Characterization of automotive paints :

1. Characterization of automotive paints : an environmental impact analysis

2. SUMMARY • Introduction • I. LCA of the materials • II. Materials requirements • III. Results and discussion • IV. Total LC environment • V. Overall environmental performance of scenarios • Conclusion

3. Introduction • LCA : Tools contribute quantitative results to the decision process. • Study’s case : Paint life cycle analysis. • Limits of studies : the studies are focused on the processes that the materials go trough during application to the vehicle.

4. Introduction 2 • We use 3 different painting scenarios :

5. I. LCA of the materials • We considered two different powder primer formulation : acrylic and polyester chemistry. • Also two colours for the waterborne basecoat : white and pewter. • The LCA of some of the raw materials is obtained from the Boustead database, which is a state-of-the-art life cycle assessment. • All the powder, waterborne and solventborne automotive finishes use the same basic chemical categories : resins and crosslinkers, pigments and modifying additives.

6. Materials and energy consumption

7. I.1 Primer • Acrylic powder : the main resin is a methacrylic polymer and the crosslinker is 1,12 dodecanedioic acid (DDDA). These two components account for 85% • Polyester powder : The resin is polyester with hydroxyl functionality (polyurethane). It represent account 66% of the total weight of the powder. • Polyester solventborne : the binder for this primer consists of a polyester resin crosslinked with melamine formaldehyde. The binder accounts for 31% of the total weight of the primer.

8. I.2 Basecoat • Polyester waterborne : contains polyester and polyurethane resins. The pigment is another important component of the basecoat that determines the color of the coating. In this case, we are 3% for pewter and 21% for white.

9. I.3 Clearcoat • Acrylic solventborne : The binder consists of acrylic polymer resin ( PMMA) for 42% and melamine formaldehyde for 12% • Acrylic powder : the resin for acrylic powder clearcoat is glycidyl acrylic powder. the crosslinker is DDDA.

10. II. Materials requirements

11. III. Results and discussion1. Energy consumption • Energy consumption : we can see that the production of acrylic primer coatings is more energy intensive than the polyester ones. • Also we can see that the powder cleacoat take a lot of energy.

12. 1. Energy consumption • We can see that : • Polyester powder primer requires one-third the amount of energy for the acrylic powder primer. • Energy consumption to produce the white basecoat is almost the same as that for pewter. • Powder cleacoat requires less energy for its production than solvent-based clearcoat.

13. 2.Atmospheric emissions • The polyester solventborne primer provides the lowest values among all primers. • The air emissions associated with the acrylic powder are the highest. • The atmospheric emissions are about the same for the basecoat colors. • The solvent-based acrylic clearcoat air emissions are much higher than those for the powder clear. • The both acrylic coatings (PP1 and SC1) have similar emissions.

14. 3. Water emissions

15. 4. Solid waste emissions

16. IV. Total LC environment assessment of coating manufacturing • Painting scenarios : • SP1 – WB1 – SC1 • PP2 – WB1 – SC1 • PP2 – WB1 – PC2 • The environmental assessment will include energy and water requirements as well as air, water, solid waste, and carbon dioxide equivalent emissions.

17. 1. Energy consumption and atmospheric emissions • The least amount of energy required by the PP2 – WB1 – PC2. • The highest energy consumption is for PP2 – WB1 – SC1.

18. 1. Energy consumption and atmospheric emissions (2) • Scenario SP1 – WB1 – SC1 outperforms the others. • Scenario PP2 – WB1 – PC2 contributes the most to the carbon dioxide equivalent emissions than we can see on the next graph.

19. 1. Energy consumption and atmospheric emissions (3) • This is the contrast with total energy requirement, where scenario PP2 – WB1 – PC2 is associated with the lowest amount of energy.

20. 1. Energy consumption and atmospheric emissions (4)

21. 2. Water consumption, water and solid waste emissions • SP1 – WB1 – SC1 is associated with the highest emissions among all scenarios.

22. 2. Water consumption, water and solid waste emissions (2) • Minerals contribute the most to the emissions. • SP1 – WB1 – SC1 is the scenario that emits the most.

23. 3. Sensitivity analysis • The study assumed 95% ETE (Effective Transfer Efficiency for powder). • To examine the sensitivity, we assumed 60% ETE in scenario 3 : with this change, the total energy requirements becomes almost the same as that for others. • All other LCA emissions will change proportionally. This sensitivity analysis indicates that the polyester powder still use less energy than the acrylic.

24. V. Overall environmental performance of scenarios

25. Conclusion • The findings show that the production of acrylic primer coatings is more energy intensive than the polyester ones, powder or solventborne. • For waterborne basecoat, the two colors white and pewter use about the same amount of energy. • The PP2 – WB1 – PC2 is associated with the least energy, water consumption, solid waste. • However, it exceeds other scenarios in PM, SOx and CO2- equivalent emissions.

26. Thank you