Life Cycle Assessment of Painting Process: A Case for Eco-friendly Automobile Production

Wang Sicheng; Liu Sumin; Qiu Jiajun; Wang Daran

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ijmsa.20251402.11

Research Article |

| Peer-Reviewed

Life Cycle Assessment of Painting Process: A Case for Eco-friendly Automobile Production

Wang Sicheng^*

, Liu Sumin, Qiu Jiajun, Wang Daran

Published in International Journal of Materials Science and Applications (Volume 14, Issue 2)

Received: 16 March 2025 Accepted: 14 April 2025 Published: 14 May 2025

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

The life cycle assessment (LCA) method was introduced and applied to automotive painting process, SimaPro 9.5 software with the Swiss Ecoinvent 3 Database and the United States Life Cycle Inventory Database (USLCI), as well as ReCiPe 2016 Midpoint (H) model were used to quantitatively evaluate the impact on ecological environment of the use of materials, resources and energy as well as generated emissions and wastes through four important midpoint impact categories: climate change, ecotoxicity, human toxicity, and fossil resource scarcity, to track important environmental footprints including carbon footprint during the whole production activities of automotive painting process. In the end, the results and sensitivity analysis of the LCA research were conducted, conclusions and recommendations were given, which provided a practical industrial case for eco-friendly automobile production. Results of this study show that within the automotive painting production process, energy consumption and its resulting emissions have more significant impacts on climate change, fossil resource scarcity and human toxicity; Material consumption and its resultant emissions and wastes have a notable impact on ecotoxicity. Among the main processes and units of automotive painting production, the topcoat process has the most significant impact on all four impact categories, utility power as well as pre-treatment and electrophoresis processes follow closely. Additionally, the sealant application process exhibits a relatively significant impact on ecotoxicity. Furthermore, if the electricity used in the automotive painting production process is entirely sourced from photovoltaic power generation, compared with traditional grid power supply, the impacts on climate change, fossil resource scarcity and human toxicity would be lower, whereas the impact on ecotoxicity would be more significant.

Published in	International Journal of Materials Science and Applications (Volume 14, Issue 2)
DOI	10.11648/j.ijmsa.20251402.11
Page(s)	42-52
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Life Cycle Assessment, Automotive Painting Process, Environmental Footprint, Carbon Footprint, Midpoint Impact Category

References

[1]	European Commission. (2021). Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for Surface Treatment Using Solvents. Publications Office of the European Union. Luxembourg.
[2]	International Energy Agency (IEA). (2023). Global EV Outlook 2023: Catching up with Climate Ambitions. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2023
[3]	International Organization for Standardization. (2021). ISO 14040: 2021 Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Principles and framework.
[4]	International Organization for Standardization. (2021). ISO 14044: 2021 Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Requirements and guidelines.
[5]	Laurent, A., Olsen, S. I., & Hauschild, M. Z. (2018). Life cycle assessment: Theory and practice. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56475-3
[6]	Jolliet, O., Antón, A., Boulay, A.-M., et al. (2018). Global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment indicators. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 23(11), 2189–2207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1443-y
[7]	Henderson, A. D., Niblick, B., & Golden, H. E. (2021). Modeling spatially resolved characterization factors for eutrophication potential in life cycle assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 26(9), 1832–1846. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01956-4
[8]	Andreasi Bassi, S., Biganzoli, F., Ferrara, N., et al. (2023). Updated characterisation and normalisation factors for the Environmental Footprint 3.1 method (JRC Technical Report No. JRC130796). Publications Office of the European Union. Luxembourg.
[9]	Peng, Y., Li, X., & Zhang, Q. (2021). VOC emissions of coal-fired power plants in China based on life cycle assessment method. Fuel, 292, 120325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2021.120325
[10]	Wang, G. Z., Liu, Y., & Chen, R. (2024). Anticipating future photovoltaic waste generation in China: Navigating challenges and exploring prospective recycling solutions. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 106, 107516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2024.107516
[11]	Usman, M., Khan, S., & Ahmad, P. (2024). Integrating renewable energy solutions in the manufacturing industry: Challenges and opportunities: A review. Engineering Science & Technology Journal, 5(3), 674–703. https://doi.org/10.51594/estj.v5i3.865
[12]	Paiano, A., Gallucci, T., & Pontrandolfo, A. (2021). Sustainable options for paints through a life cycle assessment method. Journal of Cleaner Production, 295, 126464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126464
[13]	Juhl, M., Dam-Johansen, K., & Olsen, S. M. (2024). An eco-strategy for development of more sustainable coatings. Progress in Organic Coatings, 197, 108781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.porgcoat.2024.108781
[14]	Ita-Nagy, D., Vázquez-Rowe, I., & Kahhat, R. (2020). Reviewing environmental life cycle impacts of biobased polymers: current trends and methodological challenges. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 25, 2169–2189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01829-2
[15]	Billey, A., & Wuest, T. (2024). Energy digital twins in smart manufacturing systems: A case study. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 88, 102729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2024.102729

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Sicheng, W., Sumin, L., Jiajun, Q., Daran, W. (2025). Life Cycle Assessment of Painting Process: A Case for Eco-friendly Automobile Production. International Journal of Materials Science and Applications, 14(2), 42-52. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijmsa.20251402.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Sicheng, W.; Sumin, L.; Jiajun, Q.; Daran, W. Life Cycle Assessment of Painting Process: A Case for Eco-friendly Automobile Production. Int. J. Mater. Sci. Appl. 2025, 14(2), 42-52. doi: 10.11648/j.ijmsa.20251402.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Sicheng W, Sumin L, Jiajun Q, Daran W. Life Cycle Assessment of Painting Process: A Case for Eco-friendly Automobile Production. Int J Mater Sci Appl. 2025;14(2):42-52. doi: 10.11648/j.ijmsa.20251402.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijmsa.20251402.11,
  author = {Wang Sicheng and Liu Sumin and Qiu Jiajun and Wang Daran},
  title = {Life Cycle Assessment of Painting Process: A Case for Eco-friendly Automobile Production
},
  journal = {International Journal of Materials Science and Applications},
  volume = {14},
  number = {2},
  pages = {42-52},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijmsa.20251402.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijmsa.20251402.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijmsa.20251402.11},
  abstract = {The life cycle assessment (LCA) method was introduced and applied to automotive painting process, SimaPro 9.5 software with the Swiss Ecoinvent 3 Database and the United States Life Cycle Inventory Database (USLCI), as well as ReCiPe 2016 Midpoint (H) model were used to quantitatively evaluate the impact on ecological environment of the use of materials, resources and energy as well as generated emissions and wastes through four important midpoint impact categories: climate change, ecotoxicity, human toxicity, and fossil resource scarcity, to track important environmental footprints including carbon footprint during the whole production activities of automotive painting process. In the end, the results and sensitivity analysis of the LCA research were conducted, conclusions and recommendations were given, which provided a practical industrial case for eco-friendly automobile production. Results of this study show that within the automotive painting production process, energy consumption and its resulting emissions have more significant impacts on climate change, fossil resource scarcity and human toxicity; Material consumption and its resultant emissions and wastes have a notable impact on ecotoxicity. Among the main processes and units of automotive painting production, the topcoat process has the most significant impact on all four impact categories, utility power as well as pre-treatment and electrophoresis processes follow closely. Additionally, the sealant application process exhibits a relatively significant impact on ecotoxicity. Furthermore, if the electricity used in the automotive painting production process is entirely sourced from photovoltaic power generation, compared with traditional grid power supply, the impacts on climate change, fossil resource scarcity and human toxicity would be lower, whereas the impact on ecotoxicity would be more significant.
},
 year = {2025}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Life Cycle Assessment of Painting Process: A Case for Eco-friendly Automobile Production

AU  - Wang Sicheng
AU  - Liu Sumin
AU  - Qiu Jiajun
AU  - Wang Daran
Y1  - 2025/05/14
PY  - 2025
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijmsa.20251402.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijmsa.20251402.11
T2  - International Journal of Materials Science and Applications
JF  - International Journal of Materials Science and Applications
JO  - International Journal of Materials Science and Applications
SP  - 42
EP  - 52
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2327-2643
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijmsa.20251402.11
AB  - The life cycle assessment (LCA) method was introduced and applied to automotive painting process, SimaPro 9.5 software with the Swiss Ecoinvent 3 Database and the United States Life Cycle Inventory Database (USLCI), as well as ReCiPe 2016 Midpoint (H) model were used to quantitatively evaluate the impact on ecological environment of the use of materials, resources and energy as well as generated emissions and wastes through four important midpoint impact categories: climate change, ecotoxicity, human toxicity, and fossil resource scarcity, to track important environmental footprints including carbon footprint during the whole production activities of automotive painting process. In the end, the results and sensitivity analysis of the LCA research were conducted, conclusions and recommendations were given, which provided a practical industrial case for eco-friendly automobile production. Results of this study show that within the automotive painting production process, energy consumption and its resulting emissions have more significant impacts on climate change, fossil resource scarcity and human toxicity; Material consumption and its resultant emissions and wastes have a notable impact on ecotoxicity. Among the main processes and units of automotive painting production, the topcoat process has the most significant impact on all four impact categories, utility power as well as pre-treatment and electrophoresis processes follow closely. Additionally, the sealant application process exhibits a relatively significant impact on ecotoxicity. Furthermore, if the electricity used in the automotive painting production process is entirely sourced from photovoltaic power generation, compared with traditional grid power supply, the impacts on climate change, fossil resource scarcity and human toxicity would be lower, whereas the impact on ecotoxicity would be more significant.

VL  - 14
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Wang Sicheng

Beijing Benz Automotive Co., Ltd., Beijing Automotive Group, Beijing, China

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0009-0000-1710-199X
Liu Sumin

Beijing Benz Automotive Co., Ltd., Beijing Automotive Group, Beijing, China

Contact Email
Qiu Jiajun

Beijing Benz Automotive Co., Ltd., Beijing Automotive Group, Beijing, China

Contact Email
Wang Daran

Beijing Benz Automotive Co., Ltd., Beijing Automotive Group, Beijing, China

Contact Email

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Sicheng, W., Sumin, L., Jiajun, Q., Daran, W. (2025). Life Cycle Assessment of Painting Process: A Case for Eco-friendly Automobile Production. International Journal of Materials Science and Applications, 14(2), 42-52. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijmsa.20251402.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Sicheng, W.; Sumin, L.; Jiajun, Q.; Daran, W. Life Cycle Assessment of Painting Process: A Case for Eco-friendly Automobile Production. Int. J. Mater. Sci. Appl. 2025, 14(2), 42-52. doi: 10.11648/j.ijmsa.20251402.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Sicheng W, Sumin L, Jiajun Q, Daran W. Life Cycle Assessment of Painting Process: A Case for Eco-friendly Automobile Production. Int J Mater Sci Appl. 2025;14(2):42-52. doi: 10.11648/j.ijmsa.20251402.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijmsa.20251402.11,
  author = {Wang Sicheng and Liu Sumin and Qiu Jiajun and Wang Daran},
  title = {Life Cycle Assessment of Painting Process: A Case for Eco-friendly Automobile Production
},
  journal = {International Journal of Materials Science and Applications},
  volume = {14},
  number = {2},
  pages = {42-52},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijmsa.20251402.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijmsa.20251402.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijmsa.20251402.11},
  abstract = {The life cycle assessment (LCA) method was introduced and applied to automotive painting process, SimaPro 9.5 software with the Swiss Ecoinvent 3 Database and the United States Life Cycle Inventory Database (USLCI), as well as ReCiPe 2016 Midpoint (H) model were used to quantitatively evaluate the impact on ecological environment of the use of materials, resources and energy as well as generated emissions and wastes through four important midpoint impact categories: climate change, ecotoxicity, human toxicity, and fossil resource scarcity, to track important environmental footprints including carbon footprint during the whole production activities of automotive painting process. In the end, the results and sensitivity analysis of the LCA research were conducted, conclusions and recommendations were given, which provided a practical industrial case for eco-friendly automobile production. Results of this study show that within the automotive painting production process, energy consumption and its resulting emissions have more significant impacts on climate change, fossil resource scarcity and human toxicity; Material consumption and its resultant emissions and wastes have a notable impact on ecotoxicity. Among the main processes and units of automotive painting production, the topcoat process has the most significant impact on all four impact categories, utility power as well as pre-treatment and electrophoresis processes follow closely. Additionally, the sealant application process exhibits a relatively significant impact on ecotoxicity. Furthermore, if the electricity used in the automotive painting production process is entirely sourced from photovoltaic power generation, compared with traditional grid power supply, the impacts on climate change, fossil resource scarcity and human toxicity would be lower, whereas the impact on ecotoxicity would be more significant.
},
 year = {2025}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Life Cycle Assessment of Painting Process: A Case for Eco-friendly Automobile Production

AU  - Wang Sicheng
AU  - Liu Sumin
AU  - Qiu Jiajun
AU  - Wang Daran
Y1  - 2025/05/14
PY  - 2025
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijmsa.20251402.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijmsa.20251402.11
T2  - International Journal of Materials Science and Applications
JF  - International Journal of Materials Science and Applications
JO  - International Journal of Materials Science and Applications
SP  - 42
EP  - 52
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2327-2643
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijmsa.20251402.11
AB  - The life cycle assessment (LCA) method was introduced and applied to automotive painting process, SimaPro 9.5 software with the Swiss Ecoinvent 3 Database and the United States Life Cycle Inventory Database (USLCI), as well as ReCiPe 2016 Midpoint (H) model were used to quantitatively evaluate the impact on ecological environment of the use of materials, resources and energy as well as generated emissions and wastes through four important midpoint impact categories: climate change, ecotoxicity, human toxicity, and fossil resource scarcity, to track important environmental footprints including carbon footprint during the whole production activities of automotive painting process. In the end, the results and sensitivity analysis of the LCA research were conducted, conclusions and recommendations were given, which provided a practical industrial case for eco-friendly automobile production. Results of this study show that within the automotive painting production process, energy consumption and its resulting emissions have more significant impacts on climate change, fossil resource scarcity and human toxicity; Material consumption and its resultant emissions and wastes have a notable impact on ecotoxicity. Among the main processes and units of automotive painting production, the topcoat process has the most significant impact on all four impact categories, utility power as well as pre-treatment and electrophoresis processes follow closely. Additionally, the sealant application process exhibits a relatively significant impact on ecotoxicity. Furthermore, if the electricity used in the automotive painting production process is entirely sourced from photovoltaic power generation, compared with traditional grid power supply, the impacts on climate change, fossil resource scarcity and human toxicity would be lower, whereas the impact on ecotoxicity would be more significant.

VL  - 14
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download