可重复使用产品与一次性产品的比较:生命周期分析指标

Fadhel Alshqaqeeq, Evan Griffing, Janet Twomey, Michael Overcash
{"title":"可重复使用产品与一次性产品的比较:生命周期分析指标","authors":"Fadhel Alshqaqeeq,&nbsp;Evan Griffing,&nbsp;Janet Twomey,&nbsp;Michael Overcash","doi":"10.1002/amp2.10065","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This research is to produce the first quantitative evaluation, using global warming potential (GWP, kg CO<sub>2</sub> eq), of all published cradle-to-gate life cycle studies that compare reusable vs single-use products. We seek to determine whether there are consistent and fundamental factors that differentiate disposable and reusable products. A comparative assessment was made of the cradle-to-gate life cycle analyses of all published comparisons of reusable and single-use products from 1990 to 2016. A literature search found only 20 products in which a full life cycle analysis of cradle-to-gate (supply chain, manufacturing, reprocessing, and packaging of the reusable item) and supply chain plus manufacturing for the disposable had been published. GWP or carbon footprint was used as the environment comparison metric to which we added energy for the product manufacturing metrics. In this diverse set of products, the reusable product was consistently lower in cradle-to-gate energy use and global warming potential than the comparable single-use product. However, no apparent product characteristic appeared to govern the extent by which the reusable had a lower carbon footprint. These compelling results were compared with two other references in which disposable products were reported as better. However, when the data were reviewed with those authors, they reevaluated and found errors in calculations and corrected the results to then identify the lower reusable GWP impact compared to the respective disposable. The diversity of products studied and the consistently lower GWP impact of reusable products herein may suggest that products with reusable/disposable options could be predicted to show that the reusable is better than the single-use option.</p>","PeriodicalId":87290,"journal":{"name":"Journal of advanced manufacturing and processing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/amp2.10065","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing reusable to disposable products: Life cycle analysis metrics\",\"authors\":\"Fadhel Alshqaqeeq,&nbsp;Evan Griffing,&nbsp;Janet Twomey,&nbsp;Michael Overcash\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/amp2.10065\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This research is to produce the first quantitative evaluation, using global warming potential (GWP, kg CO<sub>2</sub> eq), of all published cradle-to-gate life cycle studies that compare reusable vs single-use products. We seek to determine whether there are consistent and fundamental factors that differentiate disposable and reusable products. A comparative assessment was made of the cradle-to-gate life cycle analyses of all published comparisons of reusable and single-use products from 1990 to 2016. A literature search found only 20 products in which a full life cycle analysis of cradle-to-gate (supply chain, manufacturing, reprocessing, and packaging of the reusable item) and supply chain plus manufacturing for the disposable had been published. GWP or carbon footprint was used as the environment comparison metric to which we added energy for the product manufacturing metrics. In this diverse set of products, the reusable product was consistently lower in cradle-to-gate energy use and global warming potential than the comparable single-use product. However, no apparent product characteristic appeared to govern the extent by which the reusable had a lower carbon footprint. These compelling results were compared with two other references in which disposable products were reported as better. However, when the data were reviewed with those authors, they reevaluated and found errors in calculations and corrected the results to then identify the lower reusable GWP impact compared to the respective disposable. The diversity of products studied and the consistently lower GWP impact of reusable products herein may suggest that products with reusable/disposable options could be predicted to show that the reusable is better than the single-use option.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":87290,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of advanced manufacturing and processing\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/amp2.10065\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of advanced manufacturing and processing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/amp2.10065\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of advanced manufacturing and processing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/amp2.10065","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

这项研究将利用全球变暖潜能值(GWP,kg CO2当量),对所有已发表的从摇篮到门的生命周期研究进行首次定量评估,这些研究比较了可重复使用的产品和一次性产品。我们试图确定是否存在区分一次性产品和可重复使用产品的一致性和基本因素。对1990年至2016年所有已发表的可重复使用和一次性产品的比较进行了从摇篮到门的生命周期分析的比较评估。文献检索发现,只有20种产品发表了从摇篮到门(可重复使用物品的供应链、制造、再加工和包装)以及一次性用品的供应链加制造的全生命周期分析。GWP或碳足迹被用作环境比较指标,我们为产品制造指标添加了能源。在这套多样化的产品中,可重复使用的产品在从摇篮到大门的能源使用和全球变暖潜力方面一直低于可比的一次性产品。然而,似乎没有明显的产品特征来控制可重复使用的碳足迹降低的程度。这些令人信服的结果与另外两篇报道一次性产品更好的参考文献进行了比较。然而,当与这些作者一起审查数据时,他们重新评估并发现了计算中的错误,并更正了结果,以确定与各自的一次性相比,可重复使用的全球升温潜能值影响较低。本文研究的产品多样性和可重复使用产品的全球变暖潜能值影响持续较低,这可能表明,可以预测具有可重复使用/一次性选项的产品,表明可重复使用的产品比一次性选项更好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparing reusable to disposable products: Life cycle analysis metrics

This research is to produce the first quantitative evaluation, using global warming potential (GWP, kg CO2 eq), of all published cradle-to-gate life cycle studies that compare reusable vs single-use products. We seek to determine whether there are consistent and fundamental factors that differentiate disposable and reusable products. A comparative assessment was made of the cradle-to-gate life cycle analyses of all published comparisons of reusable and single-use products from 1990 to 2016. A literature search found only 20 products in which a full life cycle analysis of cradle-to-gate (supply chain, manufacturing, reprocessing, and packaging of the reusable item) and supply chain plus manufacturing for the disposable had been published. GWP or carbon footprint was used as the environment comparison metric to which we added energy for the product manufacturing metrics. In this diverse set of products, the reusable product was consistently lower in cradle-to-gate energy use and global warming potential than the comparable single-use product. However, no apparent product characteristic appeared to govern the extent by which the reusable had a lower carbon footprint. These compelling results were compared with two other references in which disposable products were reported as better. However, when the data were reviewed with those authors, they reevaluated and found errors in calculations and corrected the results to then identify the lower reusable GWP impact compared to the respective disposable. The diversity of products studied and the consistently lower GWP impact of reusable products herein may suggest that products with reusable/disposable options could be predicted to show that the reusable is better than the single-use option.

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
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Two scale-down tools for the optimization of perfusion bioreactors for the manufacture of biopharmaceuticals CFD modeling and numerical simulation of an industrial adsorption process Enhancing decanter centrifuge process design with data-driven material parameters in multi-compartment modeling Issue Information
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1