Integrating toxicity reduction strategies for materials and components into product design: A case study on utility meters

Abstract

Using RIO Tronics utility meter products as an industrial case study, the numeric Fraunhofer Toxic Potential Indicator (TPI) assessment tool is used to determine high impact materials with the aim of reducing the content of inherently toxic substances in these products. However, because product redesign with alternative materials affects entire components, overall component toxicity potential must also be explored. To achieve this, material TPI scores are aggregated into component TPI scores by 2 methods: 1) the Sum-Weighted Component TPI method, which considers the mass of materials in the component to assign an overall score, and 2) the Max Component TPI method, which scores the component with the highest impact material. With consideration of uncertainties from materials' toxicity information and mass estimates, key results from both scoring methods prioritized components that contain acrylonitrile-based polymers, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and stainless steel. Furthermore, an alternative materials assessment is carried out to identify less-toxic substitutes to meet cost and technical constraints. Substitute materials such as Al alloys for stainless steel and high-density polyethylene for PVC show promise for a combination of toxicity reduction and cost-effectiveness. The new screening methodology described can help product designers systematically benchmark toxicity potential in parallel to cost and functionality. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2013;9:319-328. © 2012 SETAC

Comparative alternative materials assessment to screen toxicity hazards in the life cycle of CIGS thin film photovoltaics

“…• Liquid coating of Cu(In,Ga)Se2 Ink printing or solution processing: (11) • Liquid coating of CuInS2…”

“…The hazard evaluations herein do not consider fate, transport or exposure, but rather they focus solely on the human health, environmental and physical hazard traits of the substances evaluated. Furthermore, the evaluations do not account for material formulations or material quantity, in an effort to be conservative and to avoid the debate over the validity of hazard dilution [11].…”

Advancing chemical hazard assessment with decision analysis: A case study on lithium-ion and redox flow batteries used for energy storage

“…Another innovation was necessary to address the challenge of determining how to aggregate hazard scores of individual materials to generate a single-value hazard score for the battery. Little guidance exists in the literature, except a previous study on thin film solar panels in which the frequency of toxicity scores was tracked (Eisenberg et al, 2013) and another study on utility meters in which results were compared based on both frequency and mass fraction (Lam et al, 2013). The dilemma here is whether a toxic substance is of equal concern simply by being present, or can its impact be diluted if offset by less toxic substances present in higher concentrations.…”

“…The dilemma here is whether a toxic substance is of equal concern simply by being present, or can its impact be diluted if offset by less toxic substances present in higher concentrations. We model our approach off the Lam et al (2013) study, providing results for both 'number-based ' and 'mass-based' aggregation. 'Number-based' aggregation assumes each material is of equal importance and mathematically averages the hazard scores of all materials to determine the single-value hazard score for the battery.…”