Abstract
Two types of sign substrate material used for road signs and road safety markers, one constructed of reclaimed e-waste plastic and the other of the most commonly used aluminium, are compared in the context of life cycle assessment methodology. This paper also compares the different types of tools available, and determines a suitable tool for use in calculating the carbon footprint (CF) of the two types of sign substrate material. An estimate for the CF of each type of sign substrate material is calculated as the carbon dioxide equivalent. After calculating the CF of each type of sign substrate, a sensitivity analysis is conducted. The ultimate aim of the analysis was to indicate which parameters of the substrate manufacturing system have the strongest influence on the CF results in order to find ways for lowering the environmental impact such as climate change potential. The main finding of this study is that blank signs constructed of reclaimed e-waste plastic materials are more attractive in climate change potential than those made of aluminium. Also, this paper documents a quantity assessment method for the climate change potential of using sign substrate material constructed of reclaimed e-waste plastic in roadside applications instead of conventional aluminium.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
