Sustainability 10 02821 v2

sustainability
Article
Product Design Evaluation Using Life Cycle
Assessment and Design for Assembly: A Case Study
of a Water Leakage Alarm
Tatbita Titin Suhariyanto 1 , Dzuraidah Abd Wahab 1, * ID
and Mohd Nizam Ab Rahman 2
1 Centre for Integrated Design of Advanced Mechanical Systems (PRISMA), Faculty of Engineering and
Built Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia;
[email protected]
2 Centre for Materials Engineering and Smart Manufacturing (MERCU), Faculty of Engineering and
Built Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected] or [email protected]

Received: 19 June 2018; Accepted: 5 August 2018; Published: 9 August 2018
Abstract: This study proposed the use of an LCA supported by a design efficiency evaluation based
on Design for Assembly principles to reduce the environmental impact of a product. To illustrate
the methodology, a water leakage alarm (WLA) was selected as the object for a case study. Based on
the identification and evaluation of the LCA results, it was inferred that the stage with the
highest environmental impact was the manufacturing stage (75.35%), followed by the use stage
(23.88%), the disposal of the WLA (0.64%), and finally, the disposal of the batteries (0.14%). For the
manufacturing stage, the most interrelated categories were the hazardous waste and human toxicity,
while the use stage was the main contributor to ozone depletion and acidification. Moreover,
the disposal of the WLA and batteries contributed to the bulk waste. Furthermore, from the assembly
evaluation, the design efficiency of the product was 14%. Two recommendations for improving the
design of the WLA were: (1) to reduce the number of screws from three units to one unit, and (2)
to eliminate the use of a cable and to replace it with a wireless component. By implementing both
the proposed recommendations, the design efficiency was improved by as much as 34%. From the
environmental perspective, there is not much difference between the wired alarm and wireless
alarm. The wired alarm was considered to be more environmentally friendly in terms of product
manufacturing but the wireless alarm has an advantage in terms of design and energy efficiency.
By combining LCA and DFA design evaluation, a more comprehensive perspective of the product
life cycle can be achieved.
Keywords: life cycle assessment; design for assembly; design efficiency; sustainable strategy
1. Introduction
Sustainability, which is regarded as a universal challenge for industrial sectors, calls for
comprehensive action towards the employment of sustainable strategies [1]. These strategies are aimed
at enhancing the environmental, economic, and social factors of business processes and products to
support stakeholders in making the right choices and best decisions [2]. They promise an increase
in both tangible and intangible benefits to firms due to several reasons: acceleration in the time
taken for the products to reach the market, reduction of regulatory constraints, increase in consumer
demands, decrease in manufacturing costs and liabilities, improvements in employee health and safety,
and increase in the value-added delivery of the products to consumers [3].
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2821; doi:10.3390/su10082821 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2018, 10, 2821 2 of 26
However, many manufacturers are not concerned with the sustainability aspect of their products,
especially the increasing environmental impacts brought about by industrial activities. As much as
75% of the material resources used in products and their manufacturing processes are disposed in
the environment as waste within a year [4]. Furthermore, the development of industrial activities has
contributed to an increase in global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. According to Reference [5], 65%
of GHG emissions are caused by industrial processes and the use of fossil fuels. Moreover,
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 25
the quantity
of generated e-waste globally was around 41.8 million tonnes in 2014 [6]. This figure will continue to
However, many manufacturers are not concerned with the sustainability aspect of their
rise along with products,
humanespeciallyproductivity andenvironmental
the increasing technological innovations.
impacts Based
brought about by on activities.
industrial Reference As [7], up to 90%
of the world’s e-waste
much as 75% is illegally traded
of the material or dumped
resources each and
used in products year.
their manufacturing processes are
disposed in the environment as waste within a year [4]. Furthermore, the development of industrial
The aboveactivities
conditions must first be addressed by evaluating the environmental performance of
has contributed to an increase in global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. According to
products. To date, a systematic
Reference [5], 65% of GHG assessment
emissions aretool which
caused has the
by industrial potential
processes to of
and the use deal
fossilwith
fuels. the problem is
Moreover, the quantity of generated e-waste globally was around 41.8 million tonnes in 2014 [6]. This
the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). The LCA is a quantitative approach to evaluate the environmental
figure will continue to rise along with human productivity and technological innovations. Based on
impacts of products
Reference based
[7], up on international
to 90% standards,
of the world’s e-waste is illegallyi.e., the
traded or International
dumped each year. Standards Organisation
(ISO) [8]. It has been adopted by a number of corporationsenvironmental
The above conditions must first be addressed by evaluating the and non-profitperformance of
organisations as a
products. To date, a systematic assessment tool which has the potential to deal with the problem is
support tool totheachieve several purposes, such as strategic planning, product
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). The LCA is a quantitative approach to evaluate the environmental design improvement,
and marketing impacts
[8,9]. of products based on international standards, i.e., the International Standards Organisation
(ISO) [8]. It has been adopted by a number of corporations and non-profit organisations as a support
The LCA tool
is atouseful tool for the promotion of environmentally-conscious products. It has
achieve several purposes, such as strategic planning, product design improvement, and
been studied and implemented
marketing [8,9]. extensively by many researchers [10–14]. From the LCA results,
The LCA is a useful tool for the promotion of environmentally-conscious products. It has been
many stakeholders will be able to identify opportunities for improvements and to determine the
studied and implemented extensively by many researchers [10–14]. From the LCA results, many
appropriate sustainable
stakeholders strategies.
will be able to The LCAopportunities
identify emphasises for environmental
improvements and to impacts
determine assessments
the which
appropriate sustainable strategies. The LCA emphasises
occur at all stages of the life cycle of a product, as shown in Figure 1. environmental impacts assessments which
occur at all stages of the life cycle of a product, as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Product Life Cycle.

Figure 1. Product Life Cycle.
When it comes to sustainability, how a product ends its life is just as critical as how it is produced
from the extraction of the raw materials, the manufacturing process, the distribution, and finally, its
When it comes to sustainability, how a product ends its life is just as critical as how it is produced
use. Therefore, the concept of 6Rs (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Recover, Redesign, and Remanufacture)
from the extraction of the raw
was introduced materials,
to minimise the manufacturing
the environmental process,
burden of a product the
in the distribution,
whole and finally, its use.
life cycle [4]. This
concept can be implemented in the early design stage, and it improves the product design, changing
Therefore, the concept of 6Rs (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Recover, Redesign, and Remanufacture) was
it from a “cradle-to-grave” to a “cradle-to-cradle” design. Its aim is to support a sustainable product
introduced to minimise
design which the environmental
is focused burden of a product in the whole life cycle [4]. This concept
on post-use treatments.
Unfortunately, the LCA
can be implemented in the early design stage, and methodology stillit neglects
improves the aspect of product
the product design changing
design, and it from a
development (PDD). Although PDD has an important role in maintaining the sustainable
“cradle-to-grave” to a “cradle-to-cradle” design. Its aim is to support a sustainable
development of a product as a whole [15,16], the application of the LCA to PDD has not been critically product design
which is focused on post-use
addressed, and has treatments.
been given little consideration in LCA researches [17,18]. Therefore, this paper
proposed the use of LCA supported by a design efficiency evaluation to reduce the overall
Unfortunately, the LCA methodology still neglects the aspect of product design and development
environmental impacts of a product. This concept is generally referred to as “eco-design”. Integrating
(PDD). Although PDD has
eco-design an important
into PDD role in
offers several benefits maintaining
to the the sustainable
industry and public development
organisations such as economic of a product
benefits, legislation fulfilment, public image improvement, and employee motivation enhancement
as a whole [15,16], the application of the LCA to PDD has not been critically addressed, and has
been given little consideration in LCA researches [17,18]. Therefore, this paper proposed the use
of LCA supported by a design efficiency evaluation to reduce the overall environmental impacts of
a product. This concept is generally referred to as “eco-design”. Integrating eco-design into PDD
offers several benefits to the industry and public organisations such as economic benefits, legislation
fulfilment, public image improvement, and employee motivation enhancement [19]. Eco-design must
be integrated into the strategic planning and operational management to gain these advantages [19].
The aim of this paper was to deploy the “redesign” concept based on the results of the LCA.
Redesign refers to activities that are aimed at simplifying the existing design of a product to facilitate
future post-use activities [4]. Up to now, the application of the LCA results has been generally limited
to improving a particular stage of a product, and the results have yet to be used to establish a more
environmentally-conscious design.
In this study, a design efficiency evaluation was conducted based on the Design for Assembly
(DFA) method which can also be called an assembly efficiency method [20]. This method effectively
analyses the ease of assembly and disassembly, identifies assembly problem areas, and recommends
some alternative designs for simplifying the product structure. In the long term, the implementation of
the DFA method can contribute to a reduction in manufacturing and assembly costs. When a product
can be assembled and disassembled easily, the chances for it to be reused or recycled will increase,
and further reductions in environmental impacts can be achieved.
In the rest of the paper, Section 2 presents the literature review regarding the use of the life cycle
technique and the principles for designing a product. Section 3 explains the materials and methodology
used in this study. To illustrate the methodology, a water leakage alarm (WLA) was selected as the
object for a case study, which is extensively discussed in Sections 4 and 5. Section 4 explains the results
of LCA study of the product, while Section 5 presents the discussion of life cycle interpretation and
design efficiency evaluation. Lastly, Section 6 summarises the conclusions and contributions of the
study, as well as recommendations for further researches.
2. Literature Review
The use of the life cycle technique to support PDD has attracted many researchers. In recent years,
many studies have been undertaken to realise that objective [21–27]. Case studies have been chosen by
some researchers to present the chances for obtaining the first insight with detailed understanding into
a particular field [28]. Each case study contributes to a specific knowledge and practice. The selected
object for a case study is considered to be able to illustrate the proposed methodology, and is also
related to the problem of interest. For example, some researchers select electronic products as the
objects for their case study in order to focus on improving the use and design of a product. On the
other hand, when the problem of interest is focused on material and EOL design, some researchers
tend to select polymer-based products.
As summarised in Table 1, the review highlighted the main points which are important in
developing a product design by incorporating it within the life cycle technique. Some researchers
often use the life cycle technique and design principles separately. The Design for Disassembly (DFD),
Design for Modularity (DFM), Design for Recycle (DFR), and Design for Environment (DFE) are among
several methods that are often used to evaluate product designs. However, these approaches are still
considered to be less satisfactory because a specific design principle usually only focuses on a specific
problem. On the other hand, some researchers particularly use the life cycle technique to evaluate
the environmental impacts of the products. The most commonly used life cycle technique is the LCA.
This technique can help designers to analyse potential improvements to minimise the environmental
impacts of products, establish new product designs, and compare a number of products [29,30].
However, this technique only focuses on the environmental aspects, while neglecting the others.
To overcome the limitations of the LCA, some researchers extended the conventional LCA.
For example, the Life Cycle Reliability Assessment (LCRA) is a Bayesian model updating approach,
which includes a reliability assessment for the development of new products [31]. Also, the Life Cycle
Design Assessment (LCDA) is an approach to product assessment that deals with technological changes
and increasing volume using an axiomatic design theory [32]. The Life Cycle Simulation (LCS) is also
a method that was proposed to minimise environmental loads and resource consumption through
simulation modelling [33]. Even though these techniques are more advanced than the conventional
LCA, researchers may face difficulties with the product architecture when it comes to improving the
product design. To deal with that problem, some researchers have combined other life cycle techniques with
some design principles. By integrating a specific life cycle technique and design principle, they have
been able to develop a new product design with lower negative impacts across the life cycle.
Some researchers often use the LCA accompanied by the DFE. In practical terms, the DFE,
coupled with a reasonable use of the LCA, is an effective tool for achieving a sustainable product
design [34]. Moreover, the DFE is also often paired with other life cycle techniques, such as the life cycle
planning (LCP), life cycle design (LCD), and life cycle engineering (LCE) methods. Unlike the LCA,
the LCP considers the whole life cycle of a product and fulfils customer satisfaction by establishing
an eco-design product. The LCP, which is supported by a Quality Function Deployment (QFD) for
the generation of customer requirements and an LCPlanner software to assess the environmental
impacts [35], is presented as a new approach for multigenerational product planning [36]. Even though
this method presents a comprehensive design concept, the software is difficult to access and the
methodology has a limited environmental assessment. In addition, the Life Cycle Modelling for
Design (LCMD) was also introduced by combining the LCA with a probabilistic design method to
cope with the complexity of a product and various design options [37]. Later on, a method which
focused on a modular design and geometric modelling to differentiate the life cycle options was
proposed by Umeda et al. [25]. Furthermore, some researchers included other supporting methods
to enhance their methodologies, such as the combination of the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process
(FAHP) method and the LCD to evaluate product maintainability based on the product life cycle [22]
and the introduction of the Knowledge-based Approximate Life Cycle Assessment System (KALCAS)
to improve environmental efficiency using artificial neural networks [23]. However, the integration of
specific methods is relatively complex and difficult to implement in other problems.
Since both the DFE and LCA are focused on the environmental aspect of a product, this integration
method lacks the ability to capture other aspects of a product, such as operation time, cost and quality.
To fill the gap in previous studies, this paper proposed a combination of the LCA technique with the
DFA to improve the design of a product. This was also due to a few studies that combined the LCA
and DFA to support the PDD. These methods of incorporation are expected to evaluate both the life
cycle and design efficiency aspects.
Disassembly and reassembly are the most critical factors for improving the efficiency of the reuse
or remanufacturing of products [38]. The time taken for the disassembly process should be minimised
using DFD guidelines, while the reassembly should refer to DFA guidelines. Mostly, a product which
is designed to be easily assembled can also be easily disassembled [39]. Kaebernick and Kara [40]
stated that the technical and economic problems of production can be reduced significantly if a product
is properly designed for assembly and disassembly. DFA and DFD studies were conducted by several
researchers such as Bevilacqua et al. [9], Bogue [41], Bras [42], Go et al. [43], and Kaebernick and
Kara [40]. Bevilacqua et al. [9] discussed the Hitachi Group Eco-design Management Guidelines,
which identified the environmental attributes of these requirements, such as energy efficiency, ease of
disassembly and disposal, and the effects of these attributes. Bogue [41] highlighted the importance of
the DFD concept and identified the key DFD principles. Bras [42] provided an overview of an industry,
including a typical facility-level process, and discussed the qualitative design for remanufacturing
guidelines, which also included the DFA and DFD. Go et al. [43] presented a review of several
disassembly methods and concluded that there was a need for an effective disassembly method in
order to enhance the recovery of the products. Finally, Kaebernick and Kara [40] discussed several
disassembly processes in recycling and reusing technologies to reduce the production of new materials
by bringing in used materials.
In summary, Otto and Wood [39] divided the DFA guidelines into several categories: system
design guidelines that reduce assembly, ease of handling of the required parts, ease of insertion of
the parts during assembly, and ease of the actual attachment and joining methods. In this study,
the implementation of these guidelines were enriched by the application of the DFA guidelines by
Boothroyd et al. [20]. The experiment on the DFA guidelines will be discussed in detail in Section 5.
Table 1. Related Literature Review in Life Cycle Assessment and Product Design.
Author Case-Study Object Problem of Interest Objective Life Cycle Technique Design Principles Supporting Method Supporting Software
Material; Probabilistic
Fitch and Cooper [37] Automotive car Present LCMD methodology LCMD - -
manufacturing design methods
Quality; cost; Present LCP methodology and
Kobayashi [35] Personal computers LCP DFE QFD LCPlanner software
environmental aspect software tool
Cost and design Assess the environmental impacts
Park and Seo [23] Refrigerator LCA DFE KALCAS -
efficiency using KALCAS
Propose a general design
Sakao [24] Hair dryer Product design; use methodology to support LCA DFE QFDE; TRIZ -
environmentally conscious design
Propose a method for determining
Umeda et al. [25] Printer Product design LCD DFM - -
modular structure
Propose green design of reusable
Tchertchian et al. [44] Espresso machines Cost; design; use modules with environmental and LCA DFM - -
economic evaluations
Gantry machining Present a BMUA for life cycle
Peng et al. [31] Product reliability LCRA - BMUA -
centre reliability assessment
Propose a new approach to product
Economic and Axiomatic design
Kim et al. [32] Battery technologies assessment for technology changes LCDA - -
environmental aspects theory
and increasing volume
Describe the LCE of an integrated
Integrated desktop Material; use; service;
Fitzpatrick et al. [21] desktop computer system from the LCE DFE; DFD - -
personal computer EOL
perspective of an SME
Develop an assessment tool based on Stage-Gate model;
three methods to be used by Toyota’s set-based
Souza and Borsato [45] Automobile seat EOL LCA DFE SimaPro
enterprises, with three increasing approach; sustainable
sustainability levels to be selected principles
Propose a method for modelling both
Matsuyama et al. [33] Smartphone Material; service; EOL nominal information of a product life LCD; LCS - CAD -
cycle and the entity information
Table 1. Cont.
Author Case-Study Object Problem of Interest Objective Life Cycle Technique Design Principles Supporting Method Supporting Software
Propose a concept and connotation of
Jian et al. [22] Loader’s transmission All life cycle stages product maintainability combined LCD DFLC FAHP -
with actual demand
All life cycle stages; Propose a product development
Solar tracker;
Lacasa et al. [46] Economic and social methodology that includes LCA DFE Engineering metrics -
isothermal container
aspects traditional design criteria
Note: BMUA (Bayesian Model Updating Approach); CAD (Computer Aided Design); DFD (Design for Disassembly); DFLC (Design for Life Cycle); DFM (Design for Modularity); DFE
(Design for Environment); DFR (Design for Recycle); FAHP (Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process); KALCAS (Knowledge-based Approximate Life Cycle Assessment System); LCA (Life
Cycle Assessment); LCD (Life Cycle Design); LCDA (Life Cycle Design Assessment); LCE (Life Cycle Engineering); LCMD (Life Cycle Modelling for Design); LCP (Life Cycle Planning);
LCRA (Life Cycle Reliability Assessment); LCS (Life Cycle Simulation); QFD (Quality Function Deployment); QFDE (Quality Function Deployment for Environment); SME (Small Medium
Enterprises) TRIZ (Theory of Inventive Problem Solving).
3. Materials and Methods

3. Materials and Methods
This research consists of three important phases. Each phase indicates the use of different methods
This research consists of three important phases. Each phase indicates the use of different
or methods
techniques which results in different outputs (see Figure 2). Before conducting the LCA study,
or techniques which results in different outputs (see Figure 2). Before conducting the LCA
thestudy,
first step
the was to identify
first step was tothe product
identify the system
productand the performance
system measurement.
and the performance Data were
measurement. Datacollected
were
from primary and secondary sources namely observation and literature, which includes
collected from primary and secondary sources namely observation and literature, which includes material and
energy consumption, the used process technology, and the product specification. Once data
material and energy consumption, the used process technology, and the product specification. Once input was
completed,
data inputthewaspotential environmental
completed, the potentialimpacts of the existing
environmental impactsproduct were assessed
of the existing product according to the
were assessed
LCA framework.
according to the LCA framework.
START
Identify the product
Collect product data
Material Energy Process Product

consumption consumption technology specification
Assess the potential environmental

impacts of the product using LCA
Life Cycle
Environmental
Assessment
impact results
modelling
Phase 1
Evaluate the existing product design

using Design for Assembly
Propose new product design

Phase 2
A quantitative comparison between the

existing and the new product design
using LCA
Improve? No
Yes
Analyse the findings
Conclude and summarise the overall

research
END Phase 3
Figure 2. Research Methodology.

Figure 2. Research Methodology.
As shown in Figure 3, the LCA methodology consists of four steps, namely the definition of
the goal and scope, inventory analysis or life cycle inventory (LCI), life cycle impact assessment
As shown in Figure 3, the LCA methodology consists of four steps, namely the definition of the
goal and scope, inventory analysis or life cycle inventory (LCI), life cycle impact assessment (LCIA),
(LCIA),
and and life
life cycle cycle interpretation.
interpretation. In and
In the goal the goal
scope and scope definition,
definition, the purposethe and
purpose andof
method method
an LCA ofare
an
LCA are defined clearly and unambiguously. It also provides an obvious description
defined clearly and unambiguously. It also provides an obvious description of the product system of the product
systemconsists
which which of consists
systemofboundaries
system boundaries and functional
and functional unit. step
unit. The second The issecond step is
LCI, which is LCI, which
the process
is the process of identifying and quantifying energy consumption and released
of identifying and quantifying energy consumption and released emissions during the entire life emissions during
the entire
cycle life cycleThis
of a product. of aphase
product. This several
compiles phase compiles
data; such several
as the data;
amountsuch as the amount
of energy, of energy,
the consumption
thematerial,
of consumption and the of material,
quantity ofand the quantity
emissions. The of emissions.
third The third
step namely LCIA,step namely
is aimed atLCIA, is aimed
evaluating the
at evaluating the environmental impacts of products based on LCI results
environmental impacts of products based on LCI results within the given project scope and within the given project
to
scope and to
determine thedetermine the relative of
relative importance importance of each elementary
each elementary flow withinflow within
a given a given environmental
environmental problem.
problem.the
Finally, Finally, the lastofphase
last phase LCAofconsists
LCA consists
of theofsummary
the summary of LCI
of LCI analysis
analysis andand LCIA
LCIA asasa abasis
basis for
for
conclusions, recommendations, and decision making in compliance with
conclusions, recommendations, and decision making in compliance with the goal and scope the goal and scope definition.
This study This
definition. usedstudy
SimaPro usedPh.D. version
SimaPro as the
Ph.D. software
version as theto build the to
software LCA model
build the and
LCAtomodel
generate
andtheto
results of the environmental impacts.
generate the results of the environmental impacts.
Goal and Scope

Definition
1
Inventory
Analysis
2 Interpretation 4
Impact
Assessment
3
Figure 3. The
The LCA
LCA Framework.
Framework.
The second phase was to evaluate the design efficiency based on the DFA method. Since LCA
The second phase was to evaluate the design efficiency based on the DFA method. Since LCA
only focuses on the environmental impacts of the product, this methodology usually neglects the
only focuses on the environmental impacts of the product, this methodology usually neglects the
design aspects of the product. Therefore, LCA and DFA were combined to assess both the aspects of
design aspects of the product. Therefore, LCA and DFA were combined to assess both the aspects
environmental performance and product design. In redesigning the product, the guidelines from
of environmental performance and product design. In redesigning the product, the guidelines from
Boothroyd et al. [20] were applied in order to establish a more environmentally-conscious product.
Boothroyd et al. [20] were applied in order to establish a more environmentally-conscious product.
Moreover, by implementing DFA, the cost and operation time of the new product design were
Moreover, by implementing DFA, the cost and operation time of the new product design were expected
expected to be reduced.
to be reduced.
Finally, in the third phase, the existing design was compared to the new design quantitatively
Finally, in the third phase, the existing design was compared to the new design quantitatively
using LCA. From this phase, the environmental impacts of both designs can be compared and
using LCA. From this phase, the environmental impacts of both designs can be compared and
analysed to understand which design is more environmentally friendly. By combining LCA and
analysed to understand which design is more environmentally friendly. By combining LCA and
design evaluation, a more comprehensive perspective of the product life cycle can be achieved so as
design evaluation, a more comprehensive perspective of the product life cycle can be achieved so as to
to promote a sustainable product design.
promote a sustainable product design.
The materials of the case example used in this study were identified based on a direct observation
of the product in order to determine the used product materials and the processes involved, which are
explained in detail in Section 4.2. The LCA modelling process was performed using SimaPro software
The materials of the case example used in this study were identified based on a direct
observation of the product in order to determine the used product materials and the processes
involved, which are explained in detail in Section 4.2. The LCA modelling process was performed
using
Ph.D. SimaPro software
version which Ph.D. version
is integrated withwhich is integrated
the Ecoinvent with the
database. Ecoinvent
This databasedatabase.
contains This database
all the inputs
contains
for making all athe inputsor
product forservice
making a product or service [47].
[47].
To illustrate
illustrate the methodology, an an electronic
electronic safety
safety product, specifically a water leakage alarm
(WLA), was chosen
(WLA), chosen as
as the object
object for
for a case study (see Figure
Figure 4).
4). It consists of two main parts: an alarm
and a sensor. This product functions as a detector of of water
water leakage
leakage in in bathrooms
bathrooms or or water
water reservoirs.
reservoirs.
When a leak
leakoccurs,
occurs,ititwill
willbebedetected
detected bybythethe
sensor,
sensor,which
whichwillwill
alert the the
alert useruser
through its sound.
through The
its sound.
alarm
The was selected
alarm for this
was selected forstudy because
this study it is frequently
because used inused
it is frequently homes or public
in homes or places
public (e.g.,
places hotels,
(e.g.,
hospitals, etc.), and
hotels, hospitals, consumes
etc.), electricity
and consumes duringduring
electricity its use-phase.
its use-phase.
Figure 4. WLA disassembly.
In this paper,
In this paper, the
the results
results of
of LCA
LCA are
are presented
presented inin Section
Section 4.4. Next,
Next, the DFA methodology
the DFA methodology and
and
design
design improvements are discussed in detail in Section 5. In Section 6, several recommendations are
improvements are discussed in detail in Section 5. In Section 6, several recommendations are
proposed
proposed toto improve
improve the
the product
product design
design and
and to
to discuss
discuss the
the comparison
comparison between
between the
the existing
existing product
product
design product and
design product and the
the proposed
proposed new
new design.
design. At
At the
the end
end ofof the
the paper,
paper, aa general
general conclusion
conclusion from
from the
the
study and recommendations for future work are
study and recommendations for future work are proposed.proposed.
4. Results of Life Cycle Assessment

In the next subsection, each stage of the LCA will be discussed
discussed in
in detail.
detail.
4.1. Goal and Scope Definition

The goal of this study was to evaluate
evaluate the environmental
environmental performance and identify the critical
point in the life cycle of the WLA. The next step was to determine
determine the scope, which consisted of the
functional unit (FU), reference flow (RF), and the product system [8,29]. The FU must contain three
aspects: the
the magnitude
magnitude of of the
the product,
product, the
the duration
duration of
of the
the product,
product, and
and the
the intended
intended quality
quality [48].
[48].
Therefore, the FU in this study was defined as the prevention of water leaks for 3 years. The RF,
which fulfilled the FU, was a water leakage alarm.
which fulfilled the FU, was a water leakage alarm.
The product system, also known as the system boundary, had three primary stages as follows:
manufacturing, use, and EOL, as shown in Figure 5. The manufacturing stage, as shown in Figure 6,
consists of wire drawing, injection moulding, metal working, conventional drilling, surface mount
technology, and10,electronic
Sustainability 2018, 2821 components production. However, the packaging process was excluded 10 of 26
from the system boundary. At the use phase, it was assumed that the product could be used for 3
years. The product used two rechargeable AAA batteries, which needed to be replaced every 6
TheTherefore,
months. product system,
the usealso
and known
disposalasofthe systemwere
batteries boundary, had
included inthree primary
the system stages aswhile
boundary, follows:
the
manufacturing, use, and EOL, as shown in Figure 5. The manufacturing stage, as
production of batteries was excluded. For the EOL stage, the product and the batteries were assumed shown in Figure 6,
consists
to of wireofdrawing,
be disposed injection
in a landfill moulding,
without any furthermetal working,
treatment. conventional
This assumptiondrilling, surface
was based mount
on existing
technology, and electronic components production. However, the packaging
literature that claimed many electronic products were often wasted after the use stage [44,49]. process was excluded
fromSome
the system
stages boundary.
were discarded At the usethe
from phase,
systemit was assumed
boundary that the
because of aproduct could bedata.
lack of available usedThefor
3 years.
raw Thestage
material product used ambiguous
involved two rechargeable AAA batteries,
data because which
the materials hadneeded to be replaced
been imported every
from several
6 months. Therefore, the use and disposal of batteries were included in the system boundary,
places that were difficult to trace. Another eliminated stage was the distribution stage. This stage had while the
production of since
uncertainties batteries
the was excluded.
product For the
had been EOL stage,
delivered the product
to different and thefrom
countries batteries were assumed
the manufacturer.
to be disposed of in a landfill without any further treatment. This assumption
However, it did not have a significant influence on the outcome of the LCA because the main was based on existing
stages
literature that claimed many electronic
of the product were still included and evaluated. products were often wasted after the use stage [44,49].
Figure
Figure 5.
5. Product
Product system
system of
of WLA.
WLA.
Sustainability 2018,
Sustainability 10, x2821
2018, 10, FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of
11 of 25
26
Figure
Figure 6.
6. WLA
WLAmanufacturing
manufacturing process.
process.
Some stages were discarded from the system boundary because of a lack of available data. The raw
material stage involved ambiguous data because the materials had been imported from several places
that were difficult to trace. Another eliminated stage was the distribution stage. This stage had
uncertainties since the product had been delivered to different countries from the manufacturer.
However, it did not have a significant influence on the outcome of the LCA because the main stages of
the product were still included and evaluated.
4.2. Life Cycle Inventory

Table 2 provides the LCI datasets for the manufacturing stage. This table was compiled based on
the type of material, the amount, and the process step for each part. Also, the detail of the electronic
components can be seen in Table 3. It was assumed that these parts and components were assembled
manually using a standard assembly tool kit.
Table 2. LCI of the manufacturing stage.
Name of Part Type of Material Amount (g) Process Step

Battery spring clip Brass 3.3 Wire drawing
Cable Copper 2 Wire drawing
Front and back casing (include indicator Acrylonitrile butadiene
27.5 Injection moulding
button, battery and siren cover) styrene (ABS)
Electrode Chromium steel 3.4 Metal working
Potting material for sensor component Polybutadiene 17.5 Injection moulding
Screw Chromium steel 0.5 Conventional drilling
Electronic components Varies 30.67 Varies
Table 3. List of electronic components.
Name of Components Amount (g)

General purpose NPN transistor 0.2
50 K trimpot 28
47 ohm resistor 0.57
Light emitting diode 0.5
Switch button 0.7
Siren 0.7
PCB 28.3
Furthermore, during the use stage, the WLA was assumed to be frequently used or rang. There are
two usage scenarios by using non-rechargeable and rechargeable batteries. Table 4 presents the
equivalent comparison between the two types of battery. For the non-rechargeable battery, it was
assumed that the product requires 4 batteries per year with two times replacement every year, thus there
are 12 batteries in total. For the rechargeable battery, it was assumed that the product only requires
2 batteries for 3 years but the batteries need to be recharged twice a year. Although, non-rechargeable
batteries are more suitable for low-drain products such as a water alarm, this study selected the
rechargeable battery as the energy source since the researcher has limited access to the SimaPro
database. The LCI of the use stage can be seen in Table 5 by detailing each required input. Since the
product and batteries were assumed to be disposed of in a landfill, no inputs were needed for the
EOL stage.
Table 4. Usage scenario.
Type of Battery Non-Rechargeable Battery Rechargeable Battery

4 batteries per years with two 2 batteries with 2 recharging times
Usage scenario
times replacement every year per battery per year
Total life time 3 years 3 years
Total required battery 12 batteries 2 batteries
Total electricity for recharging - 115.2 watt hour
Table 5. LCI of the use stage.
Input Amount
Rechargeable AAA Ni-MH battery 2 units (3-year lifetime)
Electricity 115.2 W h (6 recharging time per battery)
4.3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment

The main innovations in the EDIP2003, the updated Danish LCA methodology of the EDIP97,
include the exposure to characterisation modelling [50]. This LCIA method has been recommended for
use as an alternative to the EDIP97 for performing site-generic characterisations [51]. Table 6 represents
18 different impact categories which are classified into nine main categories used in this study [50,51].
Since there is no Malaysian LCIA method available as yet, this method was assumed to be the most
appropriate method for use in this study. The results of the LCIA based on the EDIP2003 can be seen
in Table 7. This table presents the potential impacts of the WLA based on each impact category. It is
difficult to interpret the results as they are given in different units. Therefore, Figure 7 shows the
normalised potential environmental impacts of the product, while Table 8 provides the environmental
profile per life cycle stage.
Table 6. Description of each impact category based on EDIP2003.
Impact Category Description

The increasing natural greenhouse effect over the past few centuries by
Global warming human activities which leads to accumulation of such gases as CO2 , N2 O,
CH4 and halocarbons in the atmosphere.
The stratospheric content of ozone is disturbed as a consequence of
Ozone depletion manmade emissions of halocarbons, i.e., CFCs, HCFCs, halons and other
long-lived gases containing chlorine and bromine.
Nitrogen oxides (NOx ) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) react to
Photochemical Ozone formation
form ozone which initiated by sunlight.
A regional effect that is caused by releases of protons in the terrestrial or
Acidification
aquatic ecosystems.
Availability of nutrients in excess of the optimum load which leads to a
Terrestrial eutrophication change of the species composition and to an unwanted change in the
character of the given ecosystem.
Aquatic eutrophication The process of becoming rich of nutrients in the aquatic ecosystems.
The exposure of humans to environmental pollutants through inhalation
Human toxicity air
with air and ingestion with food and water (and sometimes also soil).
Chemical emissions which affect the function and structure of the
Eco-toxicity
ecosystems through toxic effects on the organisms living in them.
Waste streams are divided in four categories, bulk waste (not hazardous),
Waste streams hazardous waste, radioactive waste and slags and ashes which are
reported on a mass basis.
Table 7. Results of Environmental Impacts of WLA.
Disposal of Disposal of
Impact Category Unit Manufacturing Use Total
Product Battery
Global warming 100a GW kg CO2 eq 3.56 × 100 4.14 × 100 3.56 × 10−2 7.62 × 10−3 7.74 × 100
Ozone depletion OD kg CFC11 eq 3.62 × 10−7 1.75 × 10−5 2.38 × 10−10 4.94 × 10−11 1.79 × 10−5
Ozone formation (Vegetation) OFV m2 . ppm. h 3.06 × 101 2.53 × 101 5.60 × 10−1 1.20 × 10−1 5.66 × 101
Ozone formation (Human) OFH person. ppm. h 2.14 × 10−3 1.78 × 10−3 4.49 × 10−5 9.62 × 10−6 3.98 × 10−3
Acidification AC m2 5.81 × 10−1 4.39 × 100 3.21 × 10−4 6.83 × 10−5 4.97 × 100
Terrestrial eutrophication TE m2 3.91 × 10−1 3.18 × 10−1 2.16 × 10−4 4.54 × 10−5 7.09 × 10−1
Aquatic eutrophication EP(N) AEN kg N 4.60 × 10−3 2.84 × 10−3 3.01 × 10−5 6.44 × 10−6 7.47 × 10−3
Aquatic eutrophication EP(P) AEP kg P 1.48 × 10−2 3.07 × 10−3 9.71 × 10−7 2.08 × 10−7 1.78 × 10−2
Human toxicity air HTA person 4.29 × 105 3.35 × 105 6.53 × 103 1.40 × 103 7.71 × 105
Human toxicity water HTW m3 2.65 × 103 5.33 × 102 2.56 × 101 5.49 × 100 3.21 × 103
Human toxicity soil HTS m3 1.62 × 100 1.21 × 100 8.48 × 10−3 1.82 × 10−3 2.85 × 100
Ecotoxicity water chronic EWC m3 8.74 × 104 2.13 × 104 1.33 × 103 2.85 × 102 1.10 × 105
Ecotoxicity water acute EWA m3 1.02 × 104 2.67 × 103 1.97 × 102 4.22 × 101 1.31 × 104
Ecotoxicity soil chronic ESC m3 9.98 × 100 8.87 × 100 2.45 × 10−3 5.18 × 10−4 1.89 × 101
Hazardous waste HW kg 7.01 × 10−3 5.47 × 10−5 7.18 × 10−8 1.53 × 10−8 7.06 × 10−3
Slags/ashes SL kg 5.32 × 10−2 3.99 × 10−2 6.73 × 10−5 1.44 × 10−5 9.32 × 10−2
Bulk waste BW kg 3.24 × 10−1 1.22 × 100 7.41 × 10−2 1.50 × 10−2 1.63 × 100
Radioactive waste RW kg 1.66 × 10−4 1.44 × 10−4 1.40 × 10−7 2.92 × 10−8 3.10 × 10−4
Sustainability 2018, 10,
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2821
x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of
15 of 25
26
Figure
Figure 7.
7. Normalised
Normalised potential
potential impacts
impacts of
of WLA
WLA per
per life cycle stage.
life cycle stage.
Table 8. Environmental
Table 8. profile per
Environmental profile per life
life cycle
cycle stage.
stage.
Stage Contribution
Stage Contribution
Manufacturing 75.35%
Manufacturing
Use 75.35%
23.88%
Use 23.88%
Disposal of WLA
Disposal of WLA
0.64%
0.64%
Disposal of battery
Disposal of battery 0.14%
0.14%
4.4.
4.4. Life
Life Cycle
Cycle Interpretation
Interpretation
The
The life
life cycle
cycleinterpretation
interpretationphase phaseconsists
consistsofofthree
threemain
mainsteps:
steps:thetheidentification
identification of hotspots, the
of hotspots,
evaluation of hotspots, and the conclusions and recommendations. In this
the evaluation of hotspots, and the conclusions and recommendations. In this sub-section, the critical sub-section, the critical
points of
points of the
the WLA
WLAlife lifecycle
cyclewouldwouldbebe identified
identified andand evaluated.
evaluated. Also, the the
Also, conclusion
conclusion of the of LCA was
the LCA
summarised at the end of this section. The discussion section was presented
was summarised at the end of this section. The discussion section was presented in Section 6 to gain in Section 6 to gain a
deeper understanding of each environmental impact and to propose
a deeper understanding of each environmental impact and to propose a possible recommendation a possible recommendation or
comparison.
or comparison.
According
According totoFigure Figure 7, there
7, there were 14were 14 categories
impact impact categories that werebydominated
that were dominated by the
the manufacturing
manufacturing
stage, while thestage, while the
remaining remaining
categories werecategories
dominated were bydominated
the use stage.by theItuse canstage.
also be It can
seen also
frombe
seen from Figure 6 that the contributions of the manufacturing stage ranged
Figure 6 that the contributions of the manufacturing stage ranged from 2.02% for OD to 99.22% for HW, from 2.02% for OD to
99.22% for HW, whereas the contributions of the use stage ranged from
whereas the contributions of the use stage ranged from 0.77% for HW to 97.97% for OD. Moreover, 0.77% for HW to 97.97% for
OD. Moreover, the
the contributions contributions
of the disposal ofof thethe
WLAdisposal
ranged offrom
the WLA
0.001% ranged
for HW from 0.001%
to 4.53% forfor
BW,HW andtoalso
4.53%
the
for
contributions of the battery disposal ranged from 0.0002% for HW to 0.92% for BW. Based on Tablefor
BW, and also the contributions of the battery disposal ranged from 0.0002% for HW to 0.92% 7,
BW.
it canBased on Tablethat
be concluded 7, it the
canmanufacturing
be concluded that theofmanufacturing
stage the WLA madestage of the WLA
the highest made the
contribution ofhighest
75.35%
contribution of 75.35%impacts.
to the environmental to the environmental impacts.
Next, the use stage Next,
of the WLA thecontributed
use stage ofas the WLAascontributed
much 23.88% to the as
much as 23.88% to the environmental impacts. On the other hand, the contributions
environmental impacts. On the other hand, the contributions of the WLA and battery disposal were of the WLA and
battery disposal
less significant were
than theless significant
others. than the others.
The contribution The contribution
of the WLA disposal wasofasthe much WLA as disposal was as
0.64%, followed
much
by theas 0.64%, followed
contribution of theby the contribution
battery of the battery disposal of 0.14%.
disposal of 0.14%.
In the manufacturing stage, the potential
In the manufacturing stage, the potential impacts impacts which
which contributed
contributed moremorethanthan
50% 50%
werewere the
the OFV
OFV (54.13%),
(54.13%), OFH (53.81%),
OFH (53.81%), TE (55.06%),TE (55.06%), AEN AEP
AEN (61.56%), (61.56%), AEP
(82.79%), HTA (82.79%),
(55.56%), HTAHTW (55.56%),
(82.44%),HTW HTS
(82.44%), HTS (57.04%%), EWC (79.22%), EWA (77.90%), ESC (52.94%),
(57.04%%), EWC (79.22%), EWA (77.90%), ESC (52.94%), HW (99.22%), SL (57.11%), and RW (53.48%). HW (99.22%), SL (57.11%),
andshown
As RW (53.48%).
in FigureAs shown
8, the in Figureanalysis
contribution 8, the contribution
indicated that analysis indicated
the electronic that the electronic
components have the
components have the highest
highest environmental impacts,environmental impacts,
especially for the Printed especially for the(PCB).
Circuit Board Printed Circuit Board100%
Approximately (PCB).of
Approximately 100% of the hazardous waste impacts
the hazardous waste impacts occurred at this stage because of the PCB. occurred at this stage because of the PCB.
Figure 8. The environmental impact of each electronic component.

Figure 8. The environmental impact of each electronic component.
Although almost all the impact categories were dominated by the manufacturing stage, there
Although almostcategories
were still many all the impact categories
that occurred were
at the usedominated by the manufacturing
stage. The potential impacts, whichstage, there were
contributed
still many categories
more than thatstage,
40% at this occurred
were at the use
detailed stage. The
as follows: GWpotential
(53.48%), OD impacts, which
(97.97%), OFV contributed
(44.66%), OFHmore
(44.82%),
than 40% ACstage,
at this (88.31%),
were TE detailed
(44.90%), asHTA (43.41%),
follows: GW HTS (42.60%),OD
(53.48%), ESC (47.04%),OFV
(97.97%), SL (42.80%),
(44.66%),BWOFH
(74.72%), and RE (46.47%). The contribution analysis indicated that the
(44.82%), AC (88.31%), TE (44.90%), HTA (43.41%), HTS (42.60%), ESC (47.04%), SL (42.80%), BW use of nickel metal hydride
(NiMH)
(74.72%), andasRE rechargeable
(46.47%). The batteries is not always
contribution advantageous.
analysis indicated These
thatbatteries
the usehave a highmetal
of nickel impacthydride
on
ozone depletion, eco-toxicity, and acidification. For ozone depletion, the impact of the rechargeable
(NiMH) as rechargeable batteries is not always advantageous. These batteries have a high impact on
batteries is mostly related to the production of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) at the anode [52].
ozone depletion, eco-toxicity, and acidification. For ozone depletion, the impact of the rechargeable
Lastly, the disposal of the WLA and batteries had a very low impact on the environment. 4.53%
batteries is mostly
of the bulk wasterelated
impactto occurred
the production of polytetrafluoroethylene
at the product disposal stage because(PTFE) at thewas
this product anode [52].
disposed
Lastly, the disposal
of at a landfill without ofany
thefurther
WLA and batteries
treatment. had a very
Nevertheless, low not
it was impact on the to
comparable environment.
the magnitude 4.53%
of theofbulk waste impact
the impacts generatedoccurred at the productofdisposal
by the manufacturing stage because
PCB. Furthermore, thisimpact
the low product was
of the disposed
battery
of at adisposal
landfillwas due toany
without thefurther
extension of the useNevertheless,
treatment. stage. Therefore, only not
it was 0.92% of the bulkto
comparable waste impact
the magnitude
of thewas generated
impacts duringby
generated thethe
disposal of the batteries.
manufacturing ThisFurthermore,
of PCB. revealed that the thenumber of rechargeable
low impact of the battery
batteries
disposal usedtoplays
was due an important
the extension roleuse
of the in their
stage.overall environmental
Therefore, only 0.92%performances
of the bulk [52].
waste impact was
The final task was to draw conclusions and make recommendations. Based on the identification
generated during the disposal of the batteries. This revealed that the number of rechargeable batteries
and evaluation of the LCIA results, the following could be inferred:
used plays an important role in their overall environmental performances [52].
(1) final
The The stages
task was which contributed
to draw to the and
conclusions highest
makeenvironmental impact were
recommendations. Basedtheonmanufacturing
the identification
stage, followed by the use stage, the disposal
and evaluation of the LCIA results, the following could be inferred: of the WLA, and finally, the disposal of the
batteries;
(1) The
(2) stages which
Each stage contributed
had to the highest
different relevant impact environmental
categories. For impact were the manufacturing
the manufacturing stage, the moststage,
interrelated categories were the hazardous waste and aquatic eutrophication categories, whereas
followed by the use stage, the disposal of the WLA, and finally, the disposal of the batteries;
(2) the use stage was the main contributor to the ozone depletion and acidification.
Each stage had different relevant impact categories. For the manufacturing stage, the Moreover, themost
disposal of the WLA and batteries contributed to the bulk waste.
interrelated categories were the hazardous waste and aquatic eutrophication categories, whereas
the use stage
5. Results was the
of Design main contributor
Efficiency Evaluation to the ozone depletion and acidification. Moreover,
the disposal of the WLA and batteries contributed to the bulk waste.
Design efficiency is an important aspect of a product in relation to design parameters [53]. In the
previous section, Efficiency
5. Results of Design the life cycle aspect of the product was mainly discussed. Since the LCA process
Evaluation
only captures the life cycle aspect, the improvement recommendations are still based on
Design efficiency
environmental is anTherefore,
concerns. important aspect
in this of atheproduct
section, in relation
design efficiency was to designtoparameters
evaluated obtain more [53].
In thecomprehensive
previous section, the life
improvements. cycle aspect of the product was mainly discussed. Since the LCA
The captures
process only major aimthe of design efficiency
life cycle is tothe
aspect, decrease the cost and
improvement lead time of a product,
recommendations as well
are still as on
based
to maintainconcerns.
environmental its qualityTherefore,
[54]. The DFA by Boothroyd
in this section, theetdesign
al. [20] efficiency
was selected to ensure
was the consistency
evaluated to obtain more
comprehensive improvements.
The major aim of design efficiency is to decrease the cost and lead time of a product, as well as
to maintain its quality [54]. The DFA by Boothroyd et al. [20] was selected to ensure the consistency
and completeness of xthe

Sustainability 2018, 10, FORproduct
PEER REVIEWassemblability evaluation. Usually, a product that is designed 17 of 25 to
be easily assembled can also be easily disassembled [39]. When a product is easy to disassemble,
and completeness of the product assemblability evaluation. Usually, a product that is designed to be
the opportunity of the product to be recycled or reused will also increase. Even though the DFA
easily assembled can also be easily disassembled [39]. When a product is easy to disassemble, the
is mainly focused
opportunity of on
the time and
product to cost, this design
be recycled or reusedtool indirectly
will makes
also increase. Evena though
positivethecontribution
DFA is mainlyto the
environment. This is also supported by the principles of the DFA, such as to
focused on time and cost, this design tool indirectly makes a positive contribution to the environment.minimise the use of
unnecessary
This is alsoparts and toby
supported reduce the useofofthe
the principles fasteners,
DFA, such thereby leadingthe
as to minimise touse
theofreduced consumption
unnecessary parts
of resources.
and to reduceAs shownthe usein of
Figure 9, there
fasteners, are four
thereby steps
leading to to
theconducting a design efficiency
reduced consumption evaluation.
of resources. As
shown in Figure 9, there are four steps to conducting a design efficiency evaluation.
For the first step, as described in Section 4.2, all the product information is collected. Then, a worksheet For the first step,
as describedthe
for calculating in Section
design 4.2, all the product
efficiency information
was prepared, as is collected.
shown Then, 9.
in Table a worksheet for calculating
The detailed calculation of
the design efficiency was prepared, as shown in Table 9. The detailed
design efficiency evaluation can be seen in Appendixs A–C. The next step is to analyse calculation of design efficiency
the ease of
evaluation can be seen in Appendixes A–C. The next step is to analyse the ease of assembly, and
assembly, and finally, to improve the design efficiency based on the DFA principles. By implementing
finally, to improve the design efficiency based on the DFA principles. By implementing the steps of
the steps of DFA evaluation, the design efficiency of the existing product was found to be 14%.
DFA evaluation, the design efficiency of the existing product was found to be 14%.
Figure 9. Steps of Design Efficiency Evaluation based on Design for Assembly Principles (adapted
Figure 9. Steps of Design Efficiency Evaluation based on Design for Assembly Principles (adapted
from Boothroyd et al. [20]).
from Boothroyd et al. [20]).
Table 9. Design Efficiency Evaluation of Existing Product.
Table 9. Design Efficiency Evaluation of Existing Product.
Assembly Part A B C D E F G H I
FrontPart
Assembly casing A 720B 1 C30 1.95 D 6 E 5.5 F 7.45G 2.98
H 1I
PCB and electronic
Front casing components720 7201 1 3072 5.85 1.95 966 8 5.5 13.85 7.45 5.54
2.98 11
Back components
PCB and electronic casing 720 7201 1 7230 1.95 5.85 3096 3.5 8 5.45 13.85 2.18
5.54 11
Back casing
Screw 720 3601 3 3014 2.55 1.95 5930 12 3.5 43.65 5.45 2.18
17.46 01
Screw cover
Battery 360 7203 1 1430 1.95 2.55 0059 1.5 12 3.45 43.65 17.46
1.38 10
Battery cover 720 1 30 1.95 00 1.5 3.45 1.38 1
Cable Separate calculation table 34.16 13.66 1
Cable Separate calculation table 34.16 13.66 1
Design
Designefficiency
efficiency (3 × NM/TM)
(3 × NM/TM) 108.01
108.01 43.21
43.21 55
0.14
0.14 TMTM CMCM NM
NM
Note: Note: (A) angle
(A) Total Total of
angle of symmetry
symmetry (α + β),(αdegree;
+ β), degree; (B) Number
(B) Number of timesofthe
times the operation
operation is carriedisout
carried out
consecutively;
(C) Two-digit manual
consecutively; (C)handling
Two-digitcode; (D) Manual
manual handlinghandling
code; (D)time
Manual per part; (E) Two-digit
handling manual
time per part; insertion code;
(E) Two-digit
(F) Manual
manualinsertion time
insertion per (F)
code; part; (G) Operation
Manual insertiontime,
timeseconds;
per part;(H)
(G)Operation
Operation costs,
time,cents; (I) Figures
seconds; for estimation
(H) Operation
for theoretical minimum parts; (TM) Total operation time, seconds; (CM) Total operation cost, cents; (NM) Total
costs, cents; (I) Figures for estimation for theoretical minimum parts; (TM) Total operation time,
number of parts.
seconds; (CM) Total operation cost, cents; (NM) Total number of parts.
6. Discussion
The product design of WLA has been evaluated based on two perspectives, namely the
environmental and design perspectives. In this section, the results from LCA and design evaluation
are analysed and discussed in detail. To gain a better understanding on the integration of LCA and
DFA, this section is divided into three sub-sections: analysis of the LCA results, analysis of the design
evaluation results, and quantitative comparison between the existing and new design.
6.1. Analysis of the LCA Results

As explained in the previous section, the PCB production contributed to the highest environmental
impact among the other components. During the PCB production, the generated hazardous waste
consisted of industrial wastewater and treatment residue, spent process baths, acids used for cleaning
the equipment, and copper sulphate crystals [55]. The treatment of wastewater is the main source of
hazardous waste in PCB manufacturing because of the copper content in the sludge [56,57]. Moreover,
the spent process baths may include cyanides, heavy metals (copper, tin, iron, nickel, and lead),
solvents, and other toxic elements in high concentrations. Although the PCB in this study had a
lead-free element, the results still showed that it had a great impact on the environment. Furthermore,
the cleaning of the electroplating racks could have led to the generation of nitric acid waste with a
high copper content. Lastly, the process baths may have generated copper sulphate crystals with
increasing copper concentrations. Subsequently, the second highest impact at this stage was aquatic
eutrophication. The manufacturing of PCB has a strong influence on the environment, especially on
aquatic ecosystems. Thus, it can be poisonous to fishes, even at very low levels [58].
Furthermore, regarding the use of rechargeable batteries, Dolci et al. [52] stated that the inefficient
use of these devices (for only 20 charge cycles or less) may have a higher impact than the use of
disposable batteries. Therefore, the high impact caused by the production and disposal of rechargeable
batteries can be offset by prolonging the use phase. Consumers should use these batteries to their full
potential or at least 50 times to minimise the environmental impacts [52].
From the results of the rechargeable batteries used in this study, the disposal stage of the batteries
contributed slightly to the environmental impacts. Consumers do not need to purchase many new
batteries, which can lead to an abundant waste of batteries. However, since nickel and the electrolyte
in the NiMH batteries are semi-toxic, the bulk waste of the NiMH batteries can be dangerous to the
health of humans and animals, as well as contaminate air and water in large quantities [59]. Therefore,
the recycling of the NiMH batteries is highly recommended to save valuable metals from spent NiMH
batteries and to reduce the generation of waste [60].
Lastly, the disposal of the WLA also made a low contribution to the environmental impacts.
When compared to the PCB manufacturing, the bulk waste of the WLA was less significant. However,
since some parts of the WLA contain synthetic, metal, and chemical elements, they may be harmful
to the environment. Several actions can be implemented to overcome this problem. For synthetic
elements like polybutadiene and ABS, the recycling method seems a preferable choice in terms of
the environmental and economic benefits. The other recommendation for this case is to replace the
synthetic rubber with natural rubber. Clark [61] stated that natural rubber can be disposed of by either
landfills or incineration without any environmental damage. This type of rubber is also considered to
be an environmentally-degradable material. Furthermore, for metal elements (i.e., copper, stainless
steel, and brass), the most appropriate method today is also recycling. Metal recycling helps to
preserve valuable natural resources, minimise energy consumption, and decrease production costs [62].
However, this option is still debatable. The recycled metal may contain impurities. The release of toxic
emissions may harm workers. Subsequently, this method needs to be examined in-depth and in detail
based on a specific problem. Considering this, a triple bottom line of sustainability (environment,
economic, and social) should be a wise choice in the decision-making process.
6.2. Analysis of the Design Evaluation Results

From the DFA evaluation, it was found that the design efficiency is 14%. The highest operation
time occurred during the insertion of screws and the installation of electronic components. This is
because the WLA required three screws to attach and cover the electronic components. Furthermore,
the electronic components need more time to be inserted into the inside of the product casing.
To redesign the product, several principles of the DFA that can be employed are minimising the
use of fasteners, minimising the number of fastener types, minimising unnecessary parts by combining
multiple functions into single parts, and maximising the accessibility of components [39]. Based on
these principles, the following design improvements are recommended (see Table 10):
(1) To reduce the number of screws from three units to one unit.
(2) Theoretically, the use of screws in a product should be as minimal as possible. To implement this
recommendation, PCB adjustment should be made to fill the space at the front casing component.
The PCB should have a hole in the middle so that the screw can lock the back casing in the
middle position.
(3) To eliminate the use of a cable and to replace it with a wireless component.
Table 10. Design Efficiency Evaluation of Redesigned Product.
Assembly part A B C D E F G H I
Front casing 720 1 30 1.95 6 5.5 7.45 2.98 1
Wireless components 720 1 72 5.85 96 8 13.85 5.54 1
Back casing 720 1 30 1.95 30 3.5 5.45 2.18 1
Screw 360 1 14 2.55 59 12 14.55 5.82 0
Battery cover 720 1 30 1.95 00 1.5 3.45 1.38 1
Cable Separate calculation table 0 0 1
Design efficiency (3 × NM/TM) 44.75 17.90 5
0.34 TM CM NM
Note: (A) Total angle of symmetry (α + β), degree; (B) Number of times the operation is carried out consecutively;
(C) Two-digit manual handling code; (D) Manual handling time per part; (E) Two-digit manual insertion code;
(F) Manual insertion time per part; (G) Operation time, seconds; (H) Operation costs, cents; (I) Figures for estimation
for theoretical minimum parts; (TM) Total operation time, seconds; (CM) Total operation cost, cents; (NM) Total
number of parts.
Thirty-two-percent of the assembly time was taken up with the installation of the cable. Therefore,
the proposed improvement to reduce the operation time was to eliminate the use of the cable and to
replace it with a wireless component (see Table 10). The wireless system is now considered as a green
technology. This system promises some benefits, such as easier installation and less consumption of
materials. However, the use of a wireless component may incur a higher cost. The trade-off between
environmental and economic objectives requires a deeper study to make the best decision. However,
from the redesign evaluation, implementing the two proposed recommendations can increase the
design efficiency from 14% to 34%.
6.3. Quantitative Comparison between the Existing and New Design

An LCA study has been conducted to compare the environmental impacts between the existing
product (wired alarm) and the redesigned product (wireless alarm). As discussed in Section 5,
the wireless alarm consists of front casing, back casing, screw, siren, electrodes, spring, switch button,
and wireless components. There are several types of wireless technology, such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth,
and low-cost spread-spectrum radios (802.15.4). In this study, Wi-Fi was used as the chosen technology
because it has a high data rate and simple configuration [63]. During the use stage, the wireless alarm
requires rechargeable 9V Ni-MH batteries. In order to be used for a duration of 3 years, the alarm
requires 1 battery which will be recharged every year and the electricity for charging the battery was

as much as 41.96 W h. As shown in Table 11, this assumption was based on the energy requirement for
3requirement
years whichfor was3 equivalently
years which determined to the required
was equivalently energy
determined for the
to the wired energy
required alarm. As
for in thewired
the case
of the existing
alarm. product,
As in the theexisting
case of the redesigned product
product, the was also assumed
redesigned producttowas
be disposed of into
also assumed landfills after
be disposed
the use
of in stage. after the use stage.
landfills
Table 11. Comparison

Table 11. Comparison of
of battery
battery usage
usage between
between aa wired
wired alarm
alarmand
andwireless
wirelessalarm.
alarm.
Type
Type of ofAlarm
Alarm Wired
Wired Alarm
Alarm WirelessAlarm
Wireless Alarm
Type of battery Rechargeable AAA battery Rechargeable 9 V battery
Type of battery Rechargeable AAA battery Rechargeable 9 V battery
Chemical system
Chemical system Nickelmetal
Nickel metalhydride
hydride (Ni-MH)
(Ni-MH) Nickel metalhydride
Nickel metal hydride (Ni-MH)
(Ni-MH)
Nominal voltage
Nominal voltage 1.5
1.5 VV 9 9VV
Capacity
Capacity 2 2watt
watthour
hour 5.49
5.49watt
watt hour
hour
Weight
Weight ± 15 g
±15 g ±±45
45 g g
Total electricity for recharging 115.2 watt hour 41.96 watt hour
Total electricity for recharging 115.2 watt hour 41.96 watt hour
As
As shown
shown in in Figure
Figure 10,
10, the
the manufacturing
manufacturing of of aa wireless
wireless alarm
alarm has
has aa higher
higher environmental
environmental impact
impact
compared to the wired alarm. This is due to the production of wireless
compared to the wired alarm. This is due to the production of wireless components components thatthat
may impart
may an
impart
adverse impact
an adverse to the
impact to environment
the environment(see Figure 11). However,
(see Figure during
11). However, the use
during stage,
the the wireless
use stage, alarm
the wireless
is more energy efficient and has less impact on the environment because it requires
alarm is more energy efficient and has less impact on the environment because it requires less less electricity
for recharging
electricity the batteries.
for recharging the The disposal
batteries. The of the wireless
disposal of the alarm also
wireless has aalso
alarm lower
hasimpact
a lowerbecause
impact
the redesigned
because product uses
the redesigned lessuses
product materials than the than
less materials existing one. However,
the existing the impact
one. However, the from
impactbattery
from
disposal was higher than the wired alarm. Overall, there is not much difference between
battery disposal was higher than the wired alarm. Overall, there is not much difference between the the wired
alarm
wired and
alarm wireless alarm from
and wireless alarmthe environmental
from perspective.
the environmental perspective.
Figure 10. A comparison of environmental impacts between the wired alarm and the wireless alarm.
Figure 11. The environmental impacts of each wireless alarm part.

Figure 11.
Figure 11. The
The environmental
environmental impacts
impacts of
of each
each wireless
wirelessalarm
alarmpart.
part.
The environmental impacts of the design improvements could be seen from the reduction of
material consumption. This reduction would minimise the environmental burden of the product in the
long term. Furthermore, any reduction in the number of parts in an assembly generates a snowball
effect on cost reduction [20]. It can be seen in Tables 8 and 9 that the assembly cost was reduced from
43.21 cents to 17.90 cents. Moreover, the savings in material costs could also be increased as a result of
the parts simplification.
7. Conclusions
To answer the objective of this study, an LCA was performed on a water leakage alarm. It was
found that 14 impact categories were dominated by the manufacturing stage, whereas the remaining
categories were dominated by the use stage. On the other hand, the contributions of the WLA and
battery disposal were less significant than the other categories.
Furthermore, since the purpose of this study was to integrate the LCA and DFA method, the next
step was to evaluate the design efficiency of the product using the DFA guidelines. From the evaluation,
the design efficiency of the existing product was found to be 14%. The two proposed improvements for
redesigning the WLA were as follows: (1) To reduce the number of screws from three units to one unit,
and (2) to eliminate the use of a cable and to replace it with a wireless component. The implementation
of the two recommendations has improved the design efficiency by as much as 34%.
From the environmental perspective, there is not much difference between the wired alarm and
wireless alarm. The wired alarm has a lower environmental impact during its manufacturing stage,
however, the environmental impact is higher during its use stage. Contrarily, the production of
wireless components results in higher environmental impacts than the production of general electronic
components. This could be due to the complexity and limited knowledge on the production of new
technology components leading to a more negative impact to the environment. However, based on
the study, it was found that during the use stage, the wireless alarm requires less energy compared to
the wired alarm. Generally, it can be concluded that the wired alarm has advantages in terms of the
environmental impacts while the wireless alarm is superior in terms of design for assembly.
This paper contributes to the knowledge from the outlined literature review by providing insights
into the development of the product design by using a life cycle technique. Moreover, this paper
practically contributes towards the evaluation of environmental impacts and assembly time of the
product. The combination of LCA and design evaluation provides a comprehensive perspective of
the product life cycle. For further researches, more LCA studies focusing on detailed problems are
required, such as PCB manufacturing, rubber recycling, and metal recycling. Also, a study on the
trade-offs between the environmental and economic aspects of a wireless system could provide some
useful findings for the product sustainability.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, T.T.S. and D.A.W.; Formal analysis, T.T.S.; Investigation, T.T.S.;
Methodology, T.T.S.; Software, T.T.S.; Supervision, D.A.W. and M.N.A.R.; Writing—Original draft, T.T.S.;
Writing—Review & editing, D.A.W.
Funding: This research is partly funded by Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia under research grant AP-2015-008.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge the support of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
(UKM) under research grant AP-2015-008 and The Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia for the Malaysia
International Scholarship (MIS) of the researcher.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the
study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the decision to
publish the results.
Appendix A
Table A1. Two-digit manual handling code (existing design).
Handling Difficulties Second Handling

Assembly Part (α + β) First Digit
Digit Time
Easy Grasps Thickness
Front casing α = 360 β = 360 3 Yes 2 mm 0 1.95
Can be manipulated without
PCB α = 360 β = 360 7 optical magnification; present 2 5.85
handling difficulties
Back casing α = 360 β = 360 3 Yes 2 mm 0 1.95
Screw α = 360 β = 0 1 Yes 1.85 mm 4 2.55
Battery cover α = 360 β = 360 3 Yes 2 mm 0 1.95
Appendix B
Table A2. Two-digit manual insertion code (existing design) for part added but not secured.
Part Added but Not Secured

Assembly Access Vision Insertion Difficulties
1st Digit 2nd Digit Ins. Time
Part Obstructed Restricted Holding Easy to
Vision Vision Down Align
Front
No No 0 Yes Yes 6 5.5
casing
Back
No No 0 No Yes 3 3.5
casing
Battery
No No 0 No Yes 0 1.5
cover
Table A3. Two-digit manual insertion code (existing design) for part secured immediately.
Part Secured Immediately

Access Vision
Assembly 1st 2nd Insertion
Part Obstructed Restricted Digit Digit Time
Vision Vision
Screw tightening
Screw Yes Yes 5 immediately after insertion; 9 12
Not easy to align
Table A4. Two-digit manual insertion code (existing design) for separate operation.
Separate Operation
Assembly Insertion
1st Digit 2nd Digit
Operation Time
Assembly processes where Soldered
Place PCB assembly 9 5 8
all solid parts are in place process
Appendix C
Table A5. Cable Installation Operation Time.
Assembly Part Process Time Total Time (s)

Preparation 8.3
Handling 3.364
Insertion 2.5
Cable 34.164
Dressing 2.3
Fastening 13.5
Routing 4.2
References
1. Irhoma, A.; Su, D.; Higginson, M. Analysis and evaluation of the environmental impacts of “upstream”
petroleum operations. Int. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2016, 30, 116–142. [CrossRef]
2. Iritani, D.R.; Silva, D.A.L.; Saavedra, Y.M.B.; Grael, P.F.F.; Ometto, A.R. Sustainable strategies analysis
through Life Cycle Assessment: A case study in a furniture industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 96, 308–318.
[CrossRef]
3. MTS Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Sustainable Product Standards Training. Available online: http:
//mts.sustainableproducts.com (accessed on 1 September 2016).
4. Jaafar, I.H.; Venkatachalam, A.; Joshi, K.; Ungureanu, A.C.; De Silve, N.; Rouch, K.E.; Dillon, O.W.; Jawahir, I.S.
Product Design for Sustainability: A New Assessment Methodology and Case Studies. In Environmentally
Conscious Mechanical Design; Kutz, M., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2007; pp. 25–62.
5. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change
Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change;
IPCC: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2014.
6. Baldé, C.P.; Wang, F.; Kuehr, R.; Huisman, J. The Global E-Waste Monitor 2014; United Nations University,
IAS—SCYCLE: Bonn, Germany, 2014.
7. UNEP Illegally Traded and Dumped E-Waste Worth Up to $19 Billion Annually Poses Risks to Health,
Deprives Countries of Resources, Says UNEP Report—UNEP. Available online: http://www.unep.org/
newscentre/default.aspx?DocumentID=26816&ArticleID=35021 (accessed on 17 March 2016).
8. International Standard Organization (ISO). 14040 Environmental Management—Life Cycle
Assessment—Principles and Framework (ISO 14040:2006), 2nd ed.; International Standard Organization (ISO):
Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
9. Bevilacqua, M.; Ciarapica, F.E.; Giacchetta, G. Design for Environment as a Tool for the Development of a
Sustainable Supply Chain; Springer: London, UK, 2012; Volume 53.
10. Compagno, L.; Ingrao, C.; Latora, A.G.; Trapani, N. Life cycle assessment of CRT lead recovery process. Int. J.
Prod. Lifecycle Manag. 2014, 7, 201–214. [CrossRef]
11. Koffler, C.; Krinke, S.; Schebek, L.; Buchgeister, J. Volkswagen slimLCI: A procedure for streamlined inventory
modelling within life cycle assessment of vehicles. Int. J. Veh. Des. 2008, 46, 172–188. [CrossRef]
12. Meyer, D.E.; Katz, J.P. Analyzing the environmental impacts of laptop enclosures using screening-level life
cycle assessment to support sustainable consumer electronics. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 112, 369–383. [CrossRef]
13. Xiao, R.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, X.; Yuan, Z. A life-cycle assessment of household refrigerators in China. J. Clean.
Prod. 2015, 95, 301–310. [CrossRef]
14. Xie, M.; Bai, W.; Bai, L.; Sun, X.; Lu, Q.; Yan, D.; Qiao, Q. Life cycle assessment of the recycling of Al-PE (a
laminated foil made from polyethylene and aluminum foil) composite packaging waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2015,
112, 4430–4434. [CrossRef]
15. Barreto, L.-V.; Anderson, H.; Anglin, A.; Tomovic, C. Product lifecycle management in support of green
manufacturing: Addressing the challenges of global climate change. Int. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2010,
19, 294–305. [CrossRef]
16. Wahab, D.A. Designing products in today’s global economy: End-of-life issues and challenges.
In Proceedings of the International Seminar on Industrial Engineering and Management, Lombok, Indonesia,
1–4 December 2010.
17. Keoleian, G.A. The appliacation of life cycle assessment to design. J. Clean. Prod. 1993, 1, 143–149. [CrossRef]
18. Chang, D.; Lee, C.K.M.; Chen, C.-H. Review of life cycle assessment towards sustainable product
development. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 83, 48–60. [CrossRef]
19. Navajas, A.; Uriarte, L.; Gandía, L.M. Application of eco-design and life cycle assessment standards for
environmental impact reduction of an industrial product. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1724. [CrossRef]
20. Boothroyd, G.; Dewhurst, P.; Knight, W.A. Product Design for Manufacture and Assembly, 3rd ed.; CRC Press:
Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2011; Volume 1.
21. Fitzpatrick, C.; Hickey, S.; Schischke, K.; Maher, P. Sustainable life cycle engineering of an integrated desktop
PC; A small to medium enterprise perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 74, 155–160. [CrossRef]
22. Jian, X.; Cai, S.; Chen, Q. A study on the evaluation of product maintainability based on the life cycle theory.
J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 141, 481–491. [CrossRef]
23. Park, J.-H.; Seo, K.-K. A knowledge-based approximate life cycle assessment system for evaluating
environmental impacts of product design alternatives in a collaborative design environment. Adv. Eng.
Inform. 2006, 20, 147–154. [CrossRef]
24. Sakao, T. A QFD-centred design methodology for environmentally conscious product design. Int. J. Prod.
Res. 2007, 45, 4143–4162. [CrossRef]
25. Umeda, Y.; Fukushige, S.; Tonoike, K.; Kondoh, S. Product modularity for life cycle design. CIRP Ann. Manuf.
Technol. 2008, 57, 13–16. [CrossRef]
26. Choi, Y.; Mai, D.Q. The sustainable role of the e-trust in the B2C e-commerce of Vietnam. Sustainability 2018,
10, 291. [CrossRef]
27. Li, L.; Wu, W.; Giller, P.; O’Halloran, J.; Liang, L.; Peng, P.; Zhao, G. Life cycle assessment of a highly diverse
vegetable multi-cropping system in Fengqiu County, China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 983. [CrossRef]
28. Lee, K.-H.; Cheong, I.-M. Measuring a carbon footprint and environmental practice: The case of Hyundai
Motors Co. (HMC). Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2011, 111, 961–978. [CrossRef]
29. International Standard Organization (ISO). 14044 Environmental Management—Life Cycle
Assessment—Requirement and Guidelines (ISO 14044:2006); ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
30. Guinee, J.B.; Gorree, M.; Heijungs, R.; Huppes, G.; Kleijn, R.; de Koning, A.; van Oers, L.; Sleeswijk, A.W.;
Suh, S.; de Haes, H.A.U.; et al. Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment—Operational Guide to the ISO Standards;
Tukker, A., Ed.; Kluwer Academic Publisher: New York, NY, USA; Boston, MA, USA; Dordrecht,
The Netherlands; London, UK; Moscow, Russian, 2002; Volume 7.
31. Peng, W.; Huang, H.-Z.; Li, Y.; Zuo, M.J.; Xie, M. Life cycle reliability assessment of new products—A
Bayesian model updating approach. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2013, 112, 109–119. [CrossRef]
32. Kim, S.J.; Kara, S.; Kayis, B. Economic and environmental assessment of product life cycle design: Volume
and technology perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 75, 75–85. [CrossRef]
33. Matsuyama, Y.; Fukushige, S.; Umeda, Y. Simulating life cycles of individual products for life cycle design.
Procedia CIRP 2015, 38, 159–164. [CrossRef]
34. Lewis, H.; Gertsakis, J.; Grant, T.; Morelli, N.; Sweatman, A. Introduction. In Design + Environment a Global
Guide to Designing Greener Goods; Greenleaf Publishing Limited: Sheffield, UK, 2001; pp. 13–30.
35. Kobayashi, H. Strategic evolution of eco-products: A product life cycle planning methodology. Res. Eng. Des.
2005, 16, 1–16. [CrossRef]
36. Martin, M.V.; Ishii, K. Design for variety: Developing standardized and modularized product platform
architectures. Res. Eng. Des. 2002, 13, 213–235. [CrossRef]
37. Fitch, P.; Cooper, J.S. Life-cycle modeling for adaptive and variant design. Part 1: Methodology. Res. Eng.
Des. 2005, 15, 216–228. [CrossRef]
38. Go, T.F.; Wahab, D.A.; Hishamuddin, H. Multiple generation life-cycles for product sustainability: The way
forward. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 95, 16–29. [CrossRef]
39. Otto, K.L.; Wood, K.N. Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development; Prentice
Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2001.
40. Kaebernick, H.; Kara, S. Reuse and Recycling Technologies. In Environmentally Conscious Mechanical Design;
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2007; pp. 249–282.
41. Bogue, R. Design for disassembly: A critical twenty-first century discipline. Assem. Autom. 2007, 27, 285–289.
[CrossRef]
42. Bras, B. Design for Remanufacturing Processes. In Environmentally Conscious Mechanical Design; John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2007; pp. 283–318.
43. Go, T.F.; Wahab, D.A.; Rahman, M.N.A.; Ramli, R.; Azhari, C.H. Disassemblability of end-of-life vehicle: A
critical review of evaluation methods. J. Clean. Prod. 2011, 19, 1536–1546. [CrossRef]
44. Tchertchian, N.; Liang, H.; Millet, D. The influence of multiple life cycles on the environmental impact of a
product. In International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED); Standford University: Stanford, CA, USA,
2009; pp. 185–196.
45. Miranda de Souza, V.; Borsato, M. Combining Stage-GateTM model using Set-Based concurrent engineering
and sustainable end-of-life principles in a product development assessment tool. J. Clean. Prod. 2016,
112, 3222–3231. [CrossRef]
46. Lacasa, E.; Santolaya, J.L.; Biedermann, A. Obtaining sustainable production from the product design
analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 139, 706–716. [CrossRef]
47. Pré Sustainability SimaPro FAQ: What Is the Difference between Ecoinvent Market and Transformation
Processes? Available online: http://support.simapro.com/articles/FAQ/What-is-the-difference-between-
ecoinvent-market-and-transformation-processes (accessed on 22 July 2018).
48. Cooper, J.S. Specifying functional units and reference flows for comparable alternatives. Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 2003, 8, 337–349. [CrossRef]
49. Sikdar, B. A Study of the Environmental Impact of Wired and Wireless Local Area Network Access.
IEEE Trans. Consum. Electron. 2013, 59, 85–92. [CrossRef]
50. Pré Sustainability. SimaPro Database Manual Methods Library; Pré Sustainability: Amersfoort, The Netherlands,
2016.
51. Hauschild, M.; Potting, J. Spatial differentiation in life cycle impact assessment—The EDIP2003 methodology.
2005. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281573193_Spatial_Differentiation_in_
Life_Cycle_Impact_Assessment_-_The_EDIP_2003_Methodology (accessed on 22 July 2018).
52. Dolci, G.; Tua, C.; Grosso, M.; Rigamonti, L. Life cycle assessment of consumption choices: A comparison
between disposable and rechargeable household batteries. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2016, 21, 1691–1705.
[CrossRef]
53. Aas, E.J. Design Quality and Design Efficiency: Definitions, Metrics, and Relevant Design Experiences.
In IEEE 2000 First International Symposium on Quality Electronic Design; Titsworth, F., Ed.; IEEE Computer
Society: San Jose, CA, USA, 2000; pp. 389–394.
54. Chiu, M.C.; Kremer, G.E.O. Investigation of the applicability of Design for X tools during design concept
evolution: A literature review. Int. J. Prod. Dev. 2011, 13, 132. [CrossRef]
55. UDEQ Printed Circuit Board Manufacturers’ Fact Sheet. Available online: http://digitallibrary.utah.gov/
awweb/awarchive?type=file&item=16566 (accessed on 12 October 2016).
56. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Guides to Pollution Prevention: The Printed Circuit Board
Manufacturing Industry; EPA: Cincinati, OH, USA, 1990.
57. International Finance Corporation (IFC). Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines for Semiconductors &
Other Electronics Manufacturing; IFC: Hong Kong, China, 2007.
58. EC. The PCB Regulations and Metal Recyclers and Hazardous Waste Service Providers. Available
online: http://www.ec.gc.ca/bpc-pcb/default.asp?lang=En&n=4758DDF5-BAC1-4AAC-8F7B (accessed on
12 October 2016).
59. Bennett, S. How to Recycle NiMH Batteries. Available online: http://recyclenation.com/2015/06/how-to-
recycle-nimh-batteries (accessed on 13 October 2016).
60. Tanabe, E.H.; Schlemmer, D.F.; Aguiar, M.L.; Dotto, G.L.; Bertuol, D.A. Recovery of valuable materials from
spent NIMH batteries using spouted bed elutriation. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 171, 177–183. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
61. Clark, T. Advancements in rubber disposal: Biodegradation and the Environment. In Proceedings of the
International Latex Conference 2013, Akron, OH, USA, 23–24 July 2013.
62. Leigh, E. Effects of Recycling on Humans. Available online: http://homeguides.sfgate.com/effects-recycling-
humans-79735.html (accessed on 13 October 2016).
63. Roving Networks RN-XV Data Sheet. Available online: http://dlnmh9ip6v2uc.cloudfront.net/datasheets/
Wireless/WiFi/WiFly-RN-XV-DS.pdf (accessed on 22 July 2018).
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Sustainability 10 02821 v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 10 02821 v2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 10 02821 v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Sustainability 2018, 10, 2821; doi:10.3390/su10082821 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Figure 1. Product Life Cycle.

3. Materials and Methods

Identify the product

Collect product data

Material Energy Process Product

Assess the potential environmental

Evaluate the existing product design

Propose new product design

A quantitative comparison between the

Analyse the findings

Conclude and summarise the overall

Figure 2. Research Methodology.

Goal and Scope

Figure 4. WLA disassembly.

4. Results of Life Cycle Assessment

4.1. Goal and Scope Definition

4.2. Life Cycle Inventory

Table 2. LCI of the manufacturing stage.

Name of Part Type of Material Amount (g) Process Step

Table 3. List of electronic components.

Name of Components Amount (g)

Table 4. Usage scenario.

Type of Battery Non-Rechargeable Battery Rechargeable Battery

Table 5. LCI of the use stage.

4.3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment

Table 6. Description of each impact category based on EDIP2003.

Impact Category Description

Table 7. Results of Environmental Impacts of WLA.

Figure 8. The environmental impact of each electronic component.

and completeness of xthe

6.1. Analysis of the LCA Results

6.2. Analysis of the Design Evaluation Results

Table 10. Design Efficiency Evaluation of Redesigned Product.

6.3. Quantitative Comparison between the Existing and New Design

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 25

Table 11. Comparison

Figure 11. The environmental impacts of each wireless alarm part.

Table A1. Two-digit manual handling code (existing design).

Handling Difficulties Second Handling

Part Added but Not Secured

Part Secured Immediately

Table A5. Cable Installation Operation Time.

Assembly Part Process Time Total Time (s)

You might also like