The choice of materials in makerspaces - demonstrating its impact on sustainability

M.C.Unegg¹, Z.Bujan², H.P.Schnoell³ , P. Herstaetter⁴, A.F.Kohlweiss⁵ and C.Ramsauer⁶

¹Marion Christine Unegg; Institute of Innovation and Industrial Management, Graz University of Technology; e-mail: [email protected]

²Zora Bujan; University of Graz; [email protected]

³Hans Peter Schnöll; Institute of Innovation and Industrial Management, Graz University of Technology; e-mail: [email protected]

⁴Patrick Herstaetter; Institute of Innovation and Industrial Management, Graz University of Technology; e-mail: [email protected]

⁵Andreas Franz Kohlweiss; Institute of Innovation and Industrial Management, Graz University of Technology; e-mail: [email protected]

⁶Christian Ramsauer; Institute of Innovation and Industrial Management, Graz University of Technology; e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Makerspaces and FabLabs are the backbones of the maker community. At the same time, meeting the needs of the future generations of our planet is becoming increasingly important. In addition to the major drivers, such as industry, on the path to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), all of our contributions are important. Even small everyday decisions in makerspaces can affect the greenhouse gas (GHG) footprint and thus the concentration of CO₂ in our atmosphere, so makers also have the opportunity to save GHG in their projects.

Based on a case study conducted in the makerspace at the Graz University of Technology, various materials and production technologies available in a makerspace are evaluated using the example of a simple small box. In addition to the GHG footprint, the energy demand for each processing method in the makerspace is presented. Interesting differences in the GHG footprint were found depending on the material and technology used. For instance, the GHG emissions per box for laser cutting ranged from 38.6 g CO₂eq for walnut wood to 817 g CO₂eq for acrylic glass. In 3D printing, material selection is less of a factor in determining emissions than in laser cutting. For instance, the emissions per box are 319.9 g CO₂eq for PLA printing and 463.5 g CO₂eq for recycled ABS. The long-term goal is to build on the results of this paper to increase awareness among makers in the context of material and technology choices in the future.

The results of this paper should contribute to the medium-term goal of raising awareness of the environmental relevance of materials and implementation methods for makers. The aim is to show that even small choices in the first contact with materials and methods, in the first steps of building a future product, can make a difference in achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

Introduction

In recent times, an increasing number of researchers and experts from diverse fields are dedicating their efforts to conduct research and development to enhance sustainability in all aspects of our society [1]. There is a growing trend in academic discussions, mainstream media, and social media platforms that increasingly highlight the imbalanced and critical interconnections between humanity and the environment [2]. In makerspaces, makers are being encouraged to focus more on sustainability, by creating smart and sustainable solutions that simultaneously address social and environmental issues [3].

Additionally, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) are designed to achieve the climate goals. Thus, the SDG promotes seventeen goals. Just to name a few, these goals are affordable and green energy (SDG 7), conscious industry, innovation, and infrastructure (SDG 9), and responsible consumption and production (SDG 12) [7]. The term sustainable fabrication refers to the practice of production activities while minimizing harm to the environment and ensuring the continuity of future manufacturing processes [7]. However, products that are made in makerspaces, produce waste that has the potential to be recycled or reused in some other way [4]. Unfortunately, after the product leaves the laboratory it can be the case that the same is disposed of in nature, or dispersed in landfills [5]. In addition to the repair, recycling, and upcycling efforts of numerous maker initiatives, the choice of environmentally friendly or unfriendly materials plays a significant role in addressing environmental and sustainability concerns, showcasing their potential for broader impact [3]. Makerspaces have the potential to contribute to decreased greenhouse gas emissions, reduce pollution, and improve biodiversity by building awareness from the beginning of product development. However, there are challenges in understanding how makers can directly contribute to these goals in practice [6]. The primary goal is to manufacture products with minimal environmental impact by optimizing the use of energy and resources. Additionally, conducting a life cycle assessment (LCA) of different materials used in makerspaces, such as in the example of a simple box, can help evaluate their environmental implications and reduce their carbon footprint.

This leads to the research question: How does the selection of materials in makerspaces influence sustainability outcomes by showing the greenhouse gas footprint of the different materials and production technologies used in makerspaces?

Makerspaces, such as FabLabs, provide a physical environment where students actively engage in the hands-on process of prototyping and testing different materials [9]. These spaces are intentionally designed to facilitate prototyping with conventional materials like plastics, wood, metals, and textiles [9]. Assessing the material sustainability perspective using Life Cycle Assessment allows for a comprehensive analysis of the quantifiable environmental effects associated with each material [10].

Therefore, the 'Methods' section describes how the data for the GHG calculation were collected, which materials were chosen, how the footprint was calculated, and which emission factors were used as a basis for the GHG calculation.

Based on the case study conducted in the makerspace of the Schumpeter Laboratory for Innovation (SLFI) at the Institute of Innovation and Industrial Management (IIM), the “Results” section describes the results of the calculation of the LCA.

The "Discussion" section discusses how to contribute to the awareness of makers in the choice of materials and technologies, and how makerspaces can contribute to the SDGs.

Methods

The first step was to decide how to answer the research question. To start, the methodological background was chosen to use an LCA based on a case study. The framework conditions were first defined to carry out the case study.

The case study was conducted at the SLFI. On more than 800 m², the laboratory provides a platform for exchange and networking between makers, industry, and scientific research. The SLFI is equipped with state-of-the-art infrastructure. This includes digital production machines and extensive multimedia and communication systems. This equipment supports the collaboration of all parties involved. As a result, it leads to new products and sometimes to business model developments. The following technologies are available in the makerspace:

• 3D printing (3DP)

• Laser cutting (LC)

• CNC milling

• Water jet cutting

• Vinyl cutting

• 3D Scanning

• PCB Printing/Milling

• Electronics Lab

For the case study, the system boundary was set at the most commonly used technologies in the SLFI: 3D printing, and laser cutting. In addition, 3D printers and laser cutters are among the many machines typically used in makerspaces [8].

To start, we take the perspective of the maker. Therefore, a simple box was modeled.

The goal shall be to raise the awareness of makers for sustainability. The visual object should be as simple as possible, but as meaningful as necessary. A simple object was chosen for fabrication because the results of the case study will be displayed in the Schumpeter Laboratory for Innovation. The box was built using various materials, and the footprint of GHG was calculated by taking measurements with an electricity meter and accounting for material usage.

It is important to note that the disposal of these materials would harm the environment. Additionally, the processing of materials (such as ABS or PLA) before they are made into a final product, also entails energy consumption, which further increases the environmental footprint of the materials involved. Although materials such as recycled wood and recycled ABS are more favorable in terms of following green design principles, they still have an impact on the environment [9]. Therefore, selecting the right materials is crucial to assess their impact [10].

The materials and technologies used are shown in Table 1. Furthermore, Table 1 describes the laser cutting or 3D printing time required for production with the specific laser cutter or the respective printer used. The 3D-printed boxes came out of the printer ready to use. There was no need for any assembly. The laser-cut boxes required an additional 1:30 minutes per box to be assembled by hand. The laser-cut boxes were easy to assemble because of their zinc-plated construction (see Fig. 1) and could be fixed with a soft-faced hammer. The measurements for the box described in Fig.1 are 150x95x55 millimeters.

Table 1: Overview of the materials and machines used

Figure 1: Vector Graphic of the Box, measurements in millimeters

To calculate the GHG footprint, the energy and materials required were determined. For laser cutting and 3D printing, the electrical energy used was measured. In addition, 3D printing produces volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The VOCs have been assumed based on the known specifications of the printer and are also shown (see Table 4). See Fig. 2 to see how this differs.

Figure 2: Composition of the GHG-Footprint for the calculation. The footprint of each process is the sum of energy and material. VOCs are not included in the footprint, but the amount arising during the 3D printing process is designated.

The greenhouse gas footprint for laser cutting (LC) or 3D printing (3DP) is calculated as follows: (1)

An emission factor is a coefficient that is used to quantify the amount of a gas emitted or removed per unit of activity. The emission factor is often based on a sample of measured values, averaged to produce a representative emission rate for a given degree of activity under a given set of operating conditions. These factors indicate the amount of a pollutant (carbon dioxide CO₂, methane CH₄, nitrous oxide N₂O, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride SF₆) released per unit of activity. [32] [33] The CO₂ equivalent or GHG emissions are a measurement to compare the different greenhouse gas emissions based on their contribution to radiative forcing.  It is calculated with the so-called global warming potential (GWP), which is the ratio between the radiative forcing of one kilogram of a GHG emitted into the atmosphere and the radiative forcing of one kilogram of CO₂ over a certain period. [33]

The emission factors that were used for the calculation are listed below. For the electricity emission factor, the location-based1 approach was chosen. This assumption was made in correlation with the GHG Protocol [11] as no data were available for the market-based approach. For the location-based approach of electrical energy emissions, the emission factor of the Austrian Environmental Agency 2023 [12] including the supply chain was chosen. Since Graz University of Technology uses not only energy certified with the RLUZ 46 label, we decided to be stricter and use the regular energy mix of Austria relevant to the region.

For the material sections, the main sources used were Badgeplastics 2022 [13], Cefic 2015 the European Chemical Industry Council 2015[14], and the Environmental Agency of Austria 2015 (especially for wood) [15].

A comparison of the emission factors between the man-made materials, for which the emission factors were available in kgCO₂/kg input, and the natural materials, for which the emission factors were available in kgCO₂/kgm³, was conducted. To facilitate this comparison, the emission factors were converted via the density in each case.

The density conversion was based on two methods. Initially, the density was calculated from the information available through the boxes. This involved dividing the kilograms of material used by the cubic meters of material used, depending on the thickness. Subsequently, a literature search was carried out for standard densities (see Table 2 and 3). It is noteworthy that the calculated density and the density from the literature for natural materials are almost identical, while the density from the literature for artificial materials sometimes deviates considerably from the calculations. This can be explained by the fact that general data, especially for artificial materials, usually vary from product to product. A generalized statement can therefore only be made with caution using literature values.

Table 2: Emission factors from literature and recalculated emission factors based on the densities of the materials

Table 3: Emission factors from literature and recalculated emission factors based on the densities of the materials

Results & Discussion

The results of the GHG balance for existing technologies in the makerspace should be used in the future to raise awareness among makers of sustainability in materials and technology choices. Table 4 shows the GHG emissions per box in g CO₂eq.

Laser cutting results

The average energy consumption of 0.0375 kWh across all material types and densities and the average production time of about 0.038 hours, or about 2.28 minutes, show the speed and efficiency of this technology. The choice of material is particularly interesting in laser cutting. For instance, the GHG emission of the standard wooden box is 46.3 g CO₂eq. The hardwood box is the one with the lowest emissions with 38.6 g CO₂eq. On the other hand, acrylic glass is the most polluting material with 817 g CO₂eq. This is mainly due to the embodied emissions of the material. Even recycled wood cannot compete with the hardwood box, in terms of emissions. This is because the processed chips of the recycled MDF panels are made with glue, which contributes to a higher emission of 111.5g CO₂eq.

3D printing results

The GHG emissions of the 3D printed box clearly show that laser cutting is the preferred method to produce a box if the material is wood. If the material is plastic, 3D printing is the better option because, despite the longer production time, the emissions of PLA in particular, at 752 g CO₂eq, are significantly lower than those of the acrylic glass box. For ABS, both primary and recycled materials could be used for printing. With a difference of 289 g CO₂eq, there is a clear improvement in the use of recycled material. It should be noted, however, that recycled ABS requires special environmental conditions during printing. The Renkforce 1000 was 2:30 hours faster in the printing process than the Ultimaker. However, the difference in kWh hours required is only 0.073 kWh between the Ultimaker and the Renkforce 1000, indicating that the Ultimaker printed a long time on the classic ABS in this project, but worked more efficiently. In 3D printing, a classic PLA print in the Ultimaker is therefore a reasonable choice when a plastic box is required.

Table 4: Total GHG- Emissions in g CO₂eg per produced box and VOC in mg per 3D printed box (ranked lowest to highest)

Material	Produced Box	GHG-Emission total [g CO2eg] = GHG-Emission total [g CO2eg]density own calculation	GHG-Emission total [g CO2eg] density literature	VOC [mg]
Walnut Wood		38.6	36.5	Not relevant
Wood		46.3	35.1	Not relevant
Recycled Wood - MDF		111.5	100.7	Not relevant
PLA		319.9	404.6	3.84
ABS Recycled		463.5	505.7	Not provided
ABS		752.4	969.4	6.84
Acrylic Glass		817.0	971.9	Not relevant

The total greenhouse gas emissions remain unchanged when the calculated emission values are superimposed on the actual density of the boxes. As a consequence of the discrepancies between the densities and those reported in the literature, the footprint also undergoes a change. It is noteworthy that the calculated GHG emissions for natural materials are 2.1–11.1 grams higher than those from the density calculation in the literature. Conversely, the opposite is true for man-made materials, with a range of 42.3 (recycled ABS) to 217.0 (primary ABS), where the calculated values are lower than those from the literature.

To help raise awareness in makerspaces, a showcase with the results of this study, including the exhibit of the boxes, will be placed in the makerspace. This will give future makers a glimpse of the materials and technology choices they make and how they impact the environment.

To emphasize the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in makerspaces, it is important to focus on promoting sustainable practices and environmental awareness in these spaces. Makerspaces have the potential to address climate change and sustainability [18] taking into account all three pillars of sustainability [19]. In addition to the ecological pillar in terms of GHG emission reductions, emissions can be avoided through, for example, unused material or the reuse of leftovers (reuse), repairing parts instead of printing new ones (repair), or reusing raw materials by processing them from discarded material (recycling), thus also tackling the economic pillar of sustainability.  In 2018, Prendeville et al. [18] described the social pillar of sustainability in makerspaces, as social inclusion and creativity can also promote sustainable innovation. The notion that the most emission-free product is the one that is never produced underscores the crucial role of emission reduction strategies in advancing environmental sustainability. By focusing on the creation of products with minimal environmental impact throughout their life cycle, companies can contribute to the reduction of emissions and the mitigation of climate change. The terms "emission prevention" and "reducing emissions at source" are commonly used in this context. This approach is consistent with the principles of waste minimization and resource efficiency, emphasizing the importance of reducing environmental impacts by preventing the generation of pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions in the first place.

By creating knowledge on sustainability, makerspaces can also emphasize how they contribute to the development of knowledge and skills that can help solve society's problems, including sustainability efforts [21]. Through educating and building knowledge in the maker community, not only can emissions be reduced, but emissions can be avoided. By working consciously and already thinking in the design phase to avoid waste, e.g., waste cuts with the laser cutter or water jet cutter, or by infill instead of solid fill 3D printing. Efforts to ensure the sustainability of makerspaces can be further improved by assessing sustainability in terms of viability, taking into account environmental impacts alongside social and economic aspects [22]. Soomro et al. 2021, addressed emission avoidance and reduction through a triangle out of design thinking, digital fabrication, and sustainability. Sustainable design and prototyping using digital fabrication tools can contribute to improving sustainability as well as guidelines for sustainable design and prototyping can be used to train makers [23].

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is clear that choices, such as the materials and technology used to build prototypes, can have a remarkable impact on the GHG footprint. Especially when the prototype leads to serial production of a product, designing for sustainability is essential to help meet the needs of our future generations on this planet.

Even small steps are important to contribute to the sustainability goals of the United Nations. In particular, the potential to contribute is seen in promoting affordable and green energy (SDG 7), conscious industry, innovation, and infrastructure (SDG 9), and responsible consumption and production (SDG 12). SDG 7 can be easily addressed in makerspaces by using a green energy mix to power the machines and the makerspace infrastructure itself. With similar awareness-raising activities such as those planned as a next step from this paper in SLFI, and which could be created through replication in makerspaces around the world, SDG 9 could be addressed. Therefore, as shown in this paper, by thinking about the choice of materials and how to produce prototypes in the makerspace, SDG 12 could be influenced by sustainable production. Furthermore, if sustainability is already considered in the design and prototyping phase of a product's life cycle, the production of the potential product can also be influenced, which in turn contributes to more sustainable consumption patterns.

For a future study, the authors recommend surveying makers before and after the poster and showcase are installed in the makerspace. The survey should provide insight into the issue of awareness of sustainability within the use of materials and technology. Therefore, it might be possible to get insights if sustainability is a growing issue within the maker community.

References

[1] J. Mensah, "Sustainable development: Meaning, history, principles, pillars, and implications for human action: Literature review," Cogent Social Sciences, vol. 5, pp. 1653531, 2019.

[2] G.H. Brundtland, "Our common future—Call for action," Environmental Conservation, vol. 14, pp. 291-294, 1987.

[3] E. Unterfrauner, J. Shao, M. Hofer, and C. Fabian, "The environmental value and impact of the maker movement—Insights from a cross-case analysis of European maker initiatives," Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 28, no. -, pp. -, 2019.

[4] B. Vuylsteke, L. Dumon, J. Detand, and F. Ostuzzi, “Creating a Circular Design Workspace: Lessons Learned from Setting up a ‘Bio-makerspace,’” Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 4, p. 2229, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.3390/su14042229                                                                                               .                                                                                                                        

[5] N. Singh, D. Hui, R. Singh, I.P.S. Ahuja, L. Feo, and F. Fraternali, "Recycling of plastic solid waste: A state of art review and future applications," Composites Part B: Engineering, vol. 115, pp. 409-422, 2017.

[6] J. Millard, M. Sorivelle, S. Deljanin, E. Unterfrauner, and C. Voigt, “Is the maker Movement Contributing to Sustainability?,” Sustainability, vol. 10, no. 7, p. 2212, Jun. 2018, doi: 10.3390/su1007221                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

 [7] T.A. Tsalis, K.E. Malamateniou, D. Koulouriotis, and I.E. Nikolaou, "New challenges for corporate sustainability reporting: United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for sustainable development and the sustainable development goals," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 27, pp. 1617-1629, 2020.

[8] T. Kocher Woolls. Making makerspaces Work: A Comparative Case Study of makerspcaes and their support, dissertation, School of Business and Technology at iversity, 2019.

[9] P. Zhao, Capella Un C. Rao, F. Gu, N. Sharmin, and J. Fu, "Close-looped recycling of polylactic acid used in 3D printing: An experimental investigation and life cycle assessment," Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 197, pt. 1, pp. 1046-1055, 2018. ISSN 0959-6526. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.275                                                                                                                                                                                          

[10] O. Ulkir, “Energy-Consumption-Based Life Cycle Assessment of Additive-Manufactured Product with Different Types of Materials,” Polymers, vol. 15, no. 6, p. 1466, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.3390/polym15061466                                                                                                                                                                                      

[11] World Resource Institution. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol, Scope 2 Guidance,2015, ISBN: 978-1-56973-851-1                                                                                                                                                              

[12] Environmental Agency Austria. Berechnung von Treibhausgasen (THG) verschiedener Energieträger, online: https://secure.umweltbundesamt.at/co2mon/co2mon.html, last checked, 01.06.2023.

[13] Badgeplastics. Sustainable, recycled granules by bage plastics with excellent carbon footprint, online: https://bage-plastics.com/sustainable-recycled-granules-by-bage-plastics-with-excellent-carbon-footprint/#:~:text=The%20study%20results%20even%20exceed,per%20kg%20ABS%5B1%5D., last checked on May 31st, 2023, 2022.

[14] Cefic - The European Chemical Industry Council. Poly methyl methacrylate (PMMA), Eco-profiles and Environmental Product Declarations of the European Plastics Manufacturers, Brussels, 2015.

[15] Environmental Agency Austria. Bericht zu den Substitutionsemissionen, Treibhausgasemissionen des stofflichen und energetischen Einsatzes von Holz in Österreich im Vergleich zu Substitutionsstoffen, Wien, 2015.

[16] Morão, A., de Bie, F. Life Cycle Impact Assessment of Polylactic Acid (PLA) Produced from Sugarcane in Thailand. J Polym Environ 27, 2523–2539, 2019.

[17] Ultimaker. 3D Printer emission and indoor air quality, online: https://yop3d.de/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/3D-printer-emissions-and-indoor-air-quality-de.pdf, last checked, 01.06.2023, 2019.

[18] S. Prendeville, G. Hartung, C. Brass, E. Purvis, & A. Hall, "Circular makerspaces: the founder’s view", International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, vol. 10, no. 4-5, p. 272-288, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2017.1317876

[19] Purvis, B., Mao, Y. & Robinson, D. Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins. Sustain Sci 14, 681–695, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5

[20] E. Unterfrauner, M. Hofer, B. Pelka, and M. Zirngiebl. A New Player for Tackling Inequalities? Framing the Social Value and Impact of the Maker Movement. Social Inclusion, 2018. 8. 10.17645/si.v8i2.2590 .

[21] J. Bouwma-Gearhart, Ya Choi, Ca. Lenhart, I. Villanueva, Ls.Nadelson, E.Soto. Undergraduate Students Becoming Engineers: The Affordances of University-Based Makerspaces. Sustainability, 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041670

[22] Smith, Adrian & Light, Ann. Cultivating sustainable developments with makerspaces | Cultivando desenvolvimento sustentável com espaços maker,2017. 10.18617/liinc.v13i1.3900 .

[23] S.A. Soomro, H. Casakin, G.V. Georgiev. Sustainable Design and Prototyping Using Digital Fabrication Tools for Education. Sustainability., 2021. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su13031196

[24] T. Kelley, “The art of innovation: Lessons in creativity from IDEO, America's leading design firm,” Currency, 2001.

[25] Material4print. Information zum PLA Filament (Polyactide), online: https://www.material4print.de/wissenswertes/infos-zum-pla-filament/ , last checked on: 02.08.2024

[26] Material4print. Information zum ABS Filament (Acrylnitril-Butadien-Styrol), online: https://www.material4print.de/wissenswertes/infos-zum-abs-filament/, last checked on: 02.08.2024

[27] Kimya. Kimya ABS-R, online:  https://www.kimya.fr/en/product/kimya-abs-r-filament/   , last checked on: 02.08.2024

[28] Frischeis. Datenblatt Tutto-Pioppoo, online: https://www.frischeis.at/pim/06%20Sperrholz/Datenblaetter/Sperrholz%20Pappel/Panguaneta/Produktdatenblaetter/sch_tutto-pioppo_de.pdf, last checked on:02.08.2024

[29] Engineering Toolbox. Wood Species. Densities, online: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wood-density-d_40.html, last checked on: 02.08.2024

[30] Dataholz. MDF Platte Datenblatt, online: https://www.dataholz.eu/fileadmin/dataholz/media/baustoffe/Datenblaetter_de/mdf.de_01.pdf, last checked on: 02.08.2024

[31] Reichelt Chemietechnik GmbH +Co. PMMA – der Werkstoff aus der Retorte. online: https://www.rct-online.de/magazin/pmma-werkstoff/#:~:text=Acrylglas%20ist%20zwar%20kein%20sehr,so%20schwer%20wie%20der%20Stoff, last checked on: 02.08.2024

[32] World Resource Institute. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol, A Corporate Accounting Standard, online: https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/standards/ghg-protocol-revised.pdf https://www.rct-online.de/magazin/pmma-werkstoff/#:~:text=Acrylglas%20ist%20zwar%20kein%20sehr,so%20schwer%20wie%20der%20Stoff, last checked on: 02.08.2024

[33] IPCC. Glossary. online: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/0_Overview/V0_2_Glossary.pdf, last checked on: 02.08.2024

Acknowledgments

At this point, the authors thank the makerspace supervisors, Matthias Stangl and Felix Woegerbauer of the IIM at the Graz University of Technology, for their support during the creation of the boxes.