Comparative Environmental Impact Analysis for Natural and Synthetic Fiber Reinforced Composites from a Life Cycle Assessment Context
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.38032/scse.2025.3.135Keywords:
Life Cycle Assessment, , Environmental impact, Natural Fibers, Polymer Matrix CompositeAbstract
Nowadays composites have become an interest for research due to their exceptional characteristics in various engineering fields. There are so many options available to be used as reinforcement in the composites. This results into combination of various desired properties for the suitable purposes. Despite these advantages, their production processes pose significant environmental concerns, warranting a thorough environmental impact assessment. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is an effective tool for evaluating the environmental implications of composite materials across their entire lifecycle, from "cradle to grave." this study, three distinct epoxy-based composite systems were analyzed: (1) glass fiber-reinforced, (2) jute fiber-reinforced, and (3) a hybrid composite combining natural and synthetic fibers. The assessment considered key environmental impact categories, including global warming potential, ozone depletion potential and non-carcinogenic human toxicity potential. To find out which composite is environmentally friendly the composites product system was compared using Openlca. Contribution analysis done for the composite containing both glass and jute fiber. Results reveal that jute fiber-reinforced composites, composed entirely of natural fibers, exhibited the lowest environmental impact due to their renewable and biodegradable nature. JFRPMC shows a GWP value of 1.933 kg CO2-eq, ODP value of 1.12x10-6 kg CFC-11-eq & HTP value of 2.2069 kg 1,4-DCB-eq. In contrast, the hybrid composite, incorporating both synthetic and natural fibers, demonstrated the highest impact in every evaluated category, attributed to the energy-intensive production of synthetic fibers and challenges in recycling mixed materials. Comparative analysis highlights the advantages of using natural fiber reinforcements for sustainable composite development, aligning with global efforts to minimize environmental footprints. This research underscores the importance of material selection and lifecycle optimization in reducing the ecological impact of composite production. The findings contribute valuable insights for industries aiming to balance performance and sustainability in composite manufacturing.
Downloads
Downloads
Downloads
References
[1] Z. W. Zhong, “Processes for environmentally friendly and/or cost-effective manufacturing,” Mater. Manuf. Process., vol. 36, no. 9, pp. 987–1009, 2021.
[2] R. Balart, N. Montanes, F. Dominici, T. Boronat, and S. Torres-Giner, “Environmentally Friendly Polymers and Polymer Composites,” Materials (Basel)., vol. 13, no. 21, p. 4892, Oct. 2020.
[3] Y. Pan, Y. Chen, and Q. Shen, “Flexural Mechanical Properties of Functional Gradient Hydroxyapatite Reinforced Polyetheretherketone Biocomposites,” J. Mater. Sci. Technol., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 34–40, 2016.
[4] H. Zhu, B. Wu, D. Li, D. Zhang, and Y. Chen, “Influence of Voids on the Tensile Performance of Carbon/epoxy Fabric Laminates,” J. Mater. Sci. Technol., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 69–73, 2011.
[5] T. Nishino, K. Hirao, M. Kotera, K. Nakamae, and H. Inagaki, Kenaf reinforced biodegradable composite, vol. 63, no. 9. 2003.
[6] X. Xu, K. Jayaraman, C. Morin, and N. Pecqueux, “Life cycle assessment of wood-fibre-reinforced polypropylene composites,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., vol. 198, no. 1–3, pp. 168–177, 2008.
[7] R. Gujjala, S. Ojha, S. K. Acharya, and S. K. Pal, “Mechanical properties of woven jute-glass hybrid-reinforced epoxy composite,” J. Compos. Mater., vol. 48, no. 28, pp. 3445–3455, 2014.
[8] A. Gopinath, M. Senthil Kumar, and A. Elayaperumal, “Experimental investigations on mechanical properties of jute fiber reinforced composites with polyester and epoxy resin matrices,” Procedia Eng., vol. 97, pp. 2052–2063, 2014.
[9] M. Brahmakumar, C. Pavithran, and R. M. Pillai, “Coconut fibre reinforced polyethylene composites: Effect of natural waxy surface layer of the fibre on fibre/matrix interfacial bonding and strength of composites,” Compos. Sci. Technol., vol. 65, no. 3–4, pp. 563–569, 2005.
[10] R. A. Braga and P. A. A. Magalhaes, “Analysis of the mechanical and thermal properties of jute and glass fiber as reinforcement epoxy hybrid composites,” Mater. Sci. Eng. C, vol. 56, pp. 269–273, 2015.
[11] K. S. Sangwan, K. Choudhary, and C. Batra, “Environmental impact assessment of a ceramic tile supply chain–a case study,” Int. J. Sustain. Eng., vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 211–216, 2018.
[12] M. A. Curran, “Life Cycle Assessment: a review of the methodology and its application to sustainability,” Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 273–277, Aug. 2013.
[13] G. Ingarao, S. Licata, M. Sciortino, D. Planeta, R. Di Lorenzo, and L. Fratini, “Life cycle energy and CO2 emissions analysis of food packaging: an insight into the methodology from an Italian perspective,” Int. J. Sustain. Eng., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 31–43, 2017.
[14] R. K. Malviya, R. K. Singh, R. Purohit, and R. Sinha, “Natural fibre reinforced composite materials: Environmentally better life cycle assessment - A case study,” Mater. Today Proc., vol. 26, no. xxxx, pp. 3157–3160, 2019.
[15] M. R. Mansor, M. S. Salit, E. S. Zainudin, N. A. Aziz, and H. Ariff, “Life Cycle Assessment of Natural Fiber Polymer Composites,” in Agricultural Biomass Based Potential Materials, Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2015, pp. 121–141.
[16] J. Fava et al., “A technical framework for life cycle assessment,” Soc. Environ. Toxicol. Chem., no. January, p. 134, 1991.
[17] ISO 14040, “Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Principles and framework,” 2006.
[18] ISO 14044, “Environmental management-Life cycle assessment-Requirements and guidelines Management environnemental-Analyse du cycle de vie-Exigences et lignes directrices,” 2006.
[19] G. Campus, “LCA modelling for natural fibre composites Sandra Maria da Luz * and Vitor Magalini Zago de Sousa,” vol. 10, no. March 2015, pp. 27–28, 2018.
[20] C. F. Toscano, C. Martin-del-Campo, G. Moeller-Chavez, G. L. de los Santos, J. L. François, and D. R. Fernandez, “Life cycle assessment of a combined-cycle gas turbine with a focus on the chemicals used in water conditioning,” Sustain., vol. 11, no. 10, 2019.
[21] N. A. A. and H. A. Muhd Ridzuan Mansor, Mohd Sapuan Salit, Edi Syam Zainudin, “Life Cycle Assessment of Natural Fiber Polymer Composites,” Agric. Biomass Based Potential Mater., no. April, pp. 1–505, 2015.
[22] V. Gonzalez, X. Lou, and T. Chi, “Evaluating Environmental Impact of Natural and Synthetic Fibers: A Life Cycle Assessment Approach,” Sustain., vol. 15, no. 9, 2023.
[23] M. Ramesh, C. Deepa, L. R. Kumar, M. R. Sanjay, and S. Siengchin, “Life-cycle and environmental impact assessments on processing of plant fibres and its bio-composites: A critical review,” J. Ind. Text., vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 5518S-5542S, 2022.
Published
Conference Proceedings Volume
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Md. Sidratul Montaha Hossain, Abdullah Al Mahmood (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All the articles published by this journal are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
