Cleaner Production Applied in A Small Furniture Industry in Brazil: Addressing Focused Changes in Design To Reduce Waste

sustainability
Article
Cleaner Production Applied in a Small Furniture
Industry in Brazil: Addressing Focused Changes in
Design to Reduce Waste
Carlos Mario Gutiérrez Aguilar 1,2, * ID , Ronald Panameño 1 ID , Alexei Perez Velazquez 1,3 ,
Beatriz Elena Angel Álvarez 4 , Asher Kiperstok 1 and Sandro Fábio César 1
1 Postgraduate Program in Industrial Engineering (PEI), Federal University of Bahia (UFBA),
Salvador 40210-630, Brazil; ronald.panameno@rkconsulting-sv.com (R.P.); alexei.perez@ufba.br (A.P.V.);
asher@ufba.br (A.K.); sfcesarpaz@uol.com.br (S.F.C.)
2 Design department, Arts and Humanities Faculty, Metropolitan Technological Institute (ITM),
Medellín 050036, Colombia; carlosgutierrez@itm.edu.co
3 Industrial Engineering Faculty, University of Holguin, Holguín 80100, Cuba; aperezv@uho.edu.cu
4 Pontifical Bolivarian University (UPB), Medellín 050031, Colombia; beatriz.angel@upb.edu.co
* Correspondence: calicheguti@gmail.com; Tel.: +57-30-1536-8846
Received: 31 August 2017; Accepted: 13 October 2017; Published: 18 October 2017
Abstract: The wood industry is known for being among the biggest resource consumers, having a
relatively low yield. The wood furniture industry as part of the wood industry also remains a big
generator of residues and a big consumer of resources. Diverse solutions and technologies have been
developed to deal with the residues generated, but those technologies are mostly applied at the end
of the production chain with limited results. Cleaner production represents a program based on
continuous strategies applied to a more sustainable use of materials and energy, minimizing waste
and pollution. This paper presents a case study of a cleaner production program developed in a small
furniture industry in Salvador de Bahia, Brazil, applying the concepts of cleaner production with
parameters of ecodesign developed for the furniture industry. The object of study was the production
of a wooden chair made from eucalyptus wood. The application of the cleaner production program
and ecodesign parameters allowed a detailed characterization of the waste, resulting in opportunities
for a reduction of the use of raw material by 30%, a reduction in waste by 49% and allowing a
reduction in energy by 36% due to simplification of the productive process. Among the strategies
applied were reshaping pieces, redesigning, and the substitution of materials. The results suggest
that despite the existence of more complex environmental methods and approaches, the application
of cleaner production plus ecodesign parameters could be more achievable for micro and small
furniture industries.
Keywords: cleaner production; wood; waste; ecodesign; furniture
1. Introduction
The production and mass consumption of industrial products have caused natural resources to
be used in an unbalanced way, generating large amounts of waste. The wood industry is one of the
highest consumers of these resources. The yield reported in the wood industry in Brazil varies from
values as low as 30% [1] up to 75% [2], mainly due the different production process, type of wood and
technology. Despite the differences in the yield, the common ground is the acknowledgement of the
wood industry as a major waste generator.
Due to this reality, the wood industry has sought to improve processes, making the most of
the waste generated to be used in the production of other sub-products, consequently adding value
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1867; doi:10.3390/su9101867 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2017, 9, 1867 2 of 17
to the production chain. Companies have their own interest in developing processes that are more
environmentally friendly and customers are increasingly interested in environmental performance
and product impacts [3].
In Brazil, the wooden
environmentally friendly andfurniture
customerssector
areisincreasingly
an important division
interested of the wood industry,
in environmental performance reaching
and 430
nearly product impacts
million [3]. sold by 2015 with a value of US $16.54 billon [4]. Despite such values,
goods
the woodenIn Brazil, the wooden
furniture sector furniture
in Brazilsector is an importantthat
has characteristics division
makeofitthe thewood
objectindustry, reachingstudies:
of continuous
nearly 430 million goods sold by 2015 with a value of US $16.54 billon [4]. Despite such values, the
as per the National Bank of Economic and Social Development [5], the sector of wooden furniture in
wooden furniture sector in Brazil has characteristics that make it the object of continuous studies: as
Brazil is considered one of the most traditional activities in industry, with high use of natural resources,
per the National Bank of Economic and Social Development [5], the sector of wooden furniture in
labor-intensive processes, low technological dynamism and a high level of informality [5]. Most of
Brazil is considered one of the most traditional activities in industry, with high use of natural
the resources,
wooden furniture producers
labor-intensive in Brazil
processes, are classified
low technological as microenterprises
dynamism and a high levelorofsmall enterprises
informality [5]. [5],
andMost
generally
of the theywooden don’t have consolidated
furniture producers in environmental
Brazil are classified control systems. For this
as microenterprises reason, the
or small
diagnostic
enterprises studies
[5], and forgenerally
this sector
theyhelp
don’tcompanies
have consolidatedwith proposals
environmental to reduce
control impacts
systems. Forandthisimprove
reason, thethrough
productivity diagnostic studies forfor
techniques thisthe
sector help companies
rational use of rawwith proposals
materials andtothe
reduce
reuseimpacts and
and recycling of
improve productivity through techniques for the rational use of
waste [6]. Among the proposals is the implementation of Cleaner Production (CP) programs. raw materials and the reuse and
recycling
Cleaner of waste [6]. isAmong
production the proposals
a continuous program is for
the increase
implementation of Cleaner
the efficiency in theProduction
use of raw(CP) materials,
programs.
water and energy through the mitigation of waste and energy misuses in the industry and service
Cleaner production is a continuous program for increase the efficiency in the use of raw
sectors [7], focusing on the application of continued integrated environmental strategies that have now
materials, water and energy through the mitigation of waste and energy misuses in the industry and
evolved towards sustainability.
service sectors [7], focusing on the application of continued integrated environmental strategies that
Onenow
have relevant
evolved capacity
towardsof CP is that during its implementation it is possible to combine it with
sustainability.
other environmental principles,
One relevant capacity of CP methods or tools
is that during itsinimplementation
order to increase it is even further
possible the efficiency
to combine it with in the
useother
of resources
environmentaland toprinciples,
reduce themethods
waste. or tools in order to increase even further the efficiency in
the usepaper
This of resources
presents and the
to reduce the waste.
application of a CP program in a small size wood enterprise in Brazil,
following Thisthepaper presents
specific the applicationmethodology
implementation of a CP program in a small by
developed sizethe
wood enterprise
National in Brazil,
Center for Clean
following the specific implementation methodology developed by the National
Technologies (CNTL) in combination with several ecodesign principles applied in the production process Center for Clean
of aTechnologies
eucalyptus wooden (CNTL) in combination with several ecodesign principles applied in the production
chair. The results, discussion and conclusion of this work are expected to help to
process of a eucalyptus wooden chair. The results, discussion and conclusion of this work are
promote the use of CP and ecodesign principles as suitable programs and principles to be implemented
expected to help to promote the use of CP and ecodesign principles as suitable programs and
in micro and small
principles size companies
to be implemented in Brazil,
in micro and addressing at the same
small size companies in time
Brazil,the widespread
addressing at theparadigm
same that
claims that implementing environmental programs is reserved only for
time the widespread paradigm that claims that implementing environmental programs is reserved the medium to large companies.
only for the medium to large companies.
Literature Review
Literature
The UnitedReview
Nations Environment Program (UNEP) defined cleaner production as “the continuous
application
The of an integrated
United environmental
Nations Environment strategy
Program to processes,
(UNEP) defined products and services
cleaner production as to increase
“the
continuous application of an integrated environmental strategy to processes, products and
efficiency and reduce risks to humans and the environment” [7]. As shown in Figure 1, this has been services
to increase
developing efficiency
toward and reduce
a more holisticrisks to humans
definition. and the environment”
Indicated [7]. As shown
in the same timeline in contribution
are the Figure 1, of
this has been developing toward a more holistic definition. Indicated in the same timeline are the
the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), the Environmental Agency for
contribution of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), the
the State of Sao Paulo, Brazil (CETESB), the National Center for Clean Technologies (CNTL) and the
Environmental Agency for the State of Sao Paulo, Brazil (CETESB), the National Center for Clean
National Service of Industrial Learning (SENAI).
Technologies (CNTL) and the National Service of Industrial Learning (SENAI).
Figure
Figure 1. Selectedstages
1. Selected stagesinin the
the definition
definition of programs.
of CP CP programs.
The evolution of the definition was in line with the development of environmental practices,
whose origins were focused on the destruction of the residues once generated, either by disposal,
treatment or recycling [8], but nowadays such focus has also evolved to the pursuit of sustainable
consumption [8], resource efficiency and green economy [7].
According to the Brazilian Business Council for Sustainable Development (CEBDS), the waste
generated has a high cost for the company, not only because it was purchased at raw material prices or
because it consumed other resources during the production process (such as water or energy), but also
because it might include final disposal cost, environmental fines or cause damage to the company’s
reputation [9]. CP proposes changes, encouraging the whole company to think of different proposals
and more economical or intelligent ways to produce. It also aims, through the reduction of waste and
emissions, to link production processes to environmental objectives.
The implementation of CP programs presents multiple advantages:
• It requires commitment from management, staff and operational levels, focused on a continuous
improvement approach [10].
• It includes a defined methodology for the implementation [10].
• It can produce economic benefits such as reducing operating costs of materials and processes [11].
• It can improve the image of the company [9].
• It can be implemented from low-cost levels (self-sourced) to high-cost levels (financial assessment),
depending on the cases and the scope of the program.
The methodology for implementation included in CP programs is composed of a sequence of
steps that include a feasibility analysis. This step aims to find opportunities for waste reduction and
efficiency in resource consumption, that can be addressed in a combination of different tools, methods
or approaches. One of the most used approaches is ecodesign.
Ecodesign consists of developing and re-thinking products, processes or services to be respectful
of the environment [12] by choosing materials and manufacturing processes, and designing the use
and final disposal while developing a new product, i.e., determining the environmental impact of the
product during the life cycle [12,13].
One of the earliest attempts to address design considerations toward the environment was
developed in 1974 by Victor Papanek, who classified the developing of new products in a 6-stage
framework, indicating that the potential environmental impacts should be considered in all of the
stages: selecting materials, production, packaging, finishing, transport and waste generation [14].
The wooden furniture industry in Brazil has also developed their own framework toward
ecodesign. One example is the guide for introducing environmental parameters in wooden furniture
designs, developed at the University of Minas Gerais in 2010. The parameters presented in Table 1,
were developed specifically for the wood furniture industry in Brazil.
Table 1. Environmental design parameters. Source: [15].
Category Refers to:

The reduction of raw materials, simplification of the furniture
Reduce structure, rethinking of cutting processes, and reuse and
recycling of residues among others.
Design of new systems to facilitate the assembly of the
Facilitate
furniture with fewer pieces and fewer tools.
Offers maintenance packages for the furniture to expand
Extend lifespan
the lifespan.
Use of alternative wood types (including composed) and the
Select
use of certified wood sources.
Let the customers know the new aspect of the furniture to
Valorize the difference
highlight the efforts to turn “green”.
The concepts of CP and ecodesign are particularly applicable for the furniture industry in Brazil,
due to their
their characterization:
characterization:general
generalagglomeration
agglomeration of of production
production processes,
processes, the the
use use of organic
of organic raw
raw materials
materials andintensive
and the the intensive
use ofuse of labor
labor resulting
resulting in alarge
in a very very range
large range
of finalofproducts
final products [16]a
[16] with
with a strong
strong fragmentation,
fragmentation, technological
technological diversity
diversity and and vertical
vertical integration
integration [17][17] combined
combined witha
with
apredominance
predominanceofofmicromicroand
andsmall
small companies
companies with
with limited
limited resources
resources both administratively
administratively andand
financially
financially [18].
[18].
The Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) classifies the size of the the industries
industries
according to thethe number
number ofof permanent
permanent employees:
employees: microenterprise (less than 19 19 employees),
employees), small
small
enterprises (between 20 and 99 employees),
employees), medium enterprise (between 100 and 499 employees)
and big
big enterprise
enterprise (more
(more than
than 500
500 employees).
employees). Such distribution gives perspective regarding the the
wooden
wooden furniture
furniture sector in Brazil.
Brazil. For example, a survey developed in the state of Rio de Janeiro in
2015 characterized the distribution of the furniture wood industries as being 70.8% microenterprises,
25.8%
25.8% small enterprises
enterprises and 3.4% medium enterprises
enterprises [19], and was considered a good representative
of enterprise
enterprise distribution
distribution in Brazil. When analyzing that distribution along with different approaches
suitable to be combined with CP programs (as shown in Figure 2) 2) the
the convenience
convenience of using
using CP plus
plus
ecodesign forfor the
the micro
micro and
and small
small wooden
wooden furniture
furniture enterprises
enterprises isis highlighted.
highlighted.
2. Wooden furniture
Figure 2. furniture enterprises
enterprises size
size distribution
distribution analyzed
analyzed along
along with
with some
some environmental
environmental
approaches
approaches and
and methods.
methods.
As aa result,
As result, the
the focus
focus of
of this
this paper
paper pursues the application
pursues the of aa combination
application of of CP
combination of CP plus
plus ecodesign
ecodesign
as a suitable combination accessible for micro and small companies who are interested
as a suitable combination accessible for micro and small companies who are interested in improvement in
improvement
focused focused on
on prevention prevention
instead instead of
of end-of-pipe end-of-pipe solutions.
solutions.
2. Materials and Method
2.1. Characterization of the Object of Study

The
The study
studytook
tookplace
placeinina awooden
woodenfurniture
furnitureindustry
industrylocated in Salvador
located Bahia,
in Salvador Brazil.
Bahia, DueDue
Brazil. to the
to
number
the numberof employees, it is classified
of employees, as a small
it is classified as aenterprise as per theasIBGE
small enterprise classification.
per the The enterprise
IBGE classification. The
produces
enterprisehome and office
produces home furniture suchfurniture
and office as tables, such
desks,ascabins and
tables, chairscabins
desks, but can produce
and chairsa but
diverse
can
range of products, since it has invested in specialized wood machinery, therefore it has
produce a diverse range of products, since it has invested in specialized wood machinery, therefore the capacity to
produce
it has theacapacity
wide variety of goods.
to produce a wide variety of goods.
By the time the study took place, the key product was a eucalyptus wooden chair (L1 model)
designed to be used in the food court of shopping centers. The volume of production contracted
By the time the study took place, the key product was a eucalyptus wooden chair (L1 model)
Sustainability
designed to be 2017,
used9, 1867
in the food court of shopping centers. The volume of production contracted 5 of 18
represents more than the 60% of the daily goods produced by the company, becoming the object of
represents
analysis. Figure more than the
3 presents 60% ofof
a sketch the daily
the goods
wooden produced
chair with itsby the company,
different becoming the object of
components.
analysis. Figure 3 presents a sketch of the wooden chair with its different components.
2
7 1
7
6
4
5
5
3
Figure 3. Parts of the wooden chair: 1-Seat; 2-Backrest; 3-Front leg (two); 4-Rear leg (two); 5-Side rail
Figure 3. Parts of the wooden chair: 1-Seat; 2-Backrest; 3-Front leg (two); 4-Rear leg (two); 5-Side rail
(two); 6-Back rail; 7-X Rail (two).
(two); 6-Back rail; 7-X Rail (two).
TheThegeneral process
general to produce
process the wooden
to produce chair is based
the wooden chaironistaking
basedthe onraw material
taking the (Eucalyptus
raw material
urophylla boards, dimension 20 × 30 × 2000 mm delivered by the supplier with
(Eucalyptus urophylla boards, dimension 20 × 30 × 2000 mm delivered by the supplier with specificspecific conditions of
humidity and quality)
conditions of humidityand cutting it intoand
and quality) smaller rectangular
cutting pieces close
it into smaller to the final
rectangular sizeclose
pieces of the
to pieces
the final
to be transformed. In the case of the seat and backrest, such pieces are made of
size of the pieces to be transformed. In the case of the seat and backrest, such pieces are made smaller slats that are of
cut,smaller
glued andslatspressed
that aretocut,
constitute
glued boards or blocks
and pressed to be cut and
to constitute sculpted
boards beforetobeing
or blocks be cut transformed
and sculpted
intobefore
its final shape.
being The different
transformed pieces
into its finalrequire
shape. aThe
series of machinery
different to be used
pieces require to perform
a series specific
of machinery to be
tasks on the pieces being transformed. Table 2 presents the list of the utilities used in the
used to perform specific tasks on the pieces being transformed. Table 2 presents the list of the utilities production
process
used ofin the
the L1 chair.
production process of the L1 chair.
Table 2. List
Table of utilities
2. List used
of utilities in the
used production
in the of the
production L1 wooden
of the chair.
L1 wooden chair.
Utilities
Utilities WorkAreas
Work Areas
(1) Circular saw (A) Assembly area
(1) Circular saw (A) Assembly area
(2) Jointer
(2) Jointer (B)Finishing
(B) Finishing area
area
(3) Straight
(3) Straight line ripsaw
line ripsaw
(4) Four-sided-planer
(4) Four-sided-planer
(5) Thicknesser planer
(5) Thicknesser planer
(6) Band saw
(6) Band saw
(7) Sander
(7) Sander
(8) Sliding table
(9) Drilling machine
(8) Sliding table
(10) Wood lathe
(9) Drilling machine
(11) Milling duplicator
(10) Wood lathe
(12) Horizontal milling
(11) Milling
(13) Wood press duplicator
(12)compressor
(14) Air Horizontal milling
(13) Wood press
(14) Air two
At the end of the process, compressor
stations A and B are used to perform the assembly and the finishing
of the chair. Figure 4 presents a general description of the process. The size of the arrows suggests the
relative At the end oftothe
contribution the process,
process. two stations A and B are used to perform the assembly and the
finishing
The inputs of the system are4defined
of the chair. Figure presentsas amaterials,
general description
consumablesofand
the expendables.
process. The The
size outputs
of the arrows
are
suggests the relative contribution to the process.
composed of the products, the wood residues and other expendables residues.
Figure 4. General production process and utilities involved in the production of the L1 wooden chair.
Figure 4. General production process and utilities involved in the production of the L1 wooden chair.
The inputs of the system are defined as materials, consumables and expendables. The outputs
are Measurements
composed of theand data were
products, collected
the wood in and
residues April 2016.
other The equipment
expendables residues.used to measure the
components of the chair
Measurements andand thewere
data sorted waste was
collected a precision
in April balance
2016. The model Mark
equipment used L2102i with the
to measure 2100 g
capacity and 0.01
components g resolution,
of the with
chair and the automatic
sorted waste internal calibration.
was a precision Themodel
balance individual
Markprocess time 2100
L2102i with register
ofgeach workstation
capacity and 0.01was measuredwith
g resolution, using a chronometer.
automatic internal calibration. The individual process time
register of each workstation was measured using a chronometer.
2.2. Method
2.2. Method
The methodology applied was the one defined by the Cleaner Production Program, developed
by theTheNational Center for
methodology Clean
applied wasTechnologies (CNTL)
the one defined in Brazil.
by the CleanerThe results and
Production findings
Program, of CP then
developed
by the National
became the inputs Center
for theforapplication
Clean Technologies (CNTL)
of ecodesign in Brazil. The
parameters results andby
as proposed findings
[15], toofidentify
CP thenand
becamethe
achieve theenvironmental
inputs for the application
gains for theofcase
ecodesign
study parameters
analyzed. as proposed by [15], to identify and
achieve the environmental
The selection gains for wooden
of the eucalyptus the case study analyzed.
chair as the object of study was made from an analytical
The selection of the eucalyptus wooden chair
approach, i.e., one single chair was selected and analyzed as the object of study
in detail was madethe
throughout from an analytical
entire production
approach, i.e., one single chair was selected and analyzed in detail
process, component by component. This approach was preferred instead of selecting throughout the entire production
a statistical
process,
sample component
since by component.
the objective was not to This approach frequencies
enumerate was preferred [20]instead of selecting
or tolerances a statistical
in the production
sample since the objective was not to enumerate frequencies [20] or tolerances in the production
process, but to identify opportunities for environmental improvements by the combination of the
process, but to identify opportunities for environmental improvements by the combination of the
methods of CP and ecodesign.
methods of CP and ecodesign.
The production process was analyzed by direct observation and recorded for validation of
The production process was analyzed by direct observation and recorded for validation of
procedures. The values of the weight of the pieces and the waste generated were conciliated using
procedures. The values of the weight of the pieces and the waste generated were conciliated using
Stan® ®software version 2.5.1302 (Institute for Water Quality, Resources and Waste Management Vienna
Stan software version 2.5.1302 (Institute for Water Quality, Resources and Waste Management
University of Technology
Vienna University Karlsplatz
of Technology 13, A-1040,
Karlsplatz Vienna,
13, A-1040, Austria).
Vienna, The power
Austria). requirement
The power of all
requirement of the
wood equipment was taken directly from the placard of the manufacturer of
all the wood equipment was taken directly from the placard of the manufacturer of each piece ofeach piece of equipment
involved
equipment in the production,
involved in the and the consumption
production, was estimated
and the consumption by estimated
was multiplying by the process time
multiplying the by
the
process time by the power requirement and considering the efficiency declared for each machine.data
power requirement and considering the efficiency declared for each machine. The process of
collection
The processincludes:
of datacleaning and
collection preparation
includes: of the
cleaning work
and area (equipment
preparation andarea
of the work material), measuring
(equipment and of
initial conditions
material), (weight
measuring ofofinitial
the pieces before (weight
conditions procedure of and
the power
piecesrequirements of equipment),
before procedure and power direct
observation
requirements and ofrecord of thedirect
equipment), procedure of transformation
observation and record ofcarried out by aofqualified
the procedure operator,
transformation sorting
carried
and classification of the waste generated, weighing of the final component and sorted waste, and the
conciliation of values.
The specific methodology developed by the CNTL when implementing CP programs, despite not
being mandatory, constitutes an organized and sequential guide easily understood and suitable for
micro and small wooden furniture companies. The methodology consists of the following steps:
• Planning and organization, where the company was selected, defining the organizational context
considering the size of the company, the type of management and the number of employees,
differentiating the administrative level from the operative workforce.
• Pre-evaluation. In this stage, the product was selected considering its relevance in the productive
process and in the key aspects of the study, generally represented in a detailed list of a flow
diagram of the production process.
• Evaluation. Here the mass balance was calculated for every step of the production process,
by quantifying the inputs and outputs generated in each process, identifying the sources and
causes of waste in materials, energy and water. Analysis of the flowchart, brainstorming and
mass balances were made to identify CP opportunities.
• Feasibility study and implementation. In these final steps, product modification is implemented
with the purpose of reducing material consumption and energy consumption, along with the
related reduction in waste. At this stage a new design is proposed considering ecodesign
parameters. The proposed product changes directly affect the production, and therefore, the
residues and energy consumption.
3. Results
3.1. Planning and Organization

The case study was developed in a small enterprise classified as per Brazilian Law 123/06
regarding their annual income [21], and by the number of employees since it has 22 permanent
employees (IBGE criteria). The geographical location of the company does not correspond to a specific
furniture cluster, despite being in an industrial zone. For the project, a cleaner production team was
assembled consisting of the general manager, the chief of the workshop, the senior carpenter and
two consultants in CP. All the members of the team received a basic training on the CP principles.
The objectives, scope and work schedule was defined during this stage.
3.2. Pre-Evaluation
The selection of the wooden chair was based on its sales importance, as it predominated nearly 40%
of the total sales of the company. Due to the chair design, production involves most of the equipment
of the company, therefore it is also considered the main consumer of resources and generator of
solid waste. Table 3 presents the stages to production, indicating the inputs and outputs factors.
The descriptive framework is intended to facilitate recognition of all the procedures involved in order
to avoid overseeing any relevant step.
Table 3. Operations required for producing L1 chair.
Inputs Operations Outputs

Multiple cuts, angular Sawdust, air output, heat, noise,
1 Wood, electric energy
rectification of the plank energy losses
Woodchips, firewood, sawdust,
Cutting, flattened surfice of the
2 Electric energy air output, heat, noise, energy
plank
losses
Electric energy, compressed air,
3 Pressing the ribbons Glue, heat, noise, energy losses
glue multibond, roll
Woodchips, sawdust, air output,
4 Electric energy Duplicating the seat
heat, noise, energy losses
Table 3. Cont.

5 Electric energy Drilling the seat
Sawdust, air output, heat, noise,
6 Electric energy, sandpaper Sanding the seat
energy losses
7 Assembling the seat
9 Electric energy air output, heat, noise,
ribbons
energy losses
Firewood, sawdust, air output,
11 Electric energy Sanding the backrest
12 Electric energy Drilling the backrest
13 Electric energy, sandpaper Sanding the backrest
energy losses
14 Assembling the backrest
ribbons
energy losses
rectification of the front leg energy losses
front leg
losses
20 Electric energy Drilling the front leg
21 Electric energy Woodturning the front leg
22 Assembling the front leg
Cutting, flattened surfice of
the plank
losses
Firewood, sawdust, air output,
25 Electric energy Sanding the plank
26 Electric energy Duplicating the rear leg
Horizontal milling of the Woodchips, sawdust, air output,
27 Electric energy
rear leg heat, noise, energy losses
28 Electric energy Drilling the rear leg
29 Assembling the rear leg
Cutting, square cutting the
side spindle
energy losses
Table 3. Cont.

32 Electric energy Woodturning the side spindle
33 Assembling the side spindle
rear spindle
energy losses
36 Electric energy Woodturning the rear spindle
37 Assembling the rear spindle
Cutting, square cutting
the plank
energy losses
40 Electric energy Drilling the X rail
rectification of the X rail energy losses
42 Assembling the X rail

43 Electric energy, sandpaper Sanding the chair Woodchips, sawdust, air output,
36
Sustainability Electric
2017, 9, 1867 energy Woodturning the rear spindle energy losses
heat, noise, energy losses 9 of 18
37
Ink, electric energy, compressed Assembling the rear spindle
Cano of ink, ink in the air,
44 FinishingWoodturning
theMultiple
chaircuts,
air, solvents 3638
Electric energy angular
the rear spindle Sawdust, air output, heat, noise,
Wood, electric energy
rectification of the plank
solvents
heat, in thelosses
noise, energy
energy losses
air
37 Assembling the rear spindle
Cutting, square cutting the Woodchips, firewood, sawdust, air
Plastic, paperboard, metal
39 tape, Electric energy Multiple plank
cuts, angular Plastic leftovers,
Sawdust, air output,paperboard,
heat, noise,
45 Packaging the chair output, heat, noise, energy losses
plastic tape 38 Wood, electric energy
rectification of the plank metal tape,
energy plastic
Woodchips,
losses tape
sawdust, air output,
40 Electric energy Drilling
Cutting, thecutting
square X rail the Woodchips, firewood, sawdust,
39 Electric energy heat, noise, energy losses air
plank output, heat, noise, energy losses
41 Wood, electric energy Woodchips, sawdust, air output,
rectification ofXthe X rail energy losses
3.3. Evaluation 40
42
Electric energy Drilling the rail
Assembling the X rail
41 Wood, electric energy Sawdust, air output, heat, noise,
43
Electric energy, sandpaper Sandingof
rectification the chair
the X rail energy losses
The data from the framework was used to identify the relevant process where waste was generated.
42 Assembling the X rail
energy losses
Ink, electric energy, Cano of ink, ink in the air, solvents in
It was identified that the main material involved
compressed
Electric
44
energy,air,
43 was the eucalyptus wood being transformed.
solvents
sandpaper
Finishing the chair
Sanding the chair
Sawdust, air output,
the air heat, noise,
Plastic, paperboard, metal energypaperboard,
Plastic leftovers, losses metal
The quantities of water and other spendable
45
44
materials
Ink, electric
tape, plastic tapesuch as glue,
energy, paint,
Packaging the chair solvent and drills represented
Finishing the chair
Cano of ink,tape,
ink in the air,
plastic tapesolvents in
compressed air, solvents the air
less than 2% of the final product weight.
3.3.
Therefore,
Plastic, the focus was placed on the wood used and the
paperboard, metal Plastic leftovers, paperboard, metal
45 Evaluation Packaging the chair
tape, plastic tape tape, plastic tape
energy required for the production. AsThea data result, the input/output
from the framework quantification
was used to identify shown
the relevant process in Table
where waste was 4
summarizes the values measured in the evaluation.
3.3. Evaluation
generated. It was identified that the main material involved was the eucalyptus wood being
transformed. The quantities of water and other spendable materials such as glue, paint, solvent and
The data from the framework was used to identify the relevant process where waste was
drills represented less than 2% of the final product weight. Therefore, the focus was placed on the
generated. It was identified that the main material involved was the eucalyptus wood being
Table 4. Inputs andtransformed.
outputs
wood forthe
used and
The energy ofand
watermass
energy required
quantities
for the for
and other the wooden
production.
spendable
As a result,chair.
the input/output quantification
materials such as glue, paint, solvent and
shown in Table 4 summarizes the values measured in the evaluation.
drills represented less than 2% of the final product weight. Therefore, the focus was placed on the
wood used and the energy required for the production. As a result, the input/output quantification
Inputs Process Table 4. Inputs and outputsOutputs
for energy and mass for the wooden chair.
shown in Table 4 summarizes the values measured in the evaluation.
Raw Material Inputs Process Outputs
Energy kWh Raw Outputs,
Energy g of for energy andLosses
mass forof
No Eucalyptus Stages Table 4. Inputs and outputs
Outputs, g of
the wooden chair.
Losses of Pieces
(Input Power)
No
Material Wood Residues
kWh
Stages
Energy kWh
Wood Outputs Energy Pieces
Wood g Inputs (Input
Eucalyptus Process
Raw g Energy Residues kWh
Wood Power)
1 3283.62 2.79 × 10−11 Material1
3283.62 kWh
2.79 × 10−1
131.34
1
Outputs, g of
131.34
10−×210
5.82 ×Losses
5.82
of
No Stages Wood Energy −2 Pieces
Eucalyptus (Input −2
1.15 × 10−2 1.15 × 10 2 163.92 3.22− ×3 10 −3
Wood g2 Power) 163.92 Residues 3.22 × 10 kWh
6.90 × 10−2 3 0.00 1.93−×210−2
6.90 × 101−2 3283.623 2.79 × 10
9.65 × 10
−1
−3
0.0014 131.34
597.67
1.93 × 10
5.82 × 10
2.70 × 10−3
−2
9.65 × 10−3 4 1.15 10−3 597.67

1.73××10
−2 25 163.92 10−××31010−3−4
167.35 2.70 ×3.22
4.83
1.73 × 10−3 6.90
8.63××10 36 0.00 4.83 ×1.9310−××41010−3−3
−2 −2
5 10−3 167.35 155.63 2.42
9.65 ××10 −3 48 597.67 2.70 ××310
8.63 × 10−23 1150.32
6 2.64 10 −1
1.73 × 10−3−2
155.635
46.01
167.35
5.42− 10
10 × 10−4−2
2.42 ×4.83
1.15 × 10 9 57.42 3.22 × 10−3
8.63 × 10−3−2 6 155.63 2.42 −
10 ××21010−2−2
−3
2 1150.32 2.64 × 10−1 8 6.90 × 10 46.01 10 0.00 5.42 × 1.93
2 1150.32 2.64
8.63××10
−1
10−2 811 46.01
261.72 5.42
2.42××10 10−3
1.15 × 10−2 9 1.15
1.73××10
−2
10−2 57.42 912 57.42 10−××31010−3−4
78.52 3.22 ×3.22
4.83
6.90
8.63××10 10 0.00 1.93
10−××21010−4
−2 −2
6.90 × 10−2 10 10−3 0.00
8.63 × 10 −2 11
13 116.60
261.72
1.93 × 2.42
2.42 × 10−3
14
8.63 × 10−2 11 1.73 261.72 2.42 ×4.83 − 3
10 × 10−4−1
5.58××10 12 78.52
−2
3 1324.03 10−1 15 79.44 1.16− × 10
1.73 × 10−2 12 8.63
2.30××10
−3
10−2
78.52
1316 116.60 10 ××41010−4−3
74.68 4.83 ×2.42
6.44
−
8.63 × 10 3 14 −
10 ×410−2
13 1.38 × 10 −1 116.60 17 0.00 2.42 × 3.87
3 1324.03 5.58
5.58××10
−1 15 79.44 1.16
1.16××10
−1
14 10−1 18 46.80 10−1
2.30
2.30××10
−2
10−2 1619 74.68
44.92 6.44
6.44××10
−3
10−3
1.38
3.45××10
−1
10−3 1720 0.00
43.13 3.87
9.67××10
−2
10−4
5.58
6.17××10
−1
10−2 1821 46.80
251.52 1.16
1.73××10
−1
10−2
2.30 × 10−2 19 44.92 6.44 × 10−3
3.45 × 10−3 20 43.13 9.67 × 10−4
6.17 × 10−2 21 251.52 1.73 × 10−2
Table 4. Inputs and outputs for energy and mass for the wooden chair.
Inputs Process Outputs

Raw Energy
Outputs, g of Losses of
Material kWh
No Stages Wood Energy Pieces
Eucalyptus (Input
Residues kWh
Wood g Power)
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1867 1 3283.62 2.79 × 10 −1 1 131.34 5.82 × 10−2 10 of 17
1.15 × 10−2 2 163.92 3.22 × 10−3
6.90 × 10−2 3 0.00 1.93 × 10−2
9.65 × 10−3 4 597.67 2.70 × 10−3
1.73 × 10−34. Cont.
Table 5 167.35 4.83 × 10−4
8.63 × 10−3 6 155.63 2.42 × 10−3
2 1150.32 2.64 × 10−1 8 46.01 5.42 × 10−2
Inputs Process
1.15 × 10−2 9 Outputs
57.42 3.22 × 10−3
6.90 × 10−2 10 0.00 1.93 × 10−2
Raw Material 11
8.63 × 10−2 Outputs,
Energy kWh g of 261.72 2.42 ×of
Losses 10−3
No Eucalyptus Stages
1.73 × 10−2 12 78.52 4.83 × 10−4 Pieces
(Input Power) Wood Residues Energy kWh
Wood g 8.63 × 10−3 13 116.60 2.42 × 10−4
− 14
3 1324.03 1
5.583× 10 1324.03 155.58 × 10−1 79.44
15 79.44 × 10× −
1.16 1.16 1
10−1
2.30 × 10 − 2 162.30 × 10 −2 16
74.68 74.68 6.44 × −
10
6.44 × 10 3−2
−3
171.38 × 10−1 17 0.00 3.87 × 10

−1
1.38 × 10−1 0.00 3.87 × 10−2−1
5.58 × 10 18 46.80 1.16 × −
10
5.58 × 10−1 182.30 × 10−2 46.80
19 44.92 × 10× 101−3
1.16 6.44
2.30 × 10 − 2 193.45 × 10−3 44.92 6.44 9.67 −
× 10× 103−4
20 43.13
3.45 × 10−3 206.17 × 10−2 43.13
21 251.52 × 10× −
9.67 1.73 104−2
× 10−2 2017, 9, 1867
6.17Sustainability 21 251.52 1.73 × 10−2 10 of 18
4 2179.74 5.584× 10−2179.74

1 235.58 × 10 −1 152.58
23 152.58 × 10× −
1.16 1.16 101−1
− 2
2.30 × 10−2 24 121.63 6.44 × − 10−3
2.30 × 10 241.73 × 10−2 121.63
25 756.49 × 10× 103−3
6.44 4.83
× 10−2179.74
1.734Sustainability 255.58 × 10 23 152.58 4.83 1.16 ×− 103
2 2017, 9, 1867 −1 −1
6.17 × 10−2 756.49
26 91.92 × 10
1.73 × 10−2 10 of 18
6.17 × 10−2 262.30 × 10−2

5.18 × 10−2
24
91.92
27
121.63
52.86 1.73 6.44
× 10
1.45
×− 10−3
× 102−2
4 2179.74 1.73
5.58 × 10−3 −2
−1 25
23 756.49
152.58 4.83
1.16 × − 10 −3
−1
× 10−2 2017, 9, 1867
5.18Sustainability 276.17
3.45 × 10 52.86
28 20.09 × 10× 102−3−4
1.45 1.73
9.67 10 of 18
2.30 × 10−2 −2 26
24 91.92
121.63 6.44 × 10−2
5 672.24 5.58 × 10−2 −1 30 26.89 1.16 × 10−2 −1
× 10−2179.74
3.454Sustainability3 28
2017, 9, 1867
5.18
1.73
5.58
× 10 −1
× 10
2.30 × 10−3
−2
−2
27
25
20.09
23
31
52.86
756.49
152.58
38.72 9.67 1.45
4.83
×
1.1610×−
×
104−3
10
6.44 × 10−4
−1
−3 10 of 18
3.45
6.17 × 10−2 28
26 20.09
91.92 9.67
1.73 × 10−2
2.30 ×× 10
6.17 10−2
−2 24
32 121.63
254.78 6.44 ×× −
1.73 101−2
10 −3
5 672.24 5.585× 10−672.24 1 305.58
5.18
1.73 ×× 10
10
−2
−1
−2
26.89
27
30
25 52.86
26.89
756.49
× 10
1.16 1.16
1.45
4.83 ×× 10
10
−2
−1
−3
46 2179.74
283.12 5.58
2.79 × 10−2 −1 23
34 152.58
11.32 1.16
5.82 × 10−3 −1
−2
3.45
2.30
6.17 ××× 10
−3 28
31 20.09
38.72 9.67
6.44 ×× −
10 −4
2.30 × 10−2 10−2 26 91.92 1.73 103−3
−2 −2
312.30
1.15
6.17
10
×× 10 −2
38.72
24
35
32
121.63
16.31
254.78
× 10
6.44
6.44 1.73
3.22 × 10
×× 10 −2
5 672.24 5.58
5.18
1.73 10
−1
−2
−2 30
27
25 26.89
52.86
756.49 1.16
1.45
4.83 10
−1
−2
−3
3.09 × 10−1 36 107.30 8.64 × 10−2
6.1767× 10−1399.26 2
283.12 322.79
3.45 ××× 10
2.30
6.17
5.58
−2
10−2
10
−3
−1
34
31
254.78
28
26
38
11.32
38.72
20.09
91.92
69.96 1.73 5.82
× 10
6.44
9.67
1.73
1.16
×× −
102−3
10−2
× 10
−4
−1
5 672.24 1.15
5.58 ×× 10
6.17
5.18
−2
10−2
−1 35
32
27
30 16.31
254.78
52.86
26.89 3.22
1.16 ×× −
1.73
1.45 10 −3
−2
102−2
−1
− 1 2.30 −2 39 39.88 6.44 −3
6 283.12 2.796× 10 283.12 343.09
2.79
3.45
× 10−1
2.30 × 10−3
−2
−2
11.32
36
34
28
31
107.30
11.32
20.09
38.72
× 10
5.82 8.64
5.82
9.67
× 10−2
6.44 × 10−4
−3
−3
40 95.42
7 1399.26 5.58
1.15 × 10−2−1 38
35 69.96
16.31 1.16
3.22 ×− 10−1
−1
−3
1.155× 10−672.24 2 6.17 × 10−1
352.30
5.58
3.09
−2
× 10 −1
−2
32
41
16.31
30
39
36
254.78
78.07
26.89
39.88
107.30
3.22 1.73
×
1.16
6.44
8.64
10× 103−3
−2
× 10 −2
6 283.12 2.79 × 10−2
3.45
2.30 34
43
31 11.32
258.11
38.72 5.82 × 10−3
9.67
6.44
3.097× 10−1399.26 363.45 × 10−2 40 95.42 8.64 9.67 ×− 103−1
2 −3 −4
5.58
3.45
1.15 × 10−1
−1 38
107.30
44
35 69.96
16.31 1.16
× 10
9.67
3.22 −3
6.17 32 254.78 1.73 × 10−2
5.58
2.30 × 10−1−2 41
39 78.07
39.88 1.16
6.44 × 10−1−3
6 − 283.12
1 3.09 × 10−2
2.79 −2 45
36
34 107.30
11.32 8.64 × −
5.82 101
−3
−2
7 1399.26 5.587× 1010,292.33
1399.26
383.45 × 10−3
5.585.00 −1 69.96
43
40
38
258.11
95.42
69.96
4509.01
× 1.10
1.16 9.67
1.1610× 10−4−3
−1
1.15 × 10−2−2 35 16.31 3.22 × 10−3−3
3.45
5.58 × 10 −2
−1 44
41 78.07 9.67
1.16 × 10 −3
−1
2.30 × 10−2 2.30 × 10−2
393.09
3.45
39
36
39.88
45
39.88of 6.44
grams
107.30 6.44
energy
8.64
× 10×− 103−3
losses in
3.45 ×× 10
10−1 43 258.11 9.67
9.67 ×× −10−1
−2 −3
grams of −3 40 95.42 −4
3.457× 1010,292.33
−1399.26
3 405.58
3.455.00
× 10 −2 95.42 wood
38
44
in the
69.96
4509.01 9.67motors
1.16
× 1.10
9.6710×
and
10
10
4−3
eucalyptus 5.58
kWh
2.30 × 10 −1
−2 41
39 78.07of
form
39.88 1.16 × −
systems
6.44 −1
due
10 −3
5.58 × 10− 1
wood to
413.45 × 10of
demand −2 78.07
45
43
Total
grams of
258.11
sawdust,
1.16 × 10
energy
9.67
1 in
losses
× 10−4
inefficiency: −3
−2
−3 40 95.42 −and
3−3
grams
3.45 × 10produce
10,292.33 of 43 5.00 258.11 wood in the 9.67motors
4509.01 × 10
1.10
a 3.45
the × 10
network
5.58 −2
−1 44
41 splinters,
78.07 tips, 9.67
heat,
1.16 × 10
noise,
−1
3.45 × 10eucalyptus
−2
chair
kWh −2
443.45 × 10 45
43
form of
grams
woodchips
258.11
of 9.67 systems
energy
× 10
vibrations
9.67
−due
3−3 in
losses
× 10and
wood to
grams of demand of Total sawdust,
wood in the inefficiency:
motors and
10,292.33 453.455.00
× 10−2 44 and others
4509.01 others
9.671.10
× 10−3
produce a
eucalyptus the kWh
network splinters,
form tips,
of heat, noise,
systems duein
45 43.81%
grams of energy22.05%
losses
10,292.33 chairto
5.00 10,292.33
wood demand of 4509.01 wood
Total woodchips
sawdust, vibrations
1.10
inefficiency: and
grams of 5.00 in the
4509.01 motors
1.10and
produce a the kWh
network and others
splinters, tips, others
heat, noise,
eucalyptus
The results of the evaluation indicate a yield form
grams of systems
ofof43.81%energy
in losses due
thelosses
usein of
in wood. The result is found
chairto grams of wood 43.81% energy
woodchips
in 22.05%and
vibrations
wood
withingrams of
the typical demand
range of of
yied Total
values in wood sawdust,
wood in the motors
furniture inefficiency:
motors
industries. andThe energy consumption was
grams of and others and
others
produce
eucalyptus a the network
kWh the form ofsplinters,
form tips, heat,
ofand thesystems noise,
due of the electrical engines of
eucalyptus kWhrelated
demand Theto the manufacturing
results
chair of the evaluation process of every
indicate a yieldpiece
of 43.81%
43.81%
woodchips inefficiencies
systems thedue
22.05%
vibrations useandof wood. The result is found
every wood
machine Total
to involved.demand Theofsawdust,
Total splinters,
characterization sawdust,
of the waste inefficiency:
generated inThe
every step consumption
is shown in Table
wood to of thewithin
network the typical range of yied values in wood and inefficiency:
furniture
others industries.
others heat, energy was
5.
produce a the network tips, woodchips splinters, tips, heat, noise,
produce a chair related Theto results of the evaluation
the manufacturing
chair indicate
process a yield
of every piece
43.81%
woodchips noise,
of 43.81%
and vibrations
in the useand
thevibrations
efficiencies
22.05% of of
wood. The result
the electrical is found
engines of
and others
withinmachine
every the typical range of
involved. The yied values in wood
characterization of the
and wasteand
furniture
others others
industries.
generated
othersin The
everyenergy
step consumption
is shown in Table was
Table 5. Wood yields per component of the wooden chair (g).
related
5. Thetoresults
the manufacturing
of the evaluation process of every 43.81%
indicate piece and thein efficiencies
the use of of the electrical engines of
43.81% a yield of 43.81%
22.05%22.05% wood. The result is found
every
withinmachine
thePiece involved.
typical The
rangeInputs
of characterization
yied values in wood of the waste
Outputs
furniture generated
industries.inThe every step consumption
energy isTotal
shown in Table
Losses was
5.
related Thetoresults of theTable
the manufacturing Wood 5. process
evaluation Wood yields
Wood
indicate per
ofShavings component
a yield
every of
piece andofthe
Firewood
43.81% theinwooden
the usechair
Sawdust
efficiencies (g).
ofOthers
wood.
of Losses
The
the electricalresult is%found
engines of
every1 machine
within Seatinvolved.
thePiece
typical range3283.62
of
The yied values 674.77
in
characterization wood of 361.88 generated
furniture
the waste 167.45 in
industries. The 11.81
everyenergy
step1215.92
consumption
is shown 37.03% was
in Table
Inputs Outputs Total Losses
The results of the evaluation indicate a yield of 43.81% in the use of wood. The result is found
2
related
5. Backrest
to the manufacturing 1150.32
Table 5. process
Wood Wood
153.79
Wood yields per component
ofShavings
every piece 281.71
andofthe
Firewood
85.35
the efficiencies
wooden chairof(g).
Sawdust Others
39.42 560.27
the electrical 48.71%
Losses engines % of
every3 Front Leg (2) 1324.03 378.49 135.64 generated19.37 6.97 540.49 40.82%
1 machine Seatinvolved.3283.62 The characterization
within the typical range of yied values in wood furniture industries. The energy consumption was
Piece Inputs 674.77 of the waste 361.88
Outputs 167.45 in every 11.81step1215.92
isTotal
shown in Table
37.03%
Losses
4 Rear Leg (2) 2179.74 293.21 768.29 124.74 9.32 1195.57 54.85%
5. 2 Backrest Table
1150.32
Wood 5. Wood yields
Wood per component
153.79
Shavings of the wooden
281.71
Firewood 85.35 chair
Sawdust (g).
39.42
Others 560.27 48.71%
Losses %
5 Side Spindle (2) 672.24 279.65 32.27 6.55 1.92 320.39 47.66%
related to the manufacturing process of every piece and the efficiencies of the electrical engines of
31
6
FrontSeat
Piece
Rear
Leg (2)
Spindle
1324.03
3283.62
Inputs
283.12
378.49
674.77
117.78
135.64
361.88
Outputs
13.59
19.37
167.45
2.76
6.97
11.81
0.81
540.49 40.82%
1215.92
134.94 37.03%
Total Losses
47.66%
42 Rear Leg
Backrest (2) Table
2179.74
1150.325. Wood yields per
293.21
153.79 component of
768.29
281.71 the wooden
124.74
85.35 chair (g).
9.32
39.42 1195.57
560.27 54.85%
7 X Rail (2) 1399.26 144.25 110.31 23.53 5.24 283.33 48.71%
20.25%
every machine involved. The characterization of the waste generated in every step is shown in Table 5.
53 Side FrontSpindle
Leg (2)
Assemble
(2)
Wood
672.24
1324.03
Wood Shavings Firewood
279.65
378.49 32.27
135.64
Sawdust
6.55
19.37
193.58
Others
1.92
6.97
64.53
Losses
320.39
540.49
258.11
%
47.66%
40.82%
1 Seat
Piece 3283.62
Inputs 674.77 361.88
Outputs 167.45 11.81 1215.92 37.03%
Total Losses
64 Rear
Rear Spindle
Leg (2) 283.12
2179.74 117.78
293.21 13.59
768.29 2.76
124.74 0.81
9.32 134.94
1195.57 47.66%
2 Total
Backrest 10,292.33
1150.32
Wood Wood 2041.95
153.79
Shavings Firewood 1703.70
281.71 623.33
85.35
Sawdust 140.03
39.42
Others 560.27 54.85%
4509.01
Losses 48.71%
%
75 SideX Spindle
Rail (2) (2) 1399.26
672.24 144.25
279.65 110.31
32.27 23.53
6.55 5.24
1.92 283.33
320.39 20.25%
13 yields % Seat
Front losses
Leg (2) 100%
1324.03
3283.62 19.84%
378.49
674.77 16.55%
135.64
361.88 6.06%
19.37
167.45 1.36%
6.97
11.81 540.49 47.66%
1215.92 43.81%
40.82%
37.03%
Table 5. Wood 64 Assemble
Rear
Rear Leg
per
Spindle
(2)
component
283.12
2179.74
of the
117.78
293.21
wooden 13.59
768.29
chair (g).
193.58
2.76
124.74
64.53
0.81
9.32
258.11
134.94 47.66%
1195.57 54.85%
2 Backrest 1150.32 153.79 281.71 85.35 39.42 560.27 48.71%
Total
Rail (2) (2) 10,292.33
7 SideX Spindle 1399.26 2041.95
144.25 1703.70
110.31 623.33
23.53 140.03
5.24 4509.01
283.33 20.25%
35 The characterization
Front Leg (2) 672.24
1324.03 279.65
of the total 378.49
waste of 43.81% 32.27 6.55
can also19.37
135.64 be expressed 1.92 in 540.49
6.97 320.39 47.66%
relative 40.82%
values as
% losses
Assemble 100% 19.84% 16.55% 6.06%
193.58 1.36%
64.53 258.11 43.81%
6 Rear Spindle 283.12 117.78 13.59 2.76 0.81 134.94 47.66%
Piece Inputsfollows:4 13.82% sawdust, 45.29% brush
Rear Leg
Total
(2) 2179.74
10,292.33 Outputs and 37.78% firewood, with a balance of 3.11%
293.21
2041.95
768.29
1703.70
124.74
623.33
9.32
140.03
1195.57
Total
4509.01
air releases.
54.85%
Losses
57 Side
Typical X Spindle
Railof(2)such 1399.26
(2) losses
672.24 144.25
279.65 110.31
32.27 23.53
6.55 5.24for wood
1.92 283.33shavings
320.39 20.25%and
47.66%
Thevalues
characterization
% losses
Assemble of in
100% thethe timber
total waste
19.84%industry
of 43.81% are 14%
16.55%can for
also sawdust, 18%
be expressed
6.06%
193.58 1.36%
64.53 in 258.11
relative 43.81%
values as
Woodfollows: 6
68% forWood Rear Spindle
firewood Shavings
[22]. Such283.12values 117.78
Firewood
can also Sawdust 13.59 2.76
Others 0.81 134.94
Losses 47.66% %
7 13.82% sawdust,
Total(2)
X Rail 45.29%
10,292.33
1399.26 brush andbe
2041.95
144.25
seen
37.78% infirewood,
Figure 5, with
1703.70
110.31
expressed
23.53 a balance
623.33
in mass.
5.24 of 4509.01
140.03 3.11%
283.33 air20.25%
releases.
Thevalues
characterization of inthethe
total waste of 43.81% canfor
also be expressed inwood
relative valuesandas
1 Seat 3283.62Typical of such losses
% losses
674.77
Assemble 100% timber
19.84%
361.88 industry are
167.45 14%
16.55% sawdust,
6.06%
11.81
193.58 18%
64.53for
1.36% 1215.92
258.11 shavings
43.81%
37.03%
follows: 13.82% sawdust, 45.29% brush and 37.78% firewood, with a balance of 3.11% air releases.
2 Backrest 1150.3268% for firewood
Total [22]. Such
153.79 values can2041.95
10,292.33 also be seen in
281.71 Figure 5, 623.33
1703.70
85.35 expressed140.03
39.42 in mass. 4509.01
560.27 48.71%
Typical
Thevalues of such losses
characterization
% losses of in
100% thethe timber
total industry
waste
19.84% are
of 43.81% 14%
canfor
16.55% sawdust,
also 18%
be expressed
6.06% forinwood
1.36% shavings
relative valuesand
43.81% as
3 Front Leg (2) 1324.0368% for firewood
378.49
[22]. Such
135.64
valuesbrush
can also
19.37 6.97 540.49 40.82%
follows: 13.82% sawdust, 45.29% andbe37.78%
seen infirewood,
Figure 5, with
expressed in mass.
a balance of 3.11% air releases.
4 Rear Leg (2) 2179.74Typical
Thevalues 293.21
characterization
of such lossesof in
thethe 768.29
total waste
timber
124.74
of 43.81%
industry can for
are 14% also 9.32
be expressed
sawdust,
1195.57
18% forinwood
relative 54.85%
values
shavings as
and
5 Side Spindle (2) 672.24follows: 13.82%279.65
68% for firewood sawdust, 45.29%
[22]. Such 32.27
valuesbrush
can andbe
also seen6.55
37.78% infirewood,
Figure 5, with1.92
a balance
expressed 320.39
of
in mass. 47.66%
3.11% air releases.
6 Rear Spindle 283.12Typical values117.78 13.59 industry2.76
of such losses in the timber 0.81 18% for134.94
are 14% for sawdust, wood shavings 47.66%
and
7 X Rail (2) 1399.2668% for firewood
144.25
[22]. Such values110.31
can also be seen23.53 5.24 in mass.
in Figure 5, expressed 283.33 20.25%
Assemble 193.58 64.53 258.11
Total 10,292.33 2041.95 1703.70 623.33 140.03 4509.01
% losses 100% 19.84% 16.55% 6.06% 1.36% 43.81%
The characterization of the total waste of 43.81% can also be expressed in relative values as
follows: 13.82% sawdust, 45.29% brush and 37.78% firewood, with a balance of 3.11% air releases.
Typical values of such losses in the timber industry are 14% for sawdust, 18% for wood shavings and
68% for firewood
Sustainability 2017, 9,[22].
1867 Such values can also be seen in Figure 5, expressed in mass. 11 of 18
5783.32
5783.32
2041.95
1703.70
2041.95 623.33 140.03
1703.70
Chair Wood shavings Firewood Sawdust
623.33 Air140.03
emissions
Chair Wood shavings Firewood Sawdust Air emissions

Figure5.5.Wood
Figure Woodutilization
utilization in
in the
the production
production of
of the
thechair
chair(g).
(g).
When analyzing the Figure 5. Wood

assembly ofutilization
the wooden in the production
chair, of the
it is noted chair
that the(g).
main loss of material was
When analyzing the assembly of the wooden chair, it is noted that the main loss of material was
during the production of the seat (1216 g equivalent to 31.90% of the wood used), in second place
during therear
was When
the production
analyzing of
leg (1196the the seat (1216
assembly
g equivalent of
tothegwooden
equivalent
21.18% of the toit31.90%
chair,
wood isused) ofthat
notedand the wood
inthe main
third used), ofinmaterial
lossthe
place secondwas
backrest place
(560
was the rear
during the leg
g equivalent to(1196
productiong equivalent
11.18% of
of the seat to
the wood 21.18%
(1216 of the
g equivalent
used). Those wood
three used)
toitems
31.90% and
of thein wood
represented third
more place
thanthe
used), in
64%backrest
second (560 g
of theplace
total
equivalent
was the to
rear 11.18%
leg of
(1196 g the wood
equivalent
material losses (see Figure 6). used).
to Those
21.18% of three
the items
wood represented
used) and in more
third than
place the 64% of
backrestthe total
(560
g equivalent to 11.18% of
material losses (see Figure 6). the wood used). Those three items represented more than 64% of the total
material losses1400.00
(see Figure 6). 120%
1200.00 100%
1400.00 120%
1000.00
1200.00 80%
100%
800.00
1000.00 60%
80%
600.00
800.00
40%
60%
400.00
600.00
200.00 20%
40%
400.00
0.00 0%
20%
200.00
Seat Rear leg Backrest Front leg Side X rail Rear
0.00 spindle spindle 0%
Seat Rear leg Backrest Front leg Side X rail Rear
Waste %A
spindle spindle
Waste %A
Figure 6. Pareto Chart of the chair components and their usage of material.
The type of Figure 6.6.Pareto

production
Figure Pareto Chart of
process
Chart of the chair
is the
alsochair components
important and
andtheir
to analyze
components usage
since
their theoftype
usage ofmaterial.
of waste can indicate
material.
a process subject to be improved or replaced. Applying this approach, it is noted that for the rear leg,
The type
the most of production
representative process
residue is also important
was firewood to analyze
(768 g), mostly duesince
to thethe type of waste
production canused.
process indicate
For
atheThe
processtype of
subjectproduction
toalso process
be improved is also important to analyze since the type of waste can indicate
leg, a
backrest it was firewood or replaced.
(282 Applying
g) whereas for thethis
seatapproach, it is noted
the main type of lossthat
wasfor the shavings
wood rear
process
the subject to be improved or replaced. Applying this approach, it is noted that for the rear leg, the
(675most representative
g) (see Figure 7). residue was firewood (768 g), mostly due to the production process used. For
most representative residue
the backrest it was also was firewood
firewood (768 g),for
(282 g) whereas mostly due
the seat thetomain
the production
type of loss process
was wood used. For the
shavings
backrest it was
(675 g) (see also 7).
Figure firewood (282 g) whereas for the seat the main type of loss was wood shavings
(675 g) (see Figure 7).
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Seat Rear Leg (2) Backrest Front Leg Side Spindle Rear X Rail (2)
(2) (2) Spindle
Wood shavings Firewood Sawdust Air emissions
Figure 7. Losses per assembly component.

Figure 7. Losses per assembly component.
3.4. Feasibility Study and Implementation

3.4. Feasibility Study and Implementation
In this stage, the study focuses on reducing the losses of raw material, taking into account the
In this process
productive stage, the
andstudy focuses on reducing
the characteristics the losses
of the product, of raw material,
therefore, affecting taking
the totalinto account
amount the
of raw
productive process and the characteristics of
material, waste generated and energy requirements.the product, therefore, affecting the total amount of raw
material,
Threewaste generated
proposals wereand energy requirements.
made:
Three proposals were made:
• Product design considering component modulation within the dimensions of the raw material.
• Product design considering
substituting component
materials inmodulation
components. within the dimensions of the raw material.
•• reshaping inmaterials
Product design substituting order to reduce material.
in components.
• Product design process
The eco-design reshaping in order
began to reducethe
by analyzing material.
pieces of the chair that generated the most waste,
seeking what could be eliminated, reshaped or substituted. As shown in Figure 4 these components
The eco-design process began by analyzing the pieces of the chair that generated the most waste,
where the seat, the backrest, the rear leg and the rails.
seeking what could be eliminated, reshaped or substituted. As shown in Figure 4 these components
Design modification of the seat was suitable for different strategies, all aimed to reduce material
where the seat, the backrest, the rear leg and the rails.
consumption. The first of them was a substitution strategy: it was proposed to change the material of
Design modification of the seat was suitable for different strategies, all aimed to reduce material
the seat for plywood, taking advantage of the possibility of modulation the shape of the seat. This
consumption. The first of them was a substitution strategy: it was proposed to change the material of
could reduce waste while decreasing the thickness and weight of the chair. By doing so, the residues
the seat for plywood, taking advantage of the possibility of modulation the shape of the seat. This could
would drop to 19.52%, i.e., that means a reduction of 3284 g of solid eucalyptus wood while requiring
reduce waste while decreasing the thickness and weight of the chair. By doing so, the residues would
a consumption of 2198 g of plywood, to obtain the same number of seats.
drop to 19.52%, i.e., that means a reduction of 3284 g of solid eucalyptus wood while requiring a
For the backrest, a reshape strategy was proposed by redesigning the backrest size and modeling
consumption of 2198 g of plywood, to obtain the same number of seats.
the shape of it in a wood board composed of small glued pieces reused from another process. By
For the backrest, a reshape strategy was proposed by redesigning the backrest size and modeling
doing so, the waste could be reduced from 48.71% to 15.38%, saving up to 590 g of eucalyptus wood.
the shape of it in a wood board composed of small glued pieces reused from another process. By doing
The rear leg can also be redesigned. By producing a large board of glued joints of reused wood
so, the waste could be reduced from 48.71% to 15.38%, saving up to 590 g of eucalyptus wood.
pieces, it is possible to obtain several rear legs pieces, optimizing wood consumption. For instance,
The rear leg can also be redesigned. By producing a large board of glued joints of reused wood
from a board made of glued pieces of 65 cm glued pieces could fit 10 legs, thus reducing the waste
pieces, it is possible to obtain several rear legs pieces, optimizing wood consumption. For instance,
from 54.85% to 39.74%, equivalent to 984 g of eucalyptus wood. Figure 8 presents a sketch of such
from a board made of glued pieces of 65 cm glued pieces could fit 10 legs, thus reducing the waste
modulations either for the seat and the rear leg. Figure 9 presents the estimated amount of wood
from 54.85% to 39.74%, equivalent to 984 g of eucalyptus wood. Figure 8 presents a sketch of such
saved.
modulations either for the seat and the rear leg. Figure 9 presents the estimated amount of wood saved.
Figure 8. Sketch of the modulation: (a) rear leg single production vs. modulated (b) seat, single
Figure 8. Sketch of the modulation: (a) rear leg single production vs. modulated (b) seat, single
Figure 8. vs.
production Sketch of the modulation: (a) rear leg single production vs. modulated (b) seat, single
modulated.
production vs. modulated.
production vs. modulated.
Figure9.9.Wood
Woodused
usedon
Figure
Figure 9. Wood used ononthe
the main
the main assembly
main assembly components
assembly components
componentstotobeberedesigned
to beredesigned (g).
redesigned (g).
(g).
The
The total
total decreaseininthe
decrease theconsumption
consumption of
of wood
wood was
was 29.95%,
29.95%,going
goingfrom
from10,292 g to
10,292 7209
g to g, also
7209 g, also
The totalthe
reducing decrease
percentagein the
of consumption
waste from of wood
consumption was
from 29.95%,
43.81% to goingfrom
32.20%, fromgenerating
10,292 g4509
to 7209
g g g,
reducing the percentage of waste from consumption from 43.81% to 32.20%, from generating 4509
also reducing
to 2321 g asthe percentage
shown in Figureof
10.waste from consumption
The percentages from 43.81%
and characterization of thetowaste
32.20%, from
in the generating
proposal
to 2321 g as shown in Figure 10. The percentages and characterization of the waste in the proposal is is
4509 presented
g to 2321 ingTable 6.
as shown in Figure 10. The percentages and characterization of the waste in the
presented in Table 6.
proposal is presented in Table 6.
Sustainability 2017,
Sustainability 2017, 9,
9, 1867
1867 14 of
14 of 17
18
Figure 10. Comparison between actual and proposed design (g).

Figure 10. Comparison between actual and proposed design (g).
Table 6. Percentages of reductions proposed.

Table 6. Percentages of reductions proposed.
Wood
Wood
Current (g) Proposal (g) Reduction
Current (g) Proposal (g) Reduction
Total consumption 10,292 7209 29.95%
Total consumption 10,292 7209 29.95%
Total usedTotal used 5783 5783 4888
4888 15.48%15.48%
Total waste
Total waste 4509 4509 2321
2321 48.51%48.51%
Generated waste 43.81% 32.20% 11.61%
Generated waste 43.81% 32.20% 11.61%
The
The proposed
proposed changes
changes have
have an an impact
impact on
on the
the energy
energy consumption,
consumption, due
due to
to the
the reduction
reduction and
and
simplification
simplification of some production processes. The energy consumption could change from 55 KWh
of some production processes. The energy consumption could change from KWh toto
3.23
3.23 KWh
KWh for
for the
the production
production of
of aa chair
chair as
as presented
presented in
in Table
Table7.7.
Table 7. Current
Table 7. Current vs.
vs. proposed
proposed energy
energy consumption
consumption per
per component.
component.
Energy
Energy
Current kWh
Current kWh Proposal kWh kWh
Proposal
Seat 0.38 0.04
Seat 0.38 0.04
Back RestBack Rest 0.36
0.36 0.26 0.26
Front LegFront Leg 1.36
1.36 1.36 1.36
Rear Leg Rear Leg 0.71
0.71 0.34 0.34
Side Spindle 0.64
Side Spindle 0.64 0.00 0.00
Rear Spindle 0.32 0.00
X RailRear Spindle 0.32
1.14 0.00 1.14
Assemble X Rail 1.14
0.08 1.14 0.08
Total Consumption
Assemble 5.00
0.08 0.08 3.23
Total Consumption 5.00 3.23
The final effects of all the proposed changes can be summarized in Figure 11, presenting the final
The
sketch of final effects of all
the eucalyptus the proposed
wooden changes can be summarized in Figure 11, presenting the final
chair proposed.
sketch of the eucalyptus wooden chair proposed.
Figure11.
Figure 11.Redesigned
Redesignedchair.
chair.
The new chair designed was identified with a new code, and would be commercialized
The new chair designed was identified with a new code, and would be commercialized
communicating the advantages in resource efficiency to the clients.
communicating the advantages in resource efficiency to the clients.
4. Discussion
4. Discussion
The results of this research were constituted by the findings of the application of a CP program
The results of this research were constituted by the findings of the application of a CP program
in a wooden furniture industry as per the methodology of implementation of the CNTL. The steps
in a wooden furniture industry as per the methodology of implementation of the CNTL. The steps
detailed in the methodology were validated by the planning and the conformation of the Eco-team
detailed in the methodology were validated by the planning and the conformation of the Eco-team
to the application of CP and ecodesign parameters, applied directly to the object of study. Once the
to the application of CP and ecodesign parameters, applied directly to the object of study. Once
diagnosis was conducted through the analysis of the organized data (tables, pareto-charts, etc.) a
the diagnosis was conducted through the analysis of the organized data (tables, pareto-charts, etc.)
series of proposals were made with focus on optimizing material consumption and reduce associated
a series of proposals were made with focus on optimizing material consumption and reduce associated
waste generation.
waste generation.
The ecodesign parameters developed specifically for the wooden furniture industry supports
The ecodesign parameters developed specifically for the wooden furniture industry supports
the efforts of focusing on the product and process instead of end-of-pipe solutions. In this case, the
the efforts of focusing on the product and process instead of end-of-pipe solutions. In this case,
proposals made addressed parameters of reducing, facilitate, select and valorize the difference of the
the proposals made addressed parameters of reducing, facilitate, select and valorize the difference of
redesigned chair. For this reason, the treatment of waste was not addressed as the focus of the work,
the redesigned chair. For this reason, the treatment of waste was not addressed as the focus of the work,
even though specific recommendations were made such as the recycling of some pieces of firewood
even though specific recommendations were made such as the recycling of some pieces of firewood in
in the construction of the glued and pressed board for the rear leg and backrest. Waste disposal was
the construction of the glued and pressed board for the rear leg and backrest. Waste disposal was also
also part of the recommendation since the Eco-team suggested that nearby industries were interested
part of the recommendation since the Eco-team suggested that nearby industries were interested in the
in the residues of sawdust and wood shavings as fuel for their furnaces.
residues of sawdust and wood shavings as fuel for their furnaces.
Despite CP and ecodesign now being widely known due to be capability of achieving
Despite CP and ecodesign now being widely known due to be capability of achieving
environmental benefits, throughout this case study the opportunities in sectors such as wooden
environmental benefits, throughout this case study the opportunities in sectors such as wooden
furniture highlighted, especially considering its uneven size distribution while representing a market
furniture highlighted, especially considering its uneven size distribution while representing a market
of over 430 million goods worth aproximately US $16.54 billion.
of over 430 million goods worth aproximately US $16.54 billion.
The application of CP programs is not normative in Brazil, and its distribution seems to be slow.
The application of CP programs is not normative in Brazil, and its distribution seems to be slow.
One of the reasons could be the eco-paradigm of thinking that environmental improvements cost a
One of the reasons could be the eco-paradigm of thinking that environmental improvements cost a
lot of money, a perception shared by employees and staff in the company. The analysis presented in
lot of money, a perception shared by employees and staff in the company. The analysis presented in
Figure 2 represents an attempt to highlight the opportunities of the combination of CP plus ecodesign
Figure 2 represents an attempt to highlight the opportunities of the combination of CP plus ecodesign
as suitable for micro and small companies in this sector.
as suitable for micro and small companies in this sector.
It is also noted, that for better results, more studies are required. More specific tools such as Life
It is also noted, that for better results, more studies are required. More specific tools such as Life
Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Costing (LCC) could be a feasible direction in order to
Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Costing (LCC) could be a feasible direction in order to include
include the impact of the improvement. However, considering the financial limitations of most of the
the impact of the improvement. However, considering the financial limitations of most of the micro
micro and small companies, CP plus ecodesign parameters are considered of lesser complexity in
and small companies, CP plus ecodesign parameters are considered of lesser complexity in terms of
terms of the reality of the wooden furniture industry in Brazil. Since the very definition of the CP
the reality of the wooden furniture industry in Brazil. Since the very definition of the CP program is
program is based on a continuous improvement and application of strategies aimed at sustainability,
based on a continuous improvement and application of strategies aimed at sustainability, the inclusion
the inclusion of more specific tools for assessing impacts and cost seems to be the natural next step.
of more specific tools for assessing impacts and cost seems to be the natural next step.
5. Conclusions
With the application of the concepts of CP, it is possible to reduce the consumption of raw material
and energy as well as the generation of waste. The results obtained in the application of CP + Eco-design
in this case study confirms the benefits of CP, presenting a potential reduction in material of 30% and
reducing the generation of waste by nearly 50%. This has a special relevance considering the feasibility of
implementation in small wood furniture companies like the one presented in this study.
Once CP identified the most relevant sources of waste, the implementation of Eco-design
parameters such as the ones applied (change of material, modulation of parts and redesign) are
of easy implementation and achievable, allowing the reduction in the consumption of material and
energy, without demeaning the quality or the aesthetics of the final product. The final product followed
the valorization of the difference since it would be commercialized as a more efficient product in
resource consumption.
Although there is plenty of research focusing on productive alternatives using waste from the
furniture industries, the focus of this study was on the reduction in the source and the application
of methodologies suitable for small companies, as it was presented in Figure 2. The potential of the
application of CP + Eco-design parameters could reach micro and small wood furniture companies
(representing 96% of wood furniture companies). Even though the level of reduction in waste when
applying CP programs will vary according to the different products, the size of the potential market to
be reached is a justification for more investment in the promotion of CP programs in Brazil.
The savings achieved in energy consumption were the result of the simplification of the production
process, and a consequence of the application of the Eco-design parameters. It is noted that for better
results, change in technology for wood machinery with better efficiency could be analyzed. This option
will require an economic analysis for the investment required.
Despite the results in resource use and the reduction in waste and energy consumption, LCA and
LCC are recognized as the next steps to be taken in order to assess the environmental impact of
the product.
Acknowledgments: This research study was possible due to the financial support of the Coordination for the
Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) in the form of scholarships. The authors also acknowledge
the collaboration of the Industrial Engineering Program of the Federal University of Bahia (PEI-UFBA) for the use
of the wood laboratory. Finally, the good disposition and collaboration of the host enterprise is acknowledged, for
receiving and performing the pollution control program in its facilities.
Author Contributions: This article was made with the efforts of all the authors, but the following specific
contributions are recognized: Asher Kiperstok and Sandro Fábio César conceived the implementation of
the CP program and coordinated the contact with the host enterprise. Carlos Mario Gutiérrez Aguilar and
Ronald Panameño designed the case study. Carlos Mario Gutiérrez Aguilar, Ronald Panameño, Alexei Perez
and Beatriz Elena Ángel Álvarez contributed to the literature review, analysis, proposals and discussion.
Carlos Mario Gutiérrez Aguilar, Ronald Panameño and Alexei Perez Velazquez implemented the CP program in
the host enterprise. Carlos Mario Gutiérrez Aguilar and Beatriz Elena Ángel Álvarez developed the ecodesign
proposals. Ronald Panameño and Carlos Mario Gutierrez Aguilar prepared the conceptual maps and figures.
Carlos Mario Gutiérrez Aguilar, Ronald Panameño and Alexei Perez Velazquez wrote the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest and the founding sponsors had no role in the
design of the study; in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the
decision to publish the results.
References
1. Oladoski, D.P. Yields, Wastes and Considerations about to Enhances in the Process in Plates Industry
Compensated. Master’s Dissertation, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba-PR, Brazil, 2001. (In Portuguese)
2. Fontes, P.J.P. Self-Sufficiency Energetica in Sawmill of Pinus and Use of Residues. Master’s Dissertation,
Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba-PR, Brazil, 1994. (In Portuguese)
3. Linkosalmi, L.; Husgafvel, R.; Fomkin, A.; Junnikkala, H.; Witikkala, T.; Kairi, M.; Dahl, O. Main factors
influencing greenhouse gas emissions of wood-based furniture industry in Finland. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 113,
596–605. [CrossRef]
4. Guinski, G.S. Numbers Are Part of the Recently Launched Study ‘Potential Furniture Market in General 2016’.
2016. Available online: http://www.emobile.com.br/site/industria/iemi-relatorio-brasil-moveis-2016/
(accessed on 15 June 2017). (In Portuguese)
5. Galinari, R.; Junior, J.R.T.; Morgado, R.R. The Competitiveness of the Brazilian Furniture Industry: Current
Situation and Perspectives; BNDES Setorial: Brasilia, Brazil, 2013; pp. 227–272. (In Portuguese)
6. Schneider, V.E.; Hillig, É.; Pavoni, E.T.; Rizzon, M.R.; Bertotto, L.A. Environmental management in the
furniture industry—Case of study in the Bento Gonçalves municipality. In Proceedings of the XXIII Encontro
Nacional de Engenharia de Produção (ENEGEP), Ouro Preto, Brasil, 21–24 October 2003. (In Portuguese)
7. United Nations Environment Programme. Cleaner Production: A Training Resource Package. Available online:
http://unicesar.ambientalex.info/infoCT/Producmaslimpia.pdf (accessed on 10 April 2017). (In Spanish)
8. Kiperstok, A.; Silva, C.M. The responsibility of the pul and paper sector with regard to sustainable
development: How much is enough. Water Sci. Technol. 2006, 55, 65–71. [CrossRef]
9. Brazilian Business Council for Sustainable Development. Do It Yourself Cleaner Production Guide.
Available online: http://cebds.org/publicacoes/guia-para-producao-mais-limpa-faca-voce-mesmo/#.
WeXTsmjWzIU (accessed on 12 January 2017). (In Portuguese)
10. National Center for Clean Technologies. Implementation of Program of Clearner Production. Available
online: www.pha.poli.usp.br/LeArq.aspx?id%5Farq=7985 (accessed on 18 November 2016). (In Portuguese)
11. Massote, C.H.R.; Santi, A.M.M. Implemen tation of a cleaner production program in a Brazilian wooden
furniture factory. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 46, 89–97. [CrossRef]
12. Naveiro, R.M.; Pacheco, E.B.A.V.; Medina, H.D.V. Ecodesign: The development of product design oriented
towards recycling. In Proceedings of the Brazilian Congress of Product Development and Management,
Porto Alegre, Brazil, 4–7 September 2005. (In Portuguese)
13. Venzke, C.S. Ecodesign in the Furniture Sector of Rio Grande do Sul. Rev. Eletrônica da Adm. 2002, 8, 69–84.
(In Portuguese)
14. Naime, R.; Ashton, E.; Hupffer, H.M. Do design ao ecodesign: Pequena história, conceitos e princípios from
design to ecodesign: Little history, concepts and principles. Rev. Eletrônica em Gestão Educ. e Tecnol. Ambient.
2012, 7, 1510–1519. (In Portuguese)
15. Pêgo, K.A.C. Guide for Insertion of Environmental Parameters in the Design of Wooden Furniture;
Federal University of Minas Gerais: Barbacena, Brazil, 2010. (In Portuguese)
16. Gorini, A.P.F. Overview of the Furniture Industry in Brazil, with Emphasis on External Competitiveness Based on the
Development of the Industrial Chain of Solid Wood Products; Nacional Development Bank: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
1998. (In Portuguese)
17. Brazilian Association of Furniture Industries. ABIMOVEL. 2001. Available online: http://www.abimovel.
com/ (accessed on 15 April 2017). (In Portuguese)
18. Brazilian Industrial Development Agency—Campinas State University. Wood and Furniture Sectoral Monitoring
Report—Furniture Industry. Available online: https://www3.eco.unicamp.br/neit/images/stories/arquivos/
RelatorioABDI/moveleira_vol-III_junho2009.pdf (accessed on 20 October 2016). (In Portuguese)
19. Federation of Industries of the State of Rio de Janeiro. Diagnostic of the Furniture
Industry. Available online: http://www.firjan.com.br/lumis/portal/file/fileDownload.jsp?fileId=
2C908A8F4F4C1F2E014F5037FC7A5908 (accessed on 5 September 2016). (In Portuguese)
20. Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods; Sage Publications Inc: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1994.
21. Da Silva, R.L.; Limiro, A. Handbook of Supersimples: Comments on the General Law on Micro and Small Enterprises
(Supplementary Law 123/06); Juruá Editora: Brasilia, Brazil, 2007. (In Portuguese)
22. Kozak, P.A.; Cortez, A.M.; Schirmer, W.N.; Vinicius, M.; Caldeira, W.; Balbinot, R. Identification,
quantification and classification of solid waste from a furniture factory. Rev. Acad. Ciênc. Agrár. Ambient. 2008,
6, 203–212. Available online: https://periodicos.pucpr.br/index.php/cienciaanimal/article/view/10478
(accessed on 5 March 2017). (In Portuguese)
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Cleaner Production Applied in A Small Furniture Industry in Brazil: Addressing Focused Changes in Design To Reduce Waste

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Cleaner Production Applied in A Small Furniture Industry in Brazil: Addressing Focused Changes in Design To Reduce Waste

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

sustainability

Received: 31 August 2017; Accepted: 13 October 2017; Published: 18 October 2017

Keywords: cleaner production; wood; waste; ecodesign; furniture

Sustainability 2017, 9, 1867; doi:10.3390/su9101867 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Table 1. Environmental design parameters. Source: [15].

Category Refers to:

2. Materials and Method

2.1. Characterization of the Object of Study

3.1. Planning and Organization

Table 3. Operations required for producing L1 chair.

Inputs Operations Outputs

Inputs Operations Outputs

Inputs Operations Outputs

Sawdust, air output, heat, noise,

9.65 × 10−3 4 1.15 10−3 597.67

Inputs Process Outputs

171.38 × 10−1 17 0.00 3.87 × 10

4 2179.74 5.584× 10−2179.74

6.17 × 10−2 262.30 × 10−2

Sustainability 2017, 9, 1867 11 of 18

Chair Wood shavings Firewood Sawdust Air emissions

When analyzing the Figure 5. Wood

The type of Figure 6.6.Pareto

Wood shavings Firewood Sawdust Air emissions

Figure 7. Losses per assembly component.

3.4. Feasibility Study and Implementation

Sustainability 2017, 9, 1867 13 of 18

Sustainability 2017, 9, 1867 13 of 18

Figure 10. Comparison between actual and proposed design (g).

Table 6. Percentages of reductions proposed.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi