LIFE Project Number LIFE00 ENV/NL/ LAYMAN s REPORT. Reporting Date: 28/2/2005

Transcription

1 DETECTIVE Layman s Report: LCO 2 cleaning February LIFE Project Number LIFE00 ENV/NL/ LAYMAN s REPORT Reporting Date: 28/2/2005 LIFE PROJECT NAME DEmonstration TExtile CO 2 Treatment Introduction Validation Effort DETECTIVE Data Project Project location Gorredijk, Netherlands Project start date: 01/07/2001 Project end date: 30/06/2004 Extension date: n.a. Total Project duration (months) 36 months Extension months n.a. Total budget EURO EC contribution: EUR (%) of total costs 30% (%) of eligible costs 30% Data Beneficiary Name Beneficiary Krom Stomerijen B.V. Contact person Mr. Han van Kuijk Postal address Badweg 46, 8401 BL Gorredijk, NL Visit address Badweg 46, 8401 BL Gorredijk, NL Telephone Fax: Website info@krom.nl 1

2 DETECTIVE Layman s Report: LCO 2 cleaning February DEMONSTRATION PILOT SCALE TESTING OF TEXTILE DRY CLEANING WITH SUB/SUPERCRITICAL CARBON DIOXIDE Acronym: DETECTIVE (DEmonstration TExtile CO 2 Treatment Introduction Validation Effort) LIFE Project Number LIFE00 ENV/NL/ LAYMAN s REPORT PROJECT PARTNERS KROM Stomerijen BV, Gorredijk (NL) AGA / LINDE AG, Stockholm (SE) BÜFA GmbH, Oldenburg (D) ELECTROLUX-WASCATOR AB, Ljungby (SE) KYMI RENS, Aalborg (DK) PROMIKRON BV, Delft (NL) SCHICON BVBA, Hoogstraten-Wortel (BE) SPARQLE International BV, Hengelo (NL) AUTHORS Prof.dr.ir. Foppe B. de Walle, PROMIKRON Ing. Walther A.J.L. den Otter, PHAS Beheer BV CONTRIBUTORS Prof.dr. dr.h.c.ir. Johannes M.L. Penninger, SPARQLE Ir.Edmond W. Schieke, SCHICON Dr. ir. Aike Wypkema, TNO DELFT, February 28,

3 DETECTIVE Layman s Report: LCO 2 cleaning February EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The current project demonstrated extensively the excellent operation of LCO 2 textile cleaning with 2 full scale LCO 2 pilot units both in Denmark and in the Netherlands on the basis of 38 different textile materials and 9 different garment articles. A preceding EU CRAFT project called DRYCOT investigated the key parameters and was awarded the first price in the EU contest for the most successful environmentally friendly process in The performance of the industrial LCO 2 textile cleaning machines in the Netherlands and Denmark was compared to that of conventional perchloroethylene (perc) dry cleaning regarding stain removal, effect on textile properties, energy, safety and cost price. In addition several comparisons were made with 3 other alternatives for perc: wet cleaning, hydrocarbon cleaning and cyclosiloxane cleaning. Negative aspects of perc dry cleaning are the unwanted emission of tonnes of perc per year into the atmosphere in Europe. Perc has risks to human health and reproduction and shows toxic effects (neuro-toxicological impairment, kidney damage and carcinogenity). Perc may also be teratogenic for pregnant women. The technology has caused widespread perc groundwater contamination at most dry cleaners. The cleaning performance of LCO 2 relative to perc was % depending on the nature of the stain. Cleaning performances relative to the 3 other potential alternatives to perc dry cleaning are even better and in several cases over 100%. Several advantages of LCO 2 textile cleaning compared to perc dry cleaning were identified with respect to textile behavior: less dimensional change of sensitive fabrics; less color loss of the fabrics (especially for pigment colors); less direct bleeding of color from one fabric to the other; less loss of glitters, glued on a basic fabric; less loss of oily/fatty finishes; less damage to coatings or laminates that swell in perc; less loss of textile fibers during the cleaning cycle leading to a longer garment lifetime. The development of detergents for LCO 2 is still in its early market introduction stage. The available detergents for LCO 2 textile cleaning do increase the cleaning performances, but the results depend on the type of stain. Further improvements are expected for the detergents themselves and their input methods into the machine. Some drawbacks of LCO 2 textile cleaning compared to perc dry cleaning were identified: diffuse greying or soil redeposition of fabrics occurs stronger during LCO 2 textile cleaning. This effect can be reduced by adding dummy fabrics made from (di-)acetate with each cleaning cycle. These fabrics are preferential places where redeposition and greying takes place. Another option is to filter the LCO 2 during its cleaning step, similar to the filtering common to perc dry cleaning; LCO 2 textile cleaning resulted in sharp creasing of fabrics susceptible to the cold conditions during the cleaning (typical at 5 o C) and decompression steps. If the latter step occurs at a higher temperature during the last 10 minutes, less creasing will occur. 3

4 DETECTIVE Layman s Report: LCO 2 cleaning February The energy aspects of LCO 2 textile cleaning are extensively investigated and the following conclusions are formulated: The energy use of a batch load in the LCO 2 pilot unit at KROM, NL is 3.75 kwhe and 6.14 kwhe for a single and a double bath, respectively; When the electricity price is about EUR 0.16 per kwh the energy costs per kg cleaned garments are EUR 0.03 and EUR 0.07 for a single and a double bath, respectively; The main part of the energy is used during the decompression phase. The LCO 2 is pumped out to the distillation tank and the pressure in the cleaning drum drops to 1 bar. The LCO 2 is stored in the distillation tank at a pressure of about 40 bar. After the compressor the LCO 2 is cooled back to about 15 to 20 C. For the single bath this process step takes 64% of the energy use and for the double bath 43%. Several safety aspects have to be considered during installation and operation of the LCO 2 textile cleaning process: Safety valves have to be installed in the LCO 2 storage vessel and cleaning unit. They also have to be checked regularly; The pressure vessel has to be checked according to national and steam regulations; The LCO 2 textile cleaning unit has to be manufactured according to CE mark provisions; Extensive monitoring of indoor CO 2 levels is required to detect any unanticipated CO 2 release. As levels exceed 0.5% CO 2 alarms will be initiated and the machine will be shut down. This level is equal to the 8 hours exposure threshold limit; During filling of the storage vessel and/or CO 2 gas expansion cold traps could form and they have to be prevented as they plug up the piping. On the basis of cost analysis the following conclusions are drawn: Textile cleaning with LCO 2 is most efficient in utility use and waste disposal; The costs of make-up solvents and detergents are comparable to perc dry cleaning; The labor costs of LCO 2 textile cleaning are comparable to perc dry cleaning; Investment-related costs of LCO 2 textile cleaning per annum are higher, but equal per kg cleaned garments. This is due to the higher annual capacity of the LCO 2 textile cleaning machine (2 cycles per hour) compared to perc dry cleaning (2 cycles in 1,5 hour). The LCO 2 cycle time ranges from 24 minutes (1-bath short) to 29 minutes (2-bath short). The LCO 2 cycle time can be increased by 2 10 minutes for the long procedure. Loading and unloading requires an additional 1 minute each. The average of these LCO 2 alternatives is calculated at 30 minutes (2 cycles per hour). These values have been confirmed in professional practice. The conventional perc dry cleaning times were confirmed by measurements at KROM, the prime proposer. The overall costs of LCO 2 textile cleaning are 20% lower than of perc dry cleaning: EUR 1,17 versus EUR 1,43 per kg garments, respectively; this is mainly driven by the shorter turnaround time of LCO 2 textile cleaning (no drying step required as is needed for perc dry cleaning). These values were partially validated by TNO on the basis of their past 10 annual surveys of the textile cleaning sector. Values for individual companies can deviate by 10% (with outlayers of 20%), mainly driven by internal logistics. The assessment of the LCO 2 technology resulted in the score of 15 points that was the highest out of 5 compared cleaning methods, including perc. The LCO 2 textile cleaning is best 4

5 DETECTIVE Layman s Report: LCO 2 cleaning February combined with wet cleaning to clean the entire spectrum of soiled garments of consumers and textiles (curtains, sheets etc.). The project has encouraged the establishment of a franchise textile cleaning organization (Hangers Cleaners Europe) by one of the project partners (AGA/Linde AG). The combined LCO 2 and wet cleaning can competitively replace the current hazardous perc dry cleaning. This substitution carries many environmental benefits. The replacement of perc by LCO 2 eliminates the unwanted emission of tonnes/year of perc into the atmosphere. It also improves working conditions and allows pregnant women to work in textile cleaning. The LCO 2 technology is sufficiently developed to receive policy incentives. The emergence of LCO 2, as a sustainable method, allows the discouragement of perc. 2. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE NEW TECHNOLOGY FOR THE SECTOR. Dry cleaning of textiles is conducted in EU dry cleaning shops with an annual turnover of 4,5 billion EUR, employing workers and cleaning 2,2 million tonnes of textiles each year, utilizing cleaning machines. The present major dry cleaning solvent is the hydrocarbon perchloroethylene (perc or tetrachloroethylene) utilized by 95% of EU dry cleaners in 80-85% of the dry cleaning machines. Dry cleaning operations in Europe releases more then tonnes of perc per year in the environment. The EU Detective on Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) has major restrictions on the use of chlorinated hydrocarbons. Many legislative restrictions (emissions reduction, lower worker exposures, and new disposal provisions) for the use of perc have been enacted in EU member states. Perc has risks to human health and reproduction and shows toxic effects (neuro-toxicological impairment, kidney damage and carcinogenity). Perc may also be teratogenic for pregnant women. The classification of perc as a harmful substance for embryos precludes the employment of pregnant women in dry cleaning as described in the German Act 4 regarding their protection. The technology has caused widespread perc groundwater contamination at most dry cleaners. The restrictions placed on perc can barely be met by the dry cleaning sector except at very high costs (added ventilation, new expensive machinery etc.). A very promising alternative dry cleaning solvent is liquid carbon dioxide (LCO 2 ). LCO 2 is non-toxic, non-flammable, produced as an off-gas in almost pure form in the oil refining and ammonia production, causes no groundwater contamination and is very sustainable. LCO 2 is a renewable resource that is removed from combustion processes thereby reducing its release as a greenhouse gas. It replaces a non renewable resource such as perc and hydrocarbons, which are both made from mineral oils that are being depleted. This substitution carries many environmental benefits. The replacement of perc by LCO 2 eliminates the unwanted emission of tonnes/year of perc into the atmosphere. It also improves working conditions and allows pregnant women to work in textile cleaning. The technology is sufficiently developed to receive policy incentives. The emergence of LCO 2, as a sustainable method, allows the discouragement of perc. It also prevents further future perc groundwater contamination. 3. DESCRIPTION OF THE WORK. The project demonstrates that a good cleaning performance can be achieved by LCO 2 as replacement of perc. The project evaluated both the effect of mechanical action as well as the 5

6 DETECTIVE Layman s Report: LCO 2 cleaning February liquid level of LCO 2 (in the rotating drum containing the textiles or leather) on a better extraction of fatty soils from the textiles or leather. The amount of solvent replenishment is important for a low greying effect, the redeposition of predissolved soils. The cleaning action is influenced by the humidity and temperature of LCO 2 as well as the type of detergent. Therefore specific newly developed detergents with different hydrophilic / -lipophylic balance were tested in the full scale pilot demonstration units. The interactions between detergent, soil, mechanical action and textiles in these units were examined. The removal of watersoluble, solvent-soluble and insoluble soils was improved by pre-spotting before cleaning. 4. DESCRIPTION OF FULL SCALE PILOT DEMONSTRATION UNIT. The full scale pilot demonstration testing took place at the beneficiary KROM Stomerijen, Gorredijk (NL) and at project partner KYMI RENS, Aalborg (DK). Project partner ELECTROLUX, Ljungby (SE) supplied the LCO 2 pilot units for this demonstration project. These pilot units work with LCO 2 in a closed system where the used LCO 2 is distilled and recycled. Each pilot unit has a rotating drum with a volume of 120 liters and a load capacity of 15-kg and 17-kg garments respectively. After loading the cleaning chamber with soiled garments, the chamber is emptied of air. The cleaning chamber is pressurized with gaseous CO 2 from the top of the storage vessel, and then LCO 2 is pumped into the cleaning chamber from the bottom of the storage vessel. During the cleaning process the LCO 2 is distilled. When the cleaning process is finished, the LCO 2 is pumped back into the storage vessel. The pressure in the cleaning chamber is lowered by pumping the remaining gaseous CO 2 back into the storage vessel through compression. On its way to the storage vessel the gas passes through a refrigeration unit where it is once more condensed into its liquid phase. When the pressure is low enough the remaining gaseous CO 2 is released and the door of the cleaning chamber can be opened. The garments are completely dry and can be taken directly to finishing work. Laundry Systems Gamma CO 2 System lay-out Storage vessel Cleaning chamber Cooling unit Compressor Supply vessel Distillation unit 6

7 DETECTIVE Layman s Report: LCO 2 cleaning February Figure 1. System lay-out of the LCO 2 unit (ELECTROLUX). The principle components of the LCO 2 unit (ELECTROLUX) are shown in Fig.1. - cleaning chamber with a rotating inner drum - compressor - distilling unit - cooling unit - storage vessel - external supply vessel 5. CLEANING RESULTS IN THE LCO 2 UNIT AT KROM, GORREDIJK. The cleaning performance of the visible stains for the state of the art cleaning method with perc are compared to 4 alternative cleaning methods: hydrocarbons, cyclosiloxane, LCO 2 and water (Fig.2.). Numerous LCO 2 textile cleaning experiments were conducted with different detergents and mechanical agitation levels. Cleaning performance (-) WS-09 Egg yolk on wool PS-09 Egg yolk on polyester WS-01 Blood on wool PS-01 Blood on polyester P-05 Blood, milk and ink on polyester WS-40 Clay on wool PS-40 Clay on polyester W-02 P-02 Soot, Soot, olive olive oil on oil on wool polyester perc KWS Pure green CO2 Water Figure 2. Comparison of the cleaning performance of LCO 2 with perc, hydrocarbons (KWS), cyclosiloxane and water cleaning (optimal conditions). Cleaning performances for LCO 2 textile cleaning relative to perc dry cleaning, are: - 100% for clay, both on wool and polyester; - 100% for soot and olive oil on polyester; - 90% for blood on polyester; - 80% for egg yolk on wool and for soot, olive oil on wool; - 60% for egg yolk on polyester, blood on wool and blood, milk, ink on polyester. Cleaning performance for LCO 2 cleaning relative to hydrocarbons cleaning are absolutely 10-20% better than compared to perc cleaning; Cleaning performances relative to cyclosiloxane cleaning are equal or slightly worse. 7

8 DETECTIVE Layman s Report: LCO 2 cleaning February Cleaning performances relative to the chosen water cleaning are comparable or better. Two further conclusions can be drawn from these data: - addition of detergent does increase the cleaning performance to a certain extent; - the extra mechanical action caused by the addition of 5 weights of 1 kg each 1, does improve the cleaning performance of the stains egg yolk and clay. Apparently these stains are sensitive to mechanical action. 6. COSTS OF TEXTILE CLEANING WITH LCO 2 An extensive comparison was made between LCO 2 textile cleaning and perc dry cleaning. The actual cost per annum and per kg garment are given in Table 1. Table 1. Cost of dry cleaning compared (in EUR; 48 wks/year). PERC LCO 2 per annum per kg per annum per kg UTILITIES - electricity 5,721 6,746 - gas 8,136 - water 1,953 Total utilities 15, , MAKE-UP CO 2 6, MAKE-UP perc 3, DETERGENT 2, , LABOR 14, , WASTE DISPOSAL INVESTMENT-RELATED COSTS - maintenance 4,000 6,250 - depreciation 10,000 15,625 - interest 4,000 6,250 Total IR-costs 18, , TOTAL OF COST 55, , Total production (kg/annum) 38,400 57,600 8

9 DETECTIVE Layman s Report: LCO 2 cleaning February The individual cost components and total are presented in Fig. 3 and show that LCO 2 textile cleaning is 20% cheaper than a comparable perc dry cleaning. The following conclusions can be drawn: 1) Textile cleaning with LCO 2 is most efficient in utility use and disposal of waste. 2) The costs of make-up solvents and detergents of LCO 2 textile cleaning are comparable to perc dry cleaning. 3) The labor costs of LCO 2 textile cleaning are comparable to perc dry cleaning. 4) Investment-related costs of LCO 2 textile cleaning per annum are higher, but equal per kg cleaned garments. This is due to the higher annual capacity of LCO 2 textile cleaning as 2 cycles per hour can be handled versus 2 cycles in 1,5 hour with perc dry cleaning. The LCO 2 cycle time ranges from 24 minutes (1-bath short) to 29 minutes (2-bath short). The LCO 2 cycle time can be increased by 2 10 minutes for the long procedure. Loading and unloading requires an additional 1 minute each. The average of these LCO 2 alternatives is calculated at 30 minutes (2 cycles per hour). These values have been confirmed in professional practice. The conventional perc dry cleaning times were confirmed by measurements at KROM, the prime proposer. 5) The overall costs of LCO 2 textile cleaning are 20% lower than of perc dry cleaning: EUR 1,17 versus EUR 1,43 per kg garments, respectively; this is mainly driven by the shorter turnaround time of LCO 2 textile cleaning (no drying step required as is needed for perc dry cleaning). These values were partially validated by TNO on the basis of their past 10 annual surveys of the textile cleaning sector. Values for individual companies can deviate by 10% (with outlayers of 20%), mainly driven by internal logistics.. 1,6 Gas-Water- Electricity 1,4 1,2 1 Detergent, cleaning liquid reuse, waste disposal 0,8 Labor 0,6 0,4 0,2 0 PERC EURO/KG LCO2 EUR/kg Investment (maintenance, depreciation, rent) Total Figure 3. Comparison of individual cost components and total costs of perc dry cleaning with LCO 2 textile cleaning. 9

10 DETECTIVE Layman s Report: LCO 2 cleaning February INTEGRATION AND FULL SCALE DESIGN. The LCO 2 textile cleaning can best be combined with wet cleaning processes within a cleaning facility. It consists of 2 tracks, one for the LCO 2 textile cleaning and the other for wet cleaning with combined handling of incoming and outgoing garment items. It is important to have a good decision methodology to determine if a certain garment has to follow the LCO 2 route or the wet cleaning path. Sometimes it is necessary to first follow the wet cleaning path for removal of the water soluble stains followed by a LCO 2 textile cleaning for the oil and fatty soil removal. The latter also provides an easier, faster and less expensive finishing of the articles. 8. OVERALL EVALUATION. The overall evaluation of LCO 2 textile cleaning (= LCO 2 ) in comparison with perc (= PERC) dry cleaning and 3 other alternatives (hydrocarbons = HCS, cyclosiloxane = CSL and wet cleaning = WC) are presented in Fig. 4. The comparison is based on 5 qualitative criteria with a 3 point scale: minimum (1 point), intermediate (2 points) and maximum (3 points): is the cleaning method damage free to the garments? are the garments sufficiently clean? are the garments free of odor? are the costs of cleaning reasonable? is the cleaning method sustainable with a low regulatory risk? LCO2 WC CSL PERC HCS Damage free garments Sufficiently clean garments Odor free garments Reasonable costs Sustainable with perspective Total Figure 4. Comparison of 5 textile cleaning methods using 5 criteria on a 3-point scale. 10

11 DETECTIVE Layman s Report: LCO 2 cleaning February The comparison shows that the LCO 2 method receives the highest score using the 5 criteria on a 3 point scale. As the cleaning costs of the LCO 2 method are also 20% lower, it is the best method coming out of this study. The LCO 2 method is still in its early introduction phase and needs further development through efforts from launching customers and early users. There is a potential of even better results regarding cleaning performance and appearance through further research. The LCO 2 technology is sufficiently developed to receive policy incentives. The emergence of LCO 2, as a sustainable method, allows the discouragement of perc dry cleaning. The LCO 2 textile cleaning technology has the potential to replace perc completely within the next years. The rate of penetration will depend on obsolescence of current perc machines, available investment funds, knowledge transfer and governmental regulations. The project has encouraged the establishment of a franchise textile cleaning organization (Hangers Cleaners Europe) by one of the project partners (AGA/Linde AG). 11