Analysis of the technological impact on industry and its effects on waste production and disposal: a case study of the surfboard manufacturing industry
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X31540Keywords:
Cleaner production, Technological Impact, Waste Management, Surfboard manufacturing industryAbstract
Cleaner Production (CP) advocates the application of preventive and integrated strategies to processes products minimizing the generation of waste and pollution. However, not always technological innovations in production bring with it an improvement for CP. The surfboard industry has been dismissive of CP. Studies revealed a concentration of the production residues on the manufacturers due to the vertical process of the production stages. Nonetheless, the incorporation of machining technology of the polyurethane blocks through Computerized Numerical Control (CNC) led to a horizontal process. The aim of this study was to map the current process, identifying the major waste producers, and detailing management for these wastes. A case study was carried out to examine the surfboard industry. The survey revealed that the links of the production chain can be accomplished by the diverse actors participating in the manufacturing industry. However, the largest amount of waste is produced by big manufacturing industries rather than small, outsourced companies. It became clear that the introduction of CNC technology was responsible for the centralization of waste production, previously distributed among all manufacturers. Technological innovation had no impact on the reduction or reuse of waste or even a better management of its disposal.
Downloads
References
AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL. Polyurethanes. 2014. http://polyurethane.americanchemistry.com/Health-Safety-and-Product-Stewardship. (accessed 31.03.17).
Baas, L. To make zero emissions technologies and strategies become a reality, the lessons learned of cleaner production dissemination have to be known. Journal Of Cleaner Production. 2007; 15:13-14, 1205-1216.
Barcelos, R. L., Leripio, A. L.. Avaliação do Desempenho Ambiental da Cadeia Produtiva de Pranchas de Surfe em Florianópolis-SC. Alcance. 2017; 24:3, 413-432.
Domingues, R.M.; Paulino, S. R.. Potencial para implantação da produção mais limpa em sistemas locais de produção: o polo joalheiro de São José do Rio Preto. Gestão da Produção. 2009; 16, 4, p.691-704.
Gibson, C., Carr, C., Warren, A.. A Country that Makes Things? Australian Geographer. 2012; p. 109-113.
Grees, T.H.. A Wooden Alternative: Examining the Environmental Impact of the Production of Surfboards. Bachelor of Arts Degree, Bates College, Lewiston. 2014.
Grijó, P. E. A., Brügger, P.. Estudo Preliminar para Gestão Ambiental na Produção de Pranchas de Surfe. Cleaner Production Initiatives and Challenges for A Sustainable World; 2011 May 18-20, São Paulo, Brazil, 1 - 10.
Hole, B.. An Environmental Comparison of Foam - Core and Hollow Wood Surfboards: Carbon Emissions and other Toxic Chemicals. Science in Wood Products Processing Degree, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. 2011.
Johnstone, J.M.. Flexural testing of sustainable and alternative materials for surfboard construction, in comparison to current industry standard materials. The Plymouth Student Scientist. 2010; p. 109-142.
Kulakool, R.. Greener and Safer Resin Cleaning Solvent: a Surfboard Manufacturing Process. Master's degree dissertation. Industrial Ecology and Environment, Mahidol University, Nakhon Pathom, Thailand. 2007. 67p.
Mazzoco, A.. Planejamento de um Sistema de Gestão Ambiental para os Processos de Fabricação de Pranchas de Surfe. Environmental Engineer Barchelor Degree – Universidade do Vale do Itajaí, Biguaçu, Santa Catarina, Brasil. 2007.
Molinari, M.A.; Quelhas, O.L.G.; Nascimento Filho, A.P. do.. Avaliação de oportunidades de produção mais limpa para a redução de resíduos sólidos na fabricação de tintas. Produção. 2013; 23, 2, p.364-374.
Piovesan, M. et al.. Fibras de Vidro: Caracterização, Disposição Final e Impactos Ambientais Gerados. Reget. 2013; 10, 10, p.2112-2121.
Rocha, R.V.C.. Gestão Ambiental e Sustentabilidade: uma Proposta para as Empresas Fabricantes de Pranchas de Surfe. Admnistration Barchelor Degree, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brasil. 2011. 67p.
SHAPE3D (Org.). Shape3d. 2017. www.shape3d.com. (accessed 10/03/17)
Teuber, L.; Osburg, V-S; Toporowski, W.; Militz, H.; Krause, A.. Wood polymer composites and their contribution to cascading utilisation. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2016; 110:1, 9-15.
Tiptipakorn, S. et al.. Thermomechanical and Rheological Behaviours of Waste Glass Fibre-Filled Polypropylene Composites. Engineering Journal. 2009; p. 45-56.
Warren, A., Gibson, C.. Making things in a high-dollar Australia: the case of the surfboard industry. Journal of Australian Political Economy. 2013; p. 26-50.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
