Scientific Journal of Gdynia Maritime University

No. 122/22, 56–67 Submitted: 22.02.2022

ISSN 2657-6988 (online) Accepted: 25.05.2022
ISSN 2657-5841 (printed) Published: 30.06.2022
DOI: 10.26408/122.05

IDENTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

OF POLYURETHANE FOAMS
USING ANSYS GRANTA SELECTOR

Agnieszka Piotrowska-Kirschling1*, Joanna Brzeska2

1,2
Gdynia Maritime University, 81-87 Morska Str., 81-225 Gdynia, Poland,
Faculty of Management and Quality Sciences, Department of Industrial Product Quality
and Chemistry
1
ORCID 0000-0002-3294-0814, e-mail: a.piotrowska-kirschling@au.umg.edu.pl
2
ORCID 0000-0001-7596-1381
*Corresponding author

Abstract: Before a new polymer material is placed on the market, it should be compulsory to
assess its environmental impact at different stages of its life cycle. The main objective of the
study was to identify the environmental impact of the production of polyurethane (PUR) foams.
Ansys Granta Selector software was used to analyze this aspect. The environmental
characteristic of material production included: embodied energy [MJ/kg], CO2 footprint [kg/kg],
and water usage [l/kg]. The Eco Audits of PUR foams, based on natural fillers, were
investigated. The study showed that PURs generate significantly less CO2 at the production
stage compared to other foams. Furthermore, the modification of PUR foams can reduce the
CO2 footprint.
Keywords: polyurethane foams, eco audit, environmental characteristic, CO2 footprint, ansys
granta selector.

1. INTRODUCTION

Global warming has been a major environmental problem in recent decades due to
the emission of huge amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases
[Rehman et al. 2021]. The observed climate changes are caused by global warming
[Rehman et al. 2021; Mella 2022].
Global emissions of CO2 from fuels and by industry have increased significantly
since 2000 (Fig. 1) [Statistaa 2021]. The maximum of CO2 emissions was observed
in 2019 and created 36.7 billion metric tons of CO2. Emissions by selected countries
show that China and the USA were the largest polluters in the world in 2020, emitting
10.6 and 4.7 billion metric tons of CO2 [Statistab 2021]. In comparison, Poland’s
CO2 emissions were almost 36 times lower than China and almost 16 times lower
than the USA.

56 Scientific Journal of Gdynia Maritime University, No. 122, June 2022

 Identification of the Environmental Impact of Polyurethane Foams
Using Ansys Granta Selector

Fig. 4. Annual global emissions of CO2 1940-2020

a
Source: Statista 2021.

The development of the plastic industry also significantly influences the CO2
emissions into the atmosphere. Furthermore, global plastic production is expected to
increase from 370 million tons in 2020 to approximately 590 million tons in 2050
[Statistac 2021]. Therefore, the risk of CO2 emissions will increase even more. More
than half of the market for polymer foams in the United States is PUR foams [The
Freedonia Group 2006; Sklenickova et al. 2022].
Before a new polymer material or other product is placed on the market,
it should be mandatory to assess its environmental impact at all stages of its life
cycle, mainly eco-aware product design and production [Ashby 2013; Ertekin,
Nicoleta and Chiou 2014].
It has been shown that the Eco Audit tool, part of the Ansys Granta Selector
software, is a fast and reliable tool for the environmental impact assessment of
a product in comparison to the SimaPro results [Gradin and Astrom 2018].
Luna-Tintos et al. led a rethink of all the life cycles of production in the
construction industry to reduce its environmental impact [Luna-Tintos et al. 2020].
The research showed a quantitative assessment of the embodied primary energy and

Scientific Journal of Gdynia Maritime University, No. 122, June 2022 57

 Agnieszka Piotrowska-Kirschling, Joanna Brzeska

CO2 production at each stage. The results of the work formed guidelines for the
optimization of the production process.
The main objective of the work was to identify the environmental impact of
PUR foams using the Eco Audit tool from the Ansys Granta Selector software.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

The source of tested materials was the MaterialUniverse database. This database is
included in the Ansys Granta Selector software provided by Granta Design,
Cambridge University [Ansys 2022]. The research was carried out under a research
license. The database contains over 4000+ materials, including 135 various types of
foam polymer materials. The environmental characteristic of the production of the
selected synthetic foams and natural materials is presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Environmental characteristics of the material production

of the selected synthetic foams and natural materials

Embodied CO2
Water usage
No. Material energy footprint
[l/kg]
[MJ/kg] [kg/kg]

1 Paper 49.0-54.0 1.11-1.23 1.62 ∙ 103 -1.79 ∙ 103

(cellulose based)

2 Cork 3.8-4.2 0.19-0.21 665-735

(low density, closed cell)

3 Polycarbonate PC foam 113.0-125.0 7.70-8.49 495-547

(structural)

4 Polyetherimide PEI foam 223.0-245.0 18.00-19.90 490-541

(closed cell)

5 Polyethersulfone PES foam 220.0-243.0 17.90-19.70 299-896

(rigid, closed cell)

6 Polyethylene PE foam 88.4-97.5 3.05-3.36 216-239

(cross-linked, closed cell)

7 Polymethacrylimide PMI foam 316.0-348.0 26.40-29.10 299-896

(rigid)

8 Polypropylene PP foam 75.2-83.0 2.91-3.21 112-124

(structural)

9 Polyurethane PUR foam 80.9-89.2 3.76-4.14 280-310

(open cell; elastomeric, open
cell; flexible, open cell;
microcellular, closed foam)

58 Scientific Journal of Gdynia Maritime University, No. 122, June 2022

 Identification of the Environmental Impact of Polyurethane Foams
Using Ansys Granta Selector

10 Polyurethane PUR foam 88.2-97.3 4.79-5.28 280-310

(rigid, closed cell)

11 Polyvinylchloride PVC foam 76.5-84.3 4.90-5.40 436-482

(cross-linked, rigid, closed cell)

Source: own study based on the Ansys Granta Selector browser.

There are 23 examples of PURs as a polyurethane plastic, thermosetting

polyurethane elastomer or thermosetting rigid polyurethane. However, these PUR
foam examples differ in the value of specific gravity, and, as it does not affect the
value of the environmental parameters, only 4 types of materials were analyzed for
this paper (no. 9 in Tab. 1). The types of tested PUR foams (PUR foam: open cell;
elastomeric, open cell; flexible, open cell; microcellular, closed foam) have the same
values of environmental parameters. The rigid PUR foam (no. 10 in Tab. 1) has
poorer environmental production characteristics than other PUR foams.
As can be seen from the collected data (Tab. 1), there are huge differences in
the amount of energy required and CO2 footprint of material production between the
various materials. For example, for cork (no. 2 in Tab. 1) the embodied energy and
CO2 footprint of its production are respectively 3.8–4.2 MJ/kg and 0.19–0.21 kg/kg,
while for polymethacrylimide foam they are 316.0–348.0 MJ/kg and 26.40–
29.10 kg/kg. It is also clear that both of these parameters are lower for natural
materials than for synthetic ones. On the other hand, the amount of water necessary
for the production of natural materials is much higher, amounting to 1.79∙103 l/kg in
the case of paper. It should be clear that the environmental impact of a given material
should be taken into account for all the functional synergistic parameters. After all,
it has been known for several years that organic cotton bags must be reused up to
20,000 times to have the same environmental impact as thin plastic bags [Ministry
of Environment and Food of Denmark 2018].
The method used in this investigation was based on a software tool, Eco Audit.
The tool allows us to determine the environmental impact of a product in six
elements taken into account during the life cycle: material, production, transport,
use, disposal, and end-of-life potential (EoL). The environmental impact of material
production is defined by input energy [MJ/kg], CO2 footprint [kg/kg] and water
usage [l/kg]. Furthermore, the EoL potential means the amount of energy that can be
recovered or lost during disposal (energy consumption [MJ/kg]). In addition, the EoL
potential presents possibility to minimize the CO2 footprint [kg/kg] of the material.
In the investigation, only four parts of their life cycle were analyzed: material,
production, disposal, and end-of-life potential. The life of the product (years) was
equal to one year.

Scientific Journal of Gdynia Maritime University, No. 122, June 2022 59

 Agnieszka Piotrowska-Kirschling, Joanna Brzeska

3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

The environmental characteristics of the foams that are included in the database are
shown in Figures 2–4.
Figure 2 shows the dependence of the CO2 footprint during production on the
kind of material [kg/kg], while Figure 3 presents the dependence of the CO2 footprint
of the material’s production [kg/kg] on its embodied energy [MJ/kg]. For the sake of
clarity in the diagrams, only the PUR foams and materials analyzed with extreme
parameters were named.
One of the selected fillers, which is used in modified PUR foams – cork (low
density), has a very low CO2 footprint and embodied energy of its production.
Moreover, both selected natural fillers (cork and paper) are the only ones among all
the analyzed materials that are biodegradable. To sum up, it can be said that PUR
foams are quite environmentally beneficial, while at the same time their composition
still needs to be optimized in order to lower their environmental impact.

Fig. 2. Dependence of the CO2 footprint of material production [kg/kg]

on the types of material from which the foam was obtained
Source: own study based on the Ansys Granta Selector browser.

60 Scientific Journal of Gdynia Maritime University, No. 122, June 2022

 Identification of the Environmental Impact of Polyurethane Foams
Using Ansys Granta Selector

Fig. 3. Dependence of the CO2 footprint of material production [kg/kg]

on its embodied energy [MJ/kg]
Source: own study based on the Ansys Granta Selector browser.

In addition, Figure 4 presents the dependence of the CO2 footprint of the

material’s production [kg/kg] and the water usage [l/kg] for their production.

Fig. 4. Dependence of the CO2 footprint of material production [kg/kg]

on the water usage [l/kg] for its production
Source: own study based on the Ansys Granta Selector browser.

As mentioned before, when determining the environmental impact of a material

(product), all kinds of environmental impacts need to be taken into account.
The amount of water used in the production is also such a parameter. As can be seen

Scientific Journal of Gdynia Maritime University, No. 122, June 2022 61

 Agnieszka Piotrowska-Kirschling, Joanna Brzeska

in Figure 4, the production of glass foam generates a quite high CO2 footprint during
the material production; however, the amount of water used in this process is
insignificant. The similar value of the CO2 footprint was determined for graphite
foam, the production of which, however, consumes a huge amount of water, which
is related to the complicated and multistage production of this foam [Bonaccorsi et
al. 2013]. The amount of water needed to obtain PUR foams is similar to that of
polymethacrylimide; however, the CO2 footprint generated from material
production, as previously shown, is lower for PUR.

4. RESULT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF MODIFIED

POLYURETHANE FOAMS

The tested PUR foams are not biodegradable materials, so only their modification
by a natural filler might influence the development of their degradability after their
use. The analysis was carried out on an example of PUR foam (no. 9 in Tab. 1)
modified with natural fillers (paper (no. 1 in Tab. 1) or cork (no. 2 in Tab. 1)).
In this analysis, the end-of-life was a landfill.
As shown in Figures 2–4, natural foams generally have a lower CO2 footprint
for the material production than PURs. Thus, one way to lower this parameter for
PURs is blending with a natural filler. These modifications also affect the properties
of the PUR, including its degradability [Alma et al. 2017; Brzeska et al. 2021],
making these materials greener.
PUR foam (no. 9 in Tab. 1) was modified by two fillers: paper and cork, in the
range of 0–40 wt% filler. Tables 2–3 present the quantitative composition of the
tested foams with the paper filler (Tab. 2) or the cork filler (Tab. 3), and the values
of their environmental material characteristics.

Table 2. Quantitative composition of the tested PUR foam with a paper filler
and the values of its environmental characteristic during production

PUR Paper Embodied CO2

No. Material mass mass energy footprint
[wt%] [wt%] [MJ/kg] [kg/kg]

1 PUR 100.0 0.0 85.1 3.95

2 PUR+paper1 99.5 0.5 84.9 3.94

3 PUR+paper2 98.5 1.5 84.5 3.91

4 PUR+paper3 97.5 2.5 84.2 3.88

5 PUR+paper4 97.0 3.0 84.0 3.87

62 Scientific Journal of Gdynia Maritime University, No. 122, June 2022

 Identification of the Environmental Impact of Polyurethane Foams
Using Ansys Granta Selector

cont. Table 2
6 PUR+paper5 95.0 5.0 83.4 3.81

7 PUR+paper6 92.5 7.5 82.5 3.74

8 PUR+paper7 90.0 10.0 81.7 3.67

9 PUR+paper8 80.0 20.0 78.3 3.39

10 PUR+paper9 75.0 25.0 76.7 3.26

11 PUR+paper10 70.0 30.0 75.0 3.12

12 PUR+paper11 65.0 35.0 73.3 2.98

13 PUR+paper12 60.0 40.0 71.6 2.84

Source: own study based on Eco Audit tool from Ansys Granta Selector software.

For comparison, the lowest footprint of CO2, among all the synthetic foams,
was polypropylene foam (2.91–3.21 kg/kg, average 3.06 kg/kg). The appropriate
weight percent content of natural filler in the modified PUR foam allows the
reduction of the CO2 footprint to a value similar to that of polypropylene foam. Of
course, the amount of added filler depends strictly on the desired properties of the
end product. It is likely that the addition of as much as 40% of the paper would
significantly deteriorate the mechanical properties of the PUR. Therefore, during the
design, all expectations of this product should be analyzed.

Table 3. Quantitative composition of the tested PUR foam with a cork filler
and the values of its environmental characteristic during production

PUR Cork Embodied CO2

No. Material mass mass energy footprint
[wt%] [wt%] [MJ/kg] [kg/kg]

1 PUR 100.0 0.0 85.1 3.95

2 PUR+cork1 99.5 0.5 84.6 3.93

3 PUR+cork2 98.5 1.5 83.8 3.89

4 PUR+cork3 97.5 2.5 83.0 3.86

5 PUR+cork4 97.0 3.0 82.6 3.84

6 PUR+cork5 95.0 5.0 81.0 3.76

Scientific Journal of Gdynia Maritime University, No. 122, June 2022 63

 Agnieszka Piotrowska-Kirschling, Joanna Brzeska

cont. Table 3
7 PUR+cork6 92.5 7.5 79.0 3.67

8 PUR+cork7 90.0 10.0 76.9 3.58

9 PUR+cork8 80.0 20.0 68.8 3.20

10 PUR+cork9 75.0 25.0 64.8 3.01

11 PUR+cork10 70.0 30.0 60.7 2.83

12 PUR+cork11 65.0 35.0 56.7 2.64

13 PUR+cork12 60.0 40.0 52.6 2.45

Source: own study based on Eco Audit tool from Ansys Granta Selector software.

Based on a linear regression of the dependences from Tables 2–3, calculations

were made to determine the amount of filler needed to obtain the same value of the
CO2 footprint from the modified foams as from the polypropylene foam. The
calculations confirmed that a foam consisting of 32 wt% paper or 24 wt% cork has
the same CO2 footprint as polypropylene foam. Considering the price of the filler,
given in the Material Universe datasheet (about 1–1.5 EUR/kg paper and 2–11
EUR/kg cork), modification of the PUR by paper is economically more beneficial.
Thus, as mentioned earlier, it should be taken into account in all the technical
parameters (material properties), including the environmental and economic factors,
when designing a new product.

5. RESULT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF POLYURETHANE

FOAMS WITH DIFFERENT TYPES OF END-OF-LIFE

The type of end-of-life of the tested foams (PUR foam, no. 9 in Tab. 1) also
influences the associated energy and carbon emissions. Analyses with three different
disposal routes were carried out:
1) Landfill (collect and transport to landfill site),
2) Combust for heat recovery (collect, combust, recover heat),
3) Reuse [Ashby 2013].
The percentage of recovered material was equal to 50 or 100 percent.
The environmental characteristics of the production of PUR foam with different
end-of-lives is presented in Table 4.

64 Scientific Journal of Gdynia Maritime University, No. 122, June 2022

 Identification of the Environmental Impact of Polyurethane Foams
Using Ansys Granta Selector

Table 4. The environmental characteristic of the production of PUR foams

with different end-of-lives

Eco Audit – end-of-life potential

Recovered
No. Material End-of-life material
Embodied energy CO2 footprint
[%] [kg/kg]
[MJ/kg]

1 PUR Landfill 100 0.00 0.00

2 PUR Combust 100 -5.4 1.67

3 PUR Reuse 100 -84.9 -3.95

4 PUR Landfill 50 0.00 0.00

5 PUR Combust 50 -2.7 0.84

6 PUR Reuse 50 -42.5 -1.97

Source: own study based on Eco Audit tool from Ansys Granta Selector software.

The tested unmodified foam had 84.9 MJ/kg of energy embodied and
a 3.95 kg/kg CO2 footprint from material production. Combustion as a type of end-
of-life enables recovery of some energy (negative value of the embodied energy in
the EoL); however, it still has a CO2 footprint from the material production, but
smaller than the produced pristine material (from 3.95 kg/kg to 1.67 kg/kg or
0.84 kg/kg, depending on the percentage recovered material). Significantly
minimalizing the CO2 footprint and recovering more energy are possible throughout
the reuse as a kind of end-of-life. At 100% recovered material, 16 times more energy
recovery is achievable with reuse compared to combustion. This confirms the
common belief that recycling polymer products is safer for the environment than
burning them.
The search for energy recovery from the production of materials or the disposal
of the material after its use could be one of the primary types of preventing global
warming.

6. CONCLUSIONS

The foam materials industry is constantly evolving. Materials are energy intensive
due to the high embodied energy and the associated CO2 footprint. However, by
choosing the right material (synthetic or natural), the amount of energy used and the
CO2 generated can be minimized at the design and production stage for the materials.

Scientific Journal of Gdynia Maritime University, No. 122, June 2022 65

 Agnieszka Piotrowska-Kirschling, Joanna Brzeska

It should be remembered that the overall environmental impact of a product depends

on many factors, only three of which (embodied energy, CO2 footprint, and water
usage of material production) are discussed in this paper. The data obtained from the
Ansys Granta Selector program clearly show that the appropriate modification of the
PUR synthetic foams with natural fillers reduces their environmental impact. Eco
Audit is a fast and easy method for material manufacturers to make strategic
decisions.

7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank the authorities of the Gdynia Maritime University who
financed the research from the fund of doctoral students of the GMU (2021). The
research was also partially supported by the Gdynia Maritime University, project
grant no. WZNJ/2022/PZ/10.

REFERENCES

Alma, M.H., Salan, T., Tozluoglu, A., Gonultas, O., Candan, Z., 2017, 1. Green Composite Materials
from Liquefied Biomass, [in:] Davim J.P. (ed.), Green Composites: Materials, Manufacturing and
Engineering, pp. 1-32.
Ansys website, https://www.ansys.com/products/materials/granta-selector (02.02.2022).
Ashby, M.F., 2013, Materials and the Environment: Eco-Informed Material Choice, Elsevier Inc.,
USA.
Bonaccorsi, L., Bruzzaniti, P., Calabrese, L., Freni, A., Proverbio, E., Restuccia, G., 2013, Synthesis of
SAPO-34 on Graphite Foams for Adsorber Heat Exchangers, Applied Thermal Engineering, vol.
61, no. 2, pp. 848–852.
Brzeska, J., Tercjak, A., Sikorska, W., Mendrek, B., Kowalczuk, M., Rutkowska, M., 2021,
Degradability of Polyurethanes and Their Blends with Polylactide, Chitosan and Starch,
Polymers, vol. 13, no. 8.
Ertekin, Y., Nicoleta, I., Chiou, R., 2014, Integrating Eco-Design in Manufacturing Materials and
Processes Related Courses – Material Selection for Sustainable Design Using CES-EduPack and
SolidWorks, Conference Proceedings, ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition.
Gradin, K.T., Astrom, A.H., 2018, Evaluation of an Eco Audit Tool – through an LCA of a Novel Car
Disc Brake, Proceedings of NordDesign: Design in the Era of Digitalization, NordDesign.
Luna-Tintos, J.F., Cobreros, C., Lopez-Escamilla, A., Herrera-Limones, R., Torres-Garcia, M., 2020,
Methodology to Evaluate the Embodied Primary Energy and CO2 Production at Each Stage of
the Life Cycle of Prefabricated Structural Systems: The Case of the Solar Decathlon Competition,
Energies, vol. 13, no. 17.
Mella, P., 2022, Global Warming: Is it (im)Possible to Stop It? The Systems Thinking Approach,
Energies, vol. 15, no. 3, 705, pp. 1–33.

66 Scientific Journal of Gdynia Maritime University, No. 122, June 2022

 Identification of the Environmental Impact of Polyurethane Foams
Using Ansys Granta Selector

Rehman, A., Ma, H., Ahmad, M., Irfan, M., Traore, O., Chandio, A.A., 2021, Towards Environmental
Sustainability: Devolving the Influence of Carbon Dioxide Emission to Population Growth,
Climate Change, Forestry, Livestock and Crops Production in Pakistan, Ecological Indicators,
vol. 125, pp. 1–11.
Ministry of Environment and Food of Denmark, Environmental Protection Agency, Report: “Life cycle
assessment of grocery carrier bags”, https://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2018/02/978-87-
93614-73-4.pdf (09.02.2022).
Sklenickova, K., Abbrent, S., Halecky, M., Koci, V., Benes, H., 2022, Biodegradability and Ecotoxicity
of Polyurethane Foams: A Review, Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology,
vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 157–202.
Statistaa website, https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissions/ (02.02.2022).
Statistab website, https://www.statista.com/statistics/270499/co2-emissions-in-selected-countries/
(02.02.2022).
Statistac website, https://www.statista.com/statistics/664906/plastics-production-volume-forecast-
worldwide/ (02.02.2022).
The Freedonia Group, 2006, Report: “Specialty foams—U.S. industry study, with forecasts to 2007
& 2012”, Freedonia.

Scientific Journal of Gdynia Maritime University, No. 122, June 2022 67