IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i16p4471-d258732.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Allocation Methodology of Process-Level Carbon Footprint Calculation in Textile and Apparel Products

Author

Listed:
  • Xin Li

    (Fashion Institute, Donghua University, Shanghai 200051, China
    Shanghai International Institute of Design & Innovation, Shanghai 200080, China
    Key Laboratory of Clothing Design & Technology (Donghua University), Ministry of Education, Shanghai 200051, China
    Apparel & Art Design College, Xi’an Polytechnic University, Xi’an 710048, Shaanxi, China)

  • Lizhu Chen

    (Fashion Institute, Donghua University, Shanghai 200051, China
    Shanghai International Institute of Design & Innovation, Shanghai 200080, China
    Key Laboratory of Clothing Design & Technology (Donghua University), Ministry of Education, Shanghai 200051, China)

  • Xuemei Ding

    (Fashion Institute, Donghua University, Shanghai 200051, China
    Shanghai International Institute of Design & Innovation, Shanghai 200080, China
    Key Laboratory of Clothing Design & Technology (Donghua University), Ministry of Education, Shanghai 200051, China)

Abstract

Textile and apparel industrial processes generate a huge amount of greenhouse gas emissions, which is a severe environmental issue for China. Aiming at greenhouse reduction, a carbon footprint calculation method is presented. In carbon footprint calculations, allocation methodology is among the most significant and controversial issues; it can be a major reason for the LCA uncertainty and robustness caused. What is more, allocation methodology impacts directly on the preparation of data collection and system boundary. Different outcomes can be achieved even for apparently similar systems by using a different allocation approach. Textile production has a large range of production process. During textile production process, it may be a single product production with co-products. The current CF calculation only evaluates GHGs emissions at product or plant level, so the difference of the technology on different processes cannot be deduced. Hence, the choice of proper allocation methodology is a crucial issue to be considered in textile and apparel industry. In this paper, based on characteristics of textile and apparel industry, process-level allocation methodology in textile and apparel industry was put forward. The application of allocation methodology was investigated and analyzed with a case study on cotton T-shirts. Firstly, case study results show that greenhouse gases of the ironing and sewing process are the two largest emissions (ironing, 40.82%, and sewing, 34.85%, respectively). Energy-saving refrigeration equipment needs to be chosen to reduce the greenhouse gases significantly. Secondly, for most processes, CF of S2 (auxiliary CF) accounts for the highest proportion of total CF. Preferred to S1, more attention should be paid to reduce the S2 emissions. Thirdly, GHGs emissions of the polo shirt in the sewing process are significantly higher than that of the T-shirt in the sewing stage (T-shirt, 0.167 kg CO 2 eq/piece, and polo shirt, 0.371 kg CO 2 eq/piece, respectively). This is the consequence that polo shirt’s style and structure determine the complexity of its sewing process. Finally, based on the pearson correlation coefficient, T-shirt production (kg) has a significant negative linear correlation (correlation coefficient: −0.868) with the CF (kg CO 2 eq/kg T-shirts), the similar with that (correlation coefficient: −0.963) of all production. Improving the textile and garment production efficiency is significant to reduce the CF of products (per mass) by technological innovation and management optimization. In this study, we demonstrate that the process-level allocation is a feasible method, and can serve as the basis for a textile-specific allocation approach in LCA. Process-level allocation may help to address textile allocation problems and might lead to more detailed LCA results for products. We recommend broad applications and testing of this new allocation approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Xin Li & Lizhu Chen & Xuemei Ding, 2019. "Allocation Methodology of Process-Level Carbon Footprint Calculation in Textile and Apparel Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-14, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:16:p:4471-:d:258732
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/16/4471/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/16/4471/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Maarten Messagie & Fayçal Boureima & Jan Mertens & Javier Sanfelix & Cathy Macharis & Joeri Van Mierlo, 2013. "The Influence of Allocation on the Carbon Footprint of Electricity Production from Waste Gas, a Case Study for Blast Furnace Gas," Energies, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-16, March.
    2. Malça, João & Freire, Fausto, 2006. "Renewability and life-cycle energy efficiency of bioethanol and bio-ethyl tertiary butyl ether (bioETBE): Assessing the implications of allocation," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(15), pages 3362-3380.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Julia Wenger & Stefan Pichler & Annukka Näyhä & Tobias Stern, 2022. "Practitioners’ Perceptions of Co-Product Allocation Methods in Biorefinery Development—A Case Study of the Austrian Pulp and Paper Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-16, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Danilo Arcentales-Bastidas & Carla Silva & Angel D. Ramirez, 2022. "The Environmental Profile of Ethanol Derived from Sugarcane in Ecuador: A Life Cycle Assessment Including the Effect of Cogeneration of Electricity in a Sugar Industrial Complex," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-24, July.
    2. Malça, João & Coelho, António & Freire, Fausto, 2014. "Environmental life-cycle assessment of rapeseed-based biodiesel: Alternative cultivation systems and locations," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 837-844.
    3. Puca, Antonio & Carrano, Marco & Liu, Gengyuan & Musella, Dimitri & Ripa, Maddalena & Viglia, Silvio & Ulgiati, Sergio, 2017. "Energy and eMergy assessment of the production and operation of a personal computer," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 124-136.
    4. Castanheira, Érica Geraldes & Acevedo, Helmer & Freire, Fausto, 2014. "Greenhouse gas intensity of palm oil produced in Colombia addressing alternative land use change and fertilization scenarios," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 958-967.
    5. van der Hilst, F. & Lesschen, J.P. & van Dam, J.M.C. & Riksen, M. & Verweij, P.A. & Sanders, J.P.M. & Faaij, A.P.C., 2012. "Spatial variation of environmental impacts of regional biomass chains," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 2053-2069.
    6. William Stafford & Adrian Lotter & Alan Brent & Graham von Maltitz, 2017. "Biofuels technology: A look forward," WIDER Working Paper Series 087, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    7. Nils Hooftman & Luis Oliveira & Maarten Messagie & Thierry Coosemans & Joeri Van Mierlo, 2016. "Environmental Analysis of Petrol, Diesel and Electric Passenger Cars in a Belgian Urban Setting," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-24, January.
    8. Yang, Q. & Chen, G.Q., 2013. "Greenhouse gas emissions of corn–ethanol production in China," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 252(C), pages 176-184.
    9. Dijkman, T.J. & Benders, R.M.J., 2010. "Comparison of renewable fuels based on their land use using energy densities," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(9), pages 3148-3155, December.
    10. Ravagnani, Mauro A.S.S. & Thonern, Werner I. & Caballero, Jose A., 2007. "A mathematical model for the composition of Brazilian ethanol shares for exportation to be blended to gasoline," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 5060-5063, October.
    11. Geraldes Castanheira, Érica & Grisoli, Renata & Freire, Fausto & Pecora, Vanessa & Coelho, Suani Teixeira, 2014. "Environmental sustainability of biodiesel in Brazil," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 680-691.
    12. Jegannathan, Kenthorai Raman & Chan, Eng-Seng & Ravindra, Pogaku, 2009. "Harnessing biofuels: A global Renaissance in energy production?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(8), pages 2163-2168, October.
    13. Cherubini, Francesco & Strømman, Anders Hammer & Ulgiati, Sergio, 2011. "Influence of allocation methods on the environmental performance of biorefinery products—A case study," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 55(11), pages 1070-1077.
    14. Chen, G.Q. & Yang, Q. & Zhao, Y.H., 2011. "Renewability of wind power in China: A case study of nonrenewable energy cost and greenhouse gas emission by a plant in Guangxi," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(5), pages 2322-2329, June.
    15. Castillo Santiago, York & Martínez González, Aldemar & Venturini, Osvaldo J. & Sphaier, Leandro A. & Ocampo Batlle, Eric A., 2022. "Energetic and environmental assessment of oil sludge use in a gasifier/gas microturbine system," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 244(PB).
    16. Malça, João & Freire, Fausto, 2011. "Life-cycle studies of biodiesel in Europe: A review addressing the variability of results and modeling issues," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 338-351, January.
    17. Segovia, José J. & Villamañán, Rosa M. & Martín, M. Carmen & Chamorro, César R. & Villamañán, Miguel A., 2010. "Thermodynamic characterization of bio-fuels: Excess functions for binary mixtures containing ETBE and hydrocarbons," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 759-763.
    18. Yang, Q. & Chen, G.Q., 2012. "Nonrenewable energy cost of corn-ethanol in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 340-347.
    19. Piastrellini, Roxana & Arena, Alejandro Pablo & Civit, Bárbara, 2017. "Energy life-cycle analysis of soybean biodiesel: Effects of tillage and water management," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 13-20.
    20. Balat, Mustafa & Balat, Havva, 2009. "Recent trends in global production and utilization of bio-ethanol fuel," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 86(11), pages 2273-2282, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:16:p:4471-:d:258732. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.