Environmental product development: replacement of an epoxy-based coating by a polyester-based coating

  • Cecilia Askham



The purpose of this study is to document and assess the environmental impacts associated with two competing powder coating solutions using current life cycle assessment (LCA) methods and available data and to check whether there is a conflict between environmental performance and occupational health issues.

Materials and methods

Data have been gathered for the manufacture and application of the two different powder coatings. The case study is a cradle-to-gate study, using retrospective data. The data were entered into the SimaPro 7.2.4 LCA software and environmental impacts calculated using IPPC 2007, CML-IA and USEtox™ classification and characterisation methods. The USEtox methods were used both with and without interim factors, and this distinction was very important for the ranking of the alternatives. The study was performed using the functional unit: Surface treatment of the “foot-cross” of one H05 5300 office chair for 15 years (the lifetime of the chair), where the reference flow was 172 g of powder coating to fulfil this function.

Literature about the known health effects associated with chemicals in the two solutions was also consulted in order to assess whether the main concerns driving the desire to replace the epoxy-based powder coating have been addressed and improved through using the polyester-based alternative.

Results and discussion

The life cycle environmental impacts evaluated show improvements in the potential environmental impacts analysed due to the substitute polyester-based coating. The results for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity potentials are dependent on the inclusion of interim characterisation factors. Literature sources provide evidence of irritation and sensitisation effects associated with epoxy resin, but not for the polyester resin alternative.


Substitution of the epoxy-based coating by a polyester-based alternative reduces the occupational health risk for workers coming into contact with the powder coating. The results show that this substitution has also led to reduced potential environmental impacts: global warming, ozone depletion, photochemical oxidant creation, acidification, eutrophication, human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity, when the interim factors for some metals and organics are included in the USEtox calculations.


Case study Furniture Life cycle assessment Powder coatings USEtox 



The author gratefully acknowledges the important contributions made by the companies participating in the Innochem project: Jotun A/S and HÅG as, which have made this work possible, as well as the financial support provided by the Norwegian Research Council through the BIA program. Thanks also to Anne Lill Gade, Terje Wasvik, Ole Jørgen Hanssen and Per Christensen who have all made valuable comments to the manuscript, as well as colleagues in Ostfold Research who have been important discussion partners during this work.


  1. Baumann H, Tillman AM (2004) The hitch hiker’s guide to LCA: an orientation in life cycle assessment methodology and application. Studentlitteratur, LundGoogle Scholar
  2. CML (2010) CML-IA characterisation factors. Accessed 27 May 2010
  3. Commission of the European Communities (2007) Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC and 2000/21/EC. Off J Eur Union L 136 of 29.5.2007Google Scholar
  4. Crepy MN, Jonathan AM, Pera R, Choudat D (2006) Fleuriste: une exposition professionnelle inhabituelle aux resines epoxy. Arch Mal Prof et de l'Environ 67:639–642Google Scholar
  5. Diamond ML, Gandhi N, Adams WJ, Atherton J, Bhavsar SP, Bulle C, Campbell PGC, Dubreuil A, Fairbrother A, Farley K, Green A, Guinée J, Hauschild MZ, Huijbregts MAJ, Humbert S, Jensen KS, Jolliet O, Margni M, McGeer JC, Peijenburg WJGM, Rosenbaum R, van de Meent D, Vijver MG (2010) The clearwater consensus: the estimation of metal hazard in fresh water. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(2):143–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. EcoInvent (2011) Accessed 14 Mar 2011
  7. Ekvall T, Tillmann AM, Molander S (2005) Normative ethics and methodology for life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 13:1225–1234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elsevier (2010) Accessed May 2010
  9. European Commission (2010) International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook—general guide for life cycle assessment—detailed guidance. First edition March 2010. EUR 24708 EN. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability. Luxembourg. Publications Office of the European UnionGoogle Scholar
  10. Gamer AO, Nies E, Vohr H-W (2008) Local lymph node assay (LLNA): comparison of different protocols by testing skin-sensitizing epoxy resin system components. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 52:290–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gandhi N, Huijbregts MAJ, van de Meent D, Peijnenburg WJGM, Guinée J, Diamond ML (2011) Implications of geographic variability on comparative toxicity potentials of Cu, Ni and Zn in freshwaters of Canadian ecoregions. Chemosphere 82:268–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gloria T, Russell A, Atherton J, Baker S, Cook M (2010) Ecological toxicity methods and metals. An examination of two case studies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(1):26–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver A, Struijs J, van Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe 2008, A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level, First edition, Report I: characterisation. Accessed 27 May 2010
  14. HÅG (2009) Environmental Declaration HÅG H03 5300. Accessed 4 Nov 2010
  15. HÅG (2010) Accessed 26 May 2010
  16. Hanssen OJ (2010) Innochem, Ostfold Research. Accessed 15 Mar 2010
  17. IPPC (2007) IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, IPCC 2007 GWP 100a V1.02,
  18. Nereng G, Modahl IS (2007) Livsløpsdata for sitteløsninger fra HÅG - Bakgrunnsdata for miljødeklarasjon (EPD) av seks sitteløsninger (Life cycle data for HÅG’s seating solutions—background data for environmental product decrlaration (EPD) of six seating solutions), Ostfold Research, Norway, OR 23.07 (in Norwegian)Google Scholar
  19. Peristianis GC, Doak SMA, Cole PN, Hend RW (1988) Two-year carcinogenicity study on three aromatic epoxy resins applied cutaneously to CF1 mice. Food and Chem Toxicol 26:611–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pizzol M, Christensen P, Schmidt J, Thomsen M (2011) Impacts of “metals” on human health: a comparison between nine different methodologies for Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA). J Clean Prod 19(6–7):646–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Reap J, Roman F, Duncan S, Bras B (2008a) A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment, part 1: goal and scope and inventory analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:290–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Reap J, Roman F, Duncan S, Bras B (2008b) A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment, part 2: impact assessment and interpretation. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:374–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rialtech (2006) Material safety data sheet polyester fibre and resin, Performance Fibers, Inc., Virginia, USA, date of issue June 2006. Accessed 26 May 2010
  24. Rosenbaum RK, Bachmann TM, Gold LS, Huijbregts MAJ, Jolliet O, Juraske R, Koehler A, Larsen HF, MacLeod M, Margni M, McKone TE, Payet J, Schuhmacher M, van de Meent D, Hauschild MZ (2008) USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:532–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Spencer JA (2010a) Test report, test no. 00-2-037, 12/11/10. Slitasjetester av ulike lakktyper (Wear and tear tests for different types of coating, Norwegian) 10 000 cycles, Scandinavian Business SeatingGoogle Scholar
  26. Spencer JA (2010b) Test report, test no. 00-2-038, 16/11/10. Slitasjetester av ulike lakktyper (wear and tear tests for different types of coating, Norwegian) 100 000 cycles, Scandinavian Business SeatingGoogle Scholar
  27. System Three (2008) Material safety data sheet epoxy resin mixture, System Three, Washington, USA, date of issue August 2008. MSDS_SystemThree_Resin.pdf. Accessed 26 May 2010
  28. Tavakoli SM (2003) An assessment of skin sensitisation by the use of epoxy resin in the construction industry, Research Report 079, Health and Safety Executive. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, NorwichGoogle Scholar
  29. The Norwegian EPD Foundation (2008) Product category rules for preparing an Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) for product group seating solution, NPCR 0003, Revised version, October 2008Google Scholar
  30. Tillmann AM (2000) Significance of decision-making for LCA methodology. Environ Impact Assess Rev 20:113–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. USEtox (2010) The UNEP-SETAC consensus model for life-cycle toxic impacts on human health and ecosystems. Accessed 17 May 2010
  32. USEtox™ (2010) UNEP/SETAC model for the comparative assessment of chemicals released to air, water and soil and their toxic effects on the human population and ecosystems, USEtox™ 1.01, 15 February 2010Google Scholar
  33. West System Inc (2008) Material safety data sheet, epoxy resin, West System Inc., Michigan, USA, date of issue January 2005. Accessed 26 May 2010

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ostfold ResearchKråkerøyNorway

Personalised recommendations