1. 1 ECOFATTING Alessandra Zamagni– ENEA Pier Luigi Porta - ENEA Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development UTVALAMB LCA and Ecodesign Laboratory (Bologna, Italy) Ecofatting LIFE10 ENV/IT/364 Technical and Progress Meeting - Pisa, 11 December 2013 Use of Environmentally friendly natural products instead of chloroparaffines in the fatting phase of the tanning cycle Pisa, 11 December 2013

2. 2 Purposes:  To assess the environmental profile of the ECOFATTING process  To compare the ECOFATTING process with the present technology based on chloroparaffins. Method :  Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), according to:  ISO 14040 and 14044  Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) guide Action 8 – Study of the demonstration about the environmental benefits from the natural products fatting process Pisa, 11 December 2013

3. 3 TEMPERATURE SETTING UP TO 1650 °C Life Cycle Assessment  LCA is a technique for the systematic evaluation of the environmental aspects of a product or service system through all stages of its life cycle  The only standardised method to quantify a broad range of environmental impact categories  It provides scientific and quantitative information to identify/prevent environmental burdens shifting among the different phases of the life cycle, and the different impact categories  It allows for a comparative assessment between different product/services/systems performing the same function  Detailed approach: the contribution to the different impact categories of each elementary flows, of each unit processes, is accounted for  It support optimisation processes whenever a trade off exist. Source: Lepech (2010), Stanford University, Pisa, 11 December 2013

4. 4 The LCA framework Life cycle assessment framework Interpretation Goal definition Scope definition Inventory analysis Impact assessment Direct applications: Product development and improvement Strategic planning Public policy making Marketing Other From ISO 14044:2006, modified plus Documentation, Review From ISO 14044:2006, modified Goal & Scope Definition Definition of the purpose and intended application of the study. Inventory Analysis Compilation and quantification of inputs and outputs through the life cycle. Impact Assessment Identification and evaluation of the magnitudes and relative importance of the environmental impacts arising from the inventory analysis. Interpretation The results are checked and evaluated to confirm that they are consistent with the goal of the study. Pisa, 11 December 2013

5. 5 LCA and the Ecofatting process Goal and Scope Definition  Objective:  to assess the environmental profile of the ECOFATTING process  To compare the ECOFATTING process with the present technology based on chloroparaffins.  Intended audience: ENEA, project partners, LIFE+ Project Officer  Functional unit: 1 kg of fat liquor compound used in the retanning process.  Impact categories and indicators:  The emissions of greenhouse gases-GWP, kg CO 2 -equivalents, in 100 year perspective;  Emission of ozone-depleting gases-kg CFC 11-equivalents, 20 years;  Emission of acidification gases-kg SO 2 - equivalent;  Emissions of gases that contribute to the creation of ground level ozone-kg ethene- equivalents;  Emission of substances to water contributing to oxygen depletion-kg PO 4 3- -equivalents). Other indicators needs to be included in order to measure important expected key results: reduction of water consumption during the tanning process; reduction of toxicity; reduction of energy consumption.

6. Pisa, 11 December 2013 6 The fatting process The traditional and Ecofatting process differ in the types of products used in the fatting phase during the leather tanning cycle  Focus on the comparison between the two recipes: Chlorosulfonated products vs esterified vegetable fatty acid derivatives COMPONENT % (per ton of leather) Ecofatting Product (FACL)20,0 Lecithin2,5 Sulphited triglyceride oil (90%)30,0 Phosphated fatty alcohol3,5 Oleic soap3,0 Castor oil etoxilated1,0 Sulphated hydrocarbon10,0 Water30,0 COMPONENT % (per ton of leather) Ecofatting Product (FASCL)20,0 Lecithin2,5 Sulphited triglyceride oil (90%)30,0 Phosphated fatty alcohol3,5 Sodium Hydroxide10,0 Castor oil etoxilated1,0 FAMECL210,0 Water23,0 FAME-Cl (as a substitute of CP44) SFAME-Cl (as a substitute of SCP)

7. Pisa, 11 December 2013 7 Life Cycle Inventory – the approach adopted RETANNING SAMMING SPLITING SHAWING RETANNING FATLIQUORING DYEING Leather life cycle (Source: Joseph et al. 2009) Ecofatting

8. Pisa, 11 December 2013 8 Life Cycle Inventory – the approach adopted Fatliquoring retanning with (sulpho)chlorinated fatty acid from paraffin RECIPE A Fatliquoring retanning with palmkernel (sulpho)chlorinated methyl-fatty acid ester RECIPE B vs CLOPARIN 44F CLOPARTEN Z FACL FASCL PARAFFINPALM KERNEL OIL vs LCA-based information Process-related information

9. Pisa, 11 December 2013 9 Life Cycle Inventory Data and assumptions:  Different yield for the production of (sulpho)chlorinated fatty acid from paraffin and palmkernel (sulpho)chlorinated methyl-fatty acid ester  1 kg paraffin  1,81 kg Cloparin 44F; 1 kg FAME  1,92 kg FACL  1 kg paraffin  1,57 kg Cloparten Z; 1 kg FAME  1,90 kg FASCL  Co-products: hydrochloric acid (presently not allocated, but it does not affect the results  Chlorine and sulphur in excess are reduced and then sent to disposal  The disposal treatment has not been considering (optimisation at the industrial scale)  Same quality of the leather after the treatment with the to products (same softness, fullness, touch, dyebility, tanning power, loosen grain)  Waste water treatment: environmental impact on waste water carried out by INESCOP

10. Pisa, 11 December 2013 10 Life Cycle Impact Assessment Cloparin 44F vs FACL Characterisation results (CML, update nov. 2010) Cloparin 44F vs FACL

11. Pisa, 11 December 2013 11 Abiotic Depletion Characterisation results (CML, Nov. 2010) Cloparin 44F vs FACL CLOPARIN 44F FACL

12. Pisa, 11 December 2013 12 Global Warming Characterisation results (CML, Nov. 2010) Cloparin 44F vs FACL CLOPARIN 44F FACL

13. Pisa, 11 December 2013 13 Life Cycle Impact Assessment Cloparin 44F vs FACL Characterisation results (ReCiPe ) – focus on TOXICITY Cloparin 44F vs FACL

14. Pisa, 11 December 2013 14 Characterisation results (USEtox ) focus on TOXICITY Life Cycle Impact Assessment Cloparin 44F vs FACL FACL CLOPARIN 44F

15. Pisa, 11 December 2013 15 Life Cycle Impact Assessment Cloparten Z vs FASCL Characterisation results (CML, update Nov. 2010) Cloparten Z vs FASCL

16. Pisa, 11 December 2013 16 Abiotic Depletion Characterisation results (CML, Nov. 2010) Cloparten Zvs FASCL CLOROPARTEN Z FASCL

17. Pisa, 11 December 2013 17 Global Warming Characterisation results (CML, Nov. 2010) Cloparten Zvs FASCL CLOROPARTEN Z FASCL

18. Pisa, 11 December 2013 18 Global Warming Characterisation results (CML, Nov. 2010) Cloparten Z vs FASCL CLOROPARTEN Z FASCL

19. Pisa, 11 December 2013 19 Characterisation results (ReCiPe) – focus on TOXICITY Cloparten Z vs FASCL Life Cycle Impact Assessment Cloparten Z vs FASCL

20. Pisa, 11 December 2013 20 Life Cycle Impact Assessment Cloparten Z vs FASCL Characterisation results (USEtox) – focus on TOXICITY Cloparten Z vs FASCL FASCL CLOROPARTEN Z

21. Pisa, 11 December 2013 21 Energy consumption  Information on energy needed for the production of the inputs “palm kernel oil” and “paraffin”  Life cycle-based data (Ecoinvent v2.2 database, peer reviewed articles)  Sector specific literature PALM KERNEL OIL  Energy intensive process, with thermal and electrical energy being the main contributors (dryer, cracker, roaster, crusher, oil-pressing machine, sifter and bottles pump)  Energy to produce 1 kg of palm kernel oil:  0.346MJ/kg (small mills)  0.217 MJ/kg (medium mills)  0.176 MJ/kg (large mills) PARAFFIN  Electricity: 0.093 MJ/kg  Thermal energy: 4.58 MJ/kg Source: Ecoinvent v2.2

22. Pisa, 11 December 2013 22 Discussion  The results obtained will be further refined, investigating:  Toxicity impact categories (environmental models still under development)  Information on process water consumption of paraffin and palm kernel oil  Optimisation of the production process in the upscale  Allocation between product and co-product has not been applied but the analysis carried out demonstrates that it does not affect the results  The LCA study points out not apparent conclusions  Palm kernel oil: energy intensive production  Benefit to be discussed at a broader scale, considering the marginal use of the palm kernel oil  Final technical report of the LCA study under preparation

23. Pisa, 11 December 2013 23 Alessandra Zamagni, Pier Luigi Porta LCA and Ecodesign Laboratory - ENEA Via Martiri di Monte Sole, 4 40129 - Bologna alessandra.zamagni@enea.it ; pierluigi.porta@enea.it Thank you for your attention