Cafetiere Life Cycle Analysis and Redesign

LCA esd assignment 2 Cafetiere LCaLUKe a firtH

introdUCtionfUnCtionaL Unit & system BoUndaries

This assignment aims to analyse the environmental impacts of a cafetiere in order to find out its different environmental impacts and establish priorities with a view to producing redesign proposals.

Its function is to press ground coffee through near boiling water to make cups of coffee. Comprised 16 separate parts (11 functional pieces and 5 fixings), the product can store 1L volume and make up to 5.5* cups of coffee per use, with a minimum of 2 cups per use to ensure the press can adequately travel through enough water to properly infuse. The functional unit for this product is therefore is

to press the minimum 2 x 180ml cups of coffee (360ml)**.

The study will analyse the impact of all of the cafetiere’s life cycle phases from manufacture, through use and to disposal. It will also take into account the energy imbued within the boiling water that passes through it during the use phase*** but not the water

production or the coffee grains themselves.

The human effort to operate the cafetiere will not be included in the study (due to difficulty measuring averages and its negligible effects). The product is not sold within packaging at the consumer

level and so this and its effects will also not be included.

The following assumptions have been made:

*Standard measurements: 1 cup = 180ml, 9.5g coffee (The Coffee FAQ 2013).**That most of the time, cafetieres are used for 1-2 cups of coffee per day, 5 days a

week (Real Coffee UK, 2014).***Assuming 2.6Mj to heat 1L water (HyperPhysics 2009).

Allen (2013)

4

1 2

3

4 5 6 7

9

10 11 12 13 14

15 16

8

5

1 Carafe Pyrex (Borosilicate Glass) Glass Blowing Grinding283.5g

2 Body Steel Punching + Bending Welding + Electroplating163g

3 HandLe High Impact Polystyrene Injection Moulding24.5g

4 metaL CUp Steel Spinning Electroplating77g

5 Upper press Martensitic Stainless Steel Punch Welding21g

6 press CoiL Martensitic Stainless Steel Extrusion Feeding Into Press2g

7 Lower press Martensitic Stainless Steel Punch21g

8 CUp insert High Density Polypropylene Injection Moulding12g

9 fiLter mesH Martensitic Stainless Steel Etched3.5g

10 CUp BoLt

11 HandLe BoLt

12 HandLe nUt

Steel

Martensitic Stainless Steel


Rough Machining

Rough Machining

Rough Machining

3.5g

1.5g

1.5g

13 CUp nUt

14 press BoLt

15 press stem

16 press BaLL




High Impact Polystyrene

Rough Machining

Rough Machining

Extrusion

Injection Moulding

Rough Machining

1.5g

4.5g

22g

5.5g

inventorypart, materiaL, weigHt & proCesses

6

PyrexBorosilicate Glass

(283.5g)

MartensiticStainless Steel

(82g)

High ImpactPolystyrene

(30g)

Steel(240g)

High DensityPolypropylene

(12g)

Glass Blowing

Grinding

Punching +Bending

Welding

Injection Moulding

InjectionMoulding

Spinning

Electroplating

Rough Machining

Extrusion Cast

Etched

Assembly &Transport

Use Phase(3 Years)

Electricity1.95Gj

CafetiereDisposal

Water750L

Packaging

UserEnergy

7

fLow modeLpart, materiaL, weigHt & proCesses

A powerful tool to demonstrate the inputs and outputs of all stages of the products life cycle is the flow model as illustrated left. The individual components are listed by material at the top and are followed through their

separate manufacturing processes through distribution and use.

The inputs that lay outside of the system boundary are greyed out, signifying that they are not included in the life cycle analysis. This style of visualisation excels at allowing users a good idea of the study and its boundaries

at a glance.

Material IdentificationVarious tests were carried out to identify the different materials used in the product at home. The following

methods were applied a long with research on common material usages:

The Espresso Room (2009)

Weighing Burn Test Density Scratch Test

8

Ces eCo aUditCamBridge eCo seLeCtor resULts

Overview + Life Cycle Phase Analysis

The CES tool results (shown right in graphs and table form) are as follows:

The use phase of the product constituted 83.6% of its impact for energy and CO2 footprint, due to the long life span (3 years) with high usage (once a day, 5 days a week 50 weeks a year). Coupled with the power intensive process of boiling water. It should be noted that the energy figures used for this are ideal scenario as any losses due to the efficiency of the device used to boil the water lay outside the system boundaries (it is recommended that a LCA of a kettle should be used for this purpose).

The use phase result is also slightly variable due to the efficiency of the products use that cannot be accounted for using the CES, if the user wants a single cup of coffee, they still have to brew two due to the makeup of the product (potentially wasting the other cup) as clarified in the functional unit.

The material phase is the second highest phase, accounting for 12% of the overall energy consumption and 11.8% of the products CO2 footprint. Mostly due to the production of the Pyrex

carafe (see next pages). This indicates some limited opportunity for redesign.

Manufacturing the product surprisingly had a very small relative contribution to the cafetieres overall energy and CO2 impacts, accounting for 3.3% and 4% respectively - most likely due to the

relatively low energy intensive processes required (aside from the glass).

Due to the lightweight and lack of packaging the CES rates both transport and disposal as very low to the overall impact, providing little opportunity for significant improvement through redesign. A noted limitation of the CES is its lack of ability to factor in design for disassembly as with this product

all parts can be easily be disassembled into separate materials for end of life.

9

Phase Energy (MJ) Energy (%) CO2 (kg) CO2 (%)Material 26.8 12.6 1.56 11.8Manufacture 6.92 3.3 0.53 4.0Transport 1.05 0.5 0.0743 0.6Use 177 83.6 11 83.6Disposal 0.13 0.1 0.00909 0.1Total (for first life) 212 100 13.2 100End of life potential 0 0

Material Manufacture Transport Use Disposal0

50

100

150

200En

ergy

(MJ)

Material Manufacture Transport Use Disposal

CO2

Foot

prin

t (kg

)

2

4

6

8

0

10

12

Energy and CO2 Footprint Summary

10

Manufacture

material

11

Identifying The Impact Of Components

The CES also produces easy to read tables as shown left and below,detailing each components impacts in each stage as well as the overall CO2 footprint of the product itself (shown below as 11kg).

A strength of the CES is the speed of output. Its clear from both tables (left) that material and manufacture the Carafe has the greatest impact as the Pyrex (Borosilicate) has a high energy process with boric acid requiring high temperatures above that of traditional glass making. However as the largest component of the product, it should be expected that it will have the greatest impact.

Highlighting a constraint of the CES; the lack of ability to compare the relative damaging properties of materials against each other, e.g. a large part made from recycled aluminium will have a larger environmental impact than an extremely small part of lead. In this case the Carafe constitutes 44.3%

of the total mass of the product but only 29-33% of its impact.

Pyrex is a good thermal insulator as well as being chemically stable highlighting another limitation of the CES in its inability to take into account the environmental effects that a material choice may have on the use phase. The CES may produce a better result for a Carafe produced from different plastics that affect human health through leaching of chemicals such as BPA as well as having poorer thermal qualities that could mean higher wastage from more coffee going cold before being used.

The body is the second largest, but again may be due just to it being the second largest component at 160g (25% of mass) but accounting for 19% - 29% of the impact - making it definitely a higher

priority to redesign than the Borosilicate - something not clear from the CES alone.

Use

12

simapro anaLysisfULL LCa resULts Using eCoindiCator 99


The LCA program SimaPro 8 has also been employed to conduct a study on the Cafetiere using its ‘level 3’ eco analysis tools:

The use phase is by far the highest environmental impact of the cafetiere, with the largest impact on the use of fossil fuels (~60%). This result is unsurprising as it is simply that of the power input and the effect mix associated with power stations to the consumer home through the UK power grid.

The materials and manufacture phases of the product life cycle are bundled together when analysed by SimaPro and constitute the second highest impact area. Thanks to the breakdown of effects per impact category that SimaPro provides it can be seen that respiratory inorganics are the largest impact of this category, about 50% of the use phase. Remarkably the manufacture scores higher in terms of impact than the use phase in Carcinogens, Respiratory organics and ecotoxicity.

In this analysis both transport stages and the disposal are remarkably low impact, demonstrating very clearly that there is only a very minor improvement opportunities to be found in redesigns

based on these stages alone.

Single Score Per Impact Category

13

An advantage of SimaPro is the flexibility of display. The previous graph provided a view on how the different life cycles have impacts as well as a breakdown on what those impacts are, the above details the causes of each type of environmental damage. Making it easier to see that minerals, land

use, carcinogens and ecotoxicity are caused overwhelmingly by the materials and manufacture.

Characterisation

Weighting Per Impact Category

14

Identifying the impact of the components is possible through a number of charts through SimaPro. The above illustrates a breakdown of the different environmental impact categories and the parts that are responsible - a particular strength of this method as it allows users who are looking to reduce a specific type of impact to see the main contributor part i.e. the carafe contributes the most

respiratory inorganics.

Components Normalisation Per Impact Category

Components Single Score Per Impact Category

15


The analysis clearly illustrates that the Carafe is the component with the highest impact, mostly to fossil fuels and respiratory inorganics, most likely down to the power intensive manufacture process

involved in borosillicates discussed earlier.

After the carafe is the body, which also has a large respiratory inorganic impact, partially due to the electroplating process used which involves both high energy input as well as the use of harsh chemicals. It is interesting to note that this process has only been used on two parts that should not come into contact with the coffee, due to the human health concerns associated with common types of chromium plating (Hexavalent Chromium Plating (Northeast Waste Management Officials

Association, 2003)) which may offer a possible opening for redesign.

A weakness of SimaPro is that its measurement of Pts without any comparative data does little to give the user a ‘real world’ point of reference. Meaning that the results shown are often of limited

use aside from comparatively between other studies conducted within the program.

SimaPro provides a diagram similar to the flow model. Line thickness illustrates the flow of environmental impacts its clear that the use phase contributes the vast majority. This diagram may

serve more complex products better.

Network

16

Energy and CO2 Footprint Summary:

Phase Energy (MJ) Energy (%) CO2 (kg) CO2 (%)Material 26.8 12.6 1.56 11.8Manufacture 6.92 3.3 0.53 4.0Transport 1.05 0.5 0.0743 0.6Use 177 83.6 11 83.6Disposal 0.13 0.1 0.00909 0.1Total (for first life) 212 100 13.2 100End of life potential 0 0

CO2 Details...

resULts ComparisonComparing Ces and simapro LCa findings


Comparing the results from CES and SimaPro, both produce a similar breakdown of impact/life cycle phase with the use phase dominating followed by materials and manufacture phases. Interestingly, it can be seen that this correlation would be even more obvious if the materials and manufacture stages were combined in the CES as they are in SimaPro.

This result is unsurprising as in both studies the impact of the energy used to boil the water is 177 MJ over its life and it would be expected that the impact values for materials and processes may be similar across programs.

Ces

SimaPro


The top graph shows the averaged materials and manufacture, CO2 and Energy impacts of each component as a percentage of the whole produced from the CES study (based from all 4 tables). The bottom graph shows the impact of each component as a percentage of the whole (based from the Comparison Single Score Graph). This was achieved through a simple excel document.

A clear correlation between the two graphs are shown there are some discrepancies; noticeably the handle - made from injection moulded HIPS. The CES rates it at 7.0025% of the overall impact of the product, where SimaPro rates it 3.95%. This may be due to CES’s lower detail material selection. Whilst SimaPro the selection of the particular type of HIPS (unfilled), the CES only accounts for a generalised HIPS which includes higher impact variants that include fillers.

Ces

SimaPro

17

tooL ComparisonComparing tHe Ces and simapro tooLs

Both tools allow users to select materials, manufacture and use processes through a similar methodology of selecting from lists of options and then utilising data about the impacts of those combinations to calculate the overall estimated impact of the product. A fact that means both tools are only as good as their respective databases which may become less accurate over time with

changes in manufacture and material production conditions.

The main differences between the two tools stem from the level of detail and time that is required to produce results. Whilst the CES has a number of levels of complexity to choose from (Eco Design Level 3 was chosen for this project), its input process is fast and inexpensive. Allowing for multiple variations to be created in quick succession whereas SimaPro tends to require a larger time investment and each change in design requires the analysis process to be altered and recalculated

in a manner that is little faster than starting a fresh study.

This may be due to differences in system boundaries within each tool, the CES calculates only the energy and CO2 impacts with each process SimaPro produces a more detailed breakdown of the environmental and human health impacts by category and substance to enable a far more complete view into the causes of each impact. For example using SimaPro is became clear that the use of Borosilicate required a large fossil fuel input due to boric acid, which further research revealed was due to the specialised machinery and higher temperatures required to manufacture than conventional glass. Both types however had surprisingly small data on manufacturing processes,

with ‘general metalworking’ and ‘plastic moulding’.

+ Fast, Inexpensive

- Only 2 measured impacts

+Separates materials and manufacture

- Graphs only for 2 overall impacts, tabular only for the rest

+ Clear PDF report style output.

- Time Consuming, Expensive

+ Measures 11 impact categories

- Combines both phases in graphs

+ Graphical or tabular display of nearly all data and data flows.

- Outputs exported individually as images, third party programs exist to compile them

automatically.

+ Detailed breakdown of substances.

+ ‘Network’ view to see the flow of impact and energy in the products life cycle.

18

SELF ACTUALIZATION

ESTEEM

SOCIAL NEEDS

SAFETY AND SECURITY

PHYSICAL NEEDS (SURVIVAL)

Creativity,Problem Solving,

Authenticity, Spontaneity

Self-Esteem, Confidence,Achievement

Friendship, Family

Air, Shelter, Water,Food, Sleep, Sex

HUman needs metwHat does tHe prodUCt do rigHt?

The Cafetiere or French press a method of producing filter coffee in an easy manner in the home and is a central part of many peoples morning routines (Statistics Brain, 2014). Its function is one that may be considered as a luxury due to the existence of instant coffee. So what human needs are met or enabled by this product when applied to Maslow’s hierarchy of need and the design

hierarchy?

Self Actualisation | CreativityUnifying the underlying levels of both design and human need hierarchies the cafetiere facilitates self actualisation mainly through its affiliation with coffee.

Esteem | ProficiencyUsing perceived high value materials such as stainless steel and glass coupled with the prevailing schema of cafetieres and similar as a highly cultured, ‘coffee house’ to the user this product promotes esteem via association with this ‘cultured ritual’.

Social Needs | UsabilityOf all the methods of coffee making the cafetiere thanks to its size allows for the greatest amount of social interaction - allowing up to 5 people to communally make and drink coffee together from a single product.

Safety & Security Needs | ReliabilityDue to its direct force mechanical action with hard wearing materials the product meets security needs through its performance security over a long life span.a

Physical Needs | FunctionalityThe product infuses the taste of coffee grounds into water to provide a popular hot beverage for many people for sustenance and in some cases - protection from cold.

19

3

2

1

+

sUggested eCo improvementsin wHat way Can tHe HUman needs CoULd Be met witH improved

environmentaL performanCe?

Design For Behaviour ChangeServing Guidance to Reduce Wastage

The cafetiere holds 5.5 cups of coffee, and no guides on how much water is required. Markings informing the user about their usage and serving sizes in particular should mean less water to be boiled unnecessarily - reducing wasted energy.

Strengths: Low cost, understandable measurements, effects the most pressing life cycle phase.

Weaknesses: Variations in serving sizes, may not actually reduce the water boiled.

Reduction Of Scale Reducing the Maximum Capacity

Reducing the size of the cafetiere the materials and processes are reduced. At present users may tend to fill the product to capacity will cause at least 0.5 servings (90ml) of wastage. Reducing maximum capacity to one that closer fits

the serving size this wastage could also be minimised.

Strengths: Reduced material / manufacture, reduced risk of overfilling,

Weaknesses: Wide variations in serving size may nullify some potential benefits, ergonomic considerations in

handle, possible reduction in perceived value.

Lower Impact Material SelectionsReplacing Borosilicate And Steel

A small reduction per unit, over the total volume the materials can produce a cumulative effect. Both borosilicate and steel have high imbued energy. Borosilicate suffers issues with recycling and does not degrade (Recycle Now 2014) constituting 44.3% of the products mass. Replacing that with a recyclable or degradable alternative presents

itself as an obvious improvement.

Strengths: Biggest changes available by mass, opens up possibilities for other redesign elements

Weaknesses: Danger of adverse effects on value perception.

Parts ReductionMerge Body + Carafe

Replacing the carafe with a corn starch based plastic in particular opens the ability to condense two largest parts into a single part reducing weight and assembly through moulding. A single part with ribs can perform the functions of both the body and the carafe. Biopolymers: PLA, PHA,

PCL.

Strengths: Lowering of total cost, reduction in assembly, reduction in transport weight, cheaper replacement parts.

Weaknesses: Risk of lack of value perception, lowering of emotional attachment, risk of depreciation (i.e scratching),

requires industrial compost settings to degrade.

20

+

Improve Thermal CharacteristicsThicker or Vacuum Walls

Wasted energy from boiling water cooling over time prevents a user from getting more than one coffee from a single use. Most of this heat energy will be lost through conduction and radiation. Ergo utilising a thicker, more thermally insulating material or even a vacuum barrier as in

thermal flasks may reduce risk.

Strengths: Some reduction in wastage, extends use phase unit, can be used in moderation to achieve some benefits.

Weaknesses: High initial cost, increased material usage, possibly a minor effect, does not account for convection.

Product Life OptimisationPaper Filters

The key component of the product is the mesh filter that presses through the coffee. This assembly must be dismantled and washed individually, often this part becomes warped and worn. Paper filters of this size can be reused and 3000 of them are equal in paper to a single

newspaper (Aerobie, 2014).

Strengths: Improved product performance (finer filter), easily recyclable, reduced weight, easier maintenance, less

water usage during maintenance.

Weaknesses: Consumable filters whilst low in initial impact may cumulatively surpass the existing steel mesh more and

more the longer the product life.

Reduce PartsSimplify Cup Assembly

Currently the cup assembly consists of 1 metal cup and 1 plastic insert fixed together by a long bolt and nut. This prevents some of the water from coming into contact with the metal cup but also forms a cavity that is difficult to wash. Replacing the finish of the steel with trivalent plating that has much lower human health impacts allows the removal

of the plastic insert and bolt assembly.

Strengths: 3 fewer parts (less material, less assembly), removes cavity to improve maintenance.

Weaknesses: Removing the top bolt may cause instability of the press during its operation as it also acted to guide the

straight downwards movement.

Parts ReductionMerge Body + Handle

As with merging the body and carafe, the switch of materials to a mouldable plastic also opens up the opportunity to mould in the handle as a single part also to create a unibody

design.

Strengths: Further reduction in parts and weight, single part requiring no disassembly for disposal.

Weaknesses: Lowering perceived quality of the main contact point, complex moulding required,

21

Social Change‘Enjoy Together’

Due to its size performs most efficiently serves more than a single user during any one use. A simple message printed on the side of the cafetiere in a subtle way could promote and encourage this kind of mode of use. Playing off of the emotional and social needs of the user and the existing

social schema around coffee.

Strengths: Possibly reduces units required, increases perceived value - one product many users.

Weaknesses: Marginally higher manufacture impact, very minimal change may make little difference, could detract

from quality if not done tastefully.

Emotionally Durable DesignFading Handle

Finish that age with wear fits well with the human needs of the cafetiere. A lightly painted plastic or anodized metal handle could fade over the products life as an indicator or how much use it has gone through with the user in the same

manner that anodized iPods were famed (Scott, 2011).

Strengths: Fostering an emotional attachment to the product that encourages retainment with repair and an

extended product life.

Weaknesses: Increased manufacturing process and/or higher impact materials most likely required, wear may

instead lead to premature disposal.

Layout AlterationAeropress Configuration

This layout is similar to that of an oversized syringe, pressing coffee through a paper filter directly down into a cup, greatly reducing its size and simplifies it to 4 parts. This plunger mechanism also cleans the inner tube making maintenance

a simple wipe of the base of the plunger after use.

Strengths: Extremely easy maintenance, no wasted water.

Weaknesses: Patented design, Can only serve a single user at a time, loses much of the cultural and aesthetic appeals

associated with traditional cafetieres.

22

redesign proposaLHow Can tHese improvements Best Be impLemented to Lower

tHe prodUCts environmentaL impaCt?

overviewIt was established from the previous analysis’ that the main areas of opportunity for improved environmentally sensitive design for the Cafetiere identified and addressed by the following redesign

elements were:

Serving MarkingsAs the wastage associated with the scale of the cafetiere and the difficulty translating how full it is to serving sizes by the user, the opportunity to pad print or etch serving sizes on the side of the carafe offers a low cost - high potential impact redesign opportunity.

The Use Phase. Any energy saving here through reduced wastage will repeat for the 780 uses.

• Design for behaviour change:

Materials / Manufacture Phase.• The Carafe And Body. The biggest contributors in this phase producing large amounts of

respiratory inorganics and fossil fuels due to energy intensive processing.• The Cup Assembly. The second largest subassembly, contributing a disproportionate

amount of fossil fuels and carcinogens as well as increasing the difficulty in maintenance (requiring some disassembly to properly clean.

23

Reduced ScaleThrough slight reductions in the size of all components around the product existing parts have been trimmed by ~10% reducing material and manufacture impacts as well as at least partially addressing the largest issue; the use phase.

Preserving ValueDrawing on research by coffee maker Aerobie (Aerobie 2010), the use of black-grey tinted clear and thick plastics preserves a the high class and value associated with coffee makers when replacing glass components.

Improved Cup Assembly1. Replaced bolt with silicon bush Allows for smooth press action from a single part rather than deep plunger bolt and nut.

2. Removed nut and insert. Enables cleaning of all areas (eliminates void that exists between insert and cup) so that maintenance can be carried out without disassembly.

3. Removed some material + improved maintenance. Trimmed near 5mm from base of cup through a simple alteration in from afforded by the moulded carafe. Removes cavity between insert and cup, allowing for easier maintenance as in 2.

4. Switched plating method. From Hexavalent to trivalent for its reduction in adverse human health effects and air emissions. (Northeast Waste Management Officials Association, 2003).

Redesigned Carafe BodyMerging both the two main components by mass and impact was a simple logical step. Reducing the combined mass from 446.5g of steel and glass to 134g of Polylactic acid (PLA) that requires low energy manufacture and can be composted. This should reduce respiratory inorganics over the steel body.

24

13

11

9

87

6

5

3

2

1

4

12

10

25

1 Carafe Polylactic Acid (PLA) Injection Moulding Pad Print134g

2 HandLe High Impact Polystyrene Injection Moulding24g

3 HandLe BoLt Martensitic Stainless Steel Rough Machining1.5g

4 HandLe nUt Martensitic Stainless Steel Rough Machining1.5g

5 Lower press Martensitic Stainless Steel Punch Welding21g

6 fiLter mesH Martensitic Stainless Steel Etching2g

7 press CoiL Martensitic Stainless Steel Extrusion Feeding Into Press21g

8 Upper press Martensitic Stainless Steel Injection Moulding12g

9 metaL CUp Steel Spinning Electroplating70g

10 CUp nippLe

11 press BoLt

12 press stem

Silicon (Unfilled)



Injection Moulding

Rough machining

Extrusion Rough Machining

1.1g

4.5g

20g

13 press BaLL High Impact Polystyrene Injection Moulding5g

new inventorypart, materiaL, weigHt & proCesses

26

simapro anaLysisfULL LCa of tHe redesign Using eCo indiCator 99


Using the mass data from the solidworks model of the final redesign a long with existing data from unaltered components a second SimaPro study was conducted.

Unfortunately due to the difficulty in measuring the success of designing for behaviour change (it can only be speculated how much the revised capacity and serving suggestions will actually alter the user behaviour and reduction in wastage) the use phase remains the same in this revision as to

ensure results are backed up by measurable data.

The most significant improvement measured by the LCA is the materials and manufacture phase as this is the most affected by the physical changes in the redesign, reducing from 0.41Pt in the original product to 0.27Pt after the changes have been implemented. A result mirrored by the final CES studies also completed that reported a reduction in materials and manufacture energy of

31.45% and CO2 of 32.35%.

Using the weighted per impact category graph it can be seen that these stages also found a drop in all impacts with the exception of a 5mPt rise in land use whereas the biggest reductions were in

respiratory inorganics and fossil fuels.

These results demonstrate the differences between SimaPro and CES in a redesign scenario as the CES functiioned well to complete multiple iterative variations with its easy to measure output, whereas SimaPro excelled at providing a detailed view of how a redesign affects individual impacts.

There is a very slight increase in the disposal phased due to ‘land use’ in municipal waste disposal. This may be due to the fact that to compost the PLA an industrial composter is required and instead

SimaPro has assumed the product will instead go wholly to landfill.

27

Single Score Per Impact Category

Weighted Per Impact Category

28


The SimaPro components analysis reveals how these environmental improvements have been made. It should be noted that the ‘Carafe’ referred to in these graphs is the whole redesigned

carafe/body element.

The carafe/body is still the component with the largest impact, especially in fossil fuels and respiratory inorganics. However these level are far reduced from those of the original, with an improvement in the parts overall impact across all categories of 64.62% (195mPt body + carafe combined down to

69mPt). In respiratory inorganics in particular a reduction of 85.52% has been recorded!

The reworked cup assembly has reduced the impact of the lid by 32.08% (Metal cup + insert + plunger nut + plunger bolt = 53mPt, Redesign cup nut and metal cup = 36mPt). To the extent that now the lid falls below the impact of the press assembly which was left unchanged due to its relatively low impact and high functional criticality. Reviewing these results however would direct further design towards searching for viable improvements to the press assembly (press stem, upper and lower

press) in regards to mineral use as well as respiratory inorganics and organics.

The silicon cup nut has a minor impact increase opposed to its previous steel construction. However this change in material is a requirement of removing both the plunger nut and the cup

insert, meaning that overall this still leads to an improvement on balance.

29

Components Weighting Per Impact Category

Components Single Score Per Impact Category

30

improvement & ConCLUsionif tHe projeCt woULd ContinUe, wHat fUrtHer improvements

CoULd Be made after tHe redesign LCa resULts?

ManufacturabilityThe current method of manufacture require a complex multi part mould to produce the I shaped feet of the body. Such a mould requires special machinery and a large impact (although this is outside of the system boundaries for both LCAs). By reducing the width of the feet and thickening

them into a solid I shape then a simpler mould will be sufficient to manufacture.

Carafe Material SelectionPET is inexpensive, widely recyclable and BPA free (important for plastics with food and drink) it is however known to leach hormone disrupters when heated. PLA was chosen to reduce risk with low energy input for manufacture (21MJ). It requires specialised composting treatment for disposal and is not BPS free (another health concern). Tritan, a copolyester without leachates , and can be widely recycled domestically could be used. It does however have a larger initial energy requirement (32MJ).

Carafe Travel Mug KitOptimising the products life through a small increase in material and manufacture input enables the body/carafe to be used with a sealed lid after a travel mug. In order to extend the time the coffee stays warm and drinkable, a thermal sleeve from a sustainable low impact material such as corn fibre could be included to improve user attachment as well reducing the wasted

coffee through extending each use cycle.

Concluding CommentsIt is clear from this project that both LCA tools are effective at their intended uses, with CES being best for snapshots of a products impact quickly during the design and development stages. SimaPro excels at providing a detailed view into the makeup of a product to identify improvement areas to

define design directions but also as a measure of success at the end of a project.

This exercise has demonstrated how in certain cases a products use phase may dwarf its other life cycle stages. In this case it both dominated the products impact but was also mostly controlled by the user behaviour that cannot be measured using LCA tools alone but also is dependent on the

efficiency of another product - in this case a kettle.

31

BiBLiograpHy

Data Sources:• Aerobie . 2010. R. Alexander Tennant - Q&A. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.aeropresscoffee.

co.uk/index.php/about-aeropress. [Accessed 18 February 14].• Aerobie. 2014. Filter FAQs. [ONLINE] Available at: http://aerobie.com/Products/Details/AeroPress-

FAQ.htm. [Accessed 19 February 14].• Coffee And Health. 2013. Types Of Various Coffee Beverages. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.

coffeeandhealth.ca/types.htm. [Accessed 15 February 14].• HyperPhysics. 2009. The Basics. [ONLINE] Available at: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/

thermo/spht.html. [Accessed 11 February 14].• Northeast Waste Management Officials Association. 2003. Trivalent Chromium Replacements for

Hexavalent Chromium Plating . [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/p2tech/TriChromeFinal.pdf. [Accessed 12 February 14].

• Real Coffee UK. 2014. Coffee Consumption Facts. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.realcoffee.co.uk/coffee-encyclopedia/trivia/consumption-facts/. [Accessed 12 February 14].

• Recycle Now. 2014. Glass Bottles Problems and Issues. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.recycle-now.com/how_is_it_recycled/glass_bottles.html. [Accessed 15 February 14].

• Scott, A, 2011. Living with designed objects: A qualitative analysis of iPod relationships. Designed Principles and Practices, Volume 5 Issue 6, 3.

• Statistics Brain. 2014. Coffee Drinking Statistics. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.statisticbrain.com/coffee-drinking-statistics/. [Accessed 11 February 14].

• The Coffee FAQ. 2013. The Basics. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.thecoffeefaq.com/1thebasics.html. [Accessed 12 February 14].

Images:• Allen, K, (2012), My French Press [ONLINE]. Available at: http://karenallenphotographyblog.com/

wp-content/uploads/2012/08/French-Press_001.jpg [Accessed 17 February 14].• Bodum, (2013), Travel Press 912m [ONLINE]. Available at: http://www.exploringelements.com/

wp-content/uploads/2013/07/FrenchPressStock-1.jpg [Accessed 17 February 14].• Bratcher, L, (2009), French Press Morning [ONLINE]. Available at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/luz-

bonita/3565904904/ [Accessed 18 February 14].• The Espresso Room, (2009), French Press [ONLINE]. Available at: http://cs409829.vk.me/

v409829217/860f/DGs0P4NRnyw.jpg [Accessed 17 February 14].

Original Single Score Per Impact Category

Original Weighting Per Impact Category

appendixsimapro resULts of originaL and redesign for Comparison

Redesign Single Score Per Impact Category

Redesign Weighted Per Impact Category

Original Components Normalisation Per Impact Category

Original Components Single Score Per Impact Category

Redesign Components Normalisation Per Impact Category

Redesign Components Single Score Per Impact Category

Brunel UniversitySchool Of Engineering And

Design

2014

Documents

Cafetiere Life Cycle Analysis and Redesign