The objective of this paper is to determine and compare the environmental impacts of two toasters: standard(1) and eco-friendly(2). The most rapidly growing sector for the e-waste world comes from Electronic household products. More than 2 million tons of electronic products are disposed off as solid waste to landfills in the US alone. The demand for energy supplies has been rapidly increasing in the past decade. Strict legislative measures should be enforced to protect the environment by making industries collect back the manufactured products at the End-of-Life (EOL) from the users and recycle the products. If these necessary steps are not taken, then these e-wastes will impose serious threat to society and the environment. In order to re-design environmentally friendly products and facilitate sustainable take-back planning, current products need to be evaluated for their environmental impacts. One of the widely used methodologies to assess the environmental impacts of a product is called Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). LCA is a cradle to grave approach for assessing the environmental impacts of a product. The cradle to grave approach includes raw material phase, manufacturing and assembly phase, use phase, recovery phase and disposal phase. The system boundary for LCA presented in this paper includes material phase, manufacturing phase, use-phase and disposal phase. The functional unit for the LCA is entire life of the toaster which is one year based on manufacturer's warranty which also includes the rate of usage. The environmental impacts from the two toasters as presented in this paper include eutrophication, acidification, energy-use and global warming. The use phase energy impact is experimentally determined.
引用
收藏
页码:1011 / 1017
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Comparison of allocation approaches in soybean biodiesel life cycle assessment
    Morais, S.
    Martins, A. A.
    Mata, T. M.
    JOURNAL OF THE ENERGY INSTITUTE, 2010, 83 (01) : 48 - 55
  • [23] Comparison of different possibilities for biogas use by Life Cycle Assessment
    Carnevale, Ennio
    Lombardi, Lidia
    69TH CONFERENCE OF THE ITALIAN THERMAL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATION, ATI 2014, 2015, 81 : 215 - 226
  • [24] Life cycle assessment comparison of photocatalytic coating and air purifier
    Ticha, Marie
    Zilka, Miroslav
    Stieberova, Barbora
    Freiberg, Frantisek
    INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT, 2016, 12 (03) : 478 - 485
  • [25] Life cycle assessment comparison of industrial effluent management strategies
    O'Connor, Matthew
    Garnier, Gil
    Batchelor, Warren
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2014, 79 : 168 - 181
  • [26] Life Cycle Assessment of Two Alternative Plastics for Bottle Production
    Baldowska-Witos, Patrycja
    Piasecka, Izabela
    Flizikowski, Jozef
    Tomporowski, Andrzej
    Idzikowski, Adam
    Zawada, Marcin
    MATERIALS, 2021, 14 (16)
  • [27] Life cycle assessment of two palm oil production systems
    Stichnothe, Heinz
    Schuchardt, Frank
    BIOMASS & BIOENERGY, 2011, 35 (09): : 3976 - 3984
  • [28] A study of life cycle assessment in two old neighbourhoods in Belgium
    Nematchoua, Modeste Kameni
    Asadi, Somayeh
    Reiter, Sigrid
    SUSTAINABLE CITIES AND SOCIETY, 2020, 52
  • [29] A Comparative Life-Cycle Assessment of Two Cogeneration Plants
    Siddiqui, Osamah
    Dincer, Ibrahim
    ENERGY TECHNOLOGY, 2020, 8 (11)
  • [30] Towards environmentally sustainable aquaculture: Comparison between two trout farming systems using Life Cycle Assessment
    d'Orbcastel, Emmanuelle Roque
    Blancheton, Jean-Paul
    Aubin, Joel
    AQUACULTURAL ENGINEERING, 2009, 40 (03) : 113 - 119