Next Article in Journal
A Novel Rotating Wireless Power Transfer System for Slipring with Redundancy Enhancement Characteristics
Previous Article in Journal
New Geo- and Mining Heritage-Based Tourist Destinations in the Sudetes (SW Poland)—Towards More Effective Resilience of Local Communities
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 13
10.3390/su16135627
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Environmental Impact Assessment of Anti-Corrosion Coating Life Cycle Processes for Marine Applications

by
Avinash Borgaonkar
* and
Greg McNamara
School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Dublin City University, D09 V209 Dublin, Ireland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(13), 5627; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135627
Submission received: 21 May 2024 / Revised: 26 June 2024 / Accepted: 27 June 2024 / Published: 30 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Topic Advances in Sustainable Materials and Products)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In the present study, the life cycle assessment (LCA) of uncoated steel and alkyd-coated steel (using the sol–gel method) systems subjected to the marine atmosphere is performed to examine their environmental impacts. The LCA findings demonstrate a notable 46% reduction in the overall environmental impact of the coated system compared to the uncoated system. The findings of the sensitivity analysis indicate that a decreased mean time between repair and maintenance, along with an augmented quantity of coating, results in adverse environmental consequences. Furthermore, the LCA outcomes highlight the significant environmental impacts associated with 3-glycidyloxypropyltrimethoxysilane and n-propanol within the coated system. Hence, there is a need for the development of commercial coatings with bio-based products to develop a greener solution.

1. Introduction

Carbon steel is used as a structural material for ships since it possesses superior properties, such as high strength, toughness, machinability, and low cost. However, due to its ferrous (Fe) content, it has poor corrosion resistance. Steel corrosion weakens the structural integrity over time and eventually leads to its failure [1]. The estimated costs to overcome the issues related to steel corrosion in countries like Japan and the USA correspond to 4% of their gross domestic product (GDP) [2]. Several researchers reported the use of different protective coatings to improve the life span of offshore steel structures [3,4,5]. From the past few decades, aluminum (Al)-based coatings have been used to prevent steel from corrosion since they are economical, non-toxic, and have cathodic electrochemical protection [6,7,8]. However, the usage of Al coating has limitations under highly humid environments and extreme temperature fluctuations, as it exhibits a high rate of corrosion under such circumstances. Recently, superhydrophobic coatings (SHC) have attracted the attention of engineers and scientists due to their superior properties [9,10,11]. The higher water contact angles (WCA > 150°) make SHCs an excellent water repellent. This inherent property supports them to employ in various applications such as anti-icing [12], anti-corrosion [13,14], self-cleaning [15,16], anti-splashing [17], and drag reduction [18].
The ship structure comprises a pre-treated steel substrate, a primer over the substrate, and a topcoat over the primer [19]. Generally, the substrate is pre-treated to clean the contaminants from the surface and improve the adhesion of the coating. The primer helps to protect the water permeation and serves as a carrier of various species, like cathodic protectors, anodic passivation, or inhibitors employed with specific functions. Conventionally, epoxy and silica-based primers with Zn powder as a pigment were employed in marine environments. Additionally, to protect the primer from accidental scratching and UV irradiation, an epoxy, alkyd, or vinyl film topcoat is generally applied [20]. Silane-based organic–inorganic hybrid coatings (alone or in combination with TiO2, ZrO2, Al2O3, CeO2, and Fe2O3 nanoparticles) demonstrated excellent corrosion protection in an aqueous environment [21]. Metal–organic frameworks (MOFs) have great potential to be used as a functional additive in polymer-based coatings. MOFs exhibit a tailorable structure of metal ions and organic linkers. MOFs possess a large loading capacity of corrosion inhibitors, which assist in mitigating the rate of corrosion. Due to these advantages, MOFs-polymer-based coating gained importance for steel corrosion protection [22].
The use of palm stearin in the synthesis of alkyd resins results in a more environmentally friendly and economical production process, reducing energy consumption and chemical pollution. This method supports sustainable practices by conserving natural resources and minimizing harmful emissions compared to traditional solvent-based methods [23]. The synthesis of Hydroxy Urethane modified alkyd resins from renewable resources offers a greener and less toxic method to enhance chemical resistance, thus promoting environmentally friendly coating solutions. This innovation improves the alkali resistance of alkyd resins while maintaining key film properties, contributing to more sustainable production practices [24]. Alkyd paint contains less volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and uses fewer toxic solvents, making it a more sustainable and environmentally friendly alternative. The alkyd paint exhibits superior mechanical and thermal properties comparable to conventional paints [25]. Alkyd coatings possess good adhesion, corrosion resistance, flexibility, and durability. The selection of the resin is based on various factors such as performance (water resistance, chemical resistance, resistance to ultraviolet radiation, etc.), processing requirements (substrate material, substrate surface conditions, coating material, etc.), chemical characteristics (of pigments, solvents, additives, etc.), method of application (dipping, spray coating, etc.), and economic feasibility [26]. Laco et al. [27] reported that modified alkyd resin, with the addition of a low volume of polyaniline, improved corrosion resistance compared to thermoplastic polymers. This improvement was attributed to the conductive ability of polyaniline. To integrate the experimental findings, Kowalski et al. [28] performed the life cycle cost (LCC) analysis of the steel barrier structure installed on a bridge coated with various corrosion protection coatings, such as hot dip galvanizing, a three-layer paint coating, and a double-layer coating consisting of zinc. Their study outlines that the metallic coating produced using hot dip galvanizing provides financial benefits in the long term. Ingham [29] carried out an life cycle assessment (LCA) for different coating systems, which includes a new marine coating product (XGIT-Fuel, manufactured by Graphite Innovation and Technologies, Halifax, NS, Canada), cuprous-oxide-based anti-fouling coating (BRA640), and poly(dimethyl siloxane)-based anti-fouling coating (INT1100SR). This study revealed that the BRA640 system has the most prominent environmental impact due to the significant shipping emissions in the service phase and the release of cuprous oxide into the marine environment. Alkyd coatings, known for their good adhesion and durability, offer significant anti-corrosion performance by forming a protective barrier that prevents chloride-induced corrosion on metal surfaces, making them a cost-effective option for transportation agencies [30]. Guo et al. [31] demonstrated that despite the accelerated failure process under cathodic polarization, alkyd coatings exhibited notable durability, showing resilience, and maintaining a significant level of protection in both static and flowing seawater conditions over extended immersion periods. In another study, Seddik et al. [32] highlighted the superior performance of alkyd coatings enhanced with cysteine-modified swelling clay, which provided durable corrosion protection and significantly improved the impedance and charge transfer resistance of brass surfaces. In practical marine applications, uncoated steel is typically not used due to its high susceptibility to corrosion. However, for the purposes of this study, uncoated steel was included as a baseline to effectively compare the environmental impacts of using alkyd coatings. Similar assumptions are supported by studies such as Suer et al. [33], which highlights the application of LCA methodologies to assess the environmental impacts of both uncoated and coated steel, and Adsetts et al. [34], which underscores the necessity of coatings in harsh environments to prevent corrosion. Alkyd coatings significantly extend the lifespan of steel structures by providing a protective barrier, thereby reducing the frequency of maintenance and overall environmental impact.
The published literature shows that alkyd coating possesses excellent resistance to oxidation and corrosion in marine environments. Hence, in the present study, LCA of uncoated and alkyd sol–gel coated systems is performed to investigate the environmental impacts. The experimental data considered in the present study to perform LCA were referred to from the published article [35]. Moreover, the sensitivity analysis is performed considering parameters such as the coating mean time between repair and maintenance and the coating amount.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

As the ship structure is made up of carbon steel (bare steel), it is considered a System 1. In comparison, the ship structure coated with an alkyd-based anti-corrosion coating (developed by Tecnalia, Donostia-San Sebastián, Serbia [35]) is considered System 2. The inventory details considered for both systems are mentioned in Section 2.1.1 [35,36].

2.1.1. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Methodology

The environmental impacts of System 1 and System 2 are studied using the cradle-to-gate LCA approach [37]. The LCA modeling of both systems is performed using the GaBi software (version 10), and the inventory is referred from the GaBi database [38]. Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) is a phase of LCA that evaluates the significance of potential environmental impacts based on the life cycle inventory data collected [39]. It involves translating emissions and resource use into environmental impact categories, such as global warming potential or eutrophication, providing a comprehensive understanding of a product’s environmental performance [40]. The Centrum voor Milieukunde Leiden (CML) methodology is employed for LCIA. The CML method is a widely recognized framework that categorizes environmental impacts into midpoint indicators, facilitating a comprehensive analysis of environmental burdens throughout the lifecycle of a product. This methodology is specifically designed to align with European environmental policies and regulations, ensuring relevant and accurate impact assessments [41]. The CML method’s detailed and structured approach allows for consistency and comparability in LCA studies, making it a preferred choice for regional assessments [42]. In the present study, the protection of a 1 m2 surface area of steel is considered a functional unit [43,44]. The life of the bare ship structure (System 1) is assumed to be 10 years [45]. Whereas the effective life of the coating (System 2) is assumed to be 5 years. Since, every five years, repair and maintenance of the ship structure is generally scheduled [46]. The boundary considered in the present LCA study for both uncoated and coated systems is depicted in Figure 1.

2.1.2. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) for Production of Carbon Steel (System 1) and Steel Substrate Coated with Anti-Corrosion Coating (System 2)

The LCI data for System 1 are obtained from the GaBi database [38]. Whereas the life cycle of System 2 is divided into the following six different stages: (1) production of carbon steel substrate; (2) surface preparation, which includes degreasing, i.e., removal of oil impurities and dirt; (3) synthesis of alkyd coating using sol–gel approach; (4) deposition of alkyd coating on steel substrate; (5) thermal curing for proper adhesion of coating; and (6) use of coated specimen under corrosive atmosphere. The key parameters and major assumptions made for the alkyd-coated system are summarized and presented in Table 1.
Figure 2 depicts the cradle-to-gate LCA model for System 2. It starts with raw material acquisition and proceeds through the production, coating process, and use phase. This model excludes transportation and end-of-the-life phases.
The geometry of the specimen used to evaluate the surface area, the mass of the uncoated specimen (System 1), and the mass of the coated specimen (System 2) were referenced from the literature [35]. A correlation between the specimen surface area and mass was carried out to obtain the required inputs corresponding to the functional unit of 1 m2. The masses for the uncoated (System 1) and coated specimens (System 2) with 1 m2 surface area are presented in Table 2.
The LCI data for the production of one kg of alkyd coating are presented in Table 3 [49]. Additionally, the electrical energy consumption during the synthesis and deposition of the coating on the steel substrate is referenced from published literature [52,53].
In this LCA study, a sensitivity analysis was performed considering the following two parameters: the span between coating repairs and maintenance and the amount of coating used. The experimental study observed a five-year lifespan for the alkyd coating [35,51]. However, these experiments need to accurately represent atmospheric corrosion, accounting for factors such as wet and dry climate cycles, UV radiation, ozone, and air pollutants. To address these factors, a ±25% variation in the coating repair and maintenance span relative to the five-year lifespan was considered, and corresponding changes in environmental impacts were studied.
The amount of coating used is another significant parameter affecting environmental impact. According to the experimental study, 10 mL of coating volume is required to coat 1 m2 steel surface [35]. However, factors such as coating deposition techniques, the number of layers (base, intermediate, and topcoat), and loss of coating to the surroundings can lead to variations in the required amount of coating. To investigate this, a scenario with a ±25% variation in the amount of coating relative to the 10 mL/m2 baseline was considered, and corresponding changes in environmental impacts were analyzed.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. LCIA

The LCIA results for System 1 and System 2 are summarized in Table 4 and represented in Figure 3. The results are normalized to that of the system with the highest impact in the respective category. Among all listed categories in Table 4, ADF, GHG, POCP, AP, FAETP, and EP were found to have significant contributions to the total environmental impact. The steel production process contributes 95% of the total environmental burden in System 1 [54,55,56].
With regards to System 2, for the ADF impact category, the potential contribution of various factors was observed, i.e., steel production 70%, GPTMS 12%, n-propanol 5%, bisphenol 4%, followed by steel blasting 2%. Similarly, for the FAETP impact category, various factors contributed, i.e., steel production 72%; steel blasting 14%; GPTMS 5%; n-propanol 3%, followed by bisphenol 2%. For the GHG impact category, various factors contributed, i.e., steel production 78%, GPTMS 10%, steel blasting 3%, and n-propanol 2%. For POCP and EP impacts, steel production contributes 80%, GPTMS contributes 7%, followed by steel blasting 4% [56].
The highest negative impact for ODP was observed due to the emissions from the consumption of fossil fuels (in the form of electricity) and chemicals used for the synthesis of coatings [57,58,59]. From the LCIA results shown in Figure 3, overall, a 46% reduction in the total environmental impact is observed for System 2 compared to System 1.

3.2. Sensitivity Analysis

The sensitivity analysis for the mean time between repair and maintenance of ship coating over five years with ±25% variation is shown in Figure 4. The variation in mean time between repair and maintenance of ship coating greatly affects ADP (fossil), GWP, ODP, and POCP environmental impacts. A decrease in the meantime between repair and maintenance of ship coating causes an increase in the above-listed environmental impacts and vice versa. The results showed 20 to 24% negative environmental impact for ADP (fossil), GWP, and POCP with reduced mean time between repair and maintenance of ship coating compared to the reference five-year period, as shown in Figure 4a,b,d. This can be attributed to the higher consumption of chemicals in the synthesis of alkyd coatings [57]. The negative 31% ODP impact was observed in the case of a reduced mean time between repair and maintenance of ship coating (refer to Figure 4c). It originates from the chemicals used for coating, pre-treatment of the substrate, and energy used in various life cycle phases [45]. In addition, about 12 to 15% positive impact for ADP (fossil), GWP, and POCP was observed for the increased mean time between repair and maintenance of ship coating compared to the reference five-year period [51].
In the referred experimental study [35], a 10 mL/m2 amount of coating was used; considering this, the sensitivity analysis is performed with ±25% variation in the amount of coating. The obtained sensitivity analysis results for ADP (fossil), GWP, ODP, and POCP are depicted in Figure 5a–d. The variation in coating amount shows an influence on ADP (fossil), GWP, ODP, and POCP impact categories. The reduction in the amount of coating showed a decrease in the environmental impacts and vice versa. It is directly related to the amount of chemicals used in the synthesis of alkyd coating [60]. The results show about 4% and 6% variation in ADP (fossil), GWP, and POCP, with −25% and +25% variation in the amount of coating, respectively, as shown in Figure 5a,b,d. Whereas 9% and 19% variation in ODP is observed with −25% and +25% variation in the amount of coating, respectively (Refer Figure 5c). The maximum variation in ODP (both on the negative and positive side) was observed due to the amount of chemicals and the energy consumed during different life cycle phases [57].
The sensitivity analysis revealed that changes in the meantime between repair and maintenance of ship coatings, as well as variations in coating amounts, significantly impact environmental factors like ADP (fossil), GWP, ODP, and POCP. Decreasing the repair and maintenance interval or increasing coating amounts led to higher environmental impacts due to increased chemical usage, while increasing the repair and maintenance interval or decreasing coating amounts resulted in decreased impacts. These findings emphasize the importance of maintenance strategies and coating application practices in minimizing environmental burdens within the marine industry.

4. Conclusions

This study presents a comprehensive life cycle assessment (LCA) comparing the environmental impacts of uncoated steel and alkyd-coated steel systems prepared using the sol–gel method in a marine atmosphere. The LCA results indicate a substantial 46% reduction in the overall environmental impact of the alkyd-coated steel system compared to the uncoated steel system, underscoring the enhanced environmental performance of the coated system.
Sensitivity analysis further elucidates that a decrease in the meantime between repair and maintenance, coupled with an increased quantity of coating material, exacerbates the environmental impacts. These findings suggest that optimizing the maintenance schedule and the amount of coating applied are critical factors in minimizing environmental burdens.
Moreover, this study identifies 3-glycidyloxypropyltrimethoxysilane and n-propanol as significant contributors to the environmental impacts of the coated system. These substances, integral to the coating process, exhibit high environmental footprints, indicating the necessity for research and development of alternative materials.
The results emphasize the importance of developing and adopting commercial coatings formulated with bio-based products to achieve a greener and more sustainable solution. Future work should focus on the exploration and integration of eco-friendly materials that can provide comparable or superior performance while mitigating environmental impacts.
Overall, the findings from this LCA provide valuable insights for improving the environmental sustainability of protective coatings in marine applications, and they highlight the potential for significant environmental benefits through material innovation and process optimization.

Author Contributions

A.B.: conceptualization, methodology, software, validation, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, writing—original draft, and visualization. G.M.: conceptualization, resources, project administration, writing—review and editing, supervision, and funding acquisition. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This publication has emanated from research supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program under grant agreement number: H2020 NewSkin 862100P.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

This manuscript has no associated data.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

LCALife cycle assessmentEPEutrophication
LCIALife cycle impact assessmentFAETPFreshwater aquatic ecotoxicity
LCCLife cycle costGWPGlobal warming (100)
LCILife cycle inventoryHTPHuman toxicity
CMLCentrum voor Milieukunde LeidenMAETPMarine aquatic ecotoxicity
ADEAbiotic depletion (elements)ODPOzone depletion
ADFAbiotic depletion (fossil)POCPPhotochemical oxidation
APAcidificationTETPTerrestrial ecotoxicity
GPTMS3-GlycidyloxypropyltrimethoxysilaneTTIPTitanium isopropoxide
GHGGreenhouse gas

References

  1. Wei, Y.; Hongtao, L.; Wei, Z. Preparation of anti-corrosion superhydrophobic coatings by an Fe-based micro/nano composite electro-brush plating and blackening process. RSC Adv. 2015, 5, 103000–103012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Iannuzzi, M.; Frankel, G.S. The carbon footprint of steel corrosion. NPJ Mater. Degrad. 2022, 6, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Li, X.; Zhang, D.; Liu, Z.; Li, Z.; Du, C.; Dong, C. Materials science: Share corrosion data. Nature 2015, 527, 441–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Popoola, L.T.; Grema, A.S.; Latinwo, G.K.; Gutti, B.; Balogun, A.S. Corrosion problems during oil and gas production and its mitigation. Int. J. Ind. Chem. 2013, 4, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Momber, A.W.; Plagemann, P.; Stenzel, V. Performance and integrity of protective coating systems for offshore wind power structures after three years under offshore site conditions. Renew. Energy 2015, 74, 606–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Momber, A.W.; Marquardt, T. Protective coatings for offshore wind energy devices (OWEAs): A review. J. Coat. Technol. Res. 2018, 15, 13–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Cheng, J.; Feng, Y.; Yan, C.; Hu, X.; Li, R.; Liang, X. Development and characterization of Al-based amorphous coating. JOM 2020, 72, 745–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cheng, J.; Wang, B.; Liu, Q.; Liang, X. In-situ synthesis of novel Al-Fe-Si metallic glass coating by arc spraying. J. Alloys Compd. 2017, 716, 88–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Qian, H.; Xu, D.; Du, C.; Zhang, D.; Li, X.; Huang, L.; Deng, L.; Tu, Y.; Mol, J.M.C.; Terryn, H.A. Dual-action smart coatings with a self-healing superhydrophobic surface and anti-corrosion properties. J. Mater. Chem. A 2017, 5, 2355–2364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zang, D.; Zhu, R.; Zhang, W.; Yu, X.; Lin, L.; Guo, X.; Liu, M.; Jiang, L. Corrosion-resistant superhydrophobic coatings on Mg alloy surfaces inspired by lotus seedpod. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2017, 27, 1605446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Xiang, T.; Han, Y.; Guo, Z.; Wang, R.; Zheng, S.; Li, S.; Li, C.; Dai, X. Fabrication of Inherent Anticorrosion Superhydrophobic Surfaces on Metals. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2018, 6, 5598–5606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Pan, R.; Zhang, H.; Zhong, M. Triple-Scale Superhydrophobic Surface with excellent anti-icing and icephobic performance via ultrafast laser hybrid fabrication. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2020, 13, 1743–1753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Li, X.; Jiang, Y.; Jiang, Z.; Li, Y.; Wen, C.; Zhang, D.; Lian, J.; Zhang, Z. Improvement of corrosion resistance of H59 brass through fabricating superhydrophobic surface using laser ablation and heating treatment. Corros. Sci. 2021, 180, 109186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Guo, F.; Duan, S.; Wu, D.; Matsuda, K.; Wang, T.; Zou, Y. Facile etching fabrication of superhydrophobic 7055 aluminum alloy surface towards chloride environment anticorrosion. Corros. Sci. 2021, 182, 109262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mirzadeh, M.; Dehghani, K.; Rezaei, M.; Mahidashti, Z. Effect of stearic acid as a low cost and green material on the self-cleaning and anti-corrosion behavior of anodized titanium. Colloids Surf. A 2019, 583, 123971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Khan, S.A.; Boltaev, G.S.; Iqbal, M.; Kim, V.; Ganeev, R.A.; Alnaser, A.S. Ultrafast fiber laser-induced fabrication of superhydrophobic and self-cleaning metal surfaces. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2021, 542, 148560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kim, W.; Eun, J.; Jeon, S. Anti-splashing properties of sticky superhydrophobic surfaces. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2021, 542, 148617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Pakzad, H.; Liravi, M.; Moosavi, A.; Nouri-Borujerdi, A.; Najafkhani, H. Fabrication of durable superhydrophobic surfaces using PDMS and beeswax for drag reduction of internal turbulent flow. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2020, 513, 145754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zhou, Y.; Rossi, B.; Zhou, Q.; Hihara, L.H.; Foster, M. Thin Plasma-Polymerized Coatings as a Primer with Polyurethane Topcoat for Improved Corrosion Resistance. Langmuir 2020, 36, 837–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Song, G.L.; Feng, Z. Modification, degradation and evaluation of a few organic coatings for some marine applications. Corros. Mater. Degrad. 2020, 1, 408–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Pathak, S.S.; Khanna, A.S. Sol–gel nanocoatings for corrosion protection. In Corrosion Protection and Control Using Nanomaterials; Saji, V.S., Cook, R., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2012; pp. 304–329. [Google Scholar]
  22. Ulaeto, S.B.; Ravi, R.P.; Udoh, I.I.; Mathew, G.M.; Rajan, T.P. Polymer-Based Coating for Steel Protection, Highlighting Metal–Organic Framework as Functional Actives: A Review. Corros. Mater. Degrad. 2023, 4, 284–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Nanvaee, A.A.; Yahya, R.; Gan, S.N. Cleaner production through using by-product palm stearin to synthesis alkyd resin for coating applications. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 54, 307–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Denis, M.; Paré, A.; Le Borgne, D.; Caillol, S.; Negrell, C. Hydroxyurethane modifiers (HUM): An environmentally friendly route to improve chemical resistance of alkyd coatings. Prog. Org. Coat. 2023, 183, 107734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Nguyen, T.T. Study on Manufacturing Environmentally Friendly Alkyd Paint. VNU J. Sci. Nat. Sci. Technol. 2021, 38, 45–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Sørensen, P.A.; Kiil, S.; Dam-Johansen, K.; Weinell, C.E. Anticorrosive coatings: A review. J. Coat. Technol. Res. 2009, 6, 135–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Laco, J.I.I.; Villota, F.C.; Mestres, F.L. Corrosion protection of carbon steel with thermoplastic coatings and alkyd resins containing polyaniline as conductive polymer. Prog. Org. Coat. 2005, 52, 151–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kowalski, D.; Grzyl, B.; Kristowski, A. The cost analysis of corrosion protection solutions for steel components in terms of the object life cycle cost. Civ. Environ. Eng. Rep. 2017, 26, 5–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ingham, R.B.W. Life Cycle Assessment of Marine Coatings; MDPI: Basel, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 1–25. [Google Scholar]
  30. Qian, Y.; Li, Y.; Jungwirth, S.; Seely, N.; Fang, Y.; Shi, X. The application of anti-corrosion coating for preserving the value of equipment asset in chloride-laden environments: A review. Int. J. Electrochem. Sci. 2015, 10, 10756–10780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Guo, H.; Zhou, K.; Feng, Z.; Li, C.; Xie, J.; Ma, J.; Zhang, X.; Wang, X.; Xu, K.; Li, C.; et al. Corrosion Behavior of Alkyd-Resin-Coated Carbon Steel under Cathodic Polarization in Both Static and Flowing Seawater. Coatings 2023, 13, 1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Seddik, N.B.; Chraka, A.; Zarki, Y.; Idriss, H.O.; Rami, S.; Janoub, F.; Raissouni, I.; Draoui, K.; Aghzzaf, A.A.; Bouchta, D. Reinforcement of an alkyd resin coating incorporating a swelling clay encapsulated with L-cysteine molecules: Characterization and corrosion inhibition of Cu-36Zn alloy. J. Alloys Compd. 2023, 960, 171052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Suer, J.; Traverso, M.; Jäger, N. Review of life cycle assessments for steel and environmental analysis of future steel production scenarios. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Adsetts, J.R.; Ebrahimi, N.; Zhang, J.; Jalaei, F.; Noël, J.J. Steel Bridge-Coating Systems and Their Environmental Impacts: Current Practices and Future Trends. Coatings 2023, 13, 850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Agustín-Sáenz, C.; Santa Coloma, P.; Fernández-Carretero, F.J.; Brusciotti, F.; Brizuela, M. Design of corrosion protective and antistatic hybrid sol-gel coatings on 6XXX AlMgSi alloys for aerospace application. Coatings 2020, 10, 441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Oner, D.D.; McCarthy, T.J. Ultrahydrophobic Surfaces. Effects of Topography Length Scales on Wettability. Langmuir 2000, 16, 7777–7782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Curran, M.A. Life Cycle Assessment Handbook: A Guide for Environmentally Sustainable Products; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012; pp. 304–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. PE International. GaBi Databases 2022 Editions—Upgrades and Improvements. 24 February 2022. Available online: https://gabi.sphera.com/international/support/gabi/gabi-2022-edition-upgrades-improvements/ (accessed on 6 June 2024).
  39. Guinée, J.B. Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment: Operational Guide to the ISO Standards; Springer Science & Business Media: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2002; Volume 7. [Google Scholar]
  40. Hauschild, M.Z.; Rosenbaum, R.K.; Olsen, S.I. Life Cycle Assessment; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Klöpffer, W.; Grahl, B. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): A Guide to Best Practice; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  42. European Commission—Joint Research Centre—Institute for Environment and Sustainability. International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook—General Guide for Life Cycle Assessment—Detailed Guidance; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  43. Chilkoor, G.; Upadhyayula, V.K.; Gadhamshetty, V.; Koratkar, N.; Tysklind, M. Sustainability of renewable fuel infrastructure: A screening LCA case study of anticorrosive graphene oxide epoxy liners in steel tanks for the storage of biodiesel and its blends. Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts 2017, 19, 141–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Rossini, P.; Napolano, L.; Matteucci, G. Biotoxicity and life cycle assessment of two commercial antifouling coatings in marine systems. Chemosphere 2019, 237, 124475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Eyres, D.J.; Bruce, G.J. Ship Construction, 7th ed.; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2012; pp. 1–368. [Google Scholar]
  46. Papavinasam, S. Corrosion Control in the Oil and Gas Industry; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  47. Zhang, H.; Sun, W.; Wang, L.; Wang, J.; Wang, S.; Liu, G. A mechanically and chemically stable superhydrophobic coating for preventing marine atmospheric corrosion. Surf. Interface Anal. 2021, 27, 101537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Peng, S.; Li, T.; Shi, J.; Zhang, H. Simplified life cycle assessment and analysis of remanufacturing cleaning technologies. Procedia CIRP 2015, 29, 810–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wang, D.; Bierwagen, G.P. Sol–gel coatings on metals for corrosion protection. Prog. Org. Coat. 2009, 64, 327–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Golden, R. What’s the Score? A Method for Quantitative Estimation of Energy Use and Emissions Reductions for UV/EB Curing. In Proceedings of the RADTECH USA Conference, Chicago, IL, USA, 30 April–2 May 2012; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  51. Usino, D. Life Cycle Assessment of the Use of Marine Biocides in Antifouling Paint. Master’s Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  52. Moribe, T. Advanced intermeshing mixers for energy saving and reduction of environmental impact. Mitsubishi Heavy Ind. Tech. Rev. 2012, 49, 38–43. [Google Scholar]
  53. Norspray. RPR Method: Removal of Coating/Paints with Use of Induction. Available online: https://rprinduktion.se/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/RPR_Info_Brochure_English_version.pdf (accessed on 6 June 2024).
  54. López, C.; Peña, C.; Muñoz, E. Impact of the Secondary Steel Circular Economy Model on Resource Use and the Environmental Impact of Steel Production in Chile. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Proceedings of the IOP Conference, Temuco, Chile, 16–18 October 2019; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2020; Volume 503, p. 012024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Prado, V.; Cinelli, M.; Ter Haar, S.F.; Ravikumar, D.; Heijungs, R.; Guinée, J.; Seager, T.P. Sensitivity to Weighting in Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA). Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020, 25, 2393–2406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. WSA. LCI Data for Steel Products; World Steel Association: Brussels, Belgium, 2016; pp. 1–8. Available online: https://www.worldsteel.org/publications/bookshop/product-details~LCI-data-for-steel-products~PRODUCT~LCI~.html (accessed on 6 June 2024).
  57. Lemesle, C.; Frémiot, J.; Beaugendre, A.; Casetta, M.; Bellayer, S.; Duquesne, S.; Schuller, A.S.; Jimenez, M. Life cycle assessment of multi-step versus one-step coating processes using oil or bio-based resins. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 242, 118527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Backes, J.G.; Suer, J.; Pauliks, N.; Neugebauer, S.; Traverso, M. Life cycle assessment of an integrated steel mill using primary manufacturing data: Actual environmental profile. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Gratsos, G.A.; Zachariadis, P. Life Cycle Cost of Maintaining the Effectiveness of a Ship’s Structure and Environmental Impact of Ship Design Parameters. In Proceedings of the RINA International Conference: Design and Operation of Bulk Carriers, London, UK, 15–17 June 2005; RINA: London, UK, 2005; pp. 95–122. [Google Scholar]
  60. Ho, C.K.; Pacheco, J.E. Derivation of a Levelized Cost of Coating (LCOC) metric for evaluation of solar selective absorber materials. Energy Procedia. 2015, 69, 415–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 05627 g001
Figure 1. Boundary of the uncoated and coated systems considered in the present LCA study.
Figure 1. Boundary of the uncoated and coated systems considered in the present LCA study.
Sustainability 16 05627 g001
Sustainability 16 05627 g002
Figure 2. Cradle-to-gate LCA model for System 2.
Figure 2. Cradle-to-gate LCA model for System 2.
Sustainability 16 05627 g002
Sustainability 16 05627 g003
Figure 3. LCIA results for System 1 and System 2.
Figure 3. LCIA results for System 1 and System 2.
Sustainability 16 05627 g003
Sustainability 16 05627 g004
Figure 4. Sensitivity analysis for ±25% variation in mean time between repair and maintenance of ship coating; reference of a 5-year period: (a) ADP, (b) GWP, (c) ODP, and (d) POCP.
Figure 4. Sensitivity analysis for ±25% variation in mean time between repair and maintenance of ship coating; reference of a 5-year period: (a) ADP, (b) GWP, (c) ODP, and (d) POCP.
Sustainability 16 05627 g004
Sustainability 16 05627 g005aSustainability 16 05627 g005b
Figure 5. Sensitivity analysis with variation in amount of coating: (a) ADP, (b) GWP, (c) ODP, and (d) POCP.
Figure 5. Sensitivity analysis with variation in amount of coating: (a) ADP, (b) GWP, (c) ODP, and (d) POCP.
Sustainability 16 05627 g005aSustainability 16 05627 g005b
Table 1. Key process parameters and assumptions made in the present LCA study.
Table 1. Key process parameters and assumptions made in the present LCA study.
Life Cycle ProcessesMain Assumptions Made and Referred Data Sources
1. Production of carbon steel substrateLCI data for the production of carbon steel material were referenced from the GaBi database [38]
2. Surface cleaning and preparation, shot blasting of cleaned surfaceLCI data for the preparation of the surface (degreasing and cleaning) and the shot blasting process were referenced from the literature [47,48]
3. Synthesis of alkyd coatingLCI data for the synthesis of the coating material were referenced from the literature [49]
4. Application of coating by immersion (dipping process)LCI data for the deposition of the coating material using the immersion method were referenced from the literature [50]
5. Thermal curing for proper adhesion of coatingLCI data for thermal curing were referenced from an industrial process reported in the literature [50]
6. Use of coated specimens under corrosive environmentsThe maximum life of the anti-corrosion coating was considered based on previously published literature [35,51]
Table 2. Mass of material for uncoated and coated systems (1 m2 functional unit).
Table 2. Mass of material for uncoated and coated systems (1 m2 functional unit).
System IDArea of SteelMass (kg)
System 11 m215
System 21 m215.2
Table 3. LCI data to produce one kg of alkyd coating.
Table 3. LCI data to produce one kg of alkyd coating.
MaterialsQuantities (kg)
n-Propanol0.286
3-Glycidyloxypropyltrimethoxysilane, (GPTMS, 98% purity)0.315
0.1 M H2SO4 in water (total)0.071
Tetraethyl orthosilicate (TEOS, purity 98%)0.094
Poly (bisphenol A-co-epichlorohydrin), glycidyl end-capped0.161
Acetil acetone0.018
Titanium isopropoxide0.051
Electricity consumption
Sand blasting of steel substrate3 kWh/m2 [52]
Stirring and Heating by ultrasound reactor (1 h at 40 °C)0.7 kWh/L [52]
Sol–gel deposition by dip coating0.44 kWh/m2 [52]
Curing0.126–0.1488 kWh/m2 [53]
Table 4. Life cycle impacts (with 1 m2 steel) for System 1 and System 2.
Table 4. Life cycle impacts (with 1 m2 steel) for System 1 and System 2.
Impact CategoryUnitSystem 1System 2
ADEkg Sb eq.0.0011560.0004163
ADFMJ792766.85
APkg SO2 eq.0.25840.15231
EPkg Phosphate eq.0.021640.011957
FAETPkg DCB eq.0.35680.2024
GHGkg CO2 eq.64.443.896
HTPkg DCB eq.12.244.212
MAETPkg DCB eq.74403511
ODPkg R11 eq.8.12 × 10−112.74 × 10−10
PCOPkg Ethene eq.0.01720.010691
TETPkg DCB eq.0.26240.11458
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Borgaonkar, A.; McNamara, G. Environmental Impact Assessment of Anti-Corrosion Coating Life Cycle Processes for Marine Applications. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5627. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135627

AMA Style

Borgaonkar A, McNamara G. Environmental Impact Assessment of Anti-Corrosion Coating Life Cycle Processes for Marine Applications. Sustainability. 2024; 16(13):5627. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135627

Chicago/Turabian Style

Borgaonkar, Avinash, and Greg McNamara. 2024. "Environmental Impact Assessment of Anti-Corrosion Coating Life Cycle Processes for Marine Applications" Sustainability 16, no. 13: 5627. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135627

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop