Abstract
Purpose
Aluminum electrolytic capacitors (AECs) are a type of indispensable electronic components in modern electronic and electrical products. They are designed and manufactured by a series of product specifications to meet the requirements of a variety of application scenarios. Efficient assessment of the potential environmental impact on AECs with different specification parameters in the product family is essential to implement sustainable product development for the manufacturers.
Methods
A cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment (LCA) was performed to evaluate the environmental impact of 38 types of AECs in a product family from the manufacturer’s perspective. In the study, 100,000 AECs with specific rated working voltage (among 16 V, 25 V, and 35 V) and rated capacitance (among 4.7 to 6800 μF) produced by a capacitor manufacturer from Nantong, China, were selected as the functional unit. In the life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis, a parametric LCI model for the product family was established by combining product family parameterization and production process parameterization. The impact assessment method, ReCiPe2016 (midpoint, hierarchist perspective), was used to quantitatively calculate the potential environmental impacts of the AECs.
Results and discussion
Based on the generated LCIs of the AECs and ReCiPe2016, fossil depletion, climate change, and terrestrial ecotoxicity were identified as the key environmental impact categories in the production stage for the AEC product family. The environmental impacts of fossil consumption, climate change, and terrestrial ecotoxicity per functional unit ranged from 263 to 6777 kg oil equivalent, 884 to 23,760 kg CO2 equivalent, and 573 to 47,340 kg 1,4-DB equivalent, respectively. The environmental impact differences among the product family due to the differences in AECs’ specifications were compared. Aluminum ingots (anode), aluminum ingots (cathode), case, and electricity are the main contributors to the environmental impacts, accounting for over 85% of carbon emissions, over 70% of fossil consumption, and over 62% of terrestrial ecotoxicity. Sensitivity analysis of 12 parameters was investigated.
Conclusions
The results and the conclusions provide a solid foundation for capacitor manufacturers to carry out eco-design development, environmental management, and green marketing. The effect of eco-design optimization and process improvement of the AECs can be quantitatively compared through the established model. Furthermore, the study supports the application and promotion of the AEC eco-label with specific specifications in the AEC industry. The methodology also gives guidance for the LCA studies of product families of other electronic and electrical components.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available in the Supplementary information.
References
Abdennadher K, Venet P, Rojat G, Retif JM, Rosset C (2010) A real-time predictive-maintenance system of aluminum electrolytic capacitors used in uninterrupted power supplies. IEEE Trans Ind Appl 46(4):1644–1652. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIA.2010.2049972
Both J (2015) The modern era of aluminum electrolytic capacitors. IEEE Electr Insul Mag 31(4):24–34. https://doi.org/10.1109/MEI.2015.7126071
Both J (2016) Electrolytic capacitors from the postwar period to the present. IEEE Electr Insul Mag 32(2):8–26. https://doi.org/10.1109/MEI.2016.7414227
Cossutta M, Vretenar V, Centeno TA, Kotrusz P, McKechnie J, Pickering SJ (2020) A comparative life cycle assessment of graphene and activated carbon in a supercapacitor application. J Clean Prod 242:118468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118468
ECES (2019) Product category rules for life cycle assessments of electronic and electrical products and systems (EN 50693:2019). European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (ECES). https://www.en-standard.eu/csn-en-50693-product-category-rules-for-life-cycle-assessments-of-electronic-and-electrical-products-and-systems/. Accessed 15 Nov 2022
EPA (2022) Introduction to ecolabels and standards for greener products. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). https://www.epa.gov/greenerproducts/introduction-ecolabels-and-standards-greener-products. Accessed 24 Mar 2022
Escoto X, Gebrehewot D, Morris K (2022) Refocusing the barriers to sustainability for small and medium-sized manufacturers. J Clean Prod 338:130589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130589
Fritter M, Lawrence R, Marcolin B, Pelletier N (2020) A survey of life cycle inventory database implementations and architectures, and recommendations for new database initiatives. Int J Life Cycle Assess 25(8):1522–1531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01745-5
Hong J, Shi W, Wang Y, Chen W, Li X (2015) Life cycle assessment of electronic waste treatment. Waste Manage 38:357–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.12.022
Islam S, Ponnambalam S, Lam HL (2016) Review on life cycle inventory: methods, examples and applications. J Clean Prod 136:266–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.144
ISO (2006a) Environmental management - life cycle assessment principles and framework (ISO14040:2006a). International Organization for Standardization (ISO). https://www.iso.org/standard/37456.html. Accessed 24 Mar 2022
ISO (2006b) Environmental management - life cycle assessment - requirements and guidelines (ISO14044:2006b). International Organization for Standardization (ISO). https://www.iso.org/standard/38498.html. Accessed 24 Mar 2022
Saavedra-Rubio K, Thonemann N, Crenna E, Lemoine B, Caliandro P, Laurent A (2022) Stepwise guidance for data collection in the life cycle inventory (LCI) phase: building technology-related LCI blocks. J Clean Prod 366:132903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132903
Smith L, Ibn-Mohammed T, Koh SCL, Reaney IM (2018) Life cycle assessment and environmental profile evaluations of high volumetric efficiency capacitors. Appl Energy 220:496–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.03.067
Smith L, Ibn-Mohammed T, Koh L, Reaney IM (2019) Life cycle assessment of functional materials and devices: opportunities, challenges, and current and future trends. J Am Ceram Soc 102(12):7037–7064. https://doi.org/10.1111/jace.16712
Stephan A, Crawford RH, Bontinck PA (2019) A model for streamlining and automating path exchange hybrid life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24(2):237–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1521-1
Teixeira FdSM, Peres ACdC, Gomes TS, Visconte LLY, Pacheco EBAV (2021) A review on the applicability of life cycle assessment to evaluate the technical and environmental properties of waste electrical and electronic equipment. J Polym Environ 29(5):1333–1349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-020-01966-7
Wang Q, Liu W, Yuan X, Tang H, Tang Y, Wang M, Zuo J, Song Z, Sun J (2018) Environmental impact analysis and process optimization of batteries based on life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 174:1262–1273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.059
Zhang C, Jing J, Yun L, Zheng Y, Huang H (2022a) A cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment of high-voltage aluminum electrolytic capacitors in China. J Clean Prod 370:133244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133244
Zhang C, Zheng Y, Jing J, Liu Y, Huang H (2022b) A comparative LCA study on aluminum electrolytic capacitors: from liquid-state electrolyte, solid-state polymer to their hybrid. J Clean Prod 375:134044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134044
Zhao S, You F (2019) Comparative life-cycle assessment of Li-ion batteries through process-based and integrated hybrid approaches. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 7(5):5082–5094. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.8b05902
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the Natural Science Foundation of the Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions of China (Grant No.21KJB460011). We also appreciated the support from Nantong Jianghai Capacitor Corporation in this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Communicated by Zbigniew Stanislaw Klos
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Highlights
∙ A cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment is performed for a capacitor product family.
∙ Fossil depletion, climate change, and terrestrial ecotoxicity are key impact categories.
∙ Environmental impact differences of two specification parameters are investigated.
∙ A parametric inventory model enhances the flexibility of static inventory analysis.
∙ The study is beneficial to sustainable development of the products with multi-types.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Zhang, C., Zheng, Y., Huang, H. et al. Environmental impact assessment of aluminum electrolytic capacitors in a product family from the manufacturer’s perspective. Int J Life Cycle Assess 28, 80–94 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02117-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02117-x