Cargando…

Comparison of Product Carbon Footprint Protocols: Case Study on Medium-Density Fiberboard in China

Carbon footprint (CF) analysis is widely used to quantify the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of a product during its life cycle. A number of protocols, such as Publicly Available Specification (PAS) 2050, GHG Protocol Product Standard (GHG Protocol), and ISO 14067 Carbon Footprint of Products (ISO 1...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wang, Shanshan, Wang, Weifeng, Yang, Hongqiang
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6211079/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30241296
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15102060
_version_ 1783367262473814016
author Wang, Shanshan
Wang, Weifeng
Yang, Hongqiang
author_facet Wang, Shanshan
Wang, Weifeng
Yang, Hongqiang
author_sort Wang, Shanshan
collection PubMed
description Carbon footprint (CF) analysis is widely used to quantify the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of a product during its life cycle. A number of protocols, such as Publicly Available Specification (PAS) 2050, GHG Protocol Product Standard (GHG Protocol), and ISO 14067 Carbon Footprint of Products (ISO 14067), have been developed for CF calculations. This study aims to compare the criteria and implications of the three protocols. The medium-density fiberboard (MDF) (functional unit: 1 m(3)) has been selected as a case study to illustrate this comparison. Different criteria, such as the life cycle stage included, cut-off criteria, biogenic carbon treatment, and other requirements, were discussed. A cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment (LCA) for MDF was conducted. The CF values were −667.75, −658.42, and 816.92 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO(2)e) with PAS 2050, GHG protocol, and ISO 14067, respectively. The main reasons for the different results obtained were the application of different cut-off criteria, exclusion rules, and the treatment of carbon storage. A cradle-to-grave assessment (end-of-life scenarios: landfill and incineration) was also performed to identify opportunities for improving MDF production. A sensitivity analysis to assess the implications of different end-of-life disposals was conducted, indicating that landfill may be preferable from a GHG standpoint. The comparison of these three protocols provides insights for adopting appropriate methods to calculate GHG emissions for the MDF industry. A key finding is that for both LCA practitioners and policy-makers, PAS 2050 is preferentially recommended to assess the CF of MDF.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6211079
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62110792018-11-02 Comparison of Product Carbon Footprint Protocols: Case Study on Medium-Density Fiberboard in China Wang, Shanshan Wang, Weifeng Yang, Hongqiang Int J Environ Res Public Health Article Carbon footprint (CF) analysis is widely used to quantify the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of a product during its life cycle. A number of protocols, such as Publicly Available Specification (PAS) 2050, GHG Protocol Product Standard (GHG Protocol), and ISO 14067 Carbon Footprint of Products (ISO 14067), have been developed for CF calculations. This study aims to compare the criteria and implications of the three protocols. The medium-density fiberboard (MDF) (functional unit: 1 m(3)) has been selected as a case study to illustrate this comparison. Different criteria, such as the life cycle stage included, cut-off criteria, biogenic carbon treatment, and other requirements, were discussed. A cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment (LCA) for MDF was conducted. The CF values were −667.75, −658.42, and 816.92 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO(2)e) with PAS 2050, GHG protocol, and ISO 14067, respectively. The main reasons for the different results obtained were the application of different cut-off criteria, exclusion rules, and the treatment of carbon storage. A cradle-to-grave assessment (end-of-life scenarios: landfill and incineration) was also performed to identify opportunities for improving MDF production. A sensitivity analysis to assess the implications of different end-of-life disposals was conducted, indicating that landfill may be preferable from a GHG standpoint. The comparison of these three protocols provides insights for adopting appropriate methods to calculate GHG emissions for the MDF industry. A key finding is that for both LCA practitioners and policy-makers, PAS 2050 is preferentially recommended to assess the CF of MDF. MDPI 2018-09-20 2018-10 /pmc/articles/PMC6211079/ /pubmed/30241296 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15102060 Text en © 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Wang, Shanshan
Wang, Weifeng
Yang, Hongqiang
Comparison of Product Carbon Footprint Protocols: Case Study on Medium-Density Fiberboard in China
title Comparison of Product Carbon Footprint Protocols: Case Study on Medium-Density Fiberboard in China
title_full Comparison of Product Carbon Footprint Protocols: Case Study on Medium-Density Fiberboard in China
title_fullStr Comparison of Product Carbon Footprint Protocols: Case Study on Medium-Density Fiberboard in China
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Product Carbon Footprint Protocols: Case Study on Medium-Density Fiberboard in China
title_short Comparison of Product Carbon Footprint Protocols: Case Study on Medium-Density Fiberboard in China
title_sort comparison of product carbon footprint protocols: case study on medium-density fiberboard in china
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6211079/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30241296
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15102060
work_keys_str_mv AT wangshanshan comparisonofproductcarbonfootprintprotocolscasestudyonmediumdensityfiberboardinchina
AT wangweifeng comparisonofproductcarbonfootprintprotocolscasestudyonmediumdensityfiberboardinchina
AT yanghongqiang comparisonofproductcarbonfootprintprotocolscasestudyonmediumdensityfiberboardinchina