08
13
3

Stanford  University,  Fall  2013
Professor  Michael  D.  Lepech
Life  Cycle  Assessment  of  Complex  Systems
Department  of  Civil  &  Environmental  Engineering
Abstract
Initiated  by  regulations  in  the  1970s,   the  application  of  flame  retardant  chemicals  has   become  an  increasingly  popular  method  for   producing  fire  resistant  furniture.  Recent   studies,  however,  have  exposed  many  of  these   chemical  retardants  as  global  contaminants,   linking  them  to  adverse  environmental  and   human  health  effects.  While  several  flame-­‐ retardants  are  now  banned  due  to  their  toxicity,   a  new  class  of  non-­‐halogenated  retardants  has   emerged.  Although  the  long-­‐term  effects  of   these  new  chemicals  are  uncertain,  their   worldwide  use  continues  to  increase.  Recently,   inherently  fire  resistant  textiles,  such  as  wool,   have  been  introduced  as  an  alternative  to   chemical  flame  retardants.
This  study  evaluated  the  environmental   and  human  health  impacts  associated  with  two   flame  resistant  alternatives—an  organic  wool   barrier,  EcoWool,  and  a  non-­‐halogenated   chemical  flame  retardant,  Fyrol TM  A710.
EcoWool  and  Fyrol TM  A710   are  used  for  the  fire   protection  of  two  similarly  priced  upholstered   dining  room  chairs,  manufactured  by  Cisco
Brothers  and  Ethan  Allen,  respectively.  In  order   to  provide  a  consistent   unit  of  comparison   between  these  two  products,  the  weights  of  the   physical  wool  barrier  and  the  chemical  flame   retardant  required  to  protect  one  dining  room   chair  over  a  period  of  20  years  were  examined.
A  cradle-­‐through-­‐use  phase  boundary,  which   encompasses  processes  from  extraction  of  raw   materials  to  the  end  of  useful  life,  was   employed.
A  life  cycle  assessment  was  conducted   to  analyze  three  main  damage  categories— resource  depletion,  ecological  welfare,  and   human  health.  The  evaluation  of  the  two   products  using  these  impact  measures  indicated   the  physical  wool  barrier  as  sustainably  superior   in  all  three  categories.  Most  notably,  production   and  use  of  Fyrol TM  A710  resulted  in  higher  total   emissions  and  significant  human  health   concerns,  indicated  by  80%  greater  carcinogenic   equivalent  emissions.  While  the  chemical  flame   retardant  also  performed  worse  in  terms  of   total  ecological  impacts,  EcoWool  presented   greater  eutrophication  and  summer  smog   potential.
The  EcoWool  barrier,  while  being   environmentally  and  socially  preferable,  costs
40  times  more  than  an  equivalent  unit  of
Fyrol TM  A710.  The  small-­‐scale,  labor-­‐intensive   processes  associated  with  production  of
EcoWool  makes  competition  with  mass-­‐ produced  chemicals  infeasible.  Therefore,  most   manufacturers  are  likely  to  continue  meeting   flammability  standards  via  solutions  like  Fyrol TM
A710,  regardless  of  its  associated  resource  and   health  effects.  Without  significant  government   intervention,  most  reform  will  have  to  take   place  at  the  consumer  level.  Mandating   environmental  labels  will  allow  consumers  to   make  an  informed  decision  and  give  them  the   power  to  positively  affect  the  environment,   society,  and  future  generations  through  their   purchases.
2

I.   Introduction  ..............................................................................................................................  5
A.
B.
C.
Overview  of  the  Sustainable  Furnishings  Council  ............................................................................  5
Controversy  Surrounding  Chemical  Flame  Retardants  ....................................................................  5
Goal  and  Scope  ................................................................................................................................  6
II.   Life  Cycle  Inventory  .................................................................................................................  7
A.
B.
C.
Material  Acquisition,  Production,  and  Manufacturing  ....................................................................  8
Use  .................................................................................................................................................  12
End  of  Life  ......................................................................................................................................  12
III.   Impact  Assessment  Results  .................................................................................................  12
A.
B.
Eco-­‐indicator  95  .............................................................................................................................  13
IMPACT  2002+  ...............................................................................................................................  17
IV.   Discussion  ............................................................................................................................  19
A.
B.
C.
Economic  Analysis  .........................................................................................................................  19
Sensitivity  Analyses  .......................................................................................................................  20
Key  Influences  ................................................................................................................................  23
V.   Conclusions  and  Recommendations  .....................................................................................  23
A.
B.
Conclusions  from  Analysis  .............................................................................................................  23
Recommendations  for  Moving  Forward  ........................................................................................  24
VI.   Appendices  ..........................................................................................................................  26
VII.   Bibliography  .........................................................................................................................  37
3

IST  OF
ABLES
T ABLE   1.
E CO W OOL   M ODEL   I NPUTS  ......................................................................................................................................  9
T ABLE   2.
F YROL
T ABLE   3.
F YROL
TM
TM
A710   M ODEL   I NPUTS  ..............................................................................................................................  11
A710   M ODEL   I NPUTS   (T RANSPORTATION )  ..................................................................................................  11
T ABLE   4.
I MPACT   C ATEGORY   U NITS  .....................................................................................................................................  14
T ABLE   5.
I MPACT   C ATEGORY   U NITS  .....................................................................................................................................  18
T ABLE   6.
U SE   P HASE   M ODEL   R ESULTS  .................................................................................................................................  19
T ABLE   7.
L IFE   C YCLE   C OSTS  ................................................................................................................................................  19
T ABLE   8.
S ENSITIVITY   A NALYSIS   E XPLANATIONS  ......................................................................................................................  20
T ABLE   9.
E CO W OOL   S ENSITIVITY   1   M ODEL   I NPUTS  ................................................................................................................  21
T ABLE   10.
F YROL
TM
A710   S ENSITIVITY   1   M ODEL   I NPUTS  ........................................................................................................  22
T ABLE   11.
E CO W OOL   I NVENTORY  .......................................................................................................................................  28
T
T
ABLE
ABLE
12.
13.
F
F
YROL
YROL
TM
TM
A710
A710
I
E
NVENTORY
NERGY   I
.................................................................................................................................  29
NPUTS  ...........................................................................................................................  29
T ABLE   14.
E CO W OOL   T RANSPORTATION   I NPUTS  ....................................................................................................................  29
TM
T ABLE   15.
F YROL A710   T RANSPORTATION   I NPUTS  .............................................................................................................  30
T ABLE   16.
E CO -­‐I NDICATOR   95   W EIGHTING   F ACTORS  ..............................................................................................................  32
T ABLE   17.
U SER   C OSTS  FOR   E CO W OOL  ................................................................................................................................  33
T ABLE   18.
U SER   C OSTS  FOR   F YROL
TM
A710  .........................................................................................................................  34
T ABLE   19.
E NVIRONMENTAL   C OSTS  FOR   E CO W OOL  ...............................................................................................................  34
T ABLE   20.
E NVIRONMENTAL   C OSTS  FOR   F YROL
TM
A710  .........................................................................................................  34
IST  OF
IGURES
F IGURE   1.
C HARACTERIZATION   C OMPARISON  OF
F IGURE   3.
W EIGHTED   C OMPARISON  OF   F YROL
TM
F
F IGURE   4.
S INGLE   S CORE   C OMPARISON  OF   F YROL
YROL
F IGURE   2.
N ORMALIZATION   C OMPARISON  OF   F YROL
TM
TM
A710  AND   E CO W OOL   (E CO -­‐ INDICATOR   95   M ETHOD )  ..............................  14
A710  AND   E CO W OOL   (E CO -­‐ INDICATOR   95   M ETHOD )  ..................................  15
A710  AND   E CO W OOL   (E CO -­‐ INDICATOR   95   M ETHOD )  ..........................................  16
TM
A710  AND   E CO W OOL   (E CO -­‐ INDICATOR   95   M ETHOD )  .....................................  17
F IGURE   5.
C HARACTERIZATION   C OMPARISON  OF   F YROL
TM
A710  AND   E CO W OOL   (IMPACT   2002+   M ETHOD )  .................................  18
F IGURE   6.
S ENSITIVITY   A NALYSIS   C HARACTERIZATION   (E CO -­‐ INDICATOR   95   M ETHOD )  ...................................................................  20
F IGURE   7.
E CO W OOL   T ORNADO   D IAGRAM  ...........................................................................................................................  23
F IGURE   8.
F YROL
TM
A710   T ORNADO   D IAGRAM  .....................................................................................................................  23
F IGURE   9.
E CO W OOL   P ROCESS   F LOW   D IAGRAMS  ..................................................................................................................  26
F IGURE   10.
F YROL
F IGURE   11.
F YROL
TM
TM
A710   P ROCESS   F LOW   D IAGRAMS  ..........................................................................................................  27
A710   C ARCINOGENIC   P ROCESS   C ONTRIBUTION  ........................................................................................  30
F IGURE   12.
E CO W OOL   C ARCINOGENIC   P ROCESS   C ONTRIBUTION  ..............................................................................................  30
F IGURE   13.
E CO W OOL   E UTROPHICATION   P ROCESS   C ONTRIBUTION  ...........................................................................................  31
F IGURE   14.
E CO W OOL   S OLID   W ASTE   P ROCESS   C ONTRIBUTION  ................................................................................................  31
F IGURE   15.
F YROL
TM
TM
A710   E NERGY   R ESOURCES   P ROCESS   C ONTRIBUTION  .................................................................................  32
F IGURE   16.
F YROL A710   A CIDIFICATION   P ROCESS   C ONTRIBUTION  .........................................................................................  33
F IGURE   17.
E CO W OOL   A CIDIFICATION   P ROCESS   C ONTRIBUTION  ...............................................................................................  33
F IGURE   18.
E CO W OOL   S IMA P RO   N ETWORK   D IAGRAM   (4%   C ONTRIBUTION   C UT -­‐ OFF )  .................................................................  35
F IGURE   19.
F YROL
TM
A710   S IMA P RO   N ETWORK   D IAGRAM   (15%   C ONTRIBUTION   C UT -­‐ OFF )  .........................................................  36
4

I.
A  major  source  of  concern  surrounding  the  use  of  chemical  flame  retardants  in  furniture  is  their   potential  to  cause  adverse  environmental  and  human  health  effects.  Production  and  incineration  of   these  chemicals  result  in  vast  quantities  of  daily  atmospheric  emissions.  Furthermore,  trace  amounts  of   certain  chemical  flame  retardants  leach  out  of  furniture  throughout  its  lifetime,  depositing  in  the  dust   that  people  inhale  everyday.  Previous  life  cycle  assessments  have  attempted  to  quantify  the  overall   impact  of  using  flame  retardants  in  furniture,  taking  into  account  the  pollutants  emitted  from  the   combustion  of  chemicals  during  accidental  fires.  A  study  conducted  in  2004,  which  compared  flame   retarded  (FR)  and  non-­‐FR  couches,  found  that  the  total  impact  of  FR  couches  was  less  than  the   alternative  when  the  higher  frequency  of  fires  associated  with  unprotected  furniture  was  taken  into   account.
1  While  such  studie s  point  to  the  benefits  achieved  by  enhanced  fire  safety,  they  also  raise  the   question  of   whether  or  not  using  chemical  flame  retardants  is  the  best  method  for  minimizing  human   and  environmental  risk.  Following  concerns  about  the  safety  of  chemical  fire  retardants,  organic  wool   barriers  have  been  introduced  and  marketed  as  a  safer  and  more  sustainable  alternative.  Wool’s   inherent  physical  properties  provide  a  natural  means  of  fire  protection,  and  furniture  that  utilizes  wool   for  fire  resistance  has  been  shown  to  pass  the  same  flammability  tests  as  furniture  that  employs   chemically  treated  foams.
2
The  objective  of  this  life  cycle  assessment  (LCA)  is  to  compare  the  environmental  impacts  of   organic  wool  barriers  and  chemical  flame  retardants  used  primarily  as  fire  protection  for  commercially   manufactured  furniture.  Through  this  LCA,  we  intend  to  determine  if  the  natural  wool  barrier  is  in  fact  a   more  sustainable  alternative,  as  well  as  to  address  the  human  health  risks  related  to  the  use  of  furniture   treated  with  chemicals.  With  the  intent  of  facilitating  industry  decision  making,  we  will  propose   recommendations  for  mitigating  adverse  environmental  and  human  health  impacts  without   compromising  fire  safety  standards.
Founded  in  High  Point,  North  Carolina  in  2006,  the  Sustainable  Furnishings  Council  (SFC)   promotes  sustainable  practices  in  the  home  furnishings  industry.
3  Members  of  this  non-­‐profit   organization  seek  to  increase  awareness  of  sustainability  issues  and  to  assist  manufacturers,  retailers,   and  consumers  in  the  adoption  of  better  practices.  The  affiliates  of  the  SFC  recognize  the  urgency  and   magnitude  of  environmental  issues,  such  as  climate  change  and  its  consequences  on  society,  which  can   be  mitigated  through  sustainable  practices.  Members  of  the  Council  work  together  to  develop  and   promote  solutions  in  the  furnishings  industry  that  minimize  hazardous  emissions  and  pollutants,   increase  recyclable  content,  and  utilize  renewable  primary  sources.  Furthermore,  members  commit  not   only  to  implementing  sustainable  practices,  but  also  to  being  transparent  in  their  practices,  providing   assurance  for  consumers  who  invest  in  these  companies.  In  an  effort  to  promote  sustainability  and  to   minimize  environmental  impact,  the  SFC  perceives  life  cycle  assessment  as  the  principal  measurement   of  sustainability.  Thus,  through  the  specified  assessment  of  wool  barriers  and  chemical  flame  retardants,   this  report  aims  to  compare  the  impact  of  two  alternatives  over  their  useful  lifetime.
5

In  recent  years,  chemists  and  researchers  have  shed  light  on  the  controversy  surrounding   chemical  flame  retardants  used  in  the  manufacturing  of  furniture.  Although  these  retardants  have  been   present  in  furniture  and  other  household  products  for  decades,  their  hazardous  implications  on  both   human  health  and  the  environment  are  of  a  relatively  recent  understanding.  In  1975,  Technical  Bulletin
117  was  implemented  in  California  as  a  protective  measure  to  provide  flammability  standards  for  the   filling  materials  used  in  furniture.
4  Still  in  effect  as  the  main  flammability  measure  today,  the  standard   requires  materials  within  upholstered  furniture,  such  as  raw  foam,  to  withstand  an  open  flame  for   twelve  seconds.  While  the  intention  of  this  standard  appears  positive,  the  means  by  which  most   companies  meet  this  standard  presents  problems.  The  cheapest  solution  for  passing  this  test  is  to  add   fire  retardant  chemicals  to  the  foam.  Thus,  this  was  the  practice  adopted  by  nearly  all  furniture   manufacturing  companies  at  the  time  of  the  bulletin’s  implementation,  and  it  continues  to  be  the   prominent  choice  of  manufacturers  today.  In  fact,  according  to  market  research  from  the  Freedonia
Group,  worldwide  demand  for  flame  retardants  skyrocketed  from  526  million  pounds  in  1983  to  3.4   billion  pounds  in  2009.
5  The  Freedonia  Group  forecasts  continued  growth  for  these  retardants,  with  a   predicted  demand  of  4.4  billion  pounds  by  2014.  Meanwhile,  researchers  in  the  scientific  community,   such  as  Arlene  Blum,  a  biophysical  chemist  and  expert  on  chemical  flame  retardants,  are  fighting  to   reverse  this  trend  through  awareness  of  the  impacts  of  these  chemicals  on  human  health  and  the   environment.
The  risk  of  chemical  exposure  within  one’s  home  is  arguably  the  most  controversial  health   concern  related  to  chemically  treated  furniture.  After  health  risks  surfaced  regarding  the  toxic  effects  of   polybrominated  FRs  in  2004,  a  new  class  of  non-­‐halogenated  organophosphate  flame  retardants
(OPFRs),  which  were  perceived  to  be  less  toxic,  was  introduced.
6  Unfortunately,  many  additive  flame   retardants,  including  this  new  class  of  OPFRs,  escape  from  the  furniture  and  settle  into  the  dust  within   households.  Although  one  piece  of  furniture  may  release  only  small  amounts  of  chemicals,  consumers   are  exposed  to  these  pollutants  throughout  the  furniture’s  useful  life.  Furthermore,  when  treated   furniture  catches  on  fire,  acutely  high  levels  of  toxic  chemicals  are  released  into  the  air.  Human
exposure  to  many  of  these  substances  is  linked  to  cancer,  respiratory  problems,  neurological  defects,   developmental  problems,  and  infertility.
7
Update  to  California  Technical  Bulletin  117
On  November  22,  2013,  California  approved  a  new  bulletin  that  will  enable  furniture   manufacturers  to  meet  flammability  standards  without  using  chemical  flame  retardants.  Rather  than   banning  the  use  of  chemicals,  however,  the  updated   TB  117-­‐2013  will  require  all  upholstered  fabric  to   resist  a  smoldering  cigarette  test.  This  new  methodology  is  based  on  research  that  confirms  cigarettes  as   the  most  common  cause  of  household  fires.  The  revised  standard  will  be  phased  in  starting  in  January
2014.
8
The  goal  of  our  study  is  to  use  quantitative  measures  to  evaluate  environmental  impacts  related   to  the  use  of  chemical  flame  retardants  and  physical  flame  retardant  barriers.  We  will  use  one  fire   protected  dining  room  chair  with  a  20-­‐year  lifetime  as  the  functional  unit  to  relate  the  inputs  and   outputs  of  both  products.  Similar  chairs  manufactured  by  two  different  furniture  companies  will  be
investigated  to  establish  the  specific  products  for  our  comparison.
6

The  wool  barrier  product  we  will  consider  is  used  for  the  Bertoli  Dining  Chair  manufactured  by
Cisco  Brothers,  a  member  of  the  Sustainable  Furnishings  Council.  The  chair  includes  a  19”x  18”  seat   cushion  and  a  19”x19”  back  cushion,  both  of  which  are  approximately  3½”  thick.  Cisco  Brothers  avoids   the  use  of  chemically  treated  foam  inserts  by  substituting  them  with  organic  wool  from  locally  raised   sheep.  Woolgatherer  Carding  Mill  and  Warehouse  supplies  their  signature  batting  blend,  known  as
EcoWool,  to  the  chair  manufacturer.  An  estimated  total  of  6  lbs.  of  EcoWool  encases  the  cushions,   creating  a  low  oxygen  environment  with  natural  fire  resistance.
The  second  dining  chair  we  will  investigate  is  the  Brody  Side  Chair,  produced  by  Ethan  Allen.  The   chemical  flame  retardant  used  in  this  chair’s  cushions  is  Fyrol TM  A710,  which  utilizes  phosphorous  as  the   active  flame-­‐retarding  ingredient.  Unlike  many  chemical  fire  retardants  that  contain  bromine,  Fyrol TM
A710  is  a  halogen-­‐free  chemical  compound.  Its  flame  retardant  characteristics  derive  from  its  low   volatility  and  thermal  stability.
9  In  the  event  of  a  fire,  Fyrol TM  A710  will  provide  protection  by  forming  a   char  on  the  surface  of  the  polymer  to  which  it  is  added,  thus  insulating  the  polymer  and  preventing   further  decomposition.
10  The  seat  and  back  cushions  of  the  Brody  Side  Chair  have  slightly  larger  volumes   than  those  used  in  the  Bertoli  Dining  Chair.  To  provide  a  consistent  unit  for  analysis,  we  will  assume  that   the  dimensions  of  both  chair  cushions  are  19”  x  18”  x  3.5”,  and  that  each  chair  contains  two  of  these   cushions.
Considering  the  chair  cushion  dimensions  and  their  material  composition,  we  have  determined   that  0.0588  kg  of  Fyrol TM  A710  is  expected  to  provide  a  comparable  standard  of  fire  protection  for  our   functional  unit  as  6  lbs.  of  an  EcoWool  barrier.  Furthermore,  the  amount  of  fire  retardant  used  in  each   chair  is  expected  to  provide  enough  fire  protection  to  fulfill  the  requirements  set  forth  by  California
Technical  Bulletin  117.  For  analysis  purposes,  we  will  assume  that  all  other  components  of  the  two   chairs  are  assembled  using  similar  materials  and  processes,  and  that  the  fire  protection  element   represents  the  only  difference  between  the  Cisco  Brothers  and  Ethan  Allen  products.
A  cradle-­‐through-­‐use  system  boundary  will  be  employed  to  compare  the  two  alternative  modes   of  fire  protection,  from  extraction  of  materials  through  end  of  useful  life.  This  boundary  focuses  on  the   environmental  impacts  associated  with  raw  materials,  energy  usage,  infrastructure,  and  emissions   required  for  the  production  and  transport  of  each  product.  Our  system  boundary  excludes  the  packaging   of  both  the  wool  and  the  chemical  fire  retardant,  as  well  as  the  components  of  the  assembled  chair  that   are  not  directly  related  to  fire  protection  (hardwood  frame  parts,  legs,  doweled  joinery,  etc.).  Energy,   emissions,  and  wastes  related  to  furniture  factory  and  retail  store  infrastructure  is  assumed  equal  for   both  products  and  is,  therefore,  ignored  in  analysis.  Recycling  rates  of  both  chairs  are  also  considered  to   be  equal.  Although  end  of  life  disposal  impacts  are  not  included  in  the  LCA  due  to  insufficient  data,   disposal  scenarios  are  discussed.  Please  refer  to  the  Appendix  (Figures  9  and  10)  for  the  process  flow   diagrams  for  each  product.
II.
Life  Cycle  Inventory
This  life  cycle  analysis  was  conducted  according  to  the  guidelines  set  forth  in  the  International
Organization  for  Standardization  (ISO)  14040.  A  commercial  LCA  software  product,  SimaPro  7,  was   employed  as  a  modeling  tool,  and  Eco-­‐indicator  95  was  chosen  as  the  primary  impact  assessment   method.  The  IMPACT  2002+  assessment  methodology  was  also  employed  to  specifically  evaluate  human   health  related  categories.  Data  was  predominantly  obtained  from  primary  sources  within  the  industry.
7

The  standard  inventory  databases  within  SimaPro  were  also  utilized  and  modified  as  needed  to  most   accurately  reflect  the  specific  processes  being  evaluated.
Rearing  and  Shearing
The  wool  used  in  the  chair  manufactured  by  Cisco  Brothers  is  sourced  from  sheep  at  several   farms  on  the  coast  of  Oregon.  Farms  that  sell  their  wool  for  the  production  of  EcoWool  follow  strict   growing  guidelines  with  respect  to  grazing  methods  and  avoidance  of  common  industry  practices  such   as  carbonizing,  chemical  crimping,  dipping,  bleaching  and  mulesing.
11  In  addition,  the  wool  must  contain   a  minimal  amount  of  vegetable  matter.
12  These  farms  dedicate  20%  of  their  business  to  wool  shearing   and  80%  to  lamb  meat  sales.  Sheep  are  sheared  once  a  year  and  yield  approximately  6  lbs.  of  fleece  per   shear.  During  the  shearing  process,  dirty  wool  from  frequent  contact  with  the  ground  is  discarded,   resulting  in  about  15%  waste.  The  farms  that  provide  wool  for  Woolgatherer’s  signature  EcoWool  pride   themselves  on  simplistic  organic  practices.  Unlike  the  majority  of  wool  farms,  farms  that  collaborate   with  the  Woolgatherer  Carding  Mill  do  not  use  chemical  fertilizer  or  pesticides.  Instead,  the  sheep   manure  is  used  to  fertilize  the  land.  While  corn  and  soy  based  products  are  commonly  used  for  livestock   feed,  EcoWool  is  sheared  from  sheep  that  eat  only  grass  and  hay.  The  inputs  and  impacts  of  this  process   were  modeled  using  average  data  corresponding  to  the  rearing  and  shearing  of  sheep,  as  found  in  the
SimaPro  database,  and  adjusted  when  possible  to  reflect  the  true  conditions  of  the  farms  in   consideration.  Furthermore,  a  20%  mass  allocation  was  allotted  to  sheep  rearing  to  reflect  the  portion   of  the  farms’  activities  that  are  dedicated  to  selling  wool.
Baling
From  the  Oregon  coast  farms,  sheared  wool  is  transported  a  relatively  short  distance  (ranging   from  230  to  266  miles,  on  average)  by  truck  to  Woolgatherer  Carding  Mill  in  Montague,  CA.  There,  a   baling  machine  compresses  two  to  three  bales  into  one  so  that  more  wool  can  be  transported  at  once   for  subsequent  steps  in  the  production  process.  The  baling  machine  operates  on  grid  electricity  for  8   hours  per  day  and  produces  little  to  no  waste.  Two  to  three  days  of  operations  yield  enough  baled  wool
to  fill  a  45,000  lb.  capacity  truck.  A  truck  transfers  the  bales  to  San  Angelo,  Texas,  the  location  of  the   country’s  largest  functioning  scouring  plant.
13
Scouring
Scouring  in  this  context  refers  to  the  washing  and  drying  of  the  wool.  The  bales  are  washed  in  a   scourer  with  detergent  and  hot  water  (60  °C)  and  subsequently  dried  in  a  large  commercial  dryer.  For   each  bale,  the  entire  process  takes  approximately  45  minutes  to  one  hour.  Scouring  removes  by-­‐ products  such  as  grease,  dirt,  suint  (dried  sweat),  and  vegetable  matter,  reducing  the  weight  of  the  wool   by   25%.
14  The  grease,  when  refined,  becomes  lanolin  and  is  removed  and  sold  as  a  co-­‐product  to   cosmetic  companies.  For  the  purposes  of  our  analysis,  this  co-­‐product  will  be  excluded  from  the  system   boundary.  In  addition  to  grease,  the  scouring  effluent  contains  impurities  that  have  high  levels  of  BOD
(biochemical  oxygen  demand)  and  suspended  solids.  For  every  8.8  lbs.  of  scoured  wool,  1.55  lbs.  of
BOD
5
and  0.75  lbs.  of  solid  waste  are  discharged.
15  The  scouring  plant  consumes,  on  average,  142,850
8

kWh  per  month  from  natural  gas,  which  equates  to  3.63  kWh  for  each  fire  protected  chair.  Once  the   scouring  process  is  complete,  another  45,000  lb.  capacity  truck  returns  the  scoured  wool  to
Woolgatherer  Carding  Mill  in  Montague,  CA.
Carding
The  Woolgatherer  Carding  Mill  performs  several  processes  on  the  scoured  wool.  To  begin,  a   picking  machine  mixes  and  blends  the  compressed  wool,  processing  approximately  400  lbs.  of  wool   fibers  per  day.  The  picker  produces  1%  waste,  comprising  mostly  of  dust  or  large  objects  such  as  rocks.
Next,  the  wool  is  processed  through  either  a  garneting  or  a  carding  machine.  While  a  garneting  machine   produces  less  waste,  a  carding  machine  can  process  material  at  twice  the  speed.  The  energy  and  waste   associated  with  these  machines  are  comparable.  For  modeling,  we  considered  the  carding  machine,   which  processes  1000  lbs.  of  wool  per  day  and  produces  8%  waste,  which  is  sold  to  make  insulation.
After  the  garneting  or  carding  is  complete,  a  lapper  machine  layers  thin  sheets  of  wool  until  a  desired   thickness  is  achieved,  thus  creating  the  wool  batting.  Lastly,  the  wool  is  fed  through  a  needle-­‐felting   machine  to  compress  the  batting  into  a  wool  barrier.  The  needle-­‐felting  machine  processes  1000  lbs.  of   batted  wool  per  day  within  6  hours  of  operation.  Scouring  and  carding  were  modeled  in  SimaPro  using   average  data  for  wool  textile  processing.  The  known  solid  waste  from  both  processes  and  the
biochemical  oxygen  demand  from  scouring  were  also  added  to  the  model.
Chair  Assembly
The  wool  barrier  is  transported  by  truck  from  the  Woolgather  Carding  Mill  to  Los  Angeles,
California,  where  Cisco  Brothers  furniture  manufacturing  takes  places.  Each  truck  shipment  involves   approximately  640  miles  of  transportation  and  contains  30,000  lbs.  of  wool.  The  final  wool  barrier   needed  for  each  chair  weighs  approximately  six  pounds.  The  wool  barrier  is  simply  laid  on  the  cushion   during  the  manufacturing  process;  therefore,  no  waste  is  produced.  Although  energy  consumption  is   essential  to  this  process,  the  electricity,  facilities,  materials  and  fuels  required  for  the  production  of  each   chair  is  comparable;  therefore,  these  energy  inputs  were  not  included  in  analysis  of  either  chair   assembly.  Once  the  chairs  are  assembled,  they  are  distributed  by  trucks  to  retail  stores  in  New  York,  San
Francisco,  and  Los  Angeles.  Based  on  the  assumption  that  an  equal  number  of  chairs  are  shipped  to  each
retail  location,  one  truck  holding  24  chairs  travels  an  average  distance  of  1057  miles.
The  following  table  provides  a  summary  of  SimaPro  modeling  inputs  for  the  EcoWool  Barrier.
Table  1.
EcoWool  Model  Inputs
SimaPro  Input  Category
Materials/Assemblies
Rearing  and  Shearing
Shearing  Waste
Transportation  to  Baling
Transportation  to  Scouring
Scouring  Waste  and  Emissions
Transportation  to  Carding
Carding  Waste
Amount
8.8   lb.
1.55   lb.
Unit
2.93   ton-­‐miles
8.02   ton-­‐miles
2.07   lb.
6   ton-­‐miles
0.587   lb.
9

Transportation  to  Chair  Manufacturer
Transportation  to  Retailer
Processes
Baling
Scouring  and  Carding
Waste
Shearing  Waste
Waste,  inert
Scouring  Waste  and  Emissions
BOD
5
Solids,  inorganic
2.88   ton-­‐miles
990.94   ton-­‐miles
8.8   lb.
6   lb.
1.55   lb.
1.32   lb.
0.75   lb.
Mining  and  Raw  Material  Refining
Ethan  Allen  is  assumed  to  use  polyurethane  foam  cushions  manufactured  by  Domfoam
International.  Domfoam  receives  its  chemical  flame  retardants  from  Israel  Chemicals  Ltd.  (ICL)  Industrial
Products  America  (IPA).  The  raw  material  acquisition  process  for  Fyrol TM  A710  begins  with  phosphorous   and  sodium  chloride  mining.  ICL  has  an  exclusive  agreement  with  the  Israeli  government  that  permits   them  to  mine  minerals  from  the  Negev  Desert  and  the  Dead  Sea  at  lost  costs.
16  Both  phosphate  rock  and   sodium  chloride,  which  are  extracted  from  these  regions,  are  required  for  the  flame  retardant   manufacturing  process.
A  substantial  amount  of  energy  is  expended  abroad  in  material  refinement  to  avoid  transporting   excess  weight  associated  with  the  raw  materials.  Phosphate  rock  is  heated  in  an  electric  furnace  with   electrical  resistance  heaters  to  separate  coke  and  silicate  slag  from  the  phosphorous.
17  The  resulting   substance  is  liquid,  elemental  “white”  phosphorous.  White  phosphorus  is  easily  ignitable,  so  it  must  be   reprocessed  into  red  phosphorus  for  use  in  the  production  of  chemical  flame  retardants.
18  Furthermore,   electrolysis  is  used  to  refine  the  sodium  chloride  into  chlorine.
19  These  refined  materials  are  transported
in  large  quantities  by  barge  from  the  Middle  East   to  ICL  IPA  in  Gallipolis  Ferry,  West  Virginia,  where  the   production  of  the  flame  retardant  takes  place.
20  Meanwhile  in  Texas,  natural  gas  and  crude  oil  are   refined  into  phenol  and  isobutylene.  These  petroleum-­‐based  chemicals  are  subsequently  transported  to   the  ICL  IPA  plant  as  well.
Chemical  Manufacturing
The  refined  materials  are  manufactured  into  Fyrol TM  A710   through  a  series  of  reactions  at  ICL  IPA.
The  process  starts  by  combining  phosphorous  and  chlorine  at  213°C  to  create  phosphorus  trichloride
(PCl
3
),  which  is  then  oxygenated  at  234°C  to  form  phosphoryl  chloride  (POCl
3
).
A  mixed  triaryl  phosphate   ester  is  formed  by  alkylating  phenol  with  isobutylene  and  reacting  the  mixture  with  phosphoryl   chloride.
21  Phosphoryl  chloride  is  also  combined  with  phenol  to  produce  triphenyl  phosphate  which,   when  combined  with  the  phosphate  ester,  creates  Fyrol TM  A710.  Although  the  exact  composition  is   proprietary,  the  MSDS  on  Fyrol TM  A710  reports  that  proprietary  phosphate  esters  and  triphenyl   phosphate  (OP(OC
6
H
5
)
3
)  comprise  60%  and  40%  of  the  product’s  weight,  respectively.
22  Chemical  waste,   including  hydrochloric  acid  (HCl),  is  produced  as  a  result  of  these  chemical  processes.  HCl  is  sold  for  use   in  other  industries;  therefore,  for  our  purposes,  this  co-­‐product  will  not  be  considered  waste  and  will  be
10

excluded  from  the  system  boundary.  The  final  chemical  product  is  8.5%  phosphorus  by  weight  and  has  a   density  of  1182  kg/m 3  at  standard  atmospheric  conditions.  ICL  IPA  allocates  1.66%  of  their  total   chemical  manufacturing  to  the  production  of  Fyrol TM  A710.
A  majority  of  the  aforementioned  processes  are  captured  by  SimaPro’s  material  and  processes   database.  The  following  table  shows  the  estimated  amounts  of  phosphoryl  chloride,  phenol,  and   isobutanol  required  for  the  0.0588  kg  of  Fyrol TM  A710  that  is  applied  to  one  chair.  Raw  materials,   transport  of  materials  to  the  manufacturing  plant,  infrastructure,  estimated  emissions,  and  energy  uses   are  all  included  in  the  upstream  inputs  for  these  chemicals.  The  amount  of  sludge  waste  associated  with
the  chemical  production  for  one  chair  is  included  separately,  as  this  consideration  is  not  accounted  for   by  the  other  inputs.
Table  2.   Fyrol TM   A710  Model  Inputs
Unit   SimaPro  Input  Category
Materials/Assemblies
Phosphoryl  Chloride
Phenol
Isobutanol
Waste
Waste,  sludge
Amount
0.029   kg
0.0525   kg
0.0055   kg
0.011   kg
Application  to  Polyurethane  Foam
Fyrol TM  A710  is  transported  by  truck  from  the  West  Virginia  manufacturing  plant  to  Domfoam
International  in  Quebec,  Canada.  Given  that  Fyrol TM  A710  is  an  additive  flame  retardant,  it  is  applied  to   the  polyurethane  foam  without  chemical  bonding.  The  chemical  is  incorporated  into  and  dispersed   evenly  throughout  the  polyurethane  foam.
23  The  chemical  constitutes  approximately  5%  by  weight  of   the  resulting  foam.
24
Chair  Assembly
After  chemical  application,  the  polyurethane  foam  is  shipped  by  truck  to  Ethan  Allen’s  plant  in
Maiden,  North  Carolina,  where  essentially  all  of  their  upholstered  furniture  manufacturing  takes  place.
25
Given  that  the  chemical  comprises  5%  of  the  foam  cushion  weight,  one  of  Ethan  Allen  chairs  contains   approximately  0.0588  kg  of  the  fire  retardant  chemical.
Once  the  chair  is  manufactured,  it  is  transported   by  truck  to  Ethan  Allen  retail  stores  throughout  the  country.  Transportation  of  the  chair  requires   addition  modeling  inputs  as  shown  in  Table  3  below.
Table  3.
Fyrol TM  A710  Model  Inputs  (Transportation)
SimaPro  Input  Category
Materials/Assemblies
Transport  to  Foam  Manufacturer
Transportation  to  Chair  Manufacturer
Transportation  to  Retailers
Amount   Unit
0.062   ton-­‐miles
1.35   ton-­‐miles
1219   ton-­‐miles
11

Once  purchased,  each  assembled  chair  has  a  lifespan  of  approximately  20  years,  reflecting  two   generations  of  users.  Our  SimaPro  model  will  attempt  to  capture  potential  human  health  impacts   associated  with  the  use  of  a  chair  containing  the  flame  retardant  by  incorporating  indoor  air  emissions   over  a  ten  year  period.  Although  Fyrol TM  A710  has  a  proprietary  composition,  triphenyl  phosphate   comprises  40%  of  the  chemical  compound;  furthermore,  Fyrol TM  A710  belongs  to  the  aryl  phosphate   chemical  family.  Given  that  the  database  of  indoor  air  emissions  within  SimaPro  is  limited,  our  model   will  consider  the  median  concentration  of  tris-­‐2-­‐ethylhexyl  phosphate  (TEHP),  a  non-­‐halogenated   organophosphate  ester  whose  chemical  composition  aligns  closely  with  Fyrol TM  A710.  Several  recent   studies  have  analyzed  dust  and  indoor  air  samples  in  homes  to  detect  different  types  and  levels  of  flame   retardants.
26  One  study  that  focused  on  organophosphate  ester  flame  retardants  in  the  indoor   environment  reported  concentrations  of  individual  organophosphates  in  air  samples  to  be  as  high  as  250   ng/m 3 .  Given  that  an  average  individual  inhales  approximately  20  m 3  of  air  per  day,  this  concentration   would  equate  to  an  indoor  air  emission  of  approximately  18,250  micrograms  (18,250,000  ng)  over  ten   years.  Therefore,  for  the  use  phase  portion  of  our  model,  we  will  include  an  indoor  air  emission  of
18,250,000  ng  of  TEHP.
The  end  of  life  phase  may  involve  recycling,  incineration,  or  landfilling.  The  Environmental
Protection  Agency  (EPA)  estimates  that  3  million  tons  of  office  furniture  and  other  furnishings  are   discarded  each  year  as  municipal  solid  waste  (MSW).
27  Recycling  and  incineration  management  schemes   are  not  frequently  employed  for  furniture  containing  fire  retardants  for  several  reasons.  First,  recycling   has  the  potential  to  contaminate  workers  and  nearby  communities.  Furthermore,  inferior  performance   of  recycled  FR  products  is  not  uncommon.  Incineration,  if  not  executed  properly,  may  result  in  the   release  of  highly  toxic  degradation  products;  additionally,  controlled  incineration  processes  may  be   extremely  costly.  Therefore,  as  noted  by  a  study  that  reviewed  the  use  and  disposal  of  flame  retarded   products,  a  large  percentage  of  FR  products  are  sent  to  landfills.
28  More  generally,  there  is  only  limited   development  of  programs  promoting  the  recycling  and  recovery  of  commercial  upholstered  furniture,   regardless  of  whether  or  not  it  contains  flame  retardant  chemicals.  A  majority  of  the  recovery  and  reuse   of  upholstered  furniture  is  dedicated  to  carpet  cushioning  manufacturing  from  scrap  recovery.
29   Based   on  the  factors  discussed  previously,  we  will  assume  that  both  chairs  being  evaluated  are  sent  to  a  landfill,   as  this  reflects  the  most  probable  end  of  life  scenario.  Given  that  the  disposal  scenario  for  each  chair  will   be  the  same,  we  will  exclude  this  life  cycle  phase  from  our  analysis.  Although  there  will  be  landfill   emissions  associated  with  the  chemically  treated  chair,  quantifying  these  emissions  is  difficult  due  to   lack  of  data.
The  baseline  results  reflect  the  use  of  the  Eco-­‐indicator  95  assessment  method,  which   aggregates  and  characterizes  the  potential  environmental  impacts  of  the  life  cycle  inventory.  Through   the  Eco-­‐indicator  95  assessment  process,  the  inventory  is  classified  by  a  number  of  methods,  such  as   characterization,  normalization,  weighting,  and  a  one-­‐dimensional  environmental  single  score.  In
addition  to  the  primary  assessment  method,  we  utilize  an  additional  method  for  analyzing  our  product
12

inventories.  The  IMPACT  2002+  assessment  method  is  used  to  obtain  more  comprehensive  results  based   on  four  general  damage  categories—human  health,  ecosystem  quality,  climate  change,  and  resources.
Characterization
Through  characterization,  substances  from  the  inventory  analysis  are  assigned  to  the  following   impact  categories:  greenhouse,  ozone  layer,  acidification,  eutrophication,  heavy  metals,  carcinogens,   summer  smog,  winter  smog,  energy  resources,  and  solid  waste.  The  greatest  value  in  each  impact   category  is  scaled  to  100%.  Figure  1  displays  the  characterization  comparison  of  the  chemical  flame   retardant,  Fyrol TM  A710,  and  the  physical  wool  barrier,  EcoWool.  Please  refer  to  Table  4  for  the   equivalent  unit  for  each  impact  category.  Based  on  this  graph,  Fyrol TM  A710  appears  to  have  a  greater   impact  in  the  greenhouse  gases,  ozone  layer,  acidification,  heavy  metals,  winter  smog,  and  energy   resources  categories.  The  carcinogenic  impact,  which  relates  directly  to  human  health,  is  the  most   significant.  According  to  this  figure,  the  chemical  flame  retardant  produces  approximately  20  times   more  BaP-­‐equivalent  emissions  than  the  physical  wool  barrier.  The  chemical  manufacturing  of  Fyrol TM
A710  contributes  most  significantly  to  its  total  carcinogenic  impact  (see  Appendix  Figure  11).  The  major   carcinogens  emitted  during  manufacturing  include  polycyclic  aromatic  hydrocarbons  (PAHs),  chromium
(VI),  and  benzo(a)pyrene.  Polycyclic  aromatic  hydrocarbons  (PAHs)  and  chromium  (VI)  are  emitted  into   the  atmosphere  as  a  result  of  chemical  processing,  ore  refining,  and  incomplete  combustion  of  fossil   fuels.  Major  sources  of  benzo(a)pyrene,  another  PAH,  include  petroleum  refining  and  chemical  waste   incineration.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  production  of  phenol,  in  particular,  represents  60%  of
Fyrol TM  A710’s  carcinogenic  related  emissions  (see  Appendix  Figure  11).
While  the  carcinogenic  impact  of  the  EcoWool  barrier  is  low  relative  to  the  chemical  flame   retardant,  nearly  98%  of  the  BaP-­‐equivalents  originate  from  the  rearing  and  shearing  and  baling   processes,  as  shown  by  Figure  12  (see  Appendix).  As  mentioned  earlier,  EcoWool  is  sourced  from  farms   that  do  not  use  chemical  fertilizers  and  pesticides;  it  is  likely  that  if  these  products  were  used,  the   carcinogenic  impact  would  increase.
Figure  1  also  reveals  that  the  EcoWool  barrier  results  in  higher  eutrophication,  summer  smog,   and  solid  waste  impacts  than  the  chemical.  Of  these  categories,  eutrophication  and  solid  waste   represent  the  most  significant  difference  between  EcoWool  and  Fyrol TM  A710.  Eutrophication,  which   refers  to  an  excess  of  nutrients  in  a  body  of  water,  can  severely  impact  water  quality  and  biodiversity.  As   shown  by  Figure  13  (see  Appendix),  the  eutrophication  impact  of  EcoWool  can  be  attributed,  in  large   part,  to  the  rearing  and  shearing  process.  This  observation  reflects  the  use  of  manure  as  fertilizer  on  the   farms  from  which  EcoWool  is  sourced.  Excessive  nutrients  such  as  ammonia  and  nitrogen  oxides   emanate  from  the  sheep  manure  and  leach  into  nearby  water  supplies,  thereby  contributing  to   eutrophication.  In  addition  to  eutrophication,  the  solid  waste  category  represents  a  significant   difference  between  the  two  products—EcoWool  results  in  approximately  three  times  more  solid  waste   generation  than  Fyrol TM  A710.  More  than  half  of  the  total  solid  waste  generation  for  EcoWool  occurs   during  the  rearing  and  shearing,  scouring,  and  carding  processes  (see  Appendix  Figure  14).  These   processes  remove  dirt,  grease,  and  fine  particles  from  the  raw  wool.  Therefore,  the  solid  waste   generation  of  EcoWool  is  highly  dependent  on  wool’s  natural  state.  By  comparison,  the  production  of
Fyrol TM  A710  results  in  significantly  less  waste  because  the  chemical  manufacturing  process  is  quite
13

efficient.  Overall,  characterization  of  the  inventory  reveals  the  relative  benefits  and  shortcomings  of   each  product  with  respect  to  specified  environmental  impacts.
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Fyrol  A710   EcoWool
Figure  1.   Characterization  Comparison  of  Fyrol TM  A710  and  EcoWool  (Eco-­‐indicator  95  Method)
Table  4.   Impact  Category  Units
Impact  category   Equivalent  Unit
Greenhouse
Ozone  layer
Acidification
Eutrophication
Heavy  metals
Carcinogens   kg  CO
2
kg  CFC-­‐11   kg  SO
2
kg  PO
4
kg  Pb
Summer  smog
Winter  smog
Energy  resources
Solid  waste   kg  B(a)P   kg  C
2
H
4
kg  SPM
MJ  LHV   kg
Normalization
Normalization  of  the  inventory  involves  dividing  each  impact  category  by  a  reference,  thereby   allowing  for  a  more  straightforward  comparison  of  the  two  products.  Normalization  reveals  to  what   extent  a  specific  impact  category  contributes  to  the  environmental  problem  overall.  Figure  2  illustrates   that  the  heavy  metals  and  energy  resources  categories  have  the  greatest  environmental  effect.
Furthermore,  Fyrol TM  A710  has  a  more  significant  impact  on  both  of  these  categories.  The  particularly   significant  effect  of  Fyrol TM  A710  on  the  heavy  metals  category  can  be  attributed  to  emissions  of  heavy   metals  that  occur  during  raw  material  refining  and  chemical  manufacturing.  Nickel,  cadmium,  and
14

antimony  represent  the  majority  of  the  heavy  metal  emissions  associated  with  Fyrol TM  A710.  Antimony   is  a  toxic  heavy  metal  of  particular  importance  in  this  process;  antimony  is  often  used  as  a  synergist  in   the  production  of  chemical  flame  retardants  to  enhance  their  efficiency.  In  addition  to  heavy  metals,  the   energy  resources  category  appears  to  be  of  interest  based  on  the  normalization  graph.  A  majority  of  the   energy  consumption  for  Fyrol TM  A710  occurs  during  the  mining  and  chemical  production  processes,   although  the  transportation  processes  account  for  29%  of  the  total  energy  consumed  (see  Appendix
Figure  15).  Characterization  and  normalization  of  the  inventory  reveals  that,  for  both  products,  a  single   life  cycle  phase  dominates  in  generating  emissions.  In  particular,  the  rearing  and  shearing  process  for
EcoWool  and  the  chemical  manufacturing  process  for  Fyrol TM  A710  appear  to  cause  the  most  significant   impacts  on  both  humans  and  the  environment.  This  observation  is  also  reflected  within  the  SimaPro   product  network  diagrams—the  thickness  of  the  connecting  lines  indicate  relative  contribution  impacts
(see  Appendix  Figures  18  and  19).
0.48
0.44
0.4
0.36
0.32
0.28
0.24
0.2
0.16
0.12
0.08
0.04
0
Fyrol  A710   EcoWool
Figure  2.   Normalization  Comparison  of  Fyrol TM  A710  and  EcoWool  (Eco-­‐indicator  95  Method)
Weighting
Weighting  of  the  inventory  assigns  factors  to  each  impact  category  based  on  their  perceived   importance  with  regard  to  effects  on  resource  depletion,  human  health,  and  ecological  health.  Please   refer  to  the  Appendix  (Table  16)  for  the  weighting  factors  and  criteria  that  are  applied  to  each  impact   category  based  on  the  Eco-­‐indicator  95  method.  The  severity  of  each  impact  category  is  indicated  by
Eco-­‐indicator  points  (Pt),  where  1  Pt  represents  one  thousandth  of  the  yearly  environmental  load  of  one   average  European  inhabitant.  The  weighting  and  single  score  graphs  (Figures  3  and  4)  display  the  overall   environmental  effect  of  each  product.  Based  on  Figure  3,  it  becomes  evident  that  heavy  metals,   acidification,  and  carcinogens  are  the  impact  categories  of  greatest  concern.  In  all  three  of  these   categories,  Fyrol TM  A710  has  a  greater  impact  than  EcoWool.  The  damage  caused  by  heavy  metal  and   carcinogenic  emissions,  which  have  been  discussed  previously,  relates  directly  to  human  health.
15

Acidification  causes  impairment  to  the  ecosystem.  The  acidification  emissions  resulting  from  Fyrol TM
A710  can  be  attributed  primarily  to  chemical  production  (see  Appendix  Figure  16).  During  chemical   production,  nitrogen  oxides  and  sulfur  dioxides  originate  from  the  combustion  of  fossil  fuels.  In  addition,   transportation,  which  causes  nitrogen  oxides  to  be  emitted  into  the  atmosphere,  accounts  for  40%  of
Fyrol TM  A710’s  total  acidification  impact.  It  is  important  to  note  that  EcoWool’s  acidification  equivalent   emissions  are  relatively  close  to  Fyrol TM  A710’s.  Acidifying  pollutants,  such  as  ammonia,  are  emitted  into   ambient  air  as  a  result  of  various  agricultural  activities  (see  Appendix  Figure  17).
Figure  4  shows  that  when  each  category  is  added,  the  total  impact  resulting  from  the  production   and  use  of  FyrolTM  A710  is  nearly  four  times  the  total  impact  resulting  from  the  production  and  use  of   the  EcoWool  barrier.  Overall,  the  single  score  impact  assessment  results  suggest  that  EcoWool  is  the   environmentally  preferable  option  for  fire  protected  furniture.
2.40
2.00
1.60
1.20
0.80
0.40
0.00
Fyrol  A710   EcoWool
Figure  3.
Weighted  Comparison  of  Fyrol TM  A710  and  EcoWool  (Eco-­‐indicator  95  Method)
16

3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
Winter  smog
Summer  smog
Carcinogens
Heavy  metals
Eutrophicaqon
Acidificaqon
Ozone  layer
Greenhouse
1.00
0.50
0.00
Fyrol  A710   EcoWool
Figure  4.
Single  Score  Comparison  of  Fyrol TM  A710  and  EcoWool  (Eco-­‐indicator  95  Method)
The  IMPACT  2002+  assessment  methodology  links  the  inventory  emissions  results  through   midpoint  categories  to  four  general  damage  categories.  The  human  health  damage  category  is   associated  with  human  toxicity,  ionizing  radiation,  and  ozone  layer  depletion  effects.  Ecosystem  damage   is  linked  to  ozone  layer  depletion,  respiratory  organics,  aquatic  ecotoxicity,  aquatic  acidification,   terrestrial  ecotoxicity,  terrestrial  acidification  and  nutrification,  and  land  occupation.  Furthermore,   climate  change  damage  is  associated  with  global  warming,  while  resource  depletion  damage  is   associated  with  non-­‐renewable  energy  and  mineral  extraction  impacts.  Assessment  through  this   methodology  allows  for  more  general  conclusions  to  be  drawn  regarding  the  effects  of  EcoWool  and
Fyrol TM  A710  on  human  health,  ecosystem  health,  and  resource  depletion.  The  characterization  of  the   inventory  based  on  this  method  (Figure  5)  presents  results  similar  to  those  obtained  from  the  Eco-­‐ indicator  95  method.  Based  on  this  figure,  it  is  evident  that  Fyrol TM  A710  causes  more  human  health   damage  than  EcoWool.  With  respect  to  ecosystem  health,  there  appears  to  be  a  trade-­‐off  between  the   two  products.  While  EcoWool  produces  less  damage  than  Fyrol TM  A710  in  terms  ozone  layer  depletion,   aquatic  ecotoxicity,  aquatic  acidification,  and  terrestrial  ecotoxicity,  it  is  more  detrimental  in  terms  of   terrestrial  acidification  and  nutrification  and  land  occupation.  Finally,  with  respect  to  resource  depletion,
EcoWool  appears  to  be  the  more  sustainable  alternative,  as  it  consumes  less  non-­‐renewable  energy  and   its  mineral  extraction  is  negligible  compared  to  Fyrol TM  A710.
17

In  addition  to  presenting  more  comprehensive  results,  the  IMPACT  2002+  method  was   employed  to  more  accurately  capture  the  effects  of  Fyrol TM  A710’s  use  phase  emissions.  This   methodology  is  more  recent  than  the  Eco-­‐indicator  95  method;  therefore,  its  inventory  of  carcinogenic   substances  is  more  current.  Based  solely  on  the  carcinogenic  impact  category,  the  use  phase  emissions   related  to  Fyrol TM  A710  becomes  negligible  when  compared  to  the  other  phases  of  its  life  cycle  (Table  6).
This  outcome  suggests  that  the  impacts  associated  with  the  chemical  leaching  out  over  the  useful  life  of   the  product  are  much  less  worrisome  than  the  impacts  associated  with  its  production.
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-­‐20%
Fyrol  A710   EcoWool
Figure  5.   Characterization  Comparison  of  Fyrol TM  A710  and  EcoWool  (IMPACT  2002+  Method)
Impact  category
Carcinogens
Non-­‐carcinogens
Respiratory  inorganics
Ionizing  radiation
Ozone  layer  depletion
Respiratory  organics
Aquatic  ecotoxicity
Terrestrial  ecotoxicity
Terrestrial  acid/nutri
Land  occupation
Aquatic  acidification
Aquatic  eutrophication
Global  warming
Non-­‐renewable  energy
Mineral  extraction
Table  5.   Impact  Category  Units
Equivalent  Unit   kg  C
2
H
3
Cl  eq   kg  C
2
H
3
Cl  eq   kg  PM
2.5
eq
Bq  C-­‐14  eq   kg  CFC-­‐11  eq   kg  C
2
H
4
eq   kg  TEG  water   kg  TEG  soil   kg  SO
2
eq   m 2   org.  arable  land-­‐yr   kg  SO
2
eq   kg  PO
4
3-­‐   kg  CO
2
eq
MJ  primary
MJ  surplus
18

Table  6.   Use  Phase  Model  Results
Life  Cycle  Phase  or  Process
%  Contribution  to
Carcinogen  Impact
Raw  Material  Acquisition   and  Production  Phases
Transportation
Use  Phase
99.99279%
0.00719%
0.00001%
A  key  objective  of  conducting  a  life  cycle  assessment  is  to  identify  data  elements  that  contribute   significantly  to  the  results,  as  well  as  to  determine  a  reasonable  level  of  confidence  in  the  final  results.  In   this  section,  we  will  examine  the  influence  of  economics  and  evaluate  the  sensitivity  of  certain  modeling   inputs  so  that  more  comprehensive  conclusions  can  be  drawn  from  our  analysis.
Reported  below  is  a  summary  of  the  total  life  cycle  costs  for  EcoWool  and  Fyrol TM  A710.  Please   refer  to  the  Appendix  (Tables  17  through  20)  for  more  detailed  information  regarding  calculations  of  the   user  and  environmental  costs.  Regarding  user  costs,  the  price  that  each  furniture  manufacturer  pays  for   their  flame  retardant  material,  as  well  the  price  the  consumer  pays  for  the  flame  retardant,  is  reported   in  the  Appendix  (Tables  17  and  18).  It  was  assumed,  based  on  industry  research,  that  the  average  retail   price  for  an  upholstered  chair  is  four  times  the  cost  of  the  material  components.  The  economic  analysis   inherently  accounts  for  all  upstream  processes.  For  the  wool  barrier,  upstream  processes  include  cost  of   the  raw  wool  purchased  from  the  farm,  the  cost  of  carding  and  scouring  the  wool,  and  transportation   costs.  For  Fyrol TM  A710,  upstream  processes  include  the  purchase  and  processing  of  the  raw  materials,   as  well  as  the  cost  of  applying  Fyrol TM  A710  to  the  foam.  Also  displayed  in  Tables  17  and  18  is  the  cost  of   landfill  disposal  for  both  the  wool  barrier  and  the  chemical  retardant.  Considering  that  the  cost  of   disposing  a  chair  is  approximately  $20.00,  the  disposal  of  the  retardant  was  approximated  using  a   proportion  of  the  retail  price  of  the  retardant  versus  the  entire  chair.
30  The  environmental  cost   calculations  are  presented  in  Tables  19  and  20  of  the  Appendix.  The  environmental  costs  were  derived   using  the  emissions  inventory  of  each  product  and  applying  a  damage  cost  to  emitted  pollutants.  Overall,
Table  7  shows  that  Fyrol TM  A710  has  a  98%  total  life  cycle  cost  advantage  compared  to  EcoWool.  The   greater  environmental  cost  associated  with  the  chemical  fire  retardant  is  clearly  outweighed  by  the   significantly  smaller  user  cost.
Table  7.   Life  Cycle  Costs
Product
User  Cost
Environmental  Cost
Total  Life  Cycle  Cost
Summary  of  Life  Cycle  Costs
EcoWool   Fyrol TM  A710   Fyrol TM  A710  Cost  Advantage
$184.83
$1.97
$186.80
$1.25
$3.41
$4.66
99%
-­‐73%
98%
19

100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
As  discussed  in  the  impact  assessment  results  section  above,  EcoWool’s  most  impactful   emissions  are  phosphates  that  contribute  to  eutrophication.  Phosphates  are  harmful  to  the   environment  because  they  encourage  the  growth  of  algae.  Increases  in  algae  change  the  ecosystem  of  a   body  of  water,  making  it  more  difficult  and  more  expensive  to  treat  drinking  water.  One  chair’s  worth  of   wool  produces  0.471  kg  of  PO
4
equivalent  emissions.  It  was  calculated  that  the  average  annual  rainfall   over  the  land  associated  with  one  chair,  when  coming  into  contact  with  this  amount  of  phosphates,   would  produce  water  with  a  concentration  of  0.098  mg/L.    This  concentration  is  just  below  the  EPA’s   limit  of  0.1  mg/L  for  water  that  is  not  discharging  directly  into  lakes  or  reservoirs  that  are  used  for   drinking  water.
31  If  the  cost  of  treating  eutrophied  water  is  considered,  one  chair’s  worth  of  rainfall   would  require  a  cost  of  $48.00  for  drinking  water  treatment,  in  comparison  to  $9.60  to  treat  clean  water.
Various  assumptions  were  used  in  this  LCA.  Several  model  inputs  were  chosen  for  these   sensitivity  analyses  because  of  the  uncertainty  surrounding  the  assumptions.  We  also  inspected  inputs   that  were  not  necessarily  uncertain,  but  that  can  vary  within  the  industry.  Parameters  that  had   negligible  effects  on  our  results  were  not  considered.  Figure  6  shows  the  inventory  emissions  from  each   of  our  sensitivity  analyses.  Refer  to  Table  8  for  a  description  of  the  variables  associated  with  the  legend
in  Figure  6.
120%
EcoWool  Baseline
EcoWool  Barrier  Sensiqvity  1  (UB)
EcoWool  Barrier  Sensiqvity  2  (UB)
EcoWool  Barrier  Sensiqvity  2  (LB)
Fyrol  A710  Baseline
Fyrol  A710  Sensiqvity  1  (UB)
Fyrol  A710  Sensiqvity  2  (UB)
Fyrol  A710  Sensiqvity  2  (LB)
Figure  6.   Sensitivity  Analysis  Characterization  (Eco-­‐indicator  95  Method)
Table  8.   Sensitivity  Analysis  Explanations
Legend  Name
EcoWool  Barrier  Sensitivity  1  (UB)
Input  Variable  Investigated
Clean  wool  to  dirty  wool  ratio  decreased  to  40%
20

EcoWool  Barrier  Sensitivity  2  (UB)
EcoWool  Barrier  Sensitivity  2  (LB)
Fyrol TM  A710  Sensitivity  1  (UB)
Fyrol TM  A710  Sensitivity  2  (UB)
Fyrol TM  A710  Sensitivity  2  (LB)
Number  of  chairs  on  retailer  truck  decreased  by  50%
Number  of  chairs  on  retailer  truck  increased  by  50%
Percentage  of  Fyrol TM  A710  concentration  increased  to  30%
Number  of  chairs  on  retailer  truck  decreased  by  50%
Number  of  chairs  on  retailer  truck  increased  by  50%
EcoWool  Barrier  Sensitivity  1
The  scouring  plant  in  Texas  reported  that  25%  of  raw  wool  is  waste  by  weight,  and  the  other
75%  is  useable  wool  fiber.  However,  general  industry  sources  indicate  that  between  40%  and  60%  of   wool  fleece  is  useable  wool  fiber.
32   To  test  the  sensitivity  of  this  uncertainty,  we  performed  another   analysis  assuming  that  only  40%  of  the  wool  entering  the  scouring  plant  can  be  used  for  barrier
production.  Changing  this  input  variable  nearly  doubled  the  weight  of  sheep  fleece  needed  from  the   farm.    Emissions  increased  overall,  as  shown  by  Figure  6  (see  EcoWool  Sensitivity  1  (UB)).  In  particular,   eutrophication  related  emissions  increased  by  32%  and  solid  waste  related  emissions  increased  by  62%.
Table  9  lists  the  wool  barrier  model  inputs  impacted  by  changing  the  percentage  of  useable  wool  fiber.
Table  9.   EcoWool  Sensitivity  1  Model  Inputs
SimaPro  Input
Clean  Wool  Weight/Dirty  Wool  Weight
Dirty  Wool  Weight
Scouring  Plant  Electricity
Grease  Weight
Waste  from  Scouring
Sheep  Required
Waste  from  Farm
Value  Used  for
Baseline
Analysis
75
8.8
3.98
1.45
0.75
1.7
1.55
Value  Used  for
Sensitivity
Analysis
40
16.5
7.47
2.72
7.16
3.2
2.91
Unit
%   lb./chair   kWh/chair   lb./chair   lb./chair   sheep/chair   lb./chair
EcoWool  Barrier  Sensitivity  2
The  second  sensitivity  analysis  considered  the  transportation  of  manufactured  chairs  to  retailers
(EcoWool  Sensitivity  2  (UB)  and  (LB)).  Cisco  Brothers  reported  that  24  of  their  Bertoli  chairs  are   transported  by  truck  to  their  retail  locations.  As  this  was  the  most  significant  stage  of  transportation,  an   investigation  was  performed  to  understand  the  effect  of  changing  the  number  of  chairs  on  a  truck  by  +/-­‐
50%.    A  change  in  emissions  was  noted,  but  was  not  significant.
Fyrol TM  A710  Sensitivity  1
When  performing  a  sensitivity  analysis  for  Fyrol TM  A710,  the  predominant  factor  is  the   percentage  of  Fyrol TM  A710  in  each  chair  cushion.  Domfoam  reported  that  they  use  a  5%  concentration   by  weight  of  Fyrol TM  A710  in  their  foam  cushions.  Within  the  industry,  however,  it  is  not  uncommon  for   this  concentration  to  be  as  high  as  30%.
33  A  sensitivity  analysis  was  conducted  to  examine  the  effect  of   raising  the  concentration  of  Fyrol TM  A710  using  the  inputs  in  Table  10,  shown  below.  This  dramatically   increased  all  emissions,  most  notably  those  related  to  the  ozone  layer,  heavy  metals,  and  carcinogens,   all  of  which  increased  by  614%.  This  suggests  that  the  overall  impact  of  Fyrol TM  A710  is  highly  sensitive   to  the  amount  of  chemical  retardant  required  for  foam  protection.
21

SimaPro  Input
Table  10.   Fyrol TM  A710  Sensitivity  1  Model  Inputs
Value  Used   for  Baseline
Analysis
Value  Used   for  Sensitivity
Analysis
Fire  Retardant  Weight/Cushion  Weight
Phenol
Phosphoryl  Chloride
Isobutylene
Sludge
5
0.0525
0.029
0.0055
0.011
30
0.3151
0.176
0.033
0.0658
Unit
%   kg   kg   kg   kg
Fyrol TM  A710  Sensitivity  2
An  analysis  was  also  performed  to  explore  the  effect  of  transportation  on  Fyrol TM  A710  (Fyrol
A710  Sensitivity  2  (UB)  and  (LB)).    Similar  to  EcoWool,  the  emissions  varied  when  the  number  of  chairs   per  truck  changed,  but  these  results  were  insignificant,  especially  when  compared  to  the  results  of   varying  the  concentration  of  Fyrol TM  A710.
As  demonstrated  by  the  tornado  diagrams  (Figure  7  and  Figure  8),  transportation  has  a  minimal   effect  on  the  single  score  results.  The  ratio  of  clean  to  dirty  wool  changed  the  single  score  for  EcoWool   by  43%,  while  the  transportation  increased  or  decreased  the  single  score  by  14%.    Increasing  the   concentration  of  Fyrol TM  A710  increased  the  single  score  by  560%,  while  transportation  increased  or   decreased  the  single  score  by  3.4%.  By  considering  the  aggregated  results,  it  can  be  seen  that  EcoWool   always  yields  a  lower  single  score.  However,  in  the  eutrophication  and  solid  waste  categories,  EcoWool   always  results  in  higher  emissions.  Furthermore,  when  the  percentage  of  dirty  wool  is  increased,
EcoWool  causes  more  acidification  emissions  than  the  Fyrol TM  A710  baseline.
Several  variables  that  were  considered  to  have  an  impact  on  the  assessment  results  were  not   practical  to  model  in  SimaPro.  The  wool  could  be  scoured  locally  to  the  carding  mill,  reducing  the  cost   and  emissions  of  transporting  the  dirty  wool  (much  of  which  becomes  waste)  to  the  scouring  plant  in
Texas.  In  the  case  of  EcoWool,  chairs  are  transported  to  3  different  wholesale  locations,  namely  Los
Angeles,  CA,  San  Francisco,  CA,  and  New  York,  NY,  and  it  was  assumed  that  an  equal  number  of  chairs   are  transported  to  each  location.    Altering  this  proportion  could  change  the  transportation  emissions  as   well.    The  chemicals  used  in  the  production  of  Fyrol TM  A710  could  be  sourced  from  locations  closer  to   the  processing  plant,  which  would  reduce  transportation  costs  and  emissions.
22

Clean  Wool  to  Dirty  Wool  Raqo
Number  of  Chairs  on  Retail  Truck
0.0   0.1   0.2   0.3   0.4   0.5   0.6
Eco-­‐Indicator  95  Single  Score  (Pt)
0.7   0.8
Figure  7.   EcoWool  Tornado  Diagram
TM
0.9
%  Fyrol  in  Foam  by  Weight
Number  of  Chairs  on  Retail  Truck
0   2   4   6   8   10   12
Eco-­‐indicator  95  Single  Score  (Pt)
14   16   18   20
Figure  8.
Fyrol TM  A710  Tornado  Diagram
Our  economic  analysis  reveals  that  cost  is  the  key  driver  for  selecting  the  fire  retardant.  Given   that  both  types  of  chairs  are  sold  at  similar  prices,  it  would  be  reasonable  to  assume  that  the  furniture   manufacturing  company  would  want  to  pay  lower  costs  for  the  components  of  the  chair  in  order  to  gain   the  highest  profit.  For  the  purposes  of  this  study,  both  fire  retardants  are  assumed  to  perform  equally  in   terms  of  fire  resistance.  Therefore,  regulatory  and  performance-­‐based  drivers  can  be  considered  as   weak  system  drivers.
23

This  project  assessed  the  sustainability  of  two  alternatives  for  furniture  fire  protection  by   evaluating  their  environmental,  social,  and  economic  impacts.  In  terms  of  environmental  and  human   health  concerns,  the  EcoWool  barrier  proves  to  be  superior  to  an  equivalent  amount  of  Fyrol TM  A710.
With  respect  to  ecological  health,  Fyrol TM  A710  contributes  more  to  acidification  and  greenhouse  gases,   while  the  wool  barrier  has  greater  impact  on  eutrophication  and  land  use,  and  also  generates  more  solid   waste.  The  total  weighted  ecological  impact  of  Fyrol TM  A710  surpasses  EcoWool  by  at  least  0.06  Pts.
While  these  results  appear  similar,  it  is  important  to  note  that  they  reflect  the  baseline  case  and  that,   based  on  the  sensitivity  analysis,  the  ecological  impact  of  Fyrol TM  A710  has  the  potential  to  become   more  severe.  The  results  also  demonstrated  that  resource  depletion  from  the  extraction  of  minerals  and   fossil  fuels,  as  well  as  energy  necessary  for  production  of  Fyrol TM  A710,  are  worse  than  for  the  EcoWool   barrier.
Considering  human  health  concerns,  the  consequences  associated  with  the  life  cycle  of  Fyrol TM
A710  are  much  more  severe.  As  shown  through  the  results  of  both  Eco-­‐indicator  95  and  IMPACT  2002+,   nearly  every  category  related  to  human  health  impairment  shows  worse  impacts  from  production  of
Fyrol TM  A710.  In  particular,  the  chemical  flame  retardant  greatly  overshadows  EcoWool  in  the  categories   of  heavy  metals  and  carcinogens.
The  significant  carcinogenic  equivalent  emissions  associated  with  the  Fyrol TM  A710  life  cycle   undoubtedly  support  a  strong  argument  against  the  use  of  chemically-­‐treated  furniture.  However,  the   carcinogenic  emissions  in  homes  during  the  use  phase  of  the  furniture  appear  to  be  trivial  when   compared  to  those  resulting  from  production  of  the  Fyrol TM  A710.  It  is  also  important  to  note  that  these   results  represent  the  best-­‐case  scenario  for  one  of  the  most  emission-­‐conscious  chemical  fire  retardants   currently  on  the  market.  Halogenated  fire  retardants,  as  well  as  furniture  cushions  that  use  up  to  10   times  the  amount  of  chemicals  per  unit  volume,  are  still  very  much  in  high  production.  The  grave  reality   is  that  while  these  results  demonstrate  the  dangerous  health  and  environmental  risks  associated  with   production  and  use  of  a  chemical  fire  retardant,  average  emissions  for  the  industry  are  bound  to  be   worse.
The  EcoWool  barrier,  while  more  environmentally  and  socially  responsible,  costs  40  times  more   than  an  equivalent  unit  of  Fyrol TM  A710.  The  small-­‐scale,  labor-­‐intensive  processes  associated  with   production  of  EcoWool  makes  competition  with  mass-­‐produced  chemicals  infeasible.  Therefore,  without   reform,  most  manufacturers  will  likely  continue  to  meet  flammability  standards  via  solutions  like  Fyrol TM
A710,  regardless  of  its  associated  resource  and  health  effects.
Considering  the  life  cycles  of  these  products  and  the  nature  of  existing  flammability  regulations,   there  are  several  measures  that  can  be  implemented  to  reduce  impacts  on  both  human  and  ecological   health.  Our  results  indicate  cost  as  the  key  motivator  for  the  abundant  use  of  chemical  fire  retardants   despite  their  adverse  impacts.  Reform  of  current  regulations  has  the  potential  to  lessen  the  influence  of   this  economic  driver,  and  recent  changes  to  California’s  Technical  Bulletin  117  serve  as  a  valuable  initial   measure.  While  the  original  TB  117  employed  an  unrealistic  evaluation  of  fire  protection  for  furniture,   with  its  focus  aimed  at  the  filling  material,  the  updated   TB  117-­‐2013  focuses  on  the  exterior  material.
This  alternative  will  facilitate  manufacturers  in  achieving  adequate  fire  resistance  without  the  use  of   chemical  flame  retardants.
34  It  is  important  to  note,  however,  that   TB  117-­‐2013  does  not  ban  the  use  of
24

chemical  fire  retardants.  Therefore,  as  long  as  chemical  flame  retardants  remain  the  most  economical   method  for  meeting  the  new  standard,  it  is  likely  that  they  will  continue  to  dominate  the  industry  in  the   absence  of  more  stringent  reforms.
One  law  currently  under  reform  is  the  Toxic  Substances  Control  Act  (TSCA),  which  regulates   chemicals  used  in  everyday  products.  Passed  in  1976,  this  law  approved  over  60,000  chemicals  for  use.
However,  only  200  of  these  chemicals  have  actually  been  tested  for  safety  and  approximately  20   percent  of  these  chemicals  have  proprietary  ingredients.  Proposed  legislation,  such  as  the  Safe
Chemicals  Act,  would  allow  the  EPA  to  regulate  chemicals  more  closely.
35  Such  legislation  would  enable   the  EPA,  guided  by  suggestions  from  the  Consumer  Product  Safety  Commission  (CPSC),  the  National
Institute  of  Standards  and  Technology  (NIST),  and  the  National  Academy  of  Sciences  (NAS),  to  conduct   life  cycle  assessments  that  thoroughly  compare  fire  safety  benefits  with  environmental  costs  and  health   impacts.  In  addition,  regulatory  instruments  aimed  at  requiring  new  and  existing  chemicals  to  be   assessed  through  mandatory  testing  may  force  manufacturers  to  investigate  innovative,  less  toxic   chemical  formulations  and  adapt  their  production  processes.  Increased  costs  associated  with  required   performance  and  safety  standards  may  enable  non-­‐chemical  alternatives,  such  as  wool  barriers,  to   become  more  cost  competitive.
Furthermore,  to  enhance  transparency  and  encourage  an  elevated  consumer  awareness  of  the   ecological  and  societal  impacts  of  the  products  they  purchase,  appropriate  environmental  labeling  could   be  required.  Currently,  it  is  extremely  difficult  to  obtain  any  useful  information  related  to  composition  or   production  of  Fyrol TM  A710.  Regulations  that  require  increased  disclosure  will  inform  consumers  of  the   consequences  of  their  purchase,  and  may  even  encourage  public  pressure  for  more  sustainable   solutions.  For  EcoWool,  third  party  labeling  is  also  recommended,  as  this  would  reveal  the  benefits
associated  with  this  product  as  well  as  important  environmental  consequences.  The  wool  batting  used   for  EcoWool  currently  has  Global  Organic  Textile  Standard  (GOTS)  certification.
36  This  standard  requires   all  phases  of  textile  production  to  be  Oregon  Tilth  Certified  Corganic  (OCTO).  The  Oeko-­‐Tex  Standard
100  and  the  Oeko-­‐Tex  Standard  1000,  which  are  independent  testing  and  certification  systems  that   evaluate  all  stages  of  textile  production,  may  be  valuable  to  obtain  as  well.
37  Ensuring  the  public’s  right   to  know  about  the  safety  of  the  furniture  they  purchase  may  also  influence  the  demand  and,   subsequently,  the  costs  of  flame  retardant  alternatives.  Ultimately,  labels  will  allow  consumers  to  make   an  informed  decision  and  give  them  the  power  to  positively  affect  the  environment,  society,  and  future   generations  through  their  purchases.
25

Rearing(&(
Shearing(
Baling( Scouring( Carding( (Assembly( Use(
End(of(
Life(
System Boundary
3,148$lbs.$grass$
931$gallons$H
2
O$
2,482$lbs.$manure$
8.8$lbs.$raw$wool$
8.8'lbs.'raw'wool'
0.1'kWh'electricity' emissions$ 1.55$lbs.$solid$waste$
8.8'lbs.' compressed' wool'
emissions'
3.63)kWh)electricity)
0.0645)lbs.)detergent)
102)lbs.)H
2
O)
8.8)lbs.)compressed)wool)
6.6(lbs.(scoured(wool(
0.278(kWh(electricity(
0.75)lbs.)solid)waste) emissions)
1.45)lbs.)grease)
(lanolin))
6.6)lbs.)scoured) wool)
6(lbs.(carded(wool(
0.6(lbs.(solid(waste(
Figure  9.   EcoWool  Process  Flow  Diagrams
26

Raw$
Material$
Extrac.on$
Raw$
Material$
Refinement$
Chemical$
Produc.on$$
Applica.on$ to$Foam$
$Assembly$ Use$ End$of$Life$
System Boundary
Negev$Desert$
Dead$Sea$
Texas$
Raw$Material$
Extrac.on$
Phosphate$Rock$
Sodium$Chloride$
Phosphate$Rock$
Heat$
Sodium$Chloride$
Electricity$
Propylene$
Heat$
Raw$Material$
Refinement$
Propylene$ emissions$ solid$waste$ emissions$ solid$waste$
Liquid)
Phosphorus)
Chlorine)
Liquid)Oxygen)
Heat)
Phenol)
HCl) sludge)
POCl
3)
Heat)
POCl
3)
Heat)
Phenol) Isobutylene)
Chemical)ProducCon) sludge)
HCl)
Fyrol TM )A710 )
Fyrol TM *A710 *
Polyurethane*Foam*
Fire*Protected*
Cushion*
Liquid$Phosphorus$
Chlorine$
Phenol$
Isobutylene$ emissions* solid*waste*
Use$ emissions$
Figure  10.
Fyrol TM  A710  Process  Flow  Diagrams
27

SimaPro  Input
Finished  Wool  Weight
Lapper  Machine  Speed-­‐Weight
Lapper  Machine  Speed-­‐Chairs
Time  to  Lap  1  chair
Lapper  Electricity  Requirement
Carding  Machine  Speed-­‐Weight
Carding  Machine  Speed-­‐Chairs
Carding  Machine  Power
Carding  Electricity  Requirement
Carding  Waste-­‐Time
Carding  Waste-­‐Chairs
Picked  Wool  Weight
Picker  Machine  Speed-­‐Weight
Picker  Machine  Speed-­‐Chair
Picker  Electricity  Requirement
Picker  Waste-­‐Chair
Carding  Process  Electricity  Requirement
Carding  Process  Waste
Scoured  Wool  Weight
Table  11.   EcoWool  Inventory
Value  Used  for
Baseline
Analysis
6
166.7
27.8
0.036
0.117
166.7
25.56
2.73
0.11
13.34
0.52
6.52
400
61.33
0.05
0.07
0.277
0.587
6.59
Water  Requirement
Detergent  Requirement
Scouring  Plant  Speed-­‐Weight
Scouring  Plant  Speed-­‐Chairs
Scouring  Electricity  Requirement
(Clean  Wool  Weight)/(Dirty  Wool  Weight)
(Grease  Weight)/(Dirty  Wool  Weight)
(Other  Waste  Weight)/(Dirty  Wool  Weight)
Grease  co-­‐product  Weight
Scouring  Process  Waste
Days  to  fill  truck  with  bales
Dirty  Wool  Weight
Chairs  per  Compressed  Bale
Baler  Speed-­‐Chairs
Grass  Intake-­‐1  Sheep
Water  Intake-­‐1  Sheep
Total  Fleece  +  Waste
Sheep  Requirement
Raw  Wool  Output-­‐1  Sheep
Grass  Requirement
Water  Requirement
Manure  Requirement
Shearing  Waste
2.5
8.78
82.0
0.005
5
1.25
10.332
1.7
6
3143
102
0.0645
1000
113.86
3.98
0.75
0.165
0.085
1.45
0.75
786
2514
1.55
Unit   gal/chair   lb./chair   lb./hr   chairs/hr   kWh/chair
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐   lb./chair   lb./chair   days   lb./chair   chairs/re-­‐bale   hrs/chair   lbs./day   gal/day   lb.   fleece/chair   lb./shear   lb./chair   gal/chair   lb./chair   lb./chair   lb./chair   lb./hr   chairs/hr   hr/chair   kWh/chair   lb./hr   chairs/hr   kW   kWh/chair   lb./hr   lb./chair   lb./chair   lb./hr   chairs/hr   kWh   lb./chair   kWh/chair   lb./chair   lb./chair
0.4
0.08
0.52
1.32
8.56
1.5
16.47
72.9
0.006
5
0.05
0.07
0.277
0.587
6.59
102
0.0645
1000
60.73
7.47
Value  Used  for
Sensitivity
Analysis
6
166.7
27.8
0.036
0.117
166.7
25.56
2.73
0.11
13.34
0.52
6.52
400
61.33
1.25
19.373
3.2
6
5893
1473
4714
2.91
28

Materials
Weight  of  Fyrol  in  1  Chair
Weight  of  Triphenyl  Phosphate
(40%  of  Fyrol TM
Weight  of  Phosphoryl  Chloride
Weight  of  HCl  by-­‐product
Weight  of  Sludge
Weight  of  Liquid  Phosphorus
Weight  of  Chlorine  Vapor
Weight  of  Proprietary  Phosphate
Ester  (60%  of  Fyrol TM  Composition)
Table  12.   Fyrol TM  A710  Inventory
Chemical  Components  of  Fyrol TM  A710
Lower  Bound
Value
Value  Used  for  Baseline
Analysis
0.0588
0.024
0.0231
0.0588
0.024
0.0231
0.013
0.0079
0.0045
0.0028
0.00973
0.013
0.0079
0.0045
0.0028
0.00973
0.03531   0.03531
Weight  of  Isobutylene
Weight  of  Phenol
Weight  of  Phosphoryl  Chloride
Weight  of  HCl  by-­‐product
Weight  of  Sludge
SimaPro  Modeling
Total  Weight  of  Phenol
Total  Weight  of  Phosphoryl  Chloride
Total  Weight  of  Isobutylene
Total  Waste  Materials  Produced
Total  Weight  of  HCl  by-­‐product
Total  Weight  of  Waste,  sludge
0.00549
0.02938
0.01676
0.01045
0.00646
0.0525
0.029
0.0055
0.0183
0.0110
0.00549
0.02938
0.01676
0.01045
0.00646
0.0525
0.029
0.005
0.0183
0.0110
Table  13.   Fyrol TM  A710  Energy  Inputs
Fyrol TM  A710   Energy  Consumption
Energy  Consumed  (per  1000  kg  Fyrol TM  A710)
Natural  Gas  (cu.  ft)   Steam  (lb.)   Electricity  (kWh)
1980   1049   61
Energy  Consumed  (per  0.0588  kg  Fyrol TM  A710)
Natural  Gas  (cu.  ft)   Steam  (lb.)   Electricity  (kWh)
0.1188   0.0629   0.0037
Energy  Consumed  (per  0.3531  kg  Fyrol TM  A710)
Natural  Gas  (cu.  ft)   Steam  (lb.)   Electricity  (kWh)
0.6991   0.3704   0.0217
Transport  From
Shearing
Baling
Scouring
Table  14.   EcoWool  Transportation  Inputs
Mode  of  Transport   Fuel  Type   Miles  Traveled
Number  of  "Wool
Barriers"  per  Trip
Trailer  Truck
Trailer  Truck
Trailer  Truck
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
266
1822
1822
2045
5114
6834
Upper  Bound
Value
0.3531
0.141
0.1388
0.075
0.0474
0.0270
0.0170
0.05838
0.21185
0.03294
0.17626
0.10058
0.06271
0.03877
0.3151
0.176
0.033
0.1101
0.0658   kg
kg   kg   kg   kg   kg   kg   kg   kg   kg
kg   kg   kg   kg   kg   kg   kg   kg
Ton-­‐miles   Uncertainty
2.93
8.02
6.00   kg
Unit
Very  little
None
None
29

Carding
Chair  Manufacturer
Transport  From
Phosphate  Mine
Salt  Mine
Chemical  Manufacturer
Foam  Manufacturer
Chair  Manufacturer
Trailer  Truck
Trailer  Truck
Diesel
Diesel
640
1057
5000
24
Table  15.   Fyrol TM  A710  Transportation  Inputs
Mode  of  Transport   Fuel  Type   Miles  Traveled
Number  of  "Retarded
Cushions"  per  Trip
Barge
Barge
Truck
-­‐
-­‐
Deisel
6074
6074
938
223,078
28,349,631
222,582
Truck
Truck
Deisel
Deisel
1015
1300
1795
24
Process  ContribuQon  to  Carcinogenic  Impact  of  Fyrol TM  A710
Isobutylene
Producqon
6.318%
Raw  Material
Extracqon
0.008%   Transportaqon
0.037%
2.88
990.94
None
Miles  traveled
Ton-­‐miles   Uncertainty
40.00
0.32
Little
Little
0.0619   Mode  of  Transport
1.35
1218.75
None
Miles  Traveled
Phosphoryl
Chloride
Producqon
33.319%
Phenol  Producqon
60.318%
Figure  11.   Fyrol TM  A710  Carcinogenic  Process  Contribution
Process  ContribuQon  to  Carcinogenic  Impact  of  EcoWool
Scouring  &  Carding
1.5%
Transportaqon
0.6%
Baling
20.6%
Rearing  &  Shearing
77.2%
Figure  12.   EcoWool  Carcinogenic  Process  Contribution
30

Process  ContribuQon  to  EutrophicaQon  Impact  of  EcoWool
Baling
1.2%
Scouring  &  Carding
0.2%
Transportaqon
26.2%
Rearing  &  Shearing
72.4%
Figure  13.   EcoWool  Eutrophication  Process  Contribution
Process  ContribuQon  to  Solid  Waste  Impact  of  EcoWool
Transportaqon
29%
Scouring  &  Carding
35%
Baling
0%
Rearing  &  Shearing
36%
Figure  14.   EcoWool  Solid  Waste  Process  Contribution
31

Process  ContribuQon  to  Energy  Resources  Impact  of  Fyrol TM  A710
Isobutylene
Producqon
4.5%
Transportaqon
28.8%
Phenol  Producqon
43.0%
Phosphoryl  Chloride
Producqon
23.7%
Figure  15.   Fyrol TM  A710  Energy  Resources  Process  Contribution
Environmental  Effect
Greenhouse
Ozone  layer
Acidification
Eutrophication
Summer  smog
Winter  smog
Pesticides
Airborne  heavy  metals
Waterborne  heavy  metals
Carcinogenic  substances
Table  16.   Eco-­‐Indicator  95  Weighting  Factors
Weighting  Factors  for  Environmental  Effects
Weighting  Factor
2.5
100
10
5
2.5
5
25
5
5
10
Criterion
0.1°C  rise  every  10  years,  5%  ecosystem  degradation
Probability  of  1  fatality  per  year  per  million  inhabitants
5%  ecosystem  degradation
Rivers  and  lakes,  degradation  of  a  unknown  number  of   aquatic  ecosystems  (5%  degradation)
Occurrence  of  smog  periods,  health  complaints,  particularly   amongst  asthma  patients  and  the  elderly,  prevention  of   agricultural  damage
Occurrence  of  smog  periods,  health  complaints,  particularly   amongst  asthma  patients  and  the  elderly
5%  ecosystem  degradation
Lead  content  in  children's  blood,  reduced  life  expectancy  and   learning  performance  in  an  unknown  number  of  people
Cadmium  content  in  rivers,  ultimately  also  impacts  on  people
(see  airborne)
Probability  of  1  fatality  per  year  per  million  people
32

Process  ContribuQon  to  AcidificaQon  Impact  or  Fyrol TM  A710
Transportaqon
40.181%
Chemical
Producqon
59.814%
Raw  Material
Extracqon
0.005%
Figure  16.   Fyrol TM  A710  Acidification  Process  Contribution
Process  ContribuQon  to  AcidificaQon  Impact  of  EcoWool
Baling
1.9%   Scouring  &  Carding
0.6%
Rearing  &  Shearing
51.2%
Transportaqon
46.3%
Figure  17.   EcoWool  Acidification  Process  Contribution
Table  17.   User  Costs  for  EcoWool
EcoWool  User  Costs
Price  Cisco  Brothers  Pays  for  Wool
Retail  Price  of  Wool
Retail  Price  of  Entire  Chair
Landfill  Disposal  Cost  of  Wool
Total  User  Costs  =  Retail  Price  +  Disposal  Cost
$45.00
$180.00
$745.00
$4.83
$184.83
33

Pollutant
CO
2
CO
CH
4
NO
X
PM
10
SO
X
Pollutant
CO
2
CO
CH
4
NO
X
PM
10
SO
X
Table  18.
User  Costs  for  Fyrol TM  A710
Fyrol TM  A710  User  Costs
Price  Ethan  Allen  Pays  for  Fyrol TM  A710
Retail  Price  of  Fyrol TM  A710
Retail  Price  of  Entire  Chair
Landfill  Disposal  Cost  of  Fyrol TM  A710
Total  User  Costs  =  Retail  Price  +  Disposal  Cost
$0.30
$1.21
$689.00
$0.04
$1.25
Table  19.   Environmental  Costs  for  EcoWool
EcoWool  Environmental  Costs
Damage  Cost  ($/ton)   Amount  (kg)   Amount  (ton)   Damage  Cost  ($)
6.22   200.6400   0.2212   1.38
0.99   1.1422   0.0013   0.0012
129
54
2297
73.5
1.1909
1.1700
0.1300
0.2690
0.0013
0.0013
0.0001
0.0003
Total  Environmental  Cost  =
0.17
0.07
0.33
0.02
$1.97
Table  20.
Environmental  Costs  for  Fyrol TM  A710
Fyrol TM  A710  Environmental  Costs
Damage  Cost  ($/ton)   Amount  (kg)   Amount  (ton)   Damage  Cost  ($)
6.22   382.6100   0.4218   2.62
0.99
129
54
2.9630
0.5655
1.7300
0.0033
0.0006
0.0019
0.0032
0.08
0.10
2297
73.5
0.1550
2.5300
0.0002
0.0028
Total  Environmental  Cost  =
0.39
0.20
$3.41
34

Figure  18.   EcoWool  SimaPro  Network  Diagram  (4%  Contribution  Cut-­‐off)
35

Figure  19.
Fyrol TM  A710  SimaPro  Network  Diagram  (15%  Contribution  Cut-­‐off)
36

1  P.  Anderson,  M.  Simonson  &  H.  Stripple,  Fire  Safety  of  Upholstered  Furniture,  A  Life-­‐Cycle  Assessment  -­‐
2
Summary  Report,  2003.
"INSIDE  GREEN:  For  the  Health  of  Our  Planet,  Our  Families,  and  Ourselves."   INSIDE  GREEN .  Cisco
Brothers,  n.d.  Web.  24  Nov.  2013.
3  "Sustainable  Furnishings  Council."   Sustainable  Furnishings  Council .  N.p.,  n.d.  Web.  23  Nov.  2013.
4  U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency  Environmental  Profiles  of  Chemical  Flame-­‐Retardant
Alternatives  for  Low-­‐Density  Polyurethane  Foam;  United  State  Environmental  Protection  Agency,  Design   for  the  Environment,  2005.
5  Callahan,  Patricia,  and  Sam  Roe.  "Tribune  Watchdog:  Playing  with  Fire."  Editorial.   Chicago  Tribune  6
May  2012:   Tribune  Watchdog:  Playing  with  Fire  -­‐-­‐  Chicago  Tribune .  Chicago  Tribune,  6  May  2012.  Web.
24  Nov.  2013.
6  After  the  PBDE  Phase-­‐Out:  A  Broad  Suite  of  Flame  Retardants  in  Repeat  House  Dust  Samples  from
California.  Robin  E.  Dodson,  Laura  J.  Perovich,  Adrian  Covaci,  Nele  Van  den  Eede,  Alin  C.  Ionas,  Alin  C.
Dirtu,  Julia  Green  Brody,  and  Ruthann  A.  Rudel.   Environmental  Science  &  Technology  2012   46  (24),
7
13056-­‐13066.
"House  Dust  Contains  Carcinogens  and  Untested  Chemicals  Used  as  Flame  Retardants  in  Consumer
Products."   Fact  Sheet .  Silent  Spring  Institute,  n.d.  Web.  24  Nov.  2013.
8  Hawthorne,  Michael,  and  Sam  Roe.  "Toxic  Flame  Retardants  May  Be  on  Way  out."   Chicagotribune.com
.
9
Chicago  Tribune,  22  Nov.  2013.  Web.  24  Nov.  2013.
"FyrolTM  A710."   Products .  ICL  Industrial  Products,  n.d.  Web.  25  Nov.  2013.
10  U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency  Environmental  Profiles  of  Chemical  Flame-­‐Retardant
Alternatives  for  Low-­‐Density  Polyurethane  Foam;  United  State  Environmental  Protection  Agency,  Design   for  the  Environment,  2005.
11
12
"Common  Industry  Practices."   Shepherd's  Dream .  Woolgatherer  Carding  Mill,  n.d.  Web.  25  Nov.  2013.
13
14
"Woolgatherer's  Products."   Shepherd's  Dream .  Woolgatherer  Carding  Mill,  n.d.  Web.  25  Nov.  2013.
"Frequently  Asked  Questions."   Shepherd's  Dream .  Woolgatherer  Carding  Mill,  n.d.  Web.  25  Nov.  2013.
15
16
"O  ECOTEXTILES."   Wool .  N.p.,  6  Sept.  2010.  Web.  25  Nov.  2013.
Lawrence,  Carl  A.   Fundamentals  of  Spun  Yarn  Technology .  Boca  Raton,  FL:  CRC,  2003.  Print.
17
18
"Corporate  Responsibility  Report."   ICL  Group .  Israel  Chemicals  Ltd.,  n.d.  Web.  25  Nov.  2013.
"Mining  Waste."   EPA .  Environmental  Protection  Agency,  n.d.  Web.  25  Nov.  2013.
"EERE:  Advanced  Manufacturing  Office  Home  Page."   EERE:  Advanced  Manufacturing  Office  Home
Page .  U.S.  Department  of  Energy,  n.d.  Web.  25  Nov.  2013
19  "CIEC  Promoting  Science  at  the  University  of  York,  York,  UK."   Chlorine .  The  University  of  York,  n.d.
Web.  25  Nov.  2013.
20
21
"Corporate  Responsibility  Report."   ICL  Group .  Israel  Chemicals  Ltd.,  n.d.  Web.  25  Nov.  2013.
Acton,  Ashton.   Phosphorus  Compounds—Advances  in  Research  and  Application: .  Altlanta:
ScholarlyEditions,  2013.  Print.
22  "Material  Safety  Data  Sheet."   ICL  Industrial  Products .  Israel  Chemicals  Ltd.,  n.d.  Web.  25  Nov.  2013.
23  U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency  Environmental  Profiles  of  Chemical  Flame-­‐Retardant
Alternatives  for  Low-­‐Density  Polyurethane  Foam;  United  State  Environmental  Protection  Agency,  Design   for  the  Environment,  2005.
24  "Flame  Retardants."   EFRA .  European  Flame  Retardants  Association,  n.d.  Web.  24  Nov.  2013.
25  "Ethan  Allen  Registers  Five  Facilities  In  EFEC  Program."   Furniture  World  Magazine .  Furniture  World,  12
Aug.  2012.  Web.  25  Nov.  2013.
37

26  Carlsson,  H.;  Nilsson,  U.;  Becker,  G.;  O stman,  C.  Organophosphate  ester  flame  retardants  and   plasticizers  in  the  indoor  environment:  Analytical  methodology  and  occurrence.   Environ.  Sci.  Technol.
1997,   31 ,  2931 − 2936.
27  U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency.   Municipal  Solid  Waste  Generation,  Recycling,  and  Disposal  in   the  United  States:  Facts  and  Figures  for  2011 .  N.p.,  n.d.  Web.  24  Nov.  2013.
28  Shaw,  S.;  Blum,  A.,  Weber,  R.,  Kannan,  K.,  Rich,  D.,  Lucas,  D.,  Koshland,  C.,  Dobraca,  D.,  Hanson,  S.,  and
Birnbaum,  L.  (2010).  "Halogenated  flame  retardants:  do  the  fire  safety  benefits  justify  the  risks?".
Reviews  on  Environmental  Health  25  (4):  261–305.
29
30
31
"Flame  Retardants."   EFRA .  European  Flame  Retardants  Association,  n.d.  Web.  24  Nov.  2013.
"Rates  and  Fees  Schedule."   Landfill  and  Composting  Facility .  City  of  Palo  Alto,  n.d.  Web.  25  Nov.  2013.
"Water  Resource  Characterization  DSS  -­‐  Phosphorus."   Water  Resource  Characterization  DSS  -­‐
Phosphorus .  NCSU  Water  Quality  Group,  n.d.  Web.  04  Dec.  2013.
32  Nemerow,  Nelson  L.,  and  Franklin  J.  Agardy.   Strategies  of  Industrial  and  Hazardous  Waste
Management .  New  York:  Van  Nostrand  Reinhold,  1998.  Print.
33  "PBDE  Flame  Retardants  and  Indoor  Environments:  Where's  the  Smoke  There's  Fire?"   Greenguard
Certification .  Greenguard  Environmental  Institute,  n.d.  Web.  25  Nov.  2013.
34  Shaw,  S.;  Blum,  A.,  Weber,  R.,  Kannan,  K.,  Rich,  D.,  Lucas,  D.,  Koshland,  C.,  Dobraca,  D.,  Hanson,  S.,  and
Birnbaum,  L.  (2010).  "Halogenated  flame  retardants:  do  the  fire  safety  benefits  justify  the  risks?".
Reviews  on  Environmental  Health  25  (4):  261–305.
35  "Safe  Chemicals  Act  in  2013."   Safer  Chemicals  Healthy  Families  Legislative  Update .  Safer  Chemicals
Healthy  Families,  n.d.  Web.  04  Dec.  2013.
36  "Search  for  Producers  and  Products."   Global  Organic  Textile  Standard  Ecology  &  Social  Responsibility .
Global  Organic  Textile  Standard  International  Working  Group,  n.d.  Web.  04  Dec.  2013.
37  "Ecolabel  Index."   All  Ecolabels .  Big  Room  Incorporated,  n.d.  Web.  04  Dec.  2013.
38