Mostrar el registro sencillo

dc.contributor.authorHera Barquín, Guillermo de la 
dc.contributor.authorMuñoz Díaz, Iciar 
dc.contributor.authorCifrián Bemposta, Eva 
dc.contributor.authorVitorica Murguía, Ramón
dc.contributor.authorGutierrez San Martin, Oskar
dc.contributor.authorViguri Fuente, Javier Rufino 
dc.contributor.otherUniversidad de Cantabriaes_ES
dc.date.accessioned2017-11-24T17:01:08Z
dc.date.available2018-07-31T02:45:08Z
dc.date.issued2017-07
dc.identifier.issn1877-2641
dc.identifier.issn1877-265X
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10902/12379
dc.description.abstractThe mineral wool sector represents 10 % of the total output tonnage of the glass industry. The thermal, acoustic and fire protection properties of mineral wool make it desirable for use in a wide range of economic sectors especially in the construction industry for the creation of low energy buildings. The traditional stone wool manufacturing process involves melting raw materials, in a coke-fired hot blast cupola furnace, fiberization, polymerization, cooling, product finishing and gas treatment. The use of alternative raw materials as torrefied biomass and sodium silicate, is proposed as an alternative manufacturing process to improve the sustainability of stone wool production, particularly the reduction of gas emissions (CO2 and SO2). The present study adopts a life cycle analysis (LCA) approach to measure the comparative environmental performance of the traditional and alternative stone wool production processes; process data are incorporated into a LCA model using SimaPro 8 software with the Ecoinvent version 3 life cycle inventory database. The CML 2000 and Eco-Indicator99 methods are used to estimate effects on different impact categories. The Minerals and Land use impacts in Eco-Indicator99 and the Eutrophication impact in CML2000 increase between 2 and 4 % for the alternative process instead of the traditional one. Similarly, the ecotoxicity-related impacts increase between 9 and 24 % with the use of the alternative process. However these increases are compensated by concomitant impact decreases in other categories of impact; consequently, the three areas of impact grouped by individual Eco-indicator 99 impacts, show environmental benefits improvements between 6 and 15 % when using the alternative process based on torrefied biomass and silicate instead of the traditional process based on coke and cement use.es_ES
dc.format.extent17 p.es_ES
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherSpringer Netherlandses_ES
dc.rights© Springer. The final publication is available at Springer via https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-016-9660-8es_ES
dc.sourceWaste and Biomass Valorization, 2017, 8(5), 1505-1520es_ES
dc.subject.otherStone wooles_ES
dc.subject.otherLCAes_ES
dc.subject.otherAlternative materialses_ES
dc.subject.otherSilicatees_ES
dc.subject.otherTorrefied biomasses_ES
dc.titleComparative environmental life cycle analysis of stone wool production using traditional and alternative materialses_ES
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees_ES
dc.relation.publisherVersionhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-016-9660-8es_ES
dc.rights.accessRightsopenAccesses_ES
dc.identifier.DOI10.1007/s12649-016-9660-8
dc.type.versionacceptedVersiones_ES


Ficheros en el ítem

Thumbnail

Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo