Log on to environdec

PCR Forum

Textile yarn and thread of natural fibres, man-made filaments or staple fibres

other commentes concerning PCR

by: susanna caprotti 13 September 2012, 3:04:15 PM (GMT +1)

C2. We think that the PCR should contain precise reference to the international standards. In particular, the technical specifications which has been required (e.g. Table 2.1) should contain the indication of clear test methods in order to allow a more contextualised evaluation of the environmental performances of the compared products.

C3. The note 5 of the paragraph 4 (page 8), “Any component present in % higher than 10% has to be specifically indicated (cannot be in other materials)” is not so clear and it could create some misunderstanding because it contrasts with the general rule: The gross weight of materials should be declared in the EPD at a minimum of 99% of one functional unit.

C4. In the general system boundaries scheme (page 9) and in the subsequent paragraphs it is not clear where are positioned the recycling processes (e.g. mechanical recycling, depolymerisation, etc.), polymerization operations and other typical man-made yarns and fibres processes.
These processes should be better defined in the scheme and in the subsequent descriptions.

C5. Concerning the data quality rules we suggest to insert the rule to use specific data for monomers/polymers production and recycling processes if they are carried out within the company who develops the EPD (see paragraph 8.2 of PCR “CPC 355, Man made fibres – synthetic”). In fact, these processes are decisive in the environmental impact assessment on man-made yarns category.

C6. Concerning to the rule at 7.1.1 “Waste from the process can be considered to be a by-product if constituting a substantial part of the overall company revenues…”, it is not clear and should refer to the products which effectively have an industrial application in other processes and are not intended for WtE (waste to energy) or other energy production processes.

We are looking forward to a prompt reply.
Thank you.

Kind Regards
Susanna Caprotti

Re: other commentes concerning PCR

by: C Foster 24 July 2013, 9:35:05 AM (GMT +1)

Thank you for the comments, here are the replies already informally submitted  C2 International standards have been cited.  C3 The table is intended to disclose the product content: so that it is reasonable that the smaller and more sensitive quantities can be omitted in detail. They must anyway be included in detail (at least 99%) in the LCA.  C4 The process flow chart  has been clarified C5 Rules about use of generic data have been reported C6 Definition of by-product has been reported taking into account the GPI 2.0

Re: other commentes concerning PCR

by: C Foster 31 August 2016, 3:29:42 PM (GMT +1)

Hi, I was trying to get in contact with Susanna Caprotti regarding PCR development for plastic recycling.
Please contact me at marcus@miljogiraff.se if you read this.
I am working on LCA in a research project to facilitate Circular Economy for waste in industry.

Mistra/Closing the loop II/Cimmrec

Further we have just made an LCA on recycling cotton.
Best regards
Marcus Wendin

Re: other commentes concerning PCR

by: C Foster 31 August 2016, 3:42:27 PM (GMT +1)

Hi Marcus,

I sent you an e-mail.

Best regards,
Kristian Jelse

3 Posts Page 1 of 1