| Literature DB >> 33286362 |
Alexis Lozano1, Pedro Cabrera2, Ana M Blanco-Marigorta3.
Abstract
Technological innovations are not enough by themselves to achieve social and environmental sustainability in companies. Sustainable development aims to determine the environmental impact of a product and the hidden price of products and services through the concept of radical transparency. This means that companies should show and disclose the impact on the environment of any good or service. This way, the consumer can choose in a transparent manner, not only for the price. The use of the eco-label as a European eco-label, which bases its criteria on life cycle assessment, could provide an indicator of corporate social responsibility for a given product. However, it does not give a full guarantee that the product was obtained in a sustainable manner. The aim of this work is to provide a way of calculating the value of the environmental impacts of an industrial product, under different operating conditions, so that each company can provide detailed information on the impacts of its products, information that can form part of its "green product sheet". As a case study, the daily production of a newspaper, printed by coldset, has been chosen. Each process involved in production was configured with raw material and energy consumption information from production plants, manufacturer data and existing databases. Four non-linear regression models have been trained to estimate the impact of a newspaper's circulation from five input variables (pages, grammage, height, paper type, and print run) with 5508 data samples each. These non-linear regression models were trained using the Levenberg-Marquardt nonlinear least squares algorithm. The mean absolute percentage errors (MAPE) obtained by all the non-linear regression models tested were less than 5%. Through the proposed correlations, it is possible to obtain a score that reports on the impact of the product for different operating conditions and several types of raw materials. Ecolabelling can be further developed by incorporating a scoring system for the impact caused by the product or process, using a standardised impact methodology.Entities:
Keywords: correlation; ecolabeling; life cycle assessment; non-linear regression models
Year: 2020 PMID: 33286362 PMCID: PMC7517125 DOI: 10.3390/e22050590
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Entropy (Basel) ISSN: 1099-4300 Impact factor: 2.524
Figure 1Life cycle of a printed newspaper. Figure inspired in [14].
Figure 2Flowchart of the main process units.
Sample of data recorded during the production process.
| Row | Pages | Grammage | Height | Paper Type | Print Run | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | (#) | (g/m2) | (mm) | (-) | (#) | (CO2 eq/kg) |
| 1 | 32 | 42 | 360 | 1 | 500 | 9.392 |
| 2 | 32 | 42 | 360 | 1 | 1000 | 5.506 |
| 3 | 32 | 42 | 360 | 1 | 2000 | 3.563 |
| ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ |
| 1102 | 32 | 45 | 420 | 2 | 30000 | 1.314 |
| 1103 | 32 | 45 | 420 | 2 | 31000 | 1.310 |
| 1104 | 32 | 45 | 420 | 2 | 32000 | 1.307 |
| ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ |
| 2203 | 48 | 42 | 390 | 4 | 9000 | 1.756 |
| 2204 | 48 | 42 | 390 | 4 | 10000 | 1.717 |
| 2205 | 48 | 42 | 390 | 4 | 11000 | 1.685 |
| ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ |
| 3304 | 48 | 48.8 | 390 | 1 | 39000 | 1.700 |
| 3305 | 48 | 48.8 | 390 | 1 | 40000 | 1.698 |
| 3306 | 48 | 48.8 | 390 | 1 | 41000 | 1.696 |
| ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ |
| 4405 | 64 | 45 | 360 | 3 | 18000 | 1.560 |
| 4406 | 64 | 45 | 360 | 3 | 19000 | 1.549 |
| 4407 | 64 | 45 | 360 | 3 | 20000 | 1.540 |
| ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ |
| 5506 | 64 | 48.80 | 420 | 4 | 4800 | 1.569 |
| 5507 | 64 | 48.80 | 420 | 4 | 4900 | 1.568 |
| 5508 | 64 | 48.80 | 420 | 4 | 5000 | 1.566 |
Figure 3Representation of each individual variable against the impact. Individual behaviour of impacts vs. (a) number of pages; (b) grammage; (c) heights (d) paper types and (e) print run.
Figure 4Method developed for testing each analysed model.
Figure 510-fold cross-validation applied to evaluate each model. (1) Data selection and cleaning; (2) data randomization by rows; (3) data division; (4) Cross-Validation; (5) Performance determination by metrics.
MAE results for each model in cross-validation.
| Iteration | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.094 | 0.038 | 0.036 | 0.039 |
| 2 | 0.087 | 0.037 | 0.038 | 0.035 |
| 3 | 0.084 | 0.031 | 0.037 | 0.034 |
| 4 | 0.084 | 0.034 | 0.036 | 0.038 |
| 5 | 0.088 | 0.039 | 0.035 | 0.035 |
| 6 | 0.091 | 0.039 | 0.043 | 0.037 |
| 7 | 0.092 | 0.040 | 0.038 | 0.038 |
| 8 | 0.091 | 0.039 | 0.037 | 0.033 |
| 9 | 0.087 | 0.033 | 0.036 | 0.039 |
| 10 | 0.087 | 0.041 | 0.034 | 0.040 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MAPE results for each model in cross-validation.
| Iteration | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5.106 | 1.836 | 1.601 | 1.640 |
| 2 | 5.193 | 1.765 | 1.690 | 1.590 |
| 3 | 4.836 | 1.672 | 1.703 | 1.570 |
| 4 | 4.990 | 1.700 | 1.564 | 1.689 |
| 5 | 5.033 | 1.747 | 1.593 | 1.615 |
| 6 | 5.157 | 1.833 | 1.765 | 1.613 |
| 7 | 5.015 | 1.847 | 1.663 | 1.757 |
| 8 | 5.087 | 1.803 | 1.665 | 1.478 |
| 9 | 5.012 | 1.769 | 1.578 | 1.793 |
| 10 | 5.118 | 1.776 | 1.640 | 1.703 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R-squared results for each model in cross-validation.
| Iteration | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.9848 | 0.9942 | 0.9934 | 0.9933 |
| 2 | 0.9840 | 0.9939 | 0.9932 | 0.9934 |
| 3 | 0.9853 | 0.9943 | 0.9930 | 0.9935 |
| 4 | 0.9851 | 0.9942 | 0.9934 | 0.9936 |
| 5 | 0.9853 | 0.9941 | 0.9933 | 0.9936 |
| 6 | 0.9845 | 0.9943 | 0.9935 | 0.9931 |
| 7 | 0.9843 | 0.9944 | 0.9933 | 0.9933 |
| 8 | 0.9845 | 0.9942 | 0.9934 | 0.9932 |
| 9 | 0.9848 | 0.9941 | 0.9938 | 0.9934 |
| 10 | 0.9848 | 0.9941 | 0.9931 | 0.9932 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 6Average MAE metric results and standard deviations after 10-fold cross-validation.
Figure 7Average MAPE metric results and standard deviations after 10-fold cross-validation.
Figure 8Average R2 metric results and standard deviations after 10-fold cross-validation.
Figure 9Values of observed impact data and impact data estimated by Model 4.
β parameters obtained for each model.
| β Parameter | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| β1 | 0.387 | −0.377 | 0.911 | 0.917 |
| β2 | 0.386 | −0.401 | 0.143 | 0.142 |
| β3 | 0.018 | 0.000 | 0.574 | 0.573 |
| β4 | 0.405 | 28.607 | −32.838 | −35.833 |
| β5 | −0.088 | −1.296 | 0.000 | 3280.310 |
| β6 | 0.417 | 7.487 | 3287.628 | −0.996 |
| β7 | −0.082 | −0.271 | −0.996 | - |
| β8 | 0.283 | 0.142 | - | - |
| β9 | −45,785,423.699 | 0.573 | - | - |
| β10 | 3345.275 | −7210.433 | - | - |
| β11 | −0.999 | 0.000 | - | - |
| β12 | - | 3368.258 | - | - |
| β13 | - | −1.000 | - | - |