Environmentally Conscious Manufacturing and Life Cycle Analysis: A State-of-the-Art Survey

Paulraj, Prathap; Ilangovan, Padmanaban; Subramanian, Kannan; Nagarajan, Mohan Raj; Suthan, R.; Sakthimurugan, V.; Madhu, S.; Varuvel, Edwin Geo; Lenin, Haiter

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/8438462

Journal of Nanomaterials

On this page

Abstract Introduction Conclusions Data Availability Conflicts of Interest References Copyright Related Articles

Special Issue

Nanotechnology for Environment and Biomedical Applications

View this Special Issue

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2022 | Article ID 8438462 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/8438462

Environmentally Conscious Manufacturing and Life Cycle Analysis: A State-of-the-Art Survey

Prathap Paulraj,¹Padmanaban Ilangovan,²Kannan Subramanian,³Mohan Raj Nagarajan,¹R. Suthan,⁴V. Sakthimurugan,⁵S. Madhu,⁵Edwin Geo Varuvel,⁶and Haiter Lenin⁷

Academic Editor: Antonios Kelarakis

Received18 Apr 2022

Accepted27 Jun 2022

Published25 Jul 2022

Abstract

Research on developing new methodologies on environmentally conscious manufacturing and way of reducing environmental impacts on product design was started over two decades ago. Environmentally conscious manufacturing has become a challenge to the environment and to the society itself, enforced primarily by government regulations and the customer expectation on environmental issues. In both industry and academics, there is a sizable following for environmental-related issues which are aimed at finding answers to the problems that arise in this newly emerged area. Problems are widespread including the ones related to the life cycle of products, disassembly, material recovery, and remanufacturing and pollution prevention. Only very few researchers have concentrated on ecofriendly products. This paper investigates the literature by classifying more than 200 published references into four categories, viz., design for environment checklist, environmentally conscious manufacturing, life cycle analysis, and material selection.

1. Introduction

Increasing customer demands has led to the present manufacturing industries to continuously evolve in meeting all the needs of end customer due to factors like competition and profit. But in this evolution process, environmental issues were neglected. This has resulted in serious environmental disputes like global warming, acid rain, changes in weather, and water shortages around the world. As a result of these environmental consequences from fast-paced industrial evolution, the ecofriendly Industrial Revolution has begun. While developing a product, the environmental performance of these products has become a vital issue. Bearing 5this issue in the mind, some industries are investigating ways to minimize their effects on the environment by providing products with high-level reusability. In recent scenario, a manufacturing facility was specifically designed in solar energy sector by a unique manner for utmost efficiency in terms of production and energy. The global earth warming is being mitigated by providing solar panels developed by NASA that utilizes sun energy. In another scenario, novel invention of a product, ecoconscious-based materials, reusable packaging products, etc. to name a few pave a good way for eradicating environmental pollution and maximizing resources. Remanufacturing is an economically viable and environmentally friendly way to achieve many of the goals of sustainable development. Remanufacturing forms an essentially closed-loop manufacturing system by concluding ends of the material use cycle. It primarily focuses on value-added recovery, rather than just material recycling. There are estimated to be in excess of 73,000 firms engaged in remanufacturing in the United States directly employing over 350,000 people (Lund, 1998). Environmentally conscious remanufacturing is fundamentally an industrial process wherein worn-out products are restored to like-new condition. The discarded product is completely disassembled through a series of industrial processes in a factory environment. The reusable parts are cleaned, refurbished, and put into inventory based on product development.

In another study, it was revealed that major hindrances faced by Western Europe are waste management and landfill space. The overseas manufacturers are incorporating more and more postlife considerations into their product design and development process. Both in industries and academia, under the influence by European governments, a considerable attention has been drawn towards material recycling. The material recycling focuses on leading constituent materials from the disposal of the product or its associated value into a new cycle of usage. Arguably, a drastic reduction in impact on environmental factors can be attained by reuse of product and remanufacture by which geometrical aspect of the product is retained and is reutilized for the same purpose as during its original life cycle for secondary purposes. With remanufacturing, the energy and matter consumption during manufacture is eliminated as the existing components are facilitated. The monetary expenditure incurred for producing or acquiring new product components are reduced elastically with remanufacturing. On the other side, the disadvantages incurred in remanufacturing are as follows: requirement of channels for collecting worn-out products, identification of product design and restructuring of product design for remanufacturing, need to redistribute and retail reprocessed products, etc. The four categories, design for environment checklist, environmentally conscious manufacturing, life cycle analysis, and material selection, play a vital role in sustainable manufacturing.

1.1. Design for Environment Checklist

Several researchers have given an overview on environmental design checklist as a method or tool to help manufactures to achieve an optimized design for ecofriendly development. A sustainable environmental design also contributes towards development of green manufacturing disciplines in the world. The primary objective of ecofriendly manufacturing process is to minimize environmental degradation effects in the product development perspective, viz., taking recyclability, reusability, and degradability into account, rather than to boost economic benefits. The design methodology for environmental design and development is attributed to energy efficient lighting, heating, and cooling systems. This energy-reliable manufacturing as an element of environmental design check suits lower operating costs as well as longevity in the product lifetime. In day-to-day scenario, the constructions of buildings in accordance with environmental principles provide enhanced occupant productivity and sense of wellbeing. Recycling and waste management are another aspect of environmental design.

1.2. Environmentally Conscious Manufacturing

Environmentally conscious manufacturing abbreviated as ECM is associated with producing methods for manufacturing new products from conceptual design to final delivery as well as ultimately to the end-of-life (EOL) disposal with respect to environmental standards and requirements. Product recovery, on the other hand, is aimed at minimizing the amount of waste sent to landfills by recovering materials and parts from old or outdated products by means of recycling and remanufacturing. ECM is driven by the escalating deterioration of the environment. With the aftereffects of both fast depletion of the raw materials and an increasing number of various forms of waste, viz., solid waste, air, and water pollution, in order to design and develop a product which is environmentally benevolent, the life cycle of the product should be very well understood. Figure 1 shows the flow process of environmentally conscious design.

1.3. Life Cycle Analysis

Life cycle assessment (LCA) stands as the preeminent tool for estimating environmental impacts caused by products from “cradle to grave” or “cradle to cradle.” It exists in multiple forms, claims a growing list of practitioners, and remains a focus of continuing research. Presently, this system of LCA is often used by decision-makers to study an entire product system in a very detailed way and still remains the focus as if the whole products were a single process. Therefore, LCA is started to prove that it is an excellent guidance tool for the industrial world to make their processes environmentally friendly. In LCA, useable parts are cleaned; then, the new product is reassembled from the old and, where necessary, new parts to produce a product that is fully equivalent and sometimes superior in performance and expected lifetime to the original product. Life cycle analysis (LCA) spans over the development, manufacturing, use, and disposal stages of the product. At these stages individually, decisions based on environmentally friendly techniques need to be made and have prompted methods like design for environment (DFE), design for disassembly (DFD), and design for recycling (DFR). LCA has proven to provide most important solution to environmental problems; its adjacent effect is with the birth stages of novel product development. However, the greatest impairment to nature occurs when the product completes its lifetime utility. Therefore, understanding and developing innovative techniques for end-of-life management of the products by means of product/material recovery would be a suitable solution for eradicating environmental or natural degradation. LCA is extremely crucial considering the millions of products that have already been developed without incorporating their undesired effects on the environment.

Recovery of products can be done in binary methods as discussed in the former sections, viz., remanufacturing and recycling. The difference between recycling and remanufacturing is based on recovering ability of material content. Recycling is aimed at recovering the material content of retired products by performing the necessary disassembly, sorting, and chemical operations. On the other hand, remanufacturing preserves the product’s (or the part’s) identity and performs the required disassembly, sorting, refurbishing, and assembly operations in order to bring the product to a desired level of quality. Disassembly has proven its role in material and product recovery by allowing selective separation of desired parts and materials. Besides being able to recover valuable precious materials by material recovery, good component removal via disassembly could provide parts for discontinued products and reduce the lead times in the assembly of new products. Life cycle analysis (LCA) spans over the development, manufacturing, use, and disposal stages of the product as depicted in Figure 2.

1.4. Materials for Environmentally Friendly Usages

Two common primary objectives arise as a momentum with the result of fast depletion of the raw materials and an increasing number of different forms of waste (solid waste, air, and water pollution). They are creating environmentally friendly materials (i.e., green products) and developing techniques for product recovery and waste management. Ecofriendly materials pave their way to the top among other class of materials. The primary reason for this ranking is due to its recycling and biodegradation aspects as well as zero degradation on disposal. The green materials are taking huge strides replacing toxic waste in the market place with organic materials. The trend of this green or ecofriendly materials has been escalating drastically to meet the demand of consumers for renewable and reusable resources. The materials used for environmentally friendly needs are diversified and spread in various regimes like constructions, waste water treatments, biodegradable materials, manufacturing, and packaging to name a few.

In this review article, many issues have been captured based on environmental issues with the attention of industries, academia, and manufacturing sectors. This article comprises detailed review about the effects of product design and development on ecofriendly aspects. Our objective is to offer an up-to-date literature review on product development based on environmental aspects, materials for recycling and reusable purposes, design for environment, etc. Basically, our surroundings have limited resources, viz., materials that convert into product, energy, water, and air supply. The areas for waste disposal and treatments are scarce in the society. The thrust for providing a sustainable environment for the next generation is of utmost privilege as the resources available in the globe are used for raising the living standard. This paper focuses on various literatures associated with the former mentioned aspects as the need to cultivate a viable solution for ecofriendly aspects related to product design development and manufacturing as well as recycling is of greater importance. The identification of extent of product issues and corrective actions given on research articles are also summarized in this paper. Moreover, the problems or issues sorted by the researchers in various dimensions affecting environmental degradation are also explained in this literature review article. The material selection criteria based on environmentally friendly aspects, degradation, and reusability are also given primary importance, for a better future. Lots of review researches have been carried out on green materials for environmentally conscious manufacturing aspects involving design and production.

Material selection should be a crucial consideration when building a product with environmental benefits. The environmental features of a product are very much fixed once the design decisions are made and the materials used to make it are known. In order to accomplish a complete ECM concept, concerns such as energy source selection, cooling systems, and handling of hazardous byproducts, among others, must be regulated during the production process.

When the product structure is large and complex and the number of components to examine expands, the LCA problem becomes more complicated. LCA demands contributions from all parts of society, including public pressure organizations, educational institutions, companies, and government agencies, according to a number of LCA-related researches.

2. Review Status of the Ecofriendly-Based Manufacturing Process

2.1. Design for Environment Checklist

DFE checklists are widely used tools for supporting product analysis at the design stages. Some checklists are intended for certifying ecolabels such as Ecomark [1]. By using a checklist, the designer can design good-quality, desirable, and cost-effective products to reduce the impact on the environment. Preparation of ecodesign checklist adds value or supports the designer for designing ecofriendly products. One of the most prevailing checklists called “the ecodesign checklist” covers the entire life cycle of a product from need analysis to the recovery and disposal stage [2]. Japanese manufacturers adopted the use of checklists and LCA for assessing the environmental aspects of their manufacturing products [3]. Many researchers have done lots of work with the help of the ecodesign checklist, and some of the findings are described below. Kishita et al. [4] framed a checklist that reduces CO₂ by 8% for a digital duplicator.

Ketchatturat [5] developed a self-evaluation checklist with each set consisting of 3 check points, 14 subcheck points, and 70 items to increase the value of educational provision processes. The author analyzed the data by employing content analysis, cross-case analysis, and analytical description methods. The PDCA cycle was used in the implementation of the self-evaluation checklist. “The ten golden rules,” which is a powerful tool for integrating realistic environmental demands into the product development process, was introduced by Luttrop and Lagerstedt [6]. The product developers/designers can use these general guidelines as a base and guideline for the development of situation-specific product design challenges. Wimmer [7] developed an ecochecklist method that supports engineers in product development to produce ecofriendly products. The checklist is prepared based on a holistic view of the product in three analysis levels, namely, part, function, and product. Checkpoints show where the weak points of a product are and how to reuse and recycle the parts, where to integrate, omit, or create functions, and where to increase efficiency and reduce consumption and the usability of the whole product.

A method for incorporating ecodesign into product design and development in an automobile company was proposed by Wimmer and Zust [8]. The application of the twelve-step approach of ecodesign is implemented for the fuel tank unit of a car. This indicates that the approach can be a viable ecodesign method for manufacturers to integrate the environmental aspects of their products into their product design and development processes.

A variety of ecodesign checklists presenting a system to assist product designers in selecting the appropriate ecodesign checklist for product development were investigated and analyzed by Masoudi et al. [9]. Byggeth and Hochschorner [10] proposed that ecodesign tools can be used in both product development and purchasing, i.e., to prescribe design alternatives, assess environmental impacts, or compare environmental improvement alternatives. In this study, the authors analyzed 15 different ecodesign tools to ascertain whether a valuation is included in the tools, in what way the tools give support in different types of trade-off situations, and whether the tools provide support from a sustainability perspective. And it is concluded that nine of the 15 tools analyzed provide support in trade-off situations, but the support is not sufficient. The authors suggest that an ecodesign tool should contain a valuation if it is designed to support a user in a trade-off situation. The valuation should include a life cycle perspective and a framework for sustainability to give an accurate result from a sustainability perspective.

For industrial designers, Lofthouse [11] developed a more holistic framework for building ecodesign tools. The author has provided his result that “information/inspiration” makes ecodesign much more accessible to designers who intend to consider ecodesign strategies within their design work. It is a more user-friendly, design-specific service to designers, guidance providers, supplier information, and educators and allowed browsing source-specific data for interesting ideas. Two handbooks with recommendations and procedures for developing environmentally friendly vending machines were created by Vezzoli and Sciana [12]. To achieve these results, an LCA has been developed and a system to prioritize guidelines has been adopted. Finally, these tools have been integrated within the company procedure to consistently reduce the overall environmental impact of products throughout their entire life cycle.

Telenko et al. [13] made a compilation of designs for environmental guidelines. A total of 6 DFE strategies and 76 DFE guidelines were reconciled from 20 sources, and a subset was illustrated with examples. The guidelines are intended to be used in the early stages of design to reduce the environmental impacts of products and systems. The guidelines can be used as prompts for ideation, as expert knowledge in automated design guidance, and as criteria for evaluating early-stage design alternatives.

2.2. Environmentally Conscious Manufacturing

Environmentally conscious manufacturing involves producing products with minimized environmental effects [14–17] [16, 17]. ECM consists of two important issues. The first one is described that it understands the life cycle of the product and its impact on the environment at each of its life stages. Next, it will make better decisions during product design and manufacturing so that the environmental impacts of the product and the manufacturing process are kept at a minimum level. The issues in environmentally conscious manufacturing were addressed by Gungor and Gupta [18]. During the design stages of the product, there are different objectives that the designers should focus on. ECM designs the product which increases recyclability ([19][19–25], manufacturability [26, 27], and disassemblability ([28–30]; Lambert & Gupta 2005) in order to minimize the effect on the environment.

Ayes et al. [31] discussed the role of government regulation as a driver of change by reviewing several specific cases from European firms, with emphasis on the potential for internalizing the product by recovery, remanufacturing, and material recycling. The authors conclude with the views that the economics, the regulatory environment, and the organizational and management aspects are the problem. In light of environmental concerns, Brennan et al. [32] explain why manufactured parts must be disassembled. The authors emphasize the important point that the products and machines are to be designed in terms of disassembly and part recycling. The increased awareness of the state of the environment by both the consumer and the producer, recycling regulations, and resource conservation needs are leading to new challenges and dictate a fundamental reappraisal of the traditional manufacturing paradigm. A heuristic algorithm, referred to as the Acyclic Assembly Time (AAT) algorithm, which is based on the asynchronous model for concurrent machines in electronic assembly was developed by Moyer and Gupta [33]. The developed AAT algorithm increases the utilization of the individual mechanisms, and the efficiency of the overall system is naturally improved. The ultimate goal of reducing the total assembly time is achieved.

Mittal and Sangwan (2014) stated that the reliable, valid, and tested model has three types of drivers—internal, policy, and economic. It has been found through hypothesis testing that internal drivers for the implementation of ECM are positively related to policy and economic drivers, and policy drivers are positively related to economic drivers. This research is expected to help the government and industry in developing policies and strategies for the successful implementation of ECM. Argument et al. [34] examine academic research and industrial requirements in the area of environmentally conscious design. The authors wish to explore the perceived gap that exists between academic research and industrial requirements. Duhan et al. [35] in their paper on environmentally conscious manufacturing have used an analytical network process (ANP) decision tool in ECM and have concluded by saying that the manufacturing control process plays the most important role for environment-conscious manufacturing, and then, waste control comes next in the priority while quality control and research and design process comes next in hierarchy, and packaging control is the least important among the factors selected.

Yusuff et al. [36] have discussed the importance of the manufacturing process and environmental considerations which must be in place, from the design, production, use, and disposal. It is no longer viable to consider reduction measures of environmental problems after it has been produced.

The authors have found a way of strong disagreement, by suggesting the existence of a gap, and conclude that the most significant gaps are in the area of environmental concerns and research preferences. Many other researchers have also provided their perspectives and scope on environmentally conscious manufacturing which have been tabulated in Table 1.

2.3. Life Cycle Analysis

LCA is a process for assessing and evaluating the environmental and occupational health and resource consequences of a product through all phases of its life, i.e., extracting and processing raw materials, production, transportation and distribution, use, remanufacturing, recycling, and final disposal [44, 45]. To reduce ecological burdens, Alting and Legarth [46] introduce a conceptual framework of integrating life cycle engineering into designing low energy consumption in the use phase of a product. An economic input-output life cycle analysis model which was used to generate a large array of indicators for analyzing the economic and environmental impacts of a product was developed by Maclean and Lave [47].

The assessment was investigated in the application of a midsized automobile. Focusing on the manufacture and the use stage, Joshi [48] performed a life cycle inventory analysis by presenting a new model for performing product life cycle assessment. The proposed model is a matrix, which consists of environmental impact categories in conjunction with about five hundred economic inputs and outputs. The scope of LCA involves tracking all the materials and energy flows of a product from the retrieval of its raw materials to the disposal of the product back into the environment [49]. Most of the researchers use LCA within a DFE methodology as a tool to measure the environmental impact of a product design [38, 50–53] [50]. LCA is a powerful tool chosen from a large number of available tools for their suitability of product assessment (Finnveden & Moberg 2004). Several authors have applied LCA to different case studies in automotive [54], [55], construction (Banaitiene et al. 2006), and computer industry [56, 57], [57], to target the individual evaluation of technical, economic, and environmental aspects of products or systems.

Most of the literature on LCA focuses on the second stage of the study, namely, the selection and evaluation of various, noncomparable environmental consequences (“chalk vs. cheese”), according to Ayres [58]. This problem is, indeed, very difficult and may well be impossible to solve convincingly—even at the conceptual level. However, the only approach that can make progress utilizes monetization to the limits of its applicability, rather than one that seeks to bypass (or reinvent) economics. Nevertheless, the evaluation problem is second in priority, for the simple reason that LCA has utility even if the evaluation technique is imperfect. On the other hand, LCA has no (or even negative) utility if the underlying physical data is wrong concerning critical pollutants.

2.3.1. Environmental Life Cycle Assessments

The idea of comprehensive environmental life cycle assessments (LCA) was conceived in the U.S.A. in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The first study of the life cycle perspective was focused on environmental impacts from different types of beverage containers [59], [60]. However, the formal analytical scheme to become LCA was first conceived by Harry E. Teasley, Jr. in 1969. At that time, he was managing the packaging function of the Coca-Cola Company. One of the interesting findings of the Coca-Cola Company is switching from glass bottles to plastic bottles [61], [62]

After the Coca-Cola study, there was a steady flow of resource and environmental profile analysis (REPA) studies at Midwest Research Institute (MRI). In the early 1970s, the driving force became solid waste issues. People were very interested in the total life cycle manufacturing system aspects of solid waste in comparison to postconsumer solid waste. The role of recycling and the use of reusable products to reduce solid waste were of particular interest. The inclusion of energy and other environmental emissions was not considered as important as solid waste. The second REPA study to be completed at MRI was sponsored by the Mobil Chemical Company [61], [63].

In the 1970s, the various calculations for performing an LCA were done without the aid of electronic computing equipment. The umpteen numbers of calculations were done on a mechanical calculator that did not even have a paper tape printout. It consisted of electric motors and rotating wheels [61], [61]. In 1973, the first LCA computer program was funded by an MRI client. The data filled several boxes containing many hundreds of punched cards. The information on the cards had to be loaded into the computer with a mechanical feeder at any point in time we wished to do calculations. Often the feeder would not read one or two cards correctly, and we had to start all over. The computer would often just indicate the error “somewhere,” which meant the people would have to hand sort through the boxes of cards and try to find the card error. From 1970 to 1974, the modern concept of REPA/LCA took shape. Also, during that time, a framework for impact assessment was developed [62], 1973)[59].

In 1985, the major report was completed for Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company [60], [64]. The purpose of this report was to provide a database that the container presented no more threat to the environment than competitive containers. This was a study on 2-liter plastic (PET) soft drink containers and played a pivotal role in the initial marketing of that container. In 1992, there was a dramatic reawakening of environmentally consciousness, and it did not have a single source, but rather several factors were converged to create national debate and extensive media attention. Several consecutive international Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) working groups moved the methodology development and international consensus building to a good step forward [65–67].

Presently, many automotive and manufacturing industries lead their research and developmental activities in response to the negative environmental developments. The new European Ford model, Mondeo, is designed to be 85% recyclable [68], [68]. Mercedes Benz implemented a total vehicle recycling program with vehicle design and vehicle recycling [69]. The highlight of the recycling program is reducing the variety and volume of plastics used, avoiding composite materials, and making logos with plastic parts. Mercedes and Swatch jointly designed a prototype car with vegetable fibers instead of metals. BMW announced a pilot program to test the feasibility of recycling BMW automobiles under the compulsion of German laws for recycling [70], [70]. Similar contributions were made by General Motors [69], Volkswagen [71], Nissan Motors [19], and Volvo Car Corporation [72]. The manufacturing industry adopted this technique to perfect their processes to make them more productive and environmentally friendly. Many researchers have worked on ecodesign for product development through the implementation of various tools and techniques. Table 2 presents various authors dealing with the application of life cycle analysis of various product designs and manufacturing processes and the results achieved.

From the above literature review process, a detailed study has been envisaged about life cycle analysis. LCA-based studies have been focused on development of performance-based manufacturing process suitable for reducing environmental degradation. Several researchers have also reported about LCA related to welfare assessment works. A prototype-based LCA has also been incorporated to estimate rapid assessment of conceptual design for environment.

2.4. Material Selection

The main concern in today’s manufacturing industries is to bring out the products that are ecofriendly, and therefore, ecodesign is widely incorporated in the material selection [132]; [112]. Material selection influences more while designing a product. To reduce the environmental burdens of products, ecodesign is incorporated with material selection [113]. Tseng et al. [114] performed a green material cost analysis to recommend materials that cause less environmental impacts. The enormous types of materials are available for engineering application which makes the designer complexity in deciding the most appropriate materials. Several systematic methods have been proposed to help the designers in the selection of materials and processes [115, 116].

One of the most commonly used quantitative selection methods introduced by Ashby and Cebon [117] was based on the definition of the material index, and it consists of sets of physical-mechanical properties to maximize some performance aspects of the components. Defining the indexes, it is possible to produce selection charts reviewing the relation between properties of materials and engineering requirements [118]. Environmental information about materials is a must for the completion of product LCI. The different industrial sectors have developed environmental profile database for material based using the LCA approach [119, 120].

Holloway [121] introduced material selection charts called Ashby’s method and shows how this methodology can be extended to take environmental factors into account. By implementing these charts and extending their range to include environmental concerns, designers may consider them the same way they consider the other material and process properties. A new life cycle cost analysis methodology with the goal of building a new sustainability model to quantitatively evaluate the overall direct cost of a vehicle over its complete product life cycle was proposed by Ungureanu et al. [122]. Evaluation of environmental impacts caused by a lightweight material and aluminum alloy used for autobodies was presented. Implementation of a life cycle engineering approach was done by Ribeiro et al. [123] to determine the material selection for a fender. The authors evaluated the best choice of material from mild steel to ultrastrength steel and aluminum alloys for the automobile fender. Three different methods—LCC, LCA, and a conventional approach—were applied for the sustainability performance of the product. The study by Zhou et al. [124] depicts that optimal material with the highest total fitness value was selected for a drink container. Genetic algorithms (GA) and artificial neural networks (ANN) were used to achieve the optimized mechanical, economic, and environmental properties.

Zarandi et al. [125] emphasize life cycle engineering (LCE), and it is one of the best approaches of material selection for sustainable products. The authors proposed a new methodology that supports the preliminary filtering of alternatives from an environmental viewpoint. Moreover, a prototype hybrid expert system based on the proposed methodology called material selection expert system for sustainable product design is developed to support the task of preliminary filtering. Five distinct life cycle effect assessment methods to study the use of different polymer materials used for packaging reasons were employed by Bovea and Gallardo [112]. He concluded that during material selection for a product design, decisions are based on a variety of factors such as cost, properties, performance, and environmental aspects. Katsukiya and Kevin (2001) presented guidelines for the ecological design of engineering products and processing of iron and steel through the application of automobile manufacture and its use. They concluded that the improved application of iron and steel enables the environmental burden to be reduced.

Zuo-ren et al. [126] introduced several representative case studies such as life cycle analysis of civilian buildings and metal production in China by reviewing the recent developments of LCA methods and application of materials via life cycle assessment. The possibility of reducing environmental effect for automobile components by adopting alternative materials and production procedures was investigated by Vinodh and Jayakrishna [127]. Sustainability Xpress evaluates the environmental impact and the mean percentage reduction in carbon footprint, water eutrophication, air acidification, and total energy consumed estimated at 43.68, 99.58, 48.38, and 52.19, respectively, which are meant as a drastic reduction.

Jeya Girubha and Vinodh [79] used VIKOR (VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje in Serbian, which means Multicriteria Optimization and Compromise Solution) as an MCDM tool for the selection of alternate material for instrument panel used in an electric car. The authors finally concluded that polypropylene can be used as a suitable alternative material for ABS instrument panels. A structural optimization technique to determine the best foams to use as the core material for sandwiches with aluminum alloy faces that would be used as floor panels in a concept car’s bottom structure was employed by Ermplaeva et al. [128]. In future minimization, a problem for the weight of the entire bottom structure under static load conditions, including stiffness, strength, and buckling constraints, is formulated and solved for the material application. More analytical tools should be developed for estimating environmental degradation effects during manufacturing. Ecofriendly manufacturing process should be projected towards development of recyclable products. Also, develop strategic models for the analysis of ecofriendly products concerning technological and organizational dynamics.

3. Conclusions

This paper presented a view of the state-of-the-art literature on environmentally conscious manufacturing of products published during 1999-2018; the following general conclusions could be drawn from the literature review. (i)Environmental issues are gaining acceptable popularity among society, government, and manufacturing industries due to the negative environmental influences(ii)Researchers proved that the manufacturing of environment friendly products is crucial to minimize the use of virgin resources, which can be achieved by studying the life cycle tool implementation. Reclamation of materials and parts from outdated products is equally crucial in fighting against environmental issues(iii)The firmer implementation of environmental laws and regulations globally will bring our society to think of our environment as a global issue rather than an individual nation’s problem. Although the modern development in environmentally conscious manufacturing of products research is encouraging, researchers’ collaboration is highly needed to develop interrelationships and determine the global effects of this sphere

Data Availability

There are no relevant data to be made available.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

R. Horne, K. Verghese, and T. Grant, Life Cycle Assessment: Principles Practice and Prospects, CSIRO publishing, Australia, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site
C. H. Brezet and V. Hemel, Eco-Design – A Promising Approach to Sustainable Production and Consumption, United Nations Environment Programme, Paris, 1997.
K. Masui and National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, “Current status of environmentally conscious design among Japanese manufacturers,” International Journal of Automation Technology, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 19–25, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Kishita, B. H. Low, S. Fukushige, Y. Umeda, A. Suzuki, and T. Kawabe, “Checklist-based assessment methodology for sustainable design,” Mechanical Design, vol. 132, no. 9, pp. 091011–091019, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Ketchatturat, “Development of a self-evaluation checklist for increasing the value of educational provision processes,” Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 3492–3496, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Luttropp and J. Lagerstedt, “EcoDesign and The Ten Golden Rules: generic advice for merging environmental aspects into product development,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 14, no. 15-16, pp. 1396–1408, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Wimmer, The ECODESIGN Checklist Method: A Redesign Tool for Environmental Product Improvements, Chemical Engineering Transactions, Austria, 1998.
W. Wimmer and R. Zust, Eco Design Implementation: A Systematic Guidance on Integrating Environmental Considerations into Product Development, Springer online, Netherlands, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site
A. Masoudi, H. You, and S.-H. Suh, “A guidance system for selecting an appropriate eco-design checklist in the early stages of product development,” in International Conference on Green and Sustainable Innovation, pp. 1–24, South Korea, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Byggeth and E. Hochschorner, “Handling trade-offs in ecodesign tools for sustainable product development and procurement,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 14, no. 15-16, pp. 1420–1430, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Lofthouse, “Ecodesign tools for designers: defining the requirements,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 14, no. 15-16, pp. 1386–1395, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Vezzoli and D. Sciana, “Life cycle design: from general methods to product type specific guidelines and checklists: a method adopted to develop a set of guidelines/checklist handbook for the eco-efficient design of NECTA vending machines,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 14, no. 15-16, pp. 1319–1325, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Telenko, J. O’Rourke, C. C. Seepersad, and M. E. Webber, “A compilation of design for environment guidelines,” Journal of Mechanical Design, vol. 138, no. 3, pp. 1404–1449, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Sarkis, “Supply chain management and environmentally conscious design and manufacturing,” International Journal of Environmentally Conscious Design and Manufacturing, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 43–52, 1995.
View at: Google Scholar
R. D. Watkins and B. Granoff, “Introduction to environmentally conscious manufacturing,” International Journal of Environmentally Conscious Design & Manufacturing, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 5–11, 1992.
View at: Google Scholar
S. H. Weissman and J. C. Sekutowski, “Environmentally conscious manufacturing: a technology for the nineties,” AT&T Technical Journal, vol. 70, no. 6, pp. 23–30, 1991.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. H. Weissman and J. C. Sekutowski, “Environmentally conscious manufacturing: a technology for the nineties,” Environmental Total Quality Management, R.R. Donnelley & Sons, 1994.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Gungor and S. M. Gupta, “Issues in environmentally conscious manufacturing and product recovery: a survey,” Computers & Industrial Engineering, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 811–853, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. V. Owen, “Environmentally conscious manufacturing,” Manufacturing Engineering, vol. 111, no. 4, pp. 44–55, 1993.
View at: Google Scholar
J. E. Boon, J. A. Isaacs, and S. M. Gupta, “Economic sensitivity for end of life planning and processing of personal computers,” Journal of Electronics Manufacturing, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 81–93, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Coulter, B. Bras, G. Winslow, and S. Yester, “Designing for material separation: lessons from automotive recycling,” Journal of Mechanical Design, vol. 120, no. 3, pp. 501–509, 1998.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. A. Knight and M. Sodhi, “Design for bulk recycling: analysis of materials separation,” CIRP Annals–Manufacturing Technology, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 83–86, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Masanet and A. Horvath, “Assessing the benefits of design for recycling for plastics in electronics: a case study of computer enclosures,” Materials and Design, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 1801–1811, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Pento, “Design for recyclability and the avoidance of waste: the case of printed paper in Germany,” Waste Management and Research, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 93–99, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Wright, A. Azapagic, G. Stevens, W. Mellor, and R. Clift, “Improving recyclability by design: a case study of fibre optic cable,” Resources, Conservation & Recycling, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 37–50, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. A. Gatenby and G. Foo, “Design for X(DFX): key to competitive, profitable products,” AT&T Technical Journal, vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 2–13, 1990.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. B. Seaver, “Design considerations for remanufacturability, recyclability and reusability of user interface modules,” in Proceedings of 1994 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and The Environment, vol. 2-4, pp. 241–245, San Francisco, CA, USA, May 1994.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. J. D. Lambert, “Optimal disassembly of complex products,” International Journal of Production Research, vol. 35, no. 9, pp. 2509–2524, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. E. Moore, A. Gungor, and S. M. Gupta, “Petri net approach to disassembly process planning for products with complex AND/OR precedence relationships,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 135, no. 2, pp. 428–449, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Pan and I. Zeid, “A knowledge base for indexing and retrieving disassembly plans,” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 77–94, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Ayes, G. Ferrer, and T. Van Leynseele, “Eco-efficiency, asset recovery and remanufacturing,” EuropeanManagement Journal, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 557–574, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Brennan, S. M. Gupta, and K. N. Taleb, “Operations planning issues in an assembly/disassembly environment,” Journal of Operations and Production Management, vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 57–67, 1994.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. K. Moyer and S. M. Gupta, “Environmental concerns and recycling/disassembly efforts in the electronics industry,” Journal of Electronics Manufacturing, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–22, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Argument, F. Lettice, and T. Bhamra, “Environmentally conscious design: matching industry requirements with academic research,” Design Studies, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 63–80, 1998.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Duhan, M. Bansal, and H. Dhariwal, “Environmental conscious manufacturing and use analytical network process (ANP) decision tool in ECM,” International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Robotics Reasearch, vol. 1, no. 3, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
R. B. M. Yusuff, A. H. Vahabzadeh, and H. Panjehfouladgaran, Eds.“Environmental conscious manufacturing for sustainable growth,” in Conference: International Seminar on Science and Technology Innovation, R. B. M. Yusuff, A. H. Vahabzadeh, and H. Panjehfouladgaran, Eds., vol. 1, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
B. Bras and M. W. McIntosh, “Product, process, and organizational design for remanufacture - an overview of research,” Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 167–178, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Zhang, H. P. Wang, and C. Zhang, “Green QFD-II: a life cycle approach for environmentally conscious manufacturing by integrating LCA and LCC into QFD matrices,” International Journal of Production Research, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 1075–1091, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. D. R. Guide, V. Jayaraman, and R. Srivastava, “Production planning and control for remanufacturing: a state-of-the-art survey,” Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 221–230, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. D. R. Guide, “Production planning and control for remanufacturing: industry practice and research needs,” Journal of Operations Management, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 467–483, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Tang, M. C. Zhou, E. Zussman, and R. Caudill, “Disassembly modeling, planning, and application,” Journal of Manufacturing Systems, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 200–217, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. A. S. Williams, “A review of electronics demanufacturing processes,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 195–208, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. J. Kim, D. H. Lee, and P. Xirouchakis, “Disassembly scheduling: literature review and future research directions,” International Journal of Production Research, vol. 45, no. 18-19, pp. 4465–4484, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Alting and J. Jorgensen, “The life cycle concept as a basis for sustainable industrial production,” Annals of the CIRP, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 163–167, 1993.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Alting, “Designing for a lifetime,” Manufacturing Breakthrough, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 1–111, 1993.
View at: Google Scholar
L. Alting and J. B. Legarth, “Life Cycle Engineering and Design,” Cirp Annals, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 569–580, 1995.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. L. Maclean and L. B. Lave, “Peer reviewed: a life-cycle model of an automobile,” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 32, no. 13, pp. 322A–330A, 1998.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Joshi, “Product environmental life-cycle assessment using input-output techniques,” Journal of Industrial Ecology, vol. 3, no. 2-3, pp. 95–120, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Miettinen and R. P. Hamalainen, “How to benefit from decision analysis in environmental life cycle assessment (LCA),” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 102, no. 2, pp. 279–294, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Bevilacqua, F. E. Ciarapica, and G. Giacchetta, “Development of a sustainable product lifecycle in manufacturing firms: a case study,” International Journal of Production Research, vol. 45, no. 18-19, pp. 4073–4098, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. D. Bovea and B. Wang, “Redesign methodology for developing environmentally conscious products,” International Journal of Production Research, vol. 45, no. 18-19, pp. 4057–4072, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. D. Bovea and B. Wang, “Identifying environmental improvement options by combining life cycle assessment and fuzzy set theory,” International Journal of Production Research, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 593–609, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Mehta and B. Wang, “Green quality function deployment III: a methodology for developing environmentally conscious products,” Journal of Design and Manufacturing Automation, vol. 1, no. 1-2, pp. 1–16, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. P. Schmidt and A. Taylor, “Ford of Europe’s product sustainability index,” in Proceeding of OCED workshop on sustainable manufacturing production and competitiveness, pp. 1–10, China, 2006.
View at: Google Scholar
K. Saur, J. A. Fava, and S. Spatari, “Life cycle engineering case study: automobile fender designs,” Environmental Progress, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 72–82, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Ebert, “The impacts of software product management,” The Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 80, no. 6, pp. 850–861, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. A. Penoyer, G. Burnett, D. J. Fawcett, and S. Y. Liou, “Knowledge based product life cycle systems: principles of integration of KBE and C3P,” Computer-Aided Design, vol. 32, no. 5-6, pp. 311–320, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. U. Ayres, “Life cycle analysis: a critique,” Conservation and Recycling, vol. 14, no. 3–4, pp. 199–223, 1995.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. G. Hunt, W. E. Franklin, R. O. Welch, J. A. Cross, and A. E. Woodall, Resource and environmental profile analysis of nine beverage container alternatives, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C., EPA/530/SW-91c edition, 1974.
E. Bider and R. G. Hunt, Family-Size Soft Drink Containers - A Comparative Energy and Environmental Analysis, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Akron, Ohio, 1978.
R. G. Hunt, W. E. Franklin, and R. G. Hunt, “LCA — how it came about,” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 4–7, 1996.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. E. Franklin and R. G. Hunt, Environmental Impacts of Polystyrene and Molded Pulp Meat Trays - A Summary, Mobil Chemical Company, Macedon, NY, 1972.
R. G. Hunt and W. E. Franklin, Environmental Effects of Recycling Paper, in Forest Products and the Environment, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York, vol. 69, no. 133, 1973.
V. De Laurentiis, D. V. Hunt, S. E. Lee, and C. D. Rogers, “EATS: a life cycle based decision support tool for local authorities and school caterers,” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 1222–1238, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Consoli, D. Allen, I. Boustead et al., Guidelines for Life Cycle Assessment: A Code of Practice, SETAC press, Pensacola, Florida, 1993.
J. Fava, A. A. Jensen, L. G. Lindfors et al., Life Cycle Assessment Data Quality: A Conceptual Framework, SETCA press, Pensacola, Florida, 1994.
H. A. Udo de Haes, Towards a Methodology for Life Cycle Impact Assessment, SETAC-Europe, Brussels, 1996.
M. S. Hundal, “DFE: current status and challenges for the future,” Design for Manufacturability, vol. 37, pp. 89–98, 1994.
View at: Google Scholar
S. B. Billatos and V. V. Nevrekar, “Challenges and practical solutions to designing for the environment,” in The 1994 Design for Manufacturability Conference, vol. 14-17, pp. 49–64, Chicago, IL, USA, 1994.
View at: Google Scholar
J. Braunstein, BMW Gears Itself to Post-Yuppie Age, Detroit Free Press, 1991.
E. Corcoran, “Green machine,” Scientific American, vol. 266, no. 1, pp. 140-141, 1992.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Benson, “Auomotive Assembly: Engineering Cars for Recycling,” Assembly-Radnor, vol. 39, no. 8, pp. 42–45, 1996.
View at: Google Scholar
P. Prathap, D. Senthilkumaran, and P. Johnson, “Environmental cautious design of subassemblies in 0.5 hp pump,” in 2013 International Conference on Current Trends in Engineering and Technology (ICCTET), pp. 307–310, Coimbatore, India, July 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Q. Song, Z. Wang, J. Li, and X. Zeng, “Life cycle assessment of TV sets in China: a case study of the impacts of CRT monitors,” Waste Management, vol. 32, no. 10, pp. 1926–1936, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Andersson, T. Ohlsson, and P. Olsson, “Screening life cycle assessment (LCA) of tomato ketchup: a case study,” Cleaner Production, vol. 6, no. 3-4, pp. 277–288, 1998.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Paris and M. Museau, “Contribution to the environmental performance of the dry-vibratory drilling technology,” CIRP Annals–Manufacturing Technology, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 47–50, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Vinodh and G. Rathod, “Integration of ECQFD and LCA for sustainable product design,” Cleaner Production, vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 833–842, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. M. Eliceche, S. M. Corvalan, and P. Martinez, “Environmental life cycle impact as a tool for process optimisation of a utility plant,” Computers and Chemical Engineering, vol. 31, no. 5-6, pp. 648–656, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Vinodh, K. Jayakrishna, and D. Joy, “Environmental impact assessment of an automotive component using eco-indicator and CML methodologies,” Clean Technology Environmental Policy, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 333–344, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. P. Kharel and K. Charmondusit, “Eco-efficiency evaluation of iron rod industry in Nepal,” Cleaner Production, vol. 16, no. 13, pp. 1379–1387, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Marco, F. Mandorli, and M. Germani, “LCA as eco-design tool to support the development of injection moulded products,” in 13th CIRP International Conference On Life Cycle Engineering, pp. 645–650, United Kingdom, 2006.
View at: Google Scholar
W. Li, M. Winter, S. Kara, and C. Herrmann, “Eco-efficiency of manufacturing processes: a grinding case,” CIRP Annals–Manufacturing Technology, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 59–62, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Gonzalez-Garcia, A. Hospido, M. Teresa Moreira, J. Romero, and G. Feijoo, “Environmental impact assessment of total chlorine free pulp from Eucalyptus globulus in Spain,” Cleaner Production, vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 1010–1016, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. R. Duflou, K. Kellens, and W. Dewulf, “Unit process impact assessment for discrete part manufacturing: a state of the art,” CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 129–135, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. D. Frenette, C. Bulle, R. Beauregard, A. Salenikovich, and D. Derome, “Using life cycle assessment to derive an environmental index for light-frame wood wall assemblies,” Building and Environment, vol. 45, no. 10, pp. 2111–2122, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Kaebernick, S. Kara, and M. Sun, “Sustainable product development and manufacturing by considering environmental requirements,” Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 461–468, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Pecas, I. Ribeiro, R. Folgado, and E. Henriques, “A life cycle engineering model for technology selection: a case study on plastic injection moulds for low production volumes,” Cleaner Production, vol. 17, no. 9, pp. 846–856, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Zufia and L. Arana, “Life cycle assessment to eco-design food products: industrial cooked dish case study,” Cleaner Production, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2008.
View at: Google Scholar
L. Lombardi, “Life cycle assessment (LCA) and exergetic life cycle assessment (ELCA) of a semi-closed gas turbine cycle with CO₂ chemical absorption,” Energy Conversion & Management, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 101–114, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. S. Andræ, D. R. Andersson, and J. Liu, “Significance of intermediate production processes in life cycle assessment of electronic products assessed using a generic compact model,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 13, no. 13-14, pp. 1269–1279, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. K. Manda, E. Worrell, and M. K. Patel, “Prospective life cycle assessment of an antibacterial T-shirt and supporting business decisions to create value,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 103, pp. 47–57, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. F. Go, D. A. Wahab, and H. Hishamuddin, “Multiple generation life-cycles for product sustainability: the way forward,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 95, pp. 16–29, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Matsuyama, S. Fukushige, and Y. Umeda, “Simulating life cycles of individual products for life cycle design,” Procedia CIRP, vol. 38, pp. 159–164, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Miranda de Souza and M. Borsato, “Combining Stage-Gate™ model using set-based concurrent engineering and sustainable end-of-life principles in a product development assessment tool,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 112, pp. 3222–3231, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. E. Scheepens, J. G. Vogtländer, and J. C. Brezet, “Two life cycle assessment (LCA) based methods to analyse and design complex (regional) circular economy systems. Case: making water tourism more sustainable,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 114, pp. 257–268, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. G. Wiedemann, S. F. Ledgard, B. K. Henry, M. J. Yan, N. Mao, and S. J. Russell, “Application of life cycle assessment to sheep production systems: investigating co-production of wool and meat using case studies from major global producers,” International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 463–476, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. L. Hicks and T. L. Theis, “A comparative life cycle assessment of commercially available household silver-enabled polyester textiles,” International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 256–265, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. M. Piontek and M. Muller, “Literature reviews: life cycle assessment in the context of product-service systems and the textile industry,” Procedia CIRP, vol. 69, pp. 758–763, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Paratscha, M. Von Der Thannen, R. Smutny, T. Lampalzer, A. Strauss, and H. P. Rauch, “Development of LCA benchmarks for Austrian torrent control structures,” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 2035–2053, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Budzinski, M. Sisca, and D. Thran, “Consequential LCA and LCC using linear programming: an illustrative example of biorefineries,” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 2191–2205, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Gediga, A. Morfino, M. Finkbeiner, M. Schulz, and K. Harlow, “Life cycle assessment of zircon sand,” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 1976–1984, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Peters, R. Harder, R. Arvidsson et al., “A Swedish comment on ‘review: the availability of life-cycle studies in Sweden’,” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 24, no. 10, pp. 1758-1759, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Heijungs, J. B. Guinée, A. Mendoza Beltrán, P. J. Henriksson, and E. Groen, “Everything is relative and nothing is certain. Toward a theory and practice of comparative probabilistic LCA,” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 24, no. 9, pp. 1573–1579, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Pelletier, N. Bamber, and M. Brandao, “Interpreting life cycle assessment results for integrated sustainability decision support: can an ecological economic perspective help us to connect the dots,” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 24, no. 9, pp. 1580–1586, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Vrasdonk, U. Palme, and T. Lennartsson, “Reference situations for biodiversity in life cycle assessments: conceptual bridging between LCA and conservation biology,” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 24, no. 9, pp. 1631–1642, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Borridon, J. Matsushita, K. Austen, C. Johnson, and S. Bell, “Development of LCA calculator to support community infrastructure co-design,” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 1209–1221, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Ioppolo, S. Cucurachi, R. Salomone, L. Shi, and T. Yigitcanlar, “Integrating strategic environmental assessment and material flow accounting: a novel approach for moving towards sustainable urban futures,” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 1269–1284, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Allacker, V. Castellani, G. Baldinelli, F. Bianchi, C. Baldassarri, and S. Sala, “Energy simulation and LCA for macro-scale analysis of eco-innovations in the housing stock,” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 989–1008, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Prathap and D. Senthilkumaran, “Reduction of environmental impact by incorporating performance oriented life cycle assessment,” Environment Protection Engineering, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 113–122, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Prathap and D. Senthilkumaran, “Quantitative evaluation for reduction of environmental impact in the product life cycle of a monoblock pump,” Ecology, Environment and Conservation, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 1671–1676, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
P. Prathap and D. Senthilkumaran, “Production life cycle studies based on design for environmental checklist for product enhancement,” International Journal of Applied Environmental Sciences, vol. 8, no. 18, pp. 2309–2321, 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
M. D. Bovea and A. Gallardo, “The influence of impact assessment methods on materials selection for eco-design,” Materials and Design, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 209–215, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. B. Young and W. H. Vanderburg, “Applying environmental life-cycle analysis to materials,” Journal of Manual Metals Material Science and Journal of Materials, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 22–27, 1994.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. E. Tseng, C. C. Chang, and J. D. Li, “Modular design to support green life-cycle engineering,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 2524–2537, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Charles and F. Crane, Selection and Use of Engineering Materials, Butterworth-Heinemann, London, 1996.
M. Farag, Materials Selection for Engineering Design, Englewood Cliffs, NJ; Prentice Hall, 1997.
M. Ashby and D. Cebon, A compilation of material indices, Granta Design Ltd, 1995.
M. Ashby, Materials Selection in Mechanical Design, Pergamon press, New York, 1992.
M. D. Bovea and R. Vidal, “Materials selection for sustainable product design: a case study of wood based furniture eco-design,” Materials and Design, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 111–116, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
EAA-European Aluminium Association, “Environmental profile report for the European aluminium industry,” European Aluminium Association, 2000.
View at: Google Scholar
L. Holloway, “Materials selection for optimal environmental impact in mechanical design,” Materials & Design, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 133–143, 1998.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. A. Ungureanu, S. Das, and I. S. Jawahir, “Life-cycle cost analysis: aluminum versus steel in passenger cars,” TMS (The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society), pp. 11–24, 2007.
View at: Google Scholar
I. Ribeiro, P. Pecas, A. Silva, and E. Henriques, “Life cycle engineering methodology applied to material selection, a fender case study,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 16, no. 17, pp. 1887–1899, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. C. Zhou, G. F. Yin, and X. B. Hu, “Multi-objective optimization of material selection for sustainable products: artificial neural networks and genetic algorithm approach,” Materials and Design, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 1209–1215, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. H. F. Zarandi, S. Mansour, S. A. Hosseinijiou, and M. Avazbeigi, “A material selection methodology and expert system for sustainable product design,” International Journal Advanced Manufacture Technology, vol. 57, no. 9-12, pp. 885–903, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. I. E. Zuo-ren, G. A. O. Feng, G. O. N. G. Xian-zheng, W. A. N. G. Zhi-hong, and Z. U. O. Tie-yong, “Recent progress and application of materials life cycle assessment in China,” Materials International, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 1–11, 2010.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Vinodh and K. Jayakrishna, “Environmental impact minimisation in an automotive component using alternative materials and manufacturing processes,” Materials and Design, vol. 32, no. 10, pp. 5082–5090, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Ermplaeva, G. Castro, and V. Kandachar, “Materials selection for an automotive structure by integrating structural optimization with environmental impact assessment,” Materials & Design, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 689–698, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Prathap Paulraj et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

2122

Downloads

726

Citations