IN
DEGREE PROJECT DESIGN AND PRODUCT REALISATION, SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS
STOCKHOLM SWEDEN 2020,
Sustainable Development of Neurofeedback Device
DANIEL DE GEER
KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
SCHOOL OF INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT
Sustainable Development of Neurofeedback Device
Daniel De Geer
Master of Science Thesis TRITA-ITM-EX 2021:3 KTH Industrial Engineering and Management
Machine Design SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM
Examensarbete TRITA-ITM-EX 2021:3
Sustainable Development of Neurfeedback Device
Daniel De Geer
Godkänt
2020-10-19
Examinator
Claes Tisell
Handledare
Anna Hedlund
Uppdragsgivare
Svekon
Kontaktperson Hampus Krantz
Abstract
Mendi (Mendi, 2020) is a company founded to provide accessibility of brain enhancement training to the ordinary citizen, they reside in Stockholm, Sweden. The Mendi brain training headset has been developed to aid users using neurofeedback. This technology allows for display of brain activity in real-time, and the implementation of the Mendi headset is meant to teach the user how to better regulate their brain activity. With the possibility to start sustainable design in conjunction with the market release of the product, this project was initiated to serve the future progress of sustainable development.
The work conducted in this paper is based on development methods used to assess the current state of the product as well as the phases of the product life cycle in which sustainable solutions can be applied. The methods used are life cycle assessment, material research and analysis, design for disassembly, assessment of production and use, market research of similar products, and research literature on modern methodology in sustainable design. Quantitative assessment was created through comparative analysis using the program CES EduPack (Granta Design, 2019), where data of the current product is used as a reference throughout. This is combined with research findings of best practice in sustainable development of products; tools used in the development contained concept generation in the form of sketching, CAD, and 3D printing.
The result is described quantitatively in the parts where data has been available, it is also presented through life cycle scenarios, giving examples from assumptions based on research of empirical studies and results from design methods used throughout. The result present scenarios of a redesigned product and how this differ from the existing prototype in the form of economic and, environmental sustainability. The final concept was created through guidelines of eco design, built around the previous work of the product for plausible implementation in upcoming development.
The product uses snap-fits to enable disassembly, press-fit to avoid any mixing of materials, has reduced amount of materials and contains materials that lower the life cycle CO2 emission and energy use. Economic factors are similarly assessed, quantitative analysis of life cycle costs combined with assumption driven scenarios showing potential gains and losses that could occur from said changes. Combined, the results are meant to work as a guideline for any future endeavors made in the field of sustainable development by Mendi and their partners.
Keywords: Sustainable development, Life Cycle Assessment, Design for Disassembly, Eco Design, Life Cycle Scenarios.
Examensarbete TRITA-ITM-EX 2021:3
Hållbar utveckling av neurofeedback-enhet
Daniel De Geer
Godkänt
2020-10-19
Examinator
Claes Tisell
Handledare
Anna Hedlund
Uppdragsgivare
Svekon
Kontaktperson Hampus Krantz
Sammanfattning
Mendi (Mendi, 2020) är ett företag som grundades för att ge den vanliga medborgaren tillgång till hjärnförbättringsträning, de är bosatta i Stockholm, Sverige. Mendi-headsetet för hjärnträning har utvecklats för att hjälpa användare genom något som kallas neurofeedback. Denna teknik möjliggör visning av hjärnaktivitet i realtid, och implementeringen av Mendi-headsetet är tänkt att lära användaren att bättre reglera sin hjärnaktivitet. Med möjligheten att starta hållbar design i samband med marknadsutsättningen av produkten inleddes detta projekt för att tjäna framtida framsteg inom hållbar utveckling.
Arbetet i denna artikel bygger på utvecklingsmetoder som används för att bedöma produktens nuvarande tillstånd samt faserna i produktlivscykeln där hållbara lösningar kan tillämpas. De metoder som används är livscykelbedömning, materialforskning och analys, design för demontering, bedömning av produktion och användning, marknadsundersökning av liknande produkter och forskningslitteratur om modern metodik i hållbar design. Kvantitativ bedömning skapades genom jämförande analys med programmet CES EduPack, där data för den aktuella produkten används som referens genomgående. Detta kombineras med forskningsresultat om bästa praxis för hållbar utveckling av produkter; verktyg som användes i utvecklingen innehöll konceptgenerering i form av skisser, CAD och 3D-utskrift.
Resultatet beskrivs kvantitativt i de delar där data har kunnat erhållas, det presenteras också genom livscykelscenarier, vilket ger exempel från antaganden baserade på forskning om empiriska studier och resultat från designmetoder som använts genomgående. Resultatet presenterar scenarier för en nydesignad produkt och hur denna skiljer sig från den befintliga prototypen i form av ekonomisk och miljömässig hållbarhet. Det sista konceptet skapades genom riktlinjer för eko-design, byggd kring produktens tidigare arbete för sannolik implementering i kommande utveckling. Produkten använder snäppanpassningar för att möjliggöra demontering, presspassning för att undvika blandning av material, har minskat antal olika material och innehåller material som sänker livscykeln CO2-utsläpp och energianvändning. Ekonomiska faktorer bedöms på liknande sätt, kvantitativ analys av livscykelkostnader i kombination med antagandedrivna scenarier som visar potentiella vinster och förluster som kan uppstå från tidigare nämnda förändringar. Sammantaget är resultaten avsedda att fungera som en riktlinje för framtida utveckling som görs inom området hållbar utveckling av Mendi och deras partners.
Nyckelord: Hållbar utveckling, Livscykelanalys, Design för demontering, Eco Design, Scenarion för livscykel.
FOREWORD
I would like to thank Svekon for giving me the opportunity to work on this project. An extra thanks to Hampus Krantz, who has been the on-spot supervisor, for providing me with guidance;
information, and experience in the field of engineering. This has significantly improved the validity of the decision making, and the methods chosen to combine theory and research with the thesis goals. Furthermore, Hampus’ help with planning of the project and continuous updates regarding workflow has kept the work on track throughout. I would also like to thank Anna Olsson for sharing her knowledge in thesis work, and for taking her time to help with the report structure.
Furthermore, I would like to thank Mendi for giving me the opportunity to work alongside their product development, providing information to further acknowledge their vision and aspirations alongside technical information necessary to create comparative analysis. I would like to thank Philip Palmaer and his colleague Magnus Larsson from Hexpol for answering my many questions about materials regarding their properties, how they are used and why, and sharing their knowledge of best practice in the material business. Lastly, I would want to thank my tutor Anna Hedlund for sharing her expertise in the field of eco design, and for her guidance throughout the project.
Daniel De Geer
NOMENCLATURE
Notations
Symbol Description
E Young´s modulus (Pa)
t Thickness (m)
V Volume (mm3)
ρ Density (kg3
m )
Abbreviations
10 GP Ten golden principles
ISO International organization for standardization
UN United Nations
OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development EEG Electroencephalography
PPG Photoplethysmography
CO2 Carbon dioxide
BOM Bill of materials
CAD Computer Aided Design
CE Circular Economy
DFM Design for Manufacturing
DFA Design for Assembly
DFD Design for Disassembly
LCA Life Cycle Assessment
LCCA Life Cycle Cost Analysis SLCA Social Life Cycle Assessment
EoL End of Life
PSS Product service system
PCB Printed circuit board
TPE Thermoplastic elastomer
PC Polycarbonate
ABS Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene
SBS Styrene butadiene styrene
SEBS Styrene ethylene butadiene styrene
EVA Ethylene vinyl acetate
PLA Poly-lactic acid
HDPE High density polyethylene
PHA Polyhydroxyalkanoates
PS Polystyrene
PP Polypropylene
PET Polyethylene terephthalate
POM Polyoxymethylene
TPO Thermoplastic olefin
NFPRC Natural fiber reinforced polymer composites EPA Swedish environmental protection agency EEE Electronic, Electrical and Electromechanical
UV Ultraviolet
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.1 Background ... 1
1.2 Problem definition ... 1
1.2.1 Questions of issue ... 1
1.3 Delimitations ... 2
1.4 Applied methods ... 3
2.1 Eco Design... 4
2.1.1 Life Cycle Strategies ... 4
2.1.2 Finding the Right Approach ... 5
2.1.3 Circular thinking ... 6
2.2 Market Research ... 7
3.1 Life Cycle Assessment - LCA ... 9
3.1.1 Bill of Materials ... 10
3.1.2 Ten Golden Principles ... 11
3.1.3 Component Materials ... 13
3.1.4 Production ... 21
3.1.5 End of Life ... 22
3.2 Life Cycle Cost Analysis - LCCA ... 28
3.2.1 Cost Breakdown Structure ... 28
3.3 DFA/DFD ... 32
3.3.1 Measures of joining ... 32
3.3.2 Value mapping ... 34
3.3.3 Concept generation ... 38
3.4 Life Cycle Scenarios ... 47
3.4.1 Product Service System – PSS ... 47
3.4.2 Recycle / Reuse / Remanufacture – “RRR”... 49
4.1 Environmental Assessment - LCA ... 51
4.1.1 Material ... 52
4.1.2 Production ... 62
4.1.3 End of Life ... 64
4.2 Cost Analysis - LCCA... 67
4.2.1 Material cost ... 67
4.2.2 Production cost ... 69
4.3 Disassembly validation ... 71
4.4 The Complete Cycle ... 73
4.5 Discussion & Conclusions ... 78
5.1 Future work ... 80
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1, UN goal number 3... 5
Figure 2, UN goal number 3, 12 and 13. ... 6
Figure 3, Muse 2 headband ... 7
Figure 4, Muse S headband ... 7
Figure 5, Dreem 2 ... 8
Figure 6, Highlighted Outside Shell ... 14
Figure 7, HDPE recycling symbol ... 16
Figure 8, Inside shell (SEBS thermoplastic) ... 16
Figure 9, Highlighted button ... 18
Figure 10, Highlighted strap... 18
Figure 11, Highlighted strap holders ... 20
Figure 12, Segmentation of pre-use, use, and post-use life phase of product (Tichkiewitch, 2006) ... 23
Figure 13, Recycle fraction in current supply 2005/06 data (CES EduPack) ... 24
Figure 14, Post-consumer waste rate (PlasticsEurope, 2018) ... 25
Figure 15, “Mixed Plastics and Recycling Technology”, (Bruce Hegberg et al. 1992) ... 26
Figure 16, Producer responsibility of Electric and electronic equipment (Naturvårdsverket, 2020) ... 27
Figure 17, Cost breakdown structure ... 29
Figure 18, Mechanical fastening with shear loaded joints (Messler, W.S., 1993) ... 33
Figure 19, Adhesive bonding example (Messler, W. S.) ... 34
Figure 20, Closing of life cycle loop (Wang, H. M., et al. 1995) ... 35
Figure 21, Prototype 1: Glue ... 35
Figure 22, Prototype 2: Mechanical joining and two-shot injection ... 36
Figure 23, Prototype 3: Two shot injection/Glue/Mechanical joining ... 36
Figure 24, Prototype 1: Glue of outer and inner shell ... 38
Figure 25, Prototype 1: Gapping of inner and outer shell during bending ... 39
Figure 26, Prototype 3: Mechanical fastening elements ... 39
Figure 27, Stress analysis of force application in edges ... 40
Figure 28, Location of max bending (displacement) ... 40
Figure 29, Polymer part of two-shot inside shell with snap-fits applied ... 41
Figure 30, Assembly order of snap-fits ... 41
Figure 31, Current outlay of Battery-PCB relation (Backside view) ... 42
Figure 32, Concept for simplified battery removal (maintenance) ... 42
Figure 33, Design for maintenance: Battery removal ... 43
Figure 34, Lens package components (one lens) ... 44
Figure 35, Section perspective view sketch lens package concept ... 44
Figure 36, Two-part button and outer shell ... 45
Figure 37, Section view of joining elements ... 45
Figure 38, Assembly line up without two-component injection ... 46
Figure 39, Press fit TPE ... 46
Figure 40, Sliding joining of shells ... 47
Figure 41, Case studies of economic profitability of different EOL-methods. ... 50
Figure 42, Outside Shell alternative materials: Embodied energy and CO2 Footprint relative to price in primary production ... 52
Figure 43, Embodied energy, and CO2 Footprint comparison for alternative materials ... 53
Figure 44, Alternative materials for inside shell, CO2 emissions and embodied energy relative to price ... 54
Figure 45, Embodied Energy and CO2 emission comparison for alternative materials ... 55
Figure 46, Optical clarity polymers ... 57
Figure 47, Transparent and Optical clarity polymers ... 57
Figure 48, Fibre alternatives for Strap ... 58
Figure 49, CO2 and Energy emission from primary production strap holder materials ... 58
Figure 50, Difference in energy and CO2 strap holder materials ... 59
Figure 51, Difference in energy usage and CO2 emission of material combinations ... 61
Figure 52, MinEmission material and manufacturing Energy and CO2 ... 62
Figure 53, MinMaterial material and manufacturing Energy and CO2 ... 63
Figure 54, Current material and manufacturing Energy and CO2 ... 63
Figure 55, PLA-Fibers; Polyester-Fibers and Palm-fibers emissions (CES EduPack, 2020) ... 63
Figure 56, Transport of 1 kg material Energy usage ... 64
Figure 57, Transport of 1 kg material CO2 emission ... 64
Figure 58, Difference in energy usage truck and air freight 1kg material ... 64
Figure 59, Recycling EOL potential of material combinations ... 65
Figure 60, Comparison in CO2 emission and Energy restored from incineration of materials .... 66
Figure 61, Landfill EOL potential (NaN) ... 66
Figure 62, Remanufacturing/Reusing EOL potential of Energy usage and CO2 ... 67
Figure 63, Manufacturing Current ... 70
Figure 64, Manufacturing MinEmission ... 70
Figure 65, Manufacturing MinMaterials ... 70
Figure 66, Cost of transportation means of current product to Sweden ... 70
Figure 67, Cost difference of transport by air freight and truck to Sweden ... 71
Figure 68, Wide claw assembly validation with TPE ... 71
Figure 69, Wide claw press-fit assembly validation with TPE ... 71
Figure 70, One dimensional assembly claw validation ... 72
Figure 71, One dimensional press-fit assembly claw validation with TPE ... 72
Figure 72, Slide concept disassembled: Battery exchange extra part ... 72
Figure 73, Slide concept assembled ... 73
Figure 74, Potential of EoL-treatments ... 73
Figure 75, V2 prototype ... 74
Figure 76, V5 prototype ... 75
Figure 77, Energy/product difference V2 and V5 ... 75
Figure 78, CO2/product difference V2 and V5 ... 76
Figure 79, Cost difference/product V2 and V5 ... 76
1
1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes the background, problem definition and the delimitations put into place as well as the methods used throughout the project.
1.1 Background
Mendi has developed a product that functions as a tool to naturally train the brain. This includes a documented improvement of mental well-being, performance, and overall health. The product is constructed as a headset that uses neurofeedback in order to log the users brain activity, this works by measuring the nerve cells indirect activity through hemodynamic activity in the prefrontal cortex (Tamura, M. Hoshi, Y. Okada, F., 1997). The prefrontal cortex controls emotion regulation, working memory and attention among a wide variety of cognitive behavior (Fuster, J.M., 2008).
Measurements are then showed by connecting to a training application through Bluetooth that allows the user to control their brain function; much like a game, by directly interacting with the visualization of the brain activity feedback. The technology has previously been used in field of research in laboratory-based environments and brain enhancement training has therefore been hard to get a gold of and exercise by the average citizen.
Todays’ methods all have different constraints, whether it is meditation or other types of mind exercises; the option to physically see your brain’s response and progress is not possible.
Furthermore, ailments connected with activity in the prefrontal cortex are sometimes medicated which often comes with unwanted side-effects. The development of a product that allows the average individual to benefit from the fNIR technology creates an easily accessible and flexible alternative to the existing options, and this has been one of the goals of Mendi.
The recent creation of the company causes large focus on the development of the product, and with it focus on the hardware rather than the service that the company provides. Apart of the goal of successful brain-training for the user, general well-being and sustainability is what Mendi want to promote through their company. This is to further their motives to build a company that is built on values through all forms of sustainability, and as the company’s founders are educated in electrical engineering, the environmental part of sustainability is something Mendi required outside help with. The purpose of this report is to aid Mendi acquiring information about how design choices and strategies can help improving sustainability for future development.
1.2 Problem definition
Mendi has developed a product with focus on mental wellbeing which could be viewed as a part of social sustainability. This report centers around the environmental part of sustainability stemming from expressed interest by the company’s founders. The definition of this problem is wide, and possibilities to reduce ecological footprints has been kept open to the extent of what is viable to implement. To put focus on case specific information, a question of issue was created to clarify the scope of the project.
1.2.1 Questions of issue
The questions presented are based on different approaches to the problem and aim to summarize their potential. They are also created to localize the areas that have a larger environmental impact, regardless of approach.
2
• How can eco-sustainability be improved using material databases?
• How can eco-sustainability be improved through design?
• What has largest impact on the product, and where in the life cycle does it take place?
• What economic tradeoffs are required to implement eco-sustainable solutions?
1.3 Delimitations
The main delimitation to the work has been the adaptation to the product and its current circumstances. This means that to develop the product regarding sustainability, previously created criteria set for the product has been factoring in throughout. This set a delimitation to what to research, what methods to use, and what design routes to focus on. The choice to focus on a comparative approach was done to produce clear results based on value recognition in the product life cycle and to create scenarios which would easily be transitioned into.
In practice, the most thorough way to identify the sustainability of a product is to create a life cycle sustainability assessment; this includes assessing the economic, social, and environmental effect of the product on all its stakeholders. Due to the product being in its development phase, social life cycle assessment was left out. This is because all the subcontractors are stationed in Sweden and have ISO-certification for both eco- and quality manufacturing. The decision was therefore made that this part would be the least impactful when developing a more sustainable solution for the product, and focus was put on the environmental and economic aspects of the development.
For the product components and their evaluation, non-electronic parts have been quantitatively compared while electronic components have been assessed through academic literature. This is because of the complex structure and customization of the electronic components, and the difficulty creating a valid comparison between available alternatives.
Due to the small volume of the button, the material selection for this part will be correlated to design principles such as the 10 GP (Luttropp, C. 2006), rather than the environmental effects of material and production.
Costs will continuously be a factor to which what is possible to be changed. Currently the overall cost is being modified by Svekon, and it is within this frame that the sustainable work will be done.
Nevertheless, analysis of future costs and revenues that could be affected by any changes made will be presented through quantitative means as well as discussion. Time has also been a delimitation since the project is built around a future version of the product. This means that limitations regarding testing and regulation occurred, leaving validation and verification for market release to future work.
3
1.4 Applied methods
Literature research, information in the field of sustainability including materials, production, end of life as well as the case specific circumstances.
Qualitative research, interviews were done with subcontractors
State of the art, used to analyse design solutions and functionality used by competitive or similar companies
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), tool used throughout the project for assessment of energy consumption, CO2 emission from each step of the life cycle
Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA), tool used throughout the project for assessment of costs in each step of the life cycle
Ten golden principles (10 GP), a pedagogic tool used to improve the overall sustainability of the product, each concept is evaluated through these rules
Design for assembly/-disassembly (DFA/DFD), used to optimise the disassembly process for environment, DFA was validated throughout this process.
Brainstorming, through matrices and sketching
Sketching, concept generation
CAD, Prototype modelling
3D Printing, Concept validation through testing
Morphological matrix, iterations of solutions during concept generation
Life Cycle Scenarios, approximations of future scenarios created based on accumulated data
4
2 FRAME OF REFERENCE
The reference frame is a summary of the existing knowledge and former performed research on the subject. This chapter presents the theoretical reference frame that is necessary for the performed research, design, and product development.
2.1 Eco Design
The objective of eco design is to create sustainable product life cycles which minimize the consumption of energy and materials as well as the amount of waste and environmental emissions generated during the entire life cycle, while maintaining welfare and corporate profits. In general, products can have various options during their life cycle. Therefore, one needs to decide for the best life cycle options to optimize life cycle costs, and this needs to be done early in the product development process (Tichkiewitch, S. et al. 2009).
Life cycle design can be summarized as the process where the designer designs balance of the whole life cycle from various viewpoints, such as material, energy, and money. Some aspects of life cycle design include marketing, material acquisition, design, production, logistics, use and operation, maintenance, reclamation, reuse, recycling and discarding (Umeda, et al. 1999). This can be done in different ways, depending on the product and its settings.
2.1.1 Life Cycle Strategies
There are a wide range of approaches when designing a product life cycle, from designing the component structure of a product to implementing business models that supports sustainability on a larger scale. The product life cycle can be divided into stages, where each stage has its significant importance for the product and can be adjusted to satisfy the stakeholders. These stages (Tichkiewitch, et al. 2006) vary depending on the type of product/service but is adapted to the development of Mendi.
• The pre-active life cycle contains engineering and detailed design. Conceptual design does not directly impact the environment itself, but about 75% of the product life cycle cost is determined at this stage, as well as the environmental impact.
• The active life cycle, Production and operation is a gathering of manufacturing, assembly, distribution/sales, maintenance, repairs and upgrading. Here the quantifiable
environmental impact is assessed through part production (material), and the
manufacturing processes whilst the remaining stages are mainly handled by business process models.
• End of Life phase (EoL) consists of collecting, disassembly and testing, recycling, refurbishment, and disposal. At this stage, the product is taken apart for inspection, and components are sorted according to their state to be recycled, reused, or disposed of.
As a result of the large number of routes a product can take during its life cycle, strategies can be formed to maximize economical value, and minimize environmental impact in each stage.
5
In OECD countries approximately 36% of primary energy demand is used by product manufacturing industry (Tichkiewitch, et al. 2006). A large part of this energy is used for production of basic material in these products. There are ways to reduce this by more efficient use of materials, improving design or material properties (The pre-active life cycle), increased recyclability or replacement of materials for less energy-intensive materials (The active life cycle and EoL) or by shifting from product- to service-based systems (All phases).
2.1.2 Finding the Right Approach
For this project, some areas of the life cycle will be focused on more than others. These areas are chosen through relevance to the company, Mendi, as well as the resources available to perform a thorough assessment. Subjects such as marketing and logistics will have a smaller part as these are not yet major factors of the sustainability of the brand. For further clarification of the scope, the 17 goals of the UN were referenced regarding Mendi and the proposed work (United Nations, 2020).
Figure 1, UN goal number 3.
From these goals, see Figure 1, Mendi is currently progressive in goal number 3. Although the targets of this goal are more focused on the more pressing issues of the world such as premature death and fatal diseases; The product has proven to aid in mental aspects that could in turn be prominent in the field of treating neurological ailments. As the product is currently in construction phase; material, design, production, and the holistic view of scenarios could be combined to expand the scope of the product life cycle. With available materials and tools to compare the environmental effect through the life cycle (CES EduPack), knowledge of the current methods of production as well as design tools at hand, the work aim to fulfill additional goals.
6
Figure 2, UN goal number 3, 12 and 13.
These goals, see Figure 2, are related to environment and economy, where clear goals are set up for each category such as substantially reducing waste generation through recycling, reduction, and reuse. Furthermore, providing information about sustainable work to the public, spreading awareness and knowledge for future generations of production and consumption.
2.1.3 Circular thinking
The most used phrase
“A [CE] describes an economic system that is based on business models which replace the ‘end- of-life’ concept with reducing, alternatively reusing, [and] recycling [...] materials in production/distribution and consumption processes, [...], with the aim to accomplish sustainable development, which implies creating environmental quality, economic prosperity and social equity, to the benefit of current and future generations” (Kirchherr et al. 2017).
As the focus lies on creating a sustainable product through modifications at all levels of the product life cycle, and that the current work heavily relies on reducing/preventing further costs, economy becomes a large factor. To prevent added costs and to invoke value adding in these different steps, a circular economy approach was taken. The circular thinking can be applied by reducing costs of material input and/or realizing value in different stages of the product life cycle to maintain economic prosperity. These factors were analyzed and compared to each other to approximate a probable outcome. An example could be an increased initial cost of a material that could later return value from being reused or remanufactured, and therefore becoming a value addition regardless of its initial cost. Circular economy businesses fall into two groups: Those who extend product life through repair, remanufacturing, and upgrades, and those who return the material through recycling. (Staehl, R. W. 2016) Seeing as these areas are a part of the EoL, the assessments of the different methods were done through research of empirical cases and how viable the methods would become when adapting them to this case.
7
2.2 Market Research
Mendi is a new company with a market release pending, this called for an analysis of the possible competitors already on the market. Although this has previously been done regarding product design, possible market advantages and inspiration regarding sustainability has not yet been included. By finding the functionality of the opposition, decisions can be made to improve the product while maintaining its original position relative its adversaries.
Muse 2
Following the rather new commercial adaptation of different “brain-scanning” technologies, the market variation could be quite extreme. The low number of brands and developers results in a wider gap between designs which in turn could be derived from the creative freedom available in a new market lacking a design standard. The different products were analyzed regarding their function; structure, design, price, and how these relate to sustainable development.
Figure 3, Muse 2 headband
Muse 2, see Figure 3, uses EEG to interpret the user’s mental activity. As a response, it returns sounds of weather; stormy weather indicating a drifting mind, and peaceful weather indicating you are in a calm state. This function is meant to help the user meditate by giving an auditory signal when it is time to focus on ones breathing.
The headband is connected to an app through Bluetooth that logs and displays the user’s results after each session, allowing the user to track their progress.
The current market price is 239.99 EUR and comes with a micro USB charger.
It is possible to disassemble the Muse 2 to change the battery by oneself, although this requires disassembly, removal of PCB, soldering and gluing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifX-8RMuqSo
Muse S
Figure 4, Muse S headband
8
Muse S, see Figure 4, combines EEG, PPG, and accelerometer, it is designed to help the user fall asleep. Just like the Muse 2, the Muse S uses auditory feedback that acts in response to the user’s heartrate and brain activity. The design differs as the headband itself is made from stretch fabric, while the electronics are in the front, detachable for recharge. This version is more focused on the comfort, as the main purpose is sleep. https://choosemuse.com/introducing-muse-s/
The current market price for the Muse S is 379.99EUR and comes with a micro USB charger.
Dreem 2
Figure 5, Dreem 2
Dreem, see Figure 5, just like Muse, measures brain activity, heart rate and movement with the help of EEG. But Dreem also aids the user throughout the different sleep cycles. Except from helping the user fall asleep faster, Dreem uses algorithms that score different stages of sleep to prevent nocturnal awakenings. It is also used as an alternative for people with insomnia.
The difference with Dreem is that it is not using Wi-Fi or Bluetooth, instead they offer services for consultation about your sleep data.
9
3 METHOD
Improving sustainability in the product requires knowledge of the current state of the product and the possibilities available to enhance its life cycle sustainability. To do this, methodology used in the field of sustainability has been applied, where focus has been on the environmental attributes, but also the economic and social aspects of the product life cycle. CES EduPack has been used as a tool for quantitative analysis throughout and qualitative assessment has been done through research and implementation of methods used in empirical studies.
3.1 Life Cycle Assessment - LCA
The interest in environmental effect in product development has been around for decades, the methodology created from this is the product life cycle assessment “LCA”, which is nowadays the most established method used to assess the environmental impact of products, services, and technologies. LCA is used to assess the environmental impacts of product and service systems over the whole life cycle from raw materials to end of life (Schebek, L. 2019). The quantitative nature of LCA enables it to compare environmental impacts of different processes and product systems, this quantification is rooted in science; the data is based on measurements and the environmental emissions are based on proven casualties. Some strengths of LCA is the comprehensiveness in its coverage of environmental issues, this can also be a weakness seeing as a lot of these issues are simplified. This simplification can somewhat be justified through the comparison between product systems, which provides an unbiased comparison seeing as all product systems have the same level of precaution applied (Hauschild, Z, M. 2018). The comparative approach has therefore been applied to provide clear and measurable results.
The fact that LCA is the “best estimate” in modern day sustainability research and that it possesses such high comparative quality, made for it continuously being applied throughout the work for evaluation and assessment. LCA was first applied to the current product to properly identify the stages of the life cycle in which sustainability could be improved. This was done by realizing all the components; their materials, production, processing, and end-of-life treatments. After researching alternative materials and assessing the possible compositions, new concepts were created that would then be compared with the original through life cycle assessment. Additional to the quantitative results, the LCA also provided information about possibilities in the areas that has not yet been obtained in the product life cycle, allowing for scenarios to be modeled based on the assessment. The initial step was to assess the current product components, this was done through a component declaration in the form of a bill of materials, “BOM”. After recognizing the product structure, its current state regarding sustainability was evaluated with the tool ten golden principles to further pinpoint areas where improvements were possible. These tools later worked as references when searching for materials, choosing design methods, and developing scenarios.
10 3.1.1 Bill of Materials
To assess the product life cycle of the current product, materials in the current Mendi headset was specified through a bill of material, see Table 1 below, containing material acronym, volume, material properties and color. This was then used as a reference when researching for alternative materials. Since all components are different in size and material type, different approaches were used to find alternatives to each component.
Table 1, List of components in current product
Component Material Volume (mm3) % total volume
Material properties
Color
Outside shell PC/ABS 12000 32% Polyblend
45FS
NCS S-1002R
Inside shell SEBS (A65) 15959 41% Dryflex NCS S0550-
Y60R
Button PC/ABS 231 1% Polyblend
45FS
NCS S0550- Y60R
Button 2 PC - - Alcom 740/4
UV cc1323- 08LG
Transparent
Lenses PC Alcom 44 - T909 90
Shore A
Transparent
PCB Mixed
materials
772 2% - -
Strap 75% Polyester 25% Elastane
6480 17% - Gray
Strap holder POM 1716 4% - White
Battery Lithium ion 1288 3% - -
11 3.1.2 Ten Golden Principles
Sustainability in a product is affected by a wide variety of factors. For any changes to be of value, the areas in which changes can and should be implemented need to be assessed. Throughout the LCA, a tool called ten golden principles, see Table 2 below, was used to motivate choices made in the development and to create a holistic view of the problem formulation. The ten golden principles work as a guideline for sustainability optimization and covers the whole lifecycle of a product where it briefly assesses the social, economic, and ecological impacts throughout the product life cycle. The ten golden principles were originally created by Conrad Luttropp (Luttropp, 2006). To start, the Mendi headset was evaluated to identify areas of possible improvement. This was done through a table referencing ten golden principles and how the current product relates to each principle.
Table 2, Ten Golden Principles on Mendi headset
Ten golden principles
Comment Mendi headset Evaluation
Function Adapted for the 5th to 95th percentile in head sizes
Adjustable headband Light weight Intuitive (only ON/OFF
button)
Product has been modified to function as purposed, avoiding
changes in functionality and documentation of
possible improvements (Implemented throughout) Human
resources
All subcontractors are in Sweden
Interview with subcontractors, see
Appendix 4.
Toxic substances
Glue from assembly DFA/DFD, see
section 3.3.
Production resources
Celltech: ISO 9001 and 14001 certified Hexpol: ISO 9001 and
14001 certified Prototal: ISO 9001, 14001, 13485 certified Wasa Sweden: Unknown
Interview with subcontractors, see
Appendix 4.
Economic value
Muse 2 – 239,99EUR Muse S – 379,99EUR Dreem 2 – 399EUR Mendi - < 316 EUR
Analysis of material, production and EOL costs, and discussion
of value-adding opportunities, see
12
section 3.2, 3.3.2 and 3.4.
Energy at use The usage of energy is entirely driven by the
software
10mA battery → 13h use time
Effect on end of life, assessment of refurbishment potential relative to energy consumption,
see section 3.1.5.
Material hygiene
(-) No components from recycled material (+) Uses few different
materials (-) Blended materials
(-) Disassembly is difficult as product is
glued together (-) The product is
currently 0%
biodegradable
Individual material assessment, combined material assessment and the resulting effect on the
product, see sections 3.1.3-3.1.5.
Lifetime Restricted to battery lifetime as this cannot be
changed Parts cannot be exchanged due to glue
End of life treatments affected by product
lifetime and maintenance, see
section 3.1.5.
Design alternatives for prolonged lifetime of product,
see section 3.3.3.
Context The company uses subcontractors that promote sustainability
Aims to improve sustainable production in
future
Handling of consumer relations regarding services, see section 3.4.1.
Information Information about the technology and function
is provided on website Costumer gets a manual
with product No material information
on physical product
Providing information for
services and information through labeling and imprints,
see section 3.4.1.
13 3.1.3 Component Materials
Material selection in product development influences each stage of the life cycle, as it is present in the product life cycle from extraction of raw material until the product end of product life. It has an impact in primary production in the form of energy consumption, water usage and CO2 emission as the material needs to be created and treated for its specific purpose. Following this, the material needs to be formed into the desired shape and transported which also has an influence on the sustainability of the life cycle. These impacts are relative to the material and can therefore be adjusted by choosing the material that is most benign to the environment and has desirable effects on the product from the perspective of all stakeholders.
The materials of the current components were in this section analyzed, one-by-one, in CES EduPack. Their significant impact on the product was analyzed through assessing the CO2
emissions and energy consumption of their primary production phase to accurately compare the base materials to each other. The different material combinations were then assessed through quantitative comparisons and by analyzing their effect on other life cycle phases, such as end of life treatment. To find materials that had potential to be more sustainable, limits were set to the primary production where the CO2 and embodied energy could not be more than the current material. These parameters set the base criteria of the new materials to be more benign to the environment in of themselves. By doing this, some materials with potential to improve the sustainability in other aspects might be lost but seeing as primary production is such a large environmental factor, this was set as a limitation. Yield strength and Impact strength were also added for the components that requires robustness; this was set to be in approximation to the current material to avoid materials that would later fail the mechanical tests. Other parameters were adjusted according to the specific component’s intended functionality. From the Mendi requirements list, see Appendix 1, the limits for the search was set so that only materials that satisfy the criteria would show, see Table 3 below.
Table 3, CES EduPack limit parameters example
Factor Unit Limitation
Contains >5% critical elements?
- No
Water(fresh) - Limited use; Acceptable;
Excellent
Water(salt) - Limited use; Acceptable;
Excellent
Weak acids (pH value 4-7) - Limited use; Acceptable;
Excellent
UV radiation - Fair; Good; Excellent
Embodied energy, primary production
MJ kg
< Max of current material
CO2 footprint, primary production
kg kg
< Max of current material
Yield strength (MPa) MPa >Min of current material
14 Impact strength at 23C
2
KJ m
>Min of current material
Recycle - Yes
Outside shell
The outside shell is the second largest component in the product. This component is together with the strap and strap holders the most exposed part when the product is in use and therefore has constraints accordingly. Factors such as UV-resistance, yield strength, resistance to liquids such as alcohols are crucial for the component to function as intended. The current material is an ABS/PC mix, ABS/PC is frequently used in products for its excellent toughness.
Figure 6, Highlighted Outside Shell
From the findings, see Figure 42, one can see that there are several materials that has the potential to be less impactful on the environment. To have an actual impact on the product, a selected few were chosen to run through Eco Audit (Granta Design Limited, 2019) for comparative analysis.
This gave a clearer view of the difference between the environmental effect of each material.
Graphs, see Figure 43, shows the CO2 emissions and Energy consumption of the materials per 1kg material produced. Manufacturing and end-of-life were put as the same for all materials to get a fair view of the difference between the raw materials. The best performing materials were PLA, PVC, and PEHD in both graphs. Further research was done on these materials to identify how they are used and potential problems regarding the materials that were not specified in CES EduPack.
This showed that during the PVC lifecycle, by-products collectively called dioxins are formed.
These toxins are carcinogenic and have showed to be global pollutants (Thornton, J. 2002).
15
Therefore, PVC was excluded from any further research. To see if the materials were viable to integrate, each material was compared to the original ABS+PC where the most significant parameters were inspected. Furthermost price, mechanical properties, durability to acids/alkalis and UV-resistance.
PLA – Polylactic Acid
Polylactic Acid is biobased, created from corn starch or sugar cane, it is biodegradable and maintains its mechanical properties through recycling. Compared to fossil fuel-based polymers, biobased polymers including PLA has a deficit in strength. Therefore, it should be impact modified to withstand blows to the product (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry, 2020).
PLA combines all prerequisites of sustainability while containing valuable material properties that are seen in other polymers. The biggest producers of PLA are the US, China, and Korea. (Hagen, R. 2012)
The downside of PLA is that it has a low thermal resistance, the glass transition temperature generally occurs at 55 °C. This means that at higher temperature, the material properties could change, but just as the impact strength, it can be modified. A table was set up to overlook the pros and cons with choosing PLA, see Table 4 below.
Table 4, PLA (impact modified)
Pros Cons
Biodegradable (starch based) Only 10-20% elongation at yield Better UV protection 50% less compression strength Other properties are similar to current Stiffer
HDPE – High Density Polyethylene
In contrast to other materials, HDPE has several ecological and economic benefits. HDPE is flexible, cheap, has a high chemical resistance and is lighter than the current alternative. A common use for HDPE is industrial piping for water, gas, and wastewater (Enderle, H.F. 2001). A downside of HDPE is it could be difficult to bond with adhesives (Whelan, T. 1994) which would be a problem with the current solution. A table was set up to overlook the pros and cons with choosing HDPE, see Table 5 below. The material is a common plastic used in commercial products and can be recognized by its recycling stamp, see Figure 7 below.
Table 5, HDPE
Pros Cons
Strong durability to acids/alkalis Lower yield strength
Very flexible Possibly hard to join
Very cheap Easily recyclable
16
Figure 7, HDPE recycling symbol
Inside shell
The inside shell, see Figure 8 below, is the largest component volume-wise; this component is important for user comfort, flexibility, and liquid resistance such as sweat and detergents. The inside shell is the only elastomer in the product, apart from the added elastane to the polyester strap, see Figure 10. During the research on elastomers, few alternatives were found that could compete with the current material SEBS, see Figure 44.
Figure 8, Inside shell (SEBS thermoplastic)
SBS – Styrene Butadiene Styrene
Usual uses are footwear, sealants, grips and more (CES EduPack). Good fatigue resistance but very poor UV-resistance and has poor chemical resistance, especially to organic solvents. SEBS is formed when SBS undergoes a hydrogenation process, this then gives SEBS the superior
17
material properties regarding environmental resistance such as UV (Whelan, T. 1994). A table was set up to overlook the pros and cons with choosing SBS, see Table 6 below.
Table 6, SBS (A70)
Pros Cons
-22% energy usage -27% CO2 footprint
Up to 50% more expensive
- Poor UV protection
EVA – Ethylene Vinyl Acetate
EVA is a copolymer consisting of ethylene and vinyl acetate. The characteristics of the material will vary depending on the percentage of vinyl acetate. EVA is commonly used in shoe soles, bicycle saddles, seals and more. It is an attractive material when substituting natural and synthetic rubbers (Whelan, T. 1994). A table was set up to overlook the pros and cons with choosing EVA, see Table 7 below.
Table 7, EVA (A65)
Pros Cons
-17% energy usage -48% CO2 footprint
Slightly stiffer
Up to 39% cheaper Poor UV protection
Button & Lenses
As of today, the button is made in two parts, see Figure 9 below. The inside of the button is completely transparent, this has a functional value to tell the user where the on/off switch is. For this segment, alternatives have been reviewed with search factors of CO2, embodied energy, price, and transparency. The current material used for inside part of the button and the lenses (PC) is completely transparent, therefore this was the first filtering method used. After discovering only a few materials, the search was extended to completely transparent and transparent (which includes possible tint). This was done because of the subjective requirement of “easy to identify the activation button”, see Appendix 1, that could have the possibility to be obtained even with a slight tint. Considering the inner part of the button is such a small and isolated component, mechanical properties were overseen in this segment. Additionally, the resulting materials were not compared against each other as the volume has a minimal affect through productional emission, the alternatives were instead put in context with the rest of the product through the ten golden principles, see Table 2.
18
Figure 9, Highlighted button
Strap
The only part currently created from fibers in the product is the strap, see Figure 10 below, which consists of 75% Polyester fibers and 25% Elastane (elastomer). The functionality of the product requires that the headset fit the 5th to 95th percentile, this means that the strap needs to be adjustable for different head sizes. Looking back to the market research, see section 2.4, competitors currently use adjustable headbands without elasticity.
Figure 10, Highlighted strap
19 Polyester
Resulting from the search to replace polyester were PLA fibers, cotton, wool, and the natural fiber reinforced polymer composites (NFRPC), see Figure 48. NFPRC include Hemp, Sisal, Jute, Ramie, Kenaf and Flax. They have the potential to be cheaper and have lower density when compared to synthetic alternatives. They can also reinforce polymeric composites to improve their mechanical properties (Mohammed, L. et al. 2015). There are companies that currently use these NFPRC materials to create sustainable materials, Tencel, creates cellulosic fibers from renewable wood sources which are degradable and designed to transport moisture. Hexpol is a Swedish company that is currently one of the subcontractors to Mendi, has been early with involving biobased polymers in their product catalog. Although these products are not directly biodegradable, the biobased materials have the potential to reduce the primary production contributors significantly. Implementation of fibre materials caused the program CES EduPack to crash, therefore assessment of these materials was done manually from observed data.
Elastane
The material providing the flexibility in the current strap is Elastane or commercially known as
“Spandex” amongst other names, which contains at least 85% polyurethane. Elastane is frequently used in woven and knitted fabrics because of its high stretch, up to 500%, and rapid recovery when stretched up to 95% to its unstretched state (Sacevičienė, et al. 2011). The alternatives for materials that can contest Elastane are few, although alternatives are bio-derived elastane (Lycra, 2019).
Approximately 70% of the bio-derived version’s material weight comes from the renewable source corn. The backside of this is it is designed specifically for cotton and viscose which could make other implementations difficult. As previously mentioned, elastic properties are hard to come by in natural materials, therefore an additive to the fiber is required if stretch is necessary in the strap.
Strap holder
For the strap holder, see Figure 11 below, the currently used material is Polyoxymethylene, or
“POM”. This material is popularly used for products that require high stiffness, such as bearings, snap-fits, and gears. POM reacts poorly to high heat; it also has a poor UV-protection. Prolonged use in UV causes degradation such as color change, embrittlement, and loss of strength (Polymer Properties Database, 2020).
For this specific material, the stiffness is important. This is because the material should be able to contain the forces from the strap and lock it into position. Therefore, specific stiffness (E/ρ) of minimum 1,9 was added (POM stiffness 1,94 to 2,53) to the limit.
20
Figure 11, Highlighted strap holders
Alternatives to the material had in general lower yield and tensile strength. Although this might seem counter intuitive as a choice for a strap holder, the forces from the strap would seem relatively low considering the purpose and the type of strain affecting the strap holders. Resulting materials can be seen in Figure 49, and promising examples are shown below. Two promising materials were PP and PHA, a table was set up to overlook the pros and cons with these materials, see Tables 8-9 below.
Table 8, PP (homopolymer, 40% calcium carbonated)
Pros Cons
Lighter 50% of yield strength
Cheaper 50% of tensile strength
Excellent against liquids Poor UV-resistance
Table 9, PHA (unfilled)
Pros Cons
Biodegradable More expensive
Lighter 50% of yield strength
Higher stiffness 50% of tensile strength
Good UV-resistance Weak against acids
21 3.1.4 Production
In the life cycle assessment, production and use are most often described as the active phase. Since the energy consumption from the headset’s use phase solely relies on the battery, the environmental effect of the usage will be discarded as it amounts only to a small fraction of the sustainability of the product. Although, this will be brought up in the end of life as it has a greater effect on the lifetime of the product and could therefore affect the end of life treatment possibilities, see section 3.1.5. This section will go deeper into how the production process is done and what can be implemented to further sustainable development in the active phase of the product life cycle.
Seeing as the product has not yet reached the market, manufacturing and transport of components and materials were the main areas of focus.
To analyze the production phase through a sustainable point of view, the operational procedures and their relative effect on the product sustainability were researched and assessed. This was done through quantitative analysis of the quantifiable operations in Eco Audit. Information for these analyses was gathered through interviews with subcontractors and research on global trade of materials. Resulting from previous section were materials fit as alternatives, these materials can be described in the groups of polymers, elastomers and fibers and were analyzed in the frame of their specific material group.
Manufacturing
The constraints such as material properties and product mass brought the search results down to the same material group as the current versions of the components. This also made so the manufacturing method remained the same, since the most effective method for the components in this specific product is also the most common manufacturing method, polymer molding. Because of the limitations with CES EduPack the fibers were analyzed manually instead of a quantitative comparison in Eco Audit. Resulting data can be seen in section 4.1.2.
Polymers
Polymers, or more commonly known as plastics, are polymeric materials that are often formed into their desired shape through molding, or extrusion processes. Polymers can be grouped into two groups, thermoplastics, and thermosets. The difference between these can be simplified by their difference in thermal properties; thermoplastics melt at high temperature and can easily be remolded whilst thermosets does not. This results in different areas of application where thermosets are most used when heat resistance is a large factor, such as electronics (Stein, S. R. et al., 1994). For sustainability purposes, thermosets were excluded in the development due to its inability to be remolded or recycled and because of material emissions (CES EduPack). The molding of the material has been analyzed to assess the manufacturing CO2 emissions and energy- and water usage. As previously mentioned, there are also risks of toxic waste being released during the manufacturing process, these materials were removed from any continued analysis as they defeat the initial purpose.
Elastomers
Polymers that are soft and compliant and can experience large, reversible deformation are called elastomers. Elastomers can be divided into two groups called rubbers and thermoplastic elastomers. Thermoplastic elastomers are manufactured through physical cohesive forces and can
22
be processed and shaped much like thermoplastics (Läroverket AB, 2007). For this scenario, manufacturing method is set to polymer molding following the specific shape of the elastomer component. Resulting effects of manufacturing of elastomers can be seen in Table 11 and Table 12.
Fibers
A fiber can be defined by having a structure whose length is much greater than its cross-sectional dimension. These can be extracted and created from nature, but the drivers of creating synthetic fibers come from the low cost and the ability to emulate the aesthetics of natural fibers, while having a superior performance. The performance of the fibers is largely determined by the conditions employed in the spinning and the chemistry of the polymer. Since the fibers could not be assessed through Eco Audit, the alternatives chosen for the concept generation of combinations were compared manually. Seen in Fig 55 is the processing of the fiber materials which proved to be the same. This could be because the spinning of the fibers is done manually and therefore does not have any significant difference in environmental effect based on the material used.
Transport
Currently, all subcontractors for the Mendi product are in Sweden. To locate the source of the extracted materials, the companies were contacted to retain information of their subcontractors.
From the interview of Philip, see Appendix 4, sources for pellets and biomaterials are most often transported from international sources, and no specific sources were specified for confidential reasons. Therefore, the assessment made was created through research of the materials and the most common producers.
The world’s largest polymer exporters are Asia (50,1%), with an emphasis on China (29,4%) followed by Europe (18,5%) where Germany is the largest exporter (PlasticsEurope, 2018). By searching further into specifics of polymers and where they are transported from, a list of manufacturing countries was realized for a comparison in transport emissions. These countries were apprehended through (International Trade Center, 2019) where amount of exports in polymers were analyzed for the largest distributors volume wise. The materials in question were polymers of vinyl acetate, polymers of styrene, acrylic polymers, plant-based products (PLA, PHA etc.) and PP. The acquired countries were then added to CES EduPack and with the use of Eco Audit the transport data could be apprehended, see Figure 56, 57 and 58. To get the relative difference between the transportation methods, transport of 1 kg PP was implemented.
3.1.5 End of Life
There are different ways to treat a product at the end of its life cycle, these were for simplicity’s sake divided into Landfill, Incineration and Recycling where Recycling per academic definition includes Reengineering and Reuse. These differ in ways where Recycling is based on bringing the material back to market, while Landfill and Incineration are both ways of disposal (Tichkiewitch, 2006), an overview of the subdivisions can be seen in Figure 12 below.
23
Figure 12, Segmentation of pre-use, use, and post-use life phase of product (Tichkiewitch, 2006)
Putting materials in landfill wastes their potential value as secondary raw material or as energy, although this is the least labour-intensive method of handling. This results in landfill having the highest consumption of energy compared to the other end of life alternatives. A solution to disposal of products that are less likely to be reused or recycled are biodegradable materials, biodegradable materials are loosely defined as materials that degrade through the actions of living organisms and the most common market alternative is starch-based materials. (Akovali, G. et al. 1998). Although biodegradable material sounds good in theory, the fact is that the process of biodegrading is quite specific and requires the right conditions to work. Not all biodegradable materials degrade the same, some degrade aerobically and some anaerobically, meaning degrading with and without the presence of air. The process can also take a long time depending on the material in question.
Incineration creates value out of the embodied energy that the material possesses. This is a complex process where materials need to be separated, boiled to remove moisture content and where the incineration itself requires high temperatures, right conditions that does not let out toxic fumes, and sophisticated control (Ashby, 2011). The backside of incineration is the loss of material that could be reused, it also releases carbon dioxide from the material itself and from the process.
Recycling is commonly used as the recycling of material, but in research the definitions spans to all methods of product recovery such as reengineering, reusing or recovery of materials (Tichkiewitch, S. et al., 2009). Although companies like to label their product as 100% recyclable, it is not necessarily the most ideal choice. Seen below in Figure 13, less than 5% of most polymers were recycled as per 2005/2006.
24
Figure 13, Recycle fraction in current supply 2005/06 data (CES EduPack)
Reengineering of a product involves the refurbishment or upgrading of the product or of its recoverable components. For reengineering to be made practical, certain criteria needs to be met.
A non-evolving or slow evolving design is required for there to be a market in which reengineering is feasible, and services provided by the manufacturer needs to be upheld to maintain the functionality of the product. An example for a business where reengineering is feasible is the railway industry. For a product to be reused, it is required that the consumer be willing to accept it in that state for it to be feasible on the market. Reuse is the most benign end of life method since it is directly extending the product lifetime. The possibility to reuse is directly linked to the state of the material at the end of its initial use.
The opportunity to use the different methods vary on how the product is designed, what materials are used, who the consumer is and what life cycle management is integrated in the business that is providing the product. For example, to recycle product materials, the materials need to be collected, sorted and compatibilized to produce economically viable products from the remains (Stein, S. R., 1994). This further requires a design that is easy to disassemble and will be further discussed in section 3.3. The type of end of life treatment varies depending on the country of use, see Figure 14 below, while landfill was the most common method of disposal in 2006 in most European countries (PlasticsEurope, 2018) by 2016, recycling overtook landfill for the first time in European countries, Norway and China.
