Physical Sciences Department, United Technologies Research Center (UTRC), 411 Silver Lane, East Hartford, CT 06018, USA.
Waste Manag. 2018 Jun;76:767-778. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2018.03.026. Epub 2018 Mar 26.
This quantitative research aims to compare environmental and human health impacts associated with two recycling technologies of CFRP waste. The 'baseline' recycling technology is the conventional thermolysis process via pyrolysis and the 'alternative' recycling technology is an emerging chemical treatment via solvolysis using supercritical water (SCW) to digest the thermoset matrix. Two Gate-to-Gate recycling models are developed using GaBi LCA platform. The selected functional unit (FU) is 1 kg CFRP waste and the geographical boundary of this comparative LCIA is defined to be within the U.S. The results of this comparative assessment brought to light new insights about the environmental and human health impacts of CFRP waste recycling via solvolysis using SCW and, therefore, helped close a gap in the current state of knowledge about sustainability of SCW-based solvolysis as compared to pyrolysis. Two research questions are posed to identify whether solvolysis recycling offers more environmental and human health gains relative to the conventional pyrolysis recycling. These research questions lay the basis for formulating two null hypotheses (H and H) and their associated research hypotheses (H and H). LCIA results interpretation included 'base case' scenarios, 'sensitivity studies,' and 'scenarios analysis.' The results revealed that: (a) recycling via solvolysis using SCW exhibits no gains in environmental and human health impacts relative to those impacts associated with recycling via pyrolysis and (b) use of natural gas in lieu of electricity for pyrolyzer's heating reduces the environmental and human health impacts by 37% (lowest) and up to 95.7% (highest). It is recommended that on-going experimental efforts that focus only on identifying the best solvent for solvolysis-based recycling should also consider quantification of the energy intensity as well as environmental and human health impacts of the proposed solvents.
本定量研究旨在比较两种 CFRP 废物回收技术的环境和人类健康影响。“基准”回收技术是通过热解进行的常规热解工艺,“替代”回收技术是通过使用超临界水 (SCW) 的溶剂解化学处理来消化热固性基质的新兴技术。使用 GaBi LCA 平台开发了两种“从摇篮到大门”的回收模型。所选的功能单位 (FU) 是 1kg CFRP 废物,该比较 LCIA 的地理边界定义为在美国境内。通过使用 SCW 的溶剂解进行 CFRP 废物回收的环境和人类健康影响的比较评估结果揭示了新的见解,因此有助于缩小当前关于与热解相比,基于 SCW 的溶剂解的可持续性的知识差距。提出了两个研究问题,以确定溶剂解回收相对于传统的热解回收是否能带来更多的环境和人类健康收益。这些研究问题为提出两个零假设 (H 和 H) 及其相关的研究假设 (H 和 H) 奠定了基础。LCIA 结果解释包括“基础案例”情景、“敏感性研究”和“情景分析”。结果表明:(a) 通过使用 SCW 的溶剂解回收相对于通过热解回收的环境和人类健康影响没有收益,(b) 用天然气代替电为热解器加热可将环境和人类健康影响降低 37%(最低)至 95.7%(最高)。建议正在进行的仅专注于确定最佳溶剂用于溶剂解回收的实验工作也应考虑量化拟议溶剂的能源强度以及环境和人类健康影响。