Life Cycle Assessment Framework To Support the Design of Biobased Rigid Polyurethane Foams

Abstract

A methodological framework implementing laboratory activities and life cycle assessment is presented and applied to determine which parameters should be considered to develop biobased rigid polyurethane foams for thermal insulation with improved environmental performances when compared to their fossil counterparts. The framework was applied to six partially biobased (produced from bio-based polyols obtained from azelaic acid and/or lignin) and one fossil-based formulations. A comprehensive set of impact assessment categories was investigated including uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. Results proved that physical characteristics such as thermal conductivity and density are the most important variable to be optimized to guarantee better environmental performances of biobased polyurethane rigid foams for thermal insulation. Care should be taken with reference to ozone depletion potential, marine eutrophication, and abiotic depletion potential because of the uncertainty related to their results. The methylene diphenyl diisocyanate and foam production process were identified as the major sources of impacts. Overall environmental superiority of biobased polyurethanes cannot always be claimed with respect to their fossil counterpart.

Life Cycle Assessment of Polyurethane Foams from Polyols Obtained through Chemical Recycling

“…The results of the study proved the applicability of the proposed methodological framework. The key points of the original model proposed by Manzardo et al 14 allowed the identification of the optimum in correspondence with a partial replacement of the virgin polyol with the recycled one. In this regard, Figure S8 shows the results that would have been obtained by merely basing the comparison on the foam mass without considering the thermal insulation properties.…”

“…25 The methodology is structured into four iterative phases: goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, impact assessment, and interpretation of results. In this study, the framework proposed by Manzardo et al 14 that integrates the LCA methodology for an assessment of potential environmental impacts of biobased PUR in the design and development phase is used as the ground for the development of the proposal related to the recycled PUR ( Figure 2 ). The key points of the original model proposed by Manzardo et al, 14 namely, the integration of laboratory activities directly into the LCA (in particular, the design of the experiment implemented in goal and scope definition) and the choice of a functional unit that takes into account the physical performances of the insulating material are considered valid in the methodological proposal of this research, while the following modifications are introduced ( Figure 2 ): The set of impact assessment categories is substituted according to the recent EN 15804 standard for the assessment of the environmental sustainability of construction products.…”

“…Furthermore, the tool has proven to be effective in the design and development of new building materials. 13 , 14 …”

Preliminary environmental and economic assessment of polyurethane foam produced by microwave-assisted liquefaction of riparian shrubs

“…6-8, as the sum of the thermal energy required to heat the mixture to the boiling point of acetone and that needed to vaporize the distillate [20]. (6) where α: relative volatility of the solvents; Ta: boiling temperature of polyol (454 K); Tb: boiling temperature of acetone (300 K); (7) where: Rmin: minimum reflux ratio; XLD: target purity of distillate (1); XLF: molar fraction of acetone in feed (0.944); (8) where: mmix: mass of the reaction mixture (kg); ΔHvap: enthalpy of vaporization (acetone: 511 kJ/kg); mdist: mass of the liquid to be vaporized (kg); ηheat: efficiency of heating device (90%).…”

“…However, a limited number of studies considering the environmental performance of partially bio-based PU foam do exist so far. Manzardo et al [8] compared the environmental performance of six partially biobased formulations (by using biobased polyols obtained from azelaic acid and/or lignin) and one fossil-based. The results showed that formulations containing azelaic-acid derived polyol and lignin-based polyol had better than fossil counterpart for all the impact categories considered.…”