Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 9069
12of 17
Figure3. Comparison of the environmental impacts of the two investigated productions of paper—conventional (in blue) and with the addition of silverskin (in orange). Please note that the abbreviations present in this figure, are explained within Table 3 above.
In the majority of the impact categories, the most impactful phases are paper produc- tion and pulp production. Concerning carcinogenic human toxicity, the recycling phase is the most significant contributor, especially the incineration of wasted paper (the share that cannot be recycled). Please see Table 8: The comparison displayed in Figure 3 shows that the conventional paper production causes a higher environmental impact for each impact category. When performing the comparison at endpoint single-score level following the ReCiPe Hierarchy method, the systems could be ordered as follows: Conventional paper (0.156 point-Pt) > CSS paper (0.142 Pt). Based on these endpoint scores, there is about 10% environmental impact reduction of the CSS paper generation methodology related to the conventional one. Please see Figure 3: There is a 13% GHG emission reduction concerning the silverskin paper production compared to the conventional one. Main factors of influence are given by (see Figure 4) a reduction of CO 2 emissions in the cultivation of wood and regarding pulp production. 3.2. LCC Results The LCC results show that the difference between the two paper typologies is very small ( − 0.01% using the CSS production method). The CSS paper indicates marginally higher acquisition costs for raw material (+8%). However, less costs associated with environmental impacts are generated (about − 16%). Table 9 summarizes the indications mentioned above:
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker