Application of Life Cycle Engineering in Material Selection: A case study on performance of Biodegradable Polymers in Injection Moulding

Transcription

1 Application of Life Cycle Engineering in Selection: A case study on performance of Biodegradable Polymers in Injection Moulding João Pedro dos Santos Sebastião Instituto Superior Técnico Departamento de Engenharia Mecânica Avenida Rovisco Pais, Lisboa, Portugal joao.sebastiao@tecnico.ulisboa.pt, Abstract: The interest in Biodegradable Polymers is increasing, as an alternative for traditional plastics produced from petrochemicals. The traditional plastic products have associated problems of shortage of petroleum resources and overloading landfills, resulting in accumulation of waste in urban environments. Life Cycle Engineering is a tool which supports the decision making process, combining economic, environmental and functional performance of the product during its overall life cycle. Hence this methodology was applied on a case study, to analyse and to compare the performance of Biodegradable Polymers with a traditional polymer. The economic and environmental performances were obtained through Life Cycle Cost and Life Cycle Assessment methodologies, respectively. These methodologies were performed with a resource of a Process Based Model, allowing to compute the resources and emissions of each stage of the products life cycle. The functional performance was analysed based on the mechanical properties of each candidate material. The performance of the candidate materials for each analysis dimension were aggregated in a ternary diagram, which allows to select the best material alternative for a weight criteria given for each performance dimension. These diagrams also give the information of the domains of the best material alternatives. It was performed sensitivity analysis to the annual production volume and to the injection material time. Moreover, a business analysis was performed in order to analyse the valorisation of each candidate material on market products. Keywords: Biodegradable Polymers; Life Cycle Engineering; Life Cycle Cost; Life Cycle Assessment; Functional Assessment; Process Based Model. 1. Introduction Plastic is a commonly used material all over the world. The wide range of mechanical properties, durability, performance and costs enforces the usage of this type of material in vast applications. However, plastic have inherent environmental issues associated. As traditional plastics are processed from oil and oil products the shortage of petroleum impose the search of new alternative materials [1]. Moreover, plastic products are overloading landfills, and as consequence, there is an increasing accumulation of solid waste deposition [2]. Hence the interest in biodegradable polymers is increasing, aftermath its ability to biodegrade and to be compost. This type of materials are an encouraging solution to the solid waste issues by conceding that the plastic products no longer in use be deviated to another means of waste treatment. Furthermore, the biodegradable polymers, especially the ones with renewable resources origin, help in the solution of the scarcity of non-renewable resources, as is oil. However, it is claimed that this type of polymers have inferior mechanical properties in general. A way to overcome this disadvantage is through blending different types of biodegradable polymers with the intention of improve the mechanical properties of the material for specific applications [3]. Biodegradable polymers from renewable resources (R-BdP s) are an encouraging solution for the environmental issues regarding traditional polymers. Therefore, it is fundamental to study the performance of this type of materials compared with the traditional fossil origin plastics. This dissertation has the objective of analyse the performance of different biodegradable polymers from renewable resources and compare it with the performance of a traditional Fossil origin Polymer (FoP) in injection moulded products. The traditional polymer considered in this case study is polypropylene (PP) and the biodegradable polymers are two blends of Poly(lactic acid) (PLA) and starch with different compositions. Unlike the common approach for product which be based on analyses of the economic and technical 1/10

2 performance of the product, the comparison of the materials also included an environmental performance analysis. This performance analyses were performed following a Life Cycle Engineering (LCE) methodology, with a cradle to grave approach. The economic analysis was performed through a Life Cycle Cost (LCC) methodology and the environmental analysis through a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology. The LCC results were obtained through a process based cost model which complies the resources required during the products life cycle and allows to account all the resulting costs. The LCA methodology also disposed the results of the process based model in the account of the environmental impacts of the product life cycle. The analysis of the functional performance was implemented through a multi attribute decision making process, in which the mechanical properties characteristics of each material were correlated with required characteristics of disposable plastic products. The results of the three analyses dimensions were aggregated in a three-dimensional diagram with the aim to support more informed decisions, instead of considering the results individually. With the ternary diagram it is possible to obtain the best material alternative for a particular weight criteria in which is given an importance weight for each analysis dimension according the requirements of a specific application. Moreover, these diagrams give a visual information of the best material domains for different weight criteria. It was also performed sensitivity analysis to the annual production volume and the injection cycle time in order to analyse the impact of these inputs in the results and its impact in the candidate materials performance. A case study comparison was performed as well. As the injection moulding tests were performed with existing moulds in the company designed for traditional plastics, the objective of the case study comparison was to compare the results of the life cycle of the product when the injection moulding process was performed with a mould developed for biodegradable polymers. As a consequence, it is possible to understand the benefits of developing moulds for R-BdP s. Moreover, in order to perform a more informed comparison, a business analysis was performed to understand how the biodegradable polymers are valued in the market. The power consumption measurements regarding the injection moulding process were performed in the injection moulding facility of Fapil SA. A great share of the cost factors, including the ones related with the mould acquisition, wages and the building were also kindly provided by Fapil SA. The remaining data was gathered through research. 2. Case Study Description The case study consists in the production of two different plastic parts with three different alternative polymers. The materials considered were two different R- BdP s blends with different compositions (CP110 and CP130) and a commonly used material in the injection moulding process (polypropylene). The plastic parts studied are presented in Figure 1 (lid of a box with a 12L capacity) and in Figure 2 (economic waste shovel). Figure 1 (lid of a box with a 12L capacity) Figure 2 I (economic waste shovel) Table 1 presents the mechanical properties of the candidate materials. Table 1 properties Unit Cost [ /Kg] Density [kg/m3] Melt Flow Rate [g/10'] Tensile Strenght [MPa] EI'99 [mpt/kg] CP CP PP LCE Methodology Life Cycle Engineering (LCE) methodology is a wide area whose objective is to support the development and production of more sustainable products. Therefore LCE is a methodology that assents the necessity to develop products whose life cycles have the lower environmental impacts possible while the products can still offer economic viability. LCE is a decision making tool which lead engineers to more informed decisions in product design. The cradle to grave philosophy used in this methodology allows to studying the impact that the decisions taken in the design of the product will have in its 2/10

3 life cycle [4] [5]. Figure 3 presents the LCE methodology applied. Alternatives in Comparison Furthermore to understand the benefits of the R- BdP s in the issue of the overloading landfills it was considered four different end-of-life scenarios. The different disposal scenarios were selected in order to select scenarios that would benefit each material and the worst and best end-of-life scenarios possible. The end-of-life scenarios considered are identified in Table 2. Life Cycle Cost Life Cycle Assessment Global Evaluation Figure 3 LCE methodology Functional Assessment The LCE methodology consists in performing three dimensions analyses: economic, environmental and functional. The economic analysis is performed through a Life Cycle Cost methodology (LCC), the environmental through a Life Cycle Assessment methodology (LCA), and the functional performance is analysed through a Functional Assessment (FA). Figure 4 presents the life cycle of the product. Table 2 End-of-life scenarios EoL1 CP110 CP130 PP End-of-life Scenario Landfill EoL2 CP110 CP130 PP End-of-life Landfill Recycle Scenario EoL3 CP110 CP130 PP End-of-life Scenario Compost Landfill EoL4 CP110 CP130 PP End-of-life Scenario Compost Recycle Mould Acquisition Composting Raw Acquisition Parts Manufacturing Part Use Landfill Recycling Figure 4 Product Life Cycle (adapted from [6]) Product Description Product Cost Process Model Process Requirements Operations Model Resources Required Financial Model Operating Conditions Cost Factors Figure 5 PBCM modelling approach (adapted from [7]) 3/10

4 3.1 Life Cycle Cost Life Cycle Costs is a methodology to perform a cradle to grave analysis as an economic model for alternatives evaluation [8]. LCC considers the total costs of a product during its life cycle. The objective of this analysis is to include the costs of all the steps of the product s life cycle, including the costs of usage and disposal which are not normally included in the product s market prices. LCC is an important analysis because can help to identify the impact that the economic decisions in the early phases of product design could have in the future. Therefore LCC is an evaluation tool to help the engineers choose the most cost-effective product of the alternatives. The LCC models allows to assess the cost effectiveness in a long-term. The search for the lowest long-term cost of ownership enhance the competitiveness of the companies. LCC is an incomplete tool by its own for the evaluation of sustainable tools. Considering this it is important to include also an environmental evaluation to develop more informed conclusions [9] [10] [8] Process-Based Model The economic analysis can be performed through parametric models based on process for the applications to evaluate. That property of the models allows to study the sensitivity of the variation of the inputs of the model [9] [10]. The objective of the PBCM is to map the process description to obtain the operation costs. Therefore PBCM should incorporate technical information about the process. This model serves the purpose of inform technical decisions before the operations took place. The development of the PBCM starts with the description of the intended product. Then the process involved in the production has to be modelled considering the sequence of steps and the specifications of equipment and labour required [11]. Figure 5 presents de PBCM methodology. 3.2 Life Cycle Assessment All the phases of the life cycle of the product such as the extraction of the raw material, distribution or the usage of the product have an environmental impact since it is required energy or material consumptions. Therefore it is important to study the environmental impacts of all the phases of the products life cycle. That analysis is called Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) [12]. The methodology of LCA is constituted with four different steps. The first step is to define the scope and the objective of the study. Then is necessary to develop the model of the product life cycle. This model should include all the environmental inflows and outflows of the process. This phase is called the Life Cycle Inventory Stage (LCI). After the development of the model the methodology proceed with the evaluation of the environmental relevance of all the relevant inflows and outflows. This phase is called the Life Cycle Impacts Assessment Stage (LCIA). The fourth and final step of the LCA methodology is the interpretation of the results [4]. 3.3 Functional Assessment The methodology of the functional evaluation of the products can be divided in three different steps. The first step is to define the attributes of the product to evaluate. Also relating to the attributes, the second step is to define their importance. The last step is then to evaluate the alternatives of the product according to the attributes defined and their importance [5]. The Functional Assessment includes a model to perform the decision making process based on multiple attributes. The tool to that evaluation is called Multiple Attributes Decision Making (MADM). The weights of the attributes are performed through Simple Additive Weighting (SAW). This tools allow to perform a logic approach to diffuse problems. The next phase is to select the functions for which the products will be compared [10]. 4. Results 4.1 Power Consumption The power consumption measurements were performed in Fapil SA, in the injection moulding facility. The cycle times obtained in the injection moulding tests were limited by R-BdP s being a relatively new material on the company. The injection parameters for and I are represented in Table 3. Table 3 Injection parameters Cycle Time [sec] Cooling time [sec] Average Temperature [ C] CP CP PP Cycle Time [sec] I Cooling time [sec] Average Temperature [ C] CP CP PP The need for having a higher cooling time in the R-BdP s products increased relevantly the cycle time of the 4/10

5 products because of its relevance in the total cycle time of the product. The power consumption measurements were performed to compute the energy required in the parts manufacturing process. The energy required does not only affects the manufacturing cost but also the manufacturing environmental impact. Therefore the energy consumption is a critical component for a sustainable strategy [13]. Table 4 Power and energy consumptions Average Power Consumption [kw] Energy Consumption per Cycle [J] CP CP PP I Average Power Consumption [kw] Energy Consumption per Cycle [J] CP CP PP The average power consumption was inferior in the case of the R-BdP s. This is a consequence of the lower temperature required to produce with this type of material. However, it was required a superior energy consumption per part in the R-BdP s. The higher injection cycle times required for the R-BdP s based products influenced that results. 4.2 FA results The Functional Assessment is focused in the use stage of the product life cycle. The aim of this analysis is to consider the most relevant functions that should be fulfilled by a plastic product and its relative importance. As the material properties selected have different units it was required to perform a normalisation of the values. After this stage of the analysis and the weighting of each property it was obtained the material classification in a 0 to 10 scale. Table 5 presents the results of the FA methodology. CP110 the material with the lowest score. Even though the R-BdP s has the notorious advantage for disposable products of being biodegradable the weight of the remaining properties results in PP being the best material option in this analysis. 4.3 LCC results To develop the economical assessment, the results were obtained through a PBCM. The model allowed to obtain different cost values (outputs) with the variation of the inputs which differ for the different products and materials. In the course of the development of this model it was also required to take some assumptions, such as the number of workers per line, the injection moulding machine life, the mould life, the interest and reject rates, and the number of hours of line downtime. The two main inputs of the PBCM were the Consumption and the EnergyConsumption, and the results are presented in Table 6, for an annual production volume of 400,000 parts for and 550,000 parts for I. Table 6 and energy consumptions Consumption (kg) Energy Consumption (MJ) Consumption (kg) Energy Consumption (MJ) CP110 CP130 PP I The outputs of the PBCM were used to calculate the overall life cycle cost of the products. Figure 6and Figure 7 presents the costs of the parts manufacturing stage for and I, respectively. Table 5 classification regarding the Functional Assessment Functional Assessment s CP110 CP130 PP FA Score Classification 3rd 2nd 1st PP is the material with the high score in the Functional Assessment being CP130 the second and Figure 6 Injection moulding costs for 5/10

6 Table 8 Total cost per part Total Cost per part CP110 CP130 PP Figure 7 Injection moulding costs for I The costs of the products were widely influenced by the difference of the cycle time for each material. These differences were more pronounced between the R-BdP s and PP than between CP110 and CP130. In the case of I the difference of cycle times between CP110 and CP130 was even more noticeable. The cycle time difference influenced de time required to produce the same production volume. Therefore this parameter had a major impact in the energy consumption per part, and consequently in the energy cost, and in the labour cost. The fixed overhead cost was dependent of this factor because of the percentage of line required to produce the same number of parts. It was also performed an economic analysis to the end-of-life stage. The results are summarized in Table 7. Table 7 End-of-life costs CP110 CP130 PP EoL1 3, , , EoL2 3, , , EoL3 2, , , EoL4 2, , , I CP110 CP130 PP EoL1 8, , , EoL2 8, , , EoL3 7, , , EoL4 7, , , Furthermore, the overall life cycle costs were calculated. Table 8 sums up the LCC results. EoL I EoL I EoL I EoL I PP was revealed to be the best material alternative in the economic analysis for all the end-of-life scenarios considered in the present study. It was also revealed that CP110 and CP130 being more expensive materials had a great impact in the results. The material cost was responsible for the majority of the total production costs. The energy costs, contrariwise, had a small relevance in the total costs. When compared with the material costs, the energy costs which were largely influenced by the cycle time of the products, were almost insignificant. It was also performed a sensitivity analysis to the annual production volume. Summing up, with the increase of the annual production volume, the three candidate materials for both products decreased the total cost per part. 4.4 LCA results An analysis of the environmental impact of the candidate materials was also performed in a cradle to grave approach. The usage stage was not considered as a consequence of not resulting environmental impacts from the parts use. Ribeiro et al performed a study on the environmental impacts of the plastic injection moulds. The authors concluded that, when the EI 99 methodology is applied, the environmental impacts referents of the mould have a low impact on the overall environmental impacts, especially when the plastic materials production is considered [14]. Therefore, and considering the great Consumption considered in this case study, especially for the R-BdP s products, the mould production was not considered in the overall life cycle environmental impacts calculations. The data of the material and energy streams were the same which were considered in the cost 6/10

7 assessment. From the streams it was possible to obtain the material and energy consumptions and therefore the resources consumed. Table 9 presents the material and energy consumptions for each of the life cycle stage for Table 9 Consumptions in the life cycle of the products each material and part. The annual production volumes were the same that were assumed for the LCC analysis. I Life Cycle Stage Consumption CP110 CP130 PP CP110 CP130 PP Raw Acquisition and Plastic Processing [ton] Parts Manufacturing (Injection Moulding) [ton] Parts Manufacturing (Injection Moulding) Energy [MJ] 585, , ,064 1,745,499 2,156, ,242 End-of-Life [ton] The life cycle impacts assessment stage was performed to obtain the environmental impact of all the consumptions and emissions of the process. The first step was to obtain the unitary impacts for each life cycle stage. These unitary impacts were obtain through the software SimaPro, using the EI 99 methodology, and are presented in Table 10. The unitary impact values of processing CP110 and CP130 were computed regarding the percentage of starch and PLA of each material, having CP110 75% of starch and 25% of PLA and CP130 89% of starch and 11% of PLA. The overall impact for each product and material were obtained by multiplying the total unitary impact value by the material and energy consumptions for each phase of the material life cycle, and by summing the impact of each phase. The results of the total environmental impact are presented in Table 11. Table 10 Unitary impact values s Unit Total Starch mpt/kg 62.9 PLA mpt/kg 306 CP110 mpt/kg CP130 mpt/kg 86.6 PP mpt/kg 330 Energy Unit Value High Voltage mpt/mj 3.13 Waste Treatment Unit Value Landfill - PP mpt/kg 59.6 Landfill R-BdP s mpt/kg 10.4 Recycle - PP mpt/kg -210 Compost R-BdP s mpt/kg 4.6 Table 11 Total environmental impact Total Environmental Impact [EI 99 mpt] I EoL Scenario CP110 CP130 PP CP110 CP130 PP EoL1 7,790,210 6,710,526 12,307,176 21,182,129 18,494,222 27,740,685 EoL2 7,790,210 6,710,526 4,523,352 21,182,129 18,494,222 9,241,447 EoL3 7,534,892 6,446,321 12,307,176 20,508,656 17,819,790 27,740,685 EoL4 7,534,892 6,446,321 4,523,352 20,508,656 17,819,790 9,241,447 R-BdP s based products proved to be environmentally advantageous regarding production. When the end-of-life stage was considered the overall environmental impacts had a different outcome. The ability of PP being mechanically recycled had a great impact on the environmental performance of this material, in the scenarios where it was considered to be recycled (EoL2 and EoL4). CP110 and CP130 proved to be superior, in an environmental approach, when all the materials went to landfill (EoL2) and when were composted and PP went to landfill (EoL3). The similar environmental impacts in the end-of-life analysis for CP110 and CP130 was a consequence of the unitary environmental impacts considered of composting and landfill be the same. When the overall impact was considered, CP130 enjoyed the advantage of the inferior raw material acquisition and plastic processing impact. Of that resulted on CP130 having a superior environmental performance when compared with CP110. 7/10

8 4.5 Global Evaluation The global evaluation consists in the performance of a three-dimensional analysis through the construction of a ternary diagram aggregating the results of the functional, economic and environmental analysis. The ternary diagrams have the advantage of not only illustrate the best material alternative for each set of weights, but also the domain of weights in which each material is the best alternative. Figure 8 presents the ternary diagram for Part I in the first end-of-life scenario considered. As an example, it were selected three different weight criteria for in EoL1. The points A and C, in which was considered an intermediate economic relevance (30% and 40% respectively), differ from each other with the importance of the environmental performance (60% and 20% respectively). On this both weight criteria, the best material alternative was CP130. In a scenario where it was given a higher relevance on the functional performance (point B), the best material alternative was PP. The results were similar for both parts on all the end-of-life scenarios, with the exception of EoL2. In this scenario, PP was the best candidate material in all the analysis dimensions and therefore it was the only alternative represented in the diagram. CP110 is not represented in any diagram as a consequence of this material not be the best candidate material in any analysis for all the end-of-life scenarios. It can be concluded that PP has a larger area of best alternative domain, having a better performance on the functional and economic analysis. On the other way, CP130 proved to be the best alternative when the application requires a better environmental performance. 5 Case study comparison Performing a case study comparison has the benefit of comparing the results obtained in the present case study with the results obtained in a study where a mould was developed to produce R-BdP s parts. Therefore the advantage of this comparison is to understand the benefits of the mould development for this type of materials. The case study compared was a Tooling EDGE case study, which consisted in produce a PLA package. Figure 9 LCC results for the case study [15] Figure 10 LCA results for the case study [15] Figure 8 Ternary Diagram of, EoL1 - Weight Criteria (Economic importance, Environmental importance, Functional importance): A (30%, 60%, 10%); B (40%, 20%, 40%); C (10%, 30%, 60%) On this case study, the LCA analysis had similar outcomes when compared with and II, on the most adequate material for each end-of-life scenario. The results of the LCC analysis, on the other way, had a relatively different outcome. The development of the mould for the case study, and as a consequence a more suitable mould for R-BdP s, had influence on the results of the economical 8/10

9 assessment. The proximity of the injection cycle times of both products, when compared with and especially I, resulted in a more similar energy consumption for both materials. As a consequence, the difference of the cost per part for each material was inferior on this case when compared with the testes performed on Fapil SA. The results showed that can be advantageous to prepare a mould to produce with R-BdP s, making these materials more competitive with fossil fuel origin polymers. 6 Business analysis A sensibility analysis were performed to the injection cycle time in order to understand the benefits that reducing this parameter would have in the overall product life cycle cost. The impact that the material cost have in the overall life cycle cost turns that reduction irrelevant. Hence, the reduction of the injection cycle time proved to be insufficient to increase the economic performance of the R- BdP s. Therefore a market research was performed with the objective to study how the market value the R-BdP s products. After collecting data about prices of R-BdP s and PP based products, it was concluded that the R-BdP s benefited of share of added price around 86%. However, the percentage of added cost in the manufacturing of products with this type of materials showed to be between 290% and 520%. Hence, It can be concluded that, considering the results of this case study, the share of the market price increased on the R-BdP s products is not sufficient to compensate the difference of the life cycle costs of the R-BdP s and PP candidate materials. Finally, the same analysis was performed to the results of the Tooling EDGE case study. As the difference of the life cycle costs was inferior in the case of the Tooling EDGE case study, the same business analysis was performed to the PLA package. Hence the percentage of added cost was calculated for the PLA product regarding the PP based product. In this case, the percentage of added cost of PLA (around 60%) is inferior to the share of price increased for the R-BdP s. Hence, with this economic performance on the injection moulding price, the PLA based products would benefit of an increase of around 26% of profit, compared with the R-BdP s products. Moreover, it can be concluded that the development of moulds for producing with R-BdP s would help the competitiveness of the R-BdP s on the market, turning R-BdP s based products a profitable solution for the injection moulding companies. 7 Conclusions This dissertation had the objective of applying a Life Cycle Engineering methodology in a material selection study, considering the product life cycle in a cradle-tograve approach. The LCE methodology considered. The LCE methodology applied incorporates three major analysis dimensions: functional, economic and environmental performances. The results obtained for each analysis were embraced in a global evaluation, performed through three-dimensional diagrams. These ternary diagrams allows mapping the best candidate material for a specific weight criteria, which can be modified according a certain application requirements. These diagrams also have the capacity to inform the domains of weight criteria in which each material is the best alternative. In this case study, the materials considered were two different R-BdP s blends with different compositions (CP110 and CP130) and a traditional plastic commonly used in the injection moulding process (PP). The comparison served as a purpose to study the possibility of replace the traditional fossil origin polymers with R-BdP s in order to reduce the environmental issues characteristics of this type of materials. The comparison was performed in two different products: a lid of a box with a 12 L capacity () and an economic waste shovel (I). Furthermore, it was considered four different end-of-life scenarios. In the economic analysis, of PP products, resulted inferior life cycle costs in both parts and in all end-of-life scenarios. The better performance of this material in the injection moulding process had a great impact in the costs of this candidate material. CP110 and CP130 required a superior injection cycle time and a higher material consumption. Moreover, unitary cost of the R-BdP s materials was greater than of PP. Hence, these factors were responsible for the major differences in the life cycle costs. In the environmental analysis, the R-BdP s proved to have an inferior environmental impact in landfill and when were composted than PP in landfill. Although, the recycling ability of PP influenced the overall environmental impact of these material in the scenarios where this waste treatment method was considered. In the R-BdP s, CP130 had inferior environmental impact than CP110 in all the considered scenarios. The environmental analysis showed that PP had a superior functional performance than the R-BdP s candidate materials. CPP110 was never the best candidate material in all the analysis. Therefore the global evaluations only included CP130 and PP. The results for the different endof-life scenarios were similar for both materials, with the exception of EoL2. In this scenario, as PP was benefited, PP was the best candidate material in all the dimensions of analysis for both studied products. It was concluded that the consideration of the best candidate material is strongly dependent of the importance of the requirements for each analysis dimension. The material with the best economic performance could not be 9/10

10 the candidate material with the best environmental performance. Hence, in this case study, it was verified that PP had a better functional and economic performances and as a result it is considered the best alternative in applications where these performances are favorited. On the contrary, R-BdP s, more specifically CP130, confirmed to be a better alternative in applications where the environmental performance is privileged regarding the economic performance. The results of this case study were compared with a Tooling EDGE caste study, where the injection moulding process was performed with a specially developed mould for R-BdP s. The results allowed to conclude that the development of the mould had a positive impact in the performance of the R-BdP s, especially in the economic performance dimension. The development of the market research verified that the R-BdP s based products are valued in the market and have a superior price than the FoP based products. The results of the life cycle costs showed that the percentage of added cost in the manufacturing of R-BdP s based products, regarding the FoP products is very superior to the percentage of added price in the market prices. However, the results of the Tooling EDGE case study suggested that the difference of the market prices was sufficient to compensate the difference in the life cycle costs of the R-BdP s regarding PP, proving once more that the development of moulds for the R-BdP s would be beneficial. References [1] A. Jiménez and J. M. Kenny, "4th International Conference on Biodegradable and Bio-based Polymers," Polymer Degradation and Stability, [2] X. Ren, "Biodegradable plastics: a solution or a challenge?," Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. II, pp , [3] B. Imre and B. Pukánszky, "Compatibilization in bio-based and biodegradable polymer blends," European Polymer Journal, vol. 49, pp , [4] I. Ribeiro, P. Peças, S. Arlindo and E. Henriques, "Life cycle engineering methodology applied to material selection, a fender case study," Journal of Cleaner Production, no. 16, pp , [5] P. Peças, I. Ribeiro and E. Henriques, "Life Cycle Engineering for s and Technology Selection: Two Models, One Approach," Procedia CIRP, vol. 15, pp , [6] P. Peças, E. Henriques and I. Ribeiro, "Integrated Approach to Product and Process Design Based on Life Cycle Engineering," in Handbook of Researcch on Trends in Product Design and Development, New York, Business Science Reference, 2011, pp [7] P. Peças, I. Ribeiro, A. Silva and E. Henriques, "Comprehensive approach for informed life cycle-based material selection," s & Design, vol. 43, pp , [8] P. H. Paul Barringer, "A Life Cycle Cost Summary," in International Conference of Maintenance Societies (ICOMS -2003), Perth, Western Australia, [9] D. Almeida, Lyfe Cycle Engineering approach to analyse the performance of biodegradable injection moulding plastics, Lisboa, [10] D. Almeida, I. Ribeiro, P. Peças, P. Teixeira and E. Henriques, Comparação do Desempenho de Polímeros Biodegradáveis na Moldação por Injecção Numa Perspectiva de Ciclo de Vida, Porto, [11] I. Ribeiro, P. Peças and E. Henriques, "Life Cycle Engineering Framework for Technology and Manufacturing Processes Evaluation," in Technology and Manufacturing Process Selection: The Product Life Cycle Perspective, Lisbon, Springer, 2014, pp [12] Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, Eco-indicator 99 Manual for Designers, A damage oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment, [13] I. Ribeiro, P. Peças and E. Henriques, "Modelling the energy consumption in the injection moulding process," Int. J. Sustainable Manufacturing, vol. X, [14] I. Ribeiro, P. Peças and E. Henriques, "Environmental Impact of Plastic Injection Moulds," 3rd International Conference on Polymers and Moulds Innovations - PMI 2008, vol. 253, pp , [15] A. Jorge, E. Henriques, G. Alves, P. Peças, P. Pereira and I. Ribeiro, "Tooling EDGE: Design for Life Cycle para Moldes/Produtos de Alto Valor Acrescentado," /10